Doomed Planet

Pauline Hanson’s Mixed Bag

pauline smallPauline Hanson is now a powerful force in a divided Senate. She may head a team there of two, three (with a NSW seat) or even four senators, on a  platform including a Royal Commission into the corruption of global warming science. “This whole climate change is not based on empirical evidence and we are being hoodwinked,” she says. “Climate change is not due to humans.”

The Hanson policies will now, unavoidably, be brought into the mainstream political conversation. Hitherto, the media has chosen to treat her and her policies as “racism and bigotry” (they aren’t), “divisive” (code for “intolerable for us Leftists”) and as a butt for sex  gibes.

The ABC has just  now displayed a caricature of her as “Pauline Pantsdown”. The ABC’s only pretext for this crudity is “Simon Hunt’s Pauline Pantsdown character (right) was popular in the 1990s.”

Somehow I can’t imagine our ABC running an equivalent caricature of Labor’s Penny Wong as “Penny Pantsdown”, ditto Julia Gillard.

Expect new ABC managing director, Michelle Guthrie, to crack down hard on her myrmidons responsible for this sexist crudity against Hanson. Expect feminist Anne Summers to fly to Hanson’s defence any minute now. Expect ex-General David Morrison, Australian of the Year, to issue a new missive deploring ABC sexism as he says, the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. Oh, and expect pigs to fly. The ABC illustration, published apropos of nothing at all, is below.


Actually, worse things have been done to Hanson by way of misogynist abuse. On March 15, 2009, while she was in her final week’s campaign as an independent for the Queensland State election, News Corp’s Sunday Telegraph and four other Murdoch tabloids published nude photographs purporting to be of Pauline Hanson in 1975. The papers paid a paparazzo $15,000 for them. Hanson’s election bid was defeated amid taunts and mockery, but the pictures of “Hanson” were manifestly fakes. In May Sunday Telegraph editor Neil Breen published a signed three-paragraph apology to her saying, “We have learnt a valuable lesson”. She obtained an out of court settlement.

Hanson is no longer easy prey. She is very likely to have as her running mate in the Senate the prominent climate sceptic Malcolm Roberts. He has been project leader for a sceptic think-tank, the Galileo Movement, founded by Case Smit and John Smeed.[i]

Roberts  is an engineering honors graduate and MBA from Chicago Graduate School of Business.  He is a one-time underground-coal miner and project executive, and his primary motive for joining Hanson is the fight against global warmists. The Galileo website says Roberts had been “statutorily responsible for thousands of people’s lives based on his knowledge and real-world experience of atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide.”

Roberts explains his move to the Hanson party: “She is not as the media and political opponents have portrayed. Pauline is intelligent, quick, honest, courageous and persistent. We are passionate about bringing back our country.”

Anything is possible among Senate minor candidates and Fred Nile’s Christian Democrats includes up-front warming sceptics[ii] and a sceptical/agnostic view of the warming panic.  This includes a halt to warmist propaganda in school.

What a conundrum for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his side-kick, Greg Hunt, who  brought their faux carbon tax into operation last week, under the emissions trading label. Turnbull  said last month that Hanson “is not a welcome presence on the Australian political scene.” She responded reasonably that this was the electors’ call, not Turnbull’s.

What a conundrum for Tony Abbott, who organized the funding for the legal persecution of Hanson, claiming she had committed electoral irregularities. Hanson  in 2003 was sentenced to three years gaol for fraud and served eleven weeks in maximum security, including some time in solitary confinement. In November, 2003, the Court of Appeal quashed her conviction but she was still left $500,000 out of pocket.

What a conundrum for The Greens, with their agenda to suicidally switch Australian energy to those expensive unreliables, wind and solar.  Hanson outpolled the Greens in the Senate on Queensland first preferences, 9.15 per cent to 7.57 per cent.

And unfortunately, what a conundrum for economically-literate climate sceptics. That’s because Hanson’s party platform includes not only an anti-fracking agenda but the most primitive of protectionist policies. Those policies are designed to re-erect tariff  walls, prop up hopeless manufacturers, cancel free-trade agreements and reject the globalization which has brought unprecedented living standards to developed and Third World countries alike.

Whatever, Hanson’s main climate policy is brilliant. Here it is (I’ve re-ordered the points somewhat):

  • Hold a Royal Commission (or similar) into the corruption of climate science and identify whether any individual or organisation has misled government to effect climate and energy policy.
  • Remove all subsidies and financial advantages offered to the renewable energy industry and make them compete on an even playing field with other energy sources.
  • Support reliable, low-cost power generation. This has previously been Australia’s strongest competitive advantage.
  • Establish an independent Australian science body replacing the UN IPCC to report on climate science. It will be the beyond politicisation and be the basis of Australian policy on insurance and response to weather events.
  • One Nation will oppose all taxes levied on carbon dioxide, be it a flat carbon tax or a floating emissions trading scheme…
  • Abolish the Renewable Energy Target (RET) and support practical cost-effective research into energy efficiency, reliability and dependability.
  • Cancel all agreements obliging Australia to pay for foreign Climate Action and payment to the United Nations and foreign institutions…
  • Remove from the education system the teaching of a one-sided view of climate science. Teaching of climate science will begin in secondary school and will be based on the scientific method of scepticism until proven.
  • Environmental impacts to be assessed on the use of empirical scientific evidence, not activists or non-government organisations pushing ideology and political agendas.
  • Review the Bureau of Meteorology to ensure independence and accountability for weather and climate records, including public justification of persistent upward adjustments to historical climate records.
  • Review the CSIRO to ensure independence and accountability and determine whether funding has influenced the direction and results of CSIRO’s positions on the climate claims. Funding from the UN in particular will be probed for an agenda not consistent for what is best for Australians.
  • Ensure that all climate, energy and environmental policy decisions, requiring a scientific component, are based on the scientific method and empirical evidence. All decisions will be based on an economic, social and environmental assessment with environmental issues not automatically put ahead of humanity or economic realities.
  • Support renewable energy that does not impact on the environment and encourage research in the ability to store energy at affordable cost to households and businesses.
  • The wind industry must compensate all residents who have been proven to suffer from Wind Turbine Syndrome and any residents where the presence of wind turbines have negatively effected the price of their home.

The platform says,

Climate change has and will continue to be used as a political agenda by politicians and self interest groups or individuals for their own gain. We cannot allow scare mongering by people such as Tim Flannery, who make outlandish statements and are not held accountable. Climate change should not be about making money for a lot of people and giving scientists money.  

[Emissions Trading Systems are] not going to wave a magic wand and stop nature changing the climate. It will only make it harder for Australian families and businesses to make ends meet…

…Instead of so-called ‘alternative energies’ that are really ‘alternatives to energy’, we will work to reduce energy prices, and bring back dependability and reliability through environmentally responsible  energies. Low cost energy enables efficiency and productivity that generate wealth to protect the environment.

Hanson’s policies also include signing out of duplicitous UN treaties and agendas, zero net immigration (i.e. immigration equivalent to annual departures), and tough German and Japanese-style language tests for citizenship and welfare, which would be obtained only after five years’ residence. Muslim immigration and mosque-building projects would be halted. [iii] “We don’t want or need migrants bringing their problems, laws, culture and opposing religious beliefs on us,” her website says.  “If we do not make the necessary changes now to stop the advancement of Islam in Australia, there will be no hope in the future.”

Hanson’s huge polling in House seats she contested suggests many Australian voters are doing the “Brexit” thing, giving the finger to their politically-correct overlords. (Unlike the major parties, she campaigns for, not against, freedom of speech.) She ran candidates in 12 out of 30 Queensland seats, gaining 5.34% statewide. Her best results included the Lockyer Valley (21 per cent), Hinkler, based on Bundaberg (19.6 per cent), Flynn, south and west of Gladstone, (nearly 17 per cent), and Wide Bay, covering Maryborough and Gympie, (nearly 15 per cent). In Townsville’s seat of Herbert, she got 13%, compared with the Greens’ 6.1%.

All that is left to say is congratulations to Malcolm Turnbull for his transforming of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party into a national force and a megaphone for climate sanity.

Tony Thomas’s new book That’s Debatable – 60 Years in Print, is available here

[i] “They are incensed by activists and academics misrepresenting science to falsely claim global warming is harmful and caused by humans. They are concerned by academics and activists hiding behind the appeal to authority, yet mostly unwilling to debate the facts in public.”

[ii] As their WA lead candidate, Mark Imisides, put it:  “I am a career scientist, teacher, and WA resident since 1996. I am keen to address the misinformation about climate change on

[iii] She wants a Royal Commission into whether Islam is a religion deserving of tax deductible status or a dangerous anti-democratic theocracy. She also wants an end to oft-alleged profiteering via halal certification fees.



28 thoughts on “Pauline Hanson’s Mixed Bag

  • mags of Queensland says:

    As she did in the past, Pauline Hanson has her finger on the pulse of the people. Pity her critics are not so astute. They mightn’t make so many stupid decisions.

  • Mr Johnson says:

    Pauline Hanson is good news for the Libs – but not for the reason many people think. She won at the expense of the far superior Australian Liberty Alliance. Just like in the past, Pauline not only wears out her welcome quickly, but manages to damage the minor party conservative brand pretty quickly as well. She does this by being extremely inarticulate, and having a low grasp on her policies. In just about every interview held she got a hiding… and even from lightweights. She showed she had an idea and a slogan to go with it, but no depth. Much as I like some of her policies, I’m afraid she is not the one to sell them. By 2019, hopefully Turnbull will be gone and a sensible Conservative leader can draw back in a lot of the lost support.

    • Jack Brown says:

      I concur. I wonder how many people in Queensland who might have voted for the ALA ended up voting for One Nation. On the other hand others who stuck with the major parties but might have paused to consider what the ALA had to say on migration and Islamisation will tend to discard what she does have to say on these topics simply because of her style and being lumped in with other crackpot economics. In other words her lack of credibility in this sphere sucks undermines her migration and Islam policies. 🙁

  • says:

    I am with Hanson on her climate change issues and a great many other people are too. Hopefully, she moderates her protectionist ideas.

    • Dallas Beaufort says:

      If One Nation senate candidate Malcolm Roberts gains a seat, he will articulate and tear a large hole in the left’s global warming agenda, no wonder the left bellyache here with dodgy models.

  • Don A. Veitch says:

    Up from the abysmal sea the Kraken wakes. Populism? Karma for our delusional elites?
    Presumptive Senator Hanson knows things about things, for example, that (so-called) free trade benefits some, but ‘free-trade’ could never, build for the needy, a municipal country dunny in Queensland.
    The Kraken sleepeth . . . In roaring (s)he shall rise . . .

  • Rob Ellison says:

    The properties of greenhouse gases were investigated 150 years ago in detailed empirical experimentation. There seems little doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse has and – all things being equal – more in the atmosphere will result in a warmer planet. The absorption bands can be measured from space using narrow aperture equipment. What it actually measures is proton scattering on interaction – and transfer of heat – with greenhouse gas molecules. So what constitutes proof? You need to get past the basics.

    All things are never equal.

    There is – according to Graham Lloyd at The Australian newspaper – a study in Nature confirming a ‘slow down’ in global warming. But apparently they don’t have a clue as to why. The reason is in fact obvious in retrospect – since at least early in the 1960’s. Climate is an ergodic, complex, dynamical system. Ergodic means that it operates within limits over a very long time. Complex means that there are many interacting parts. Dynamical means that the parts change and interact continuously. Dynamical complexity is the third great idea of 20th century physics – along with relativity and quantum mechanics. But that’s enough theory…

  • Dallas Beaufort says:

    Malcolm Roberts will join Pauline Hanson to run for the Senate, representing Queensland.

    Malcolm is a family man and has a background in engineering, mining, business leadership and has a keen interest in economics; he is also passionate about climate change data and facts.
    Spending the early years of his life in India, Malcolm then moved to the bush in Central QLD and also lived in the Hunter Valley (NSW) and Brisbane before graduating from the University of Queensland with honours as an engineer. He then decided to get practical experience working as a coalface miner—mainly underground—for three years around Australia. “I love working with people in the field to feel and understand their concerns first-hand, to connect with people’s needs, and to listen to ideas on-the-job,” he says.

    Malcolm also worked and travelled widely across America and Canada, before returning to Australia where he rose quickly through management ranks to lead and turnaround underground coal mines, a coal processing plant and managed an ocean shiploader. He has also led the operational development of Australia’s largest and most complex underground coal project, setting many new industry firsts.

    Malcolm also holds a masters degree in business administration from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, one of the world’s most respected universities for finance and economics and after the birth of his first child, Malcolm and his wife Christine, established a small company providing specialised leadership and management services around Australia and overseas.

    Malcolm Roberts has earned the respect of informed people around the world for his investigation of claimed global warming and climate change where he analysed the measured data and then exposed the corruption. His disappointment with Liberal-Labor-Nationals-Greens politicians, unable to listen, refusing to face the facts and lacking care for our country led to his decision to join Pauline Hanson in standing for the Senate.

    Malcolm’s climate investigations led to deep understanding of the foreign control wrecking our country and to clarity on the tax system now choking Australians and destroying initiative and responsibility, while sabotaging our children’s future.

    “I’m completely devoted to representing all Queenslanders in the Senate as a house of review, protecting states’ rights. I am totally committed to bringing back this wonderful country that welcomed me and that has since blessed my family with so much.”

    “We appreciate, value and are proud of the special qualities of being Australian and we love our country. History shows that with the right leadership and support we can achieve anything. We’ve got the resources and creative, innovative, talented people who believe in honest effort for fair reward, while looking after those less fortunate. And our strongest trait —mate-ship — is unique in the world.”

    Malcolm’s integrity and strength-of-character have helped him turn around businesses in his role as a leader and have guided him in his role supporting leaders as an adviser, guide and mentor. He has been chairman of a closely-held public company and led its successful turnaround in a very emotional business. His practical and analytical approach combines with deep respect for people and his understanding of history’s bigger picture to make him an ideal candidate for working with all people to bring back Australia.

    “Instead of people feeling voiceless, powerless and squashed, we can listen and take action together to restore democracy, ensure security and build hope for all Australians.”
    “The Lib-Lab-Greens mess is not our fault, yet as Australians it is our responsibility. We must choose wisely whom we will elect to Parliament in the future. We must think about our children, grandchildren and their future.”

    • Rob Ellison says:

      Cut and paste much? I had a quick look at Malcolm Roberts climate paper. I understand why people refused to reply. Life is just too short.

      There are a couple of relevant ideas. There is no doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The science there is more than 150 years old. We should pretty much accept it as fact. This causes warming. The question is how much of recent warming was natural?

      There are about 720 billion tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere and we are adding about 10 billion a year. This is carbon that was sequestered as fossil fuels. There are some 1200 billion tonnes in the surface ocean and 720 in soils and vegetation. While warmth changes the balance of carbon in soils, vegetation, oceans and atmosphere – there is extra carbon in the stores as a result of human activity.

      Cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement production – from 1750 to 2011 – was about 365 billion metric tonnes as carbon (GtC), with another 180 GtC from deforestation and agriculture. Of this 545 GtC, about 240 GtC (44%) had accumulated in the atmosphere, 155 GtC (28%) had been taken up in the oceans with slight consequent acidification, and 150 GtC (28%) had accumulated in terrestrial ecosystems. Cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement production – from 1750 to 2011 – was about 365 billion metric tonnes as carbon (GtC), with another 180 GtC from deforestation and agriculture. Of this 545 GtC, about 240 GtC (44%) had accumulated in the atmosphere, 155 GtC (28%) had been taken up in the oceans with slight consequent acidification, and 150 GtC (28%) had accumulated in terrestrial ecosystems.

      The concentration of CO2 in the surface ocean is dependent on partial pressure (the concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere and the solubility is partially dependant on temperature. The dominant driver for ocean CO2 concentration remains partial pressure – caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2 – and oceans are always a net sink for carbon dioxide in processes that ultimately return carbon to geological stores. For God’s sake if you are going to claim something do the calculation and don’t just pull it out of your arse.

      The annual wriggle in the CO2 curve is caused by a disparity in land area between southern and northern hemispheres. Plants in summer in the northern hemisphere consume CO2. Of course there are no really simple processes in the Earth system.

      The IPCC readers digest version of climate science I stopped reading long ago. Models we know are useless – not because they mirror reality but because they can’t.

      “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.” IPCC TAR s14.2.2.2

      We are certainly not there yet and there is nothing to be gained in more computing power without some fundamental theoretical breakthroughs. But Robert’s is undoubtedly wrong. Try this for something a little different.

      • Rob Ellison says:

        … not because they (don’t) mirror reality but because they can’t.

        • says:

          As Victor Frankenstein said while climbing the Montanvert glacier in 1818: “We are but clouds that veil the midnight moon, nought may endure but Mutability”.

          Frankie got it in one. But a deep anthropocentric yearning for climate ‘stability’ still persists today, a reluctance to acknowledge its changing and unpredictable character.

          We live on a dynamic planet. Terra firma is actually a wobbling and spinning sphere with a liquid outer core moving through space at a combined speed of 113, 277 kilometres an hour (for a person sitting in a chair on the equator); and travelling 940 million kilometres in its annual orbit of the Sun.

          Changes in the Earth’s orbit contributed to the accumulation of two-plus kilometres of ice over much of North America and Siberia 12,000 years ago, mammoths in Mexico and so on.

          Our political/bureaucratic (UN) classes, alas, have put their/our $$$ on the Goldilocks principle – one of the great cons of pseudo-science – the notion that a climate future just right for everyone everywhere is somehow achievable and they can control the planet’s thermostat.

          As for model ensembles, their ability to “predict” the “probability distribution of the system’s future possible states” is about as good as a Roman haruspex with animal entrails, they do keep a lot of mathematical types in gainful employment.

          Some climate scientists – like Zurich-based Reno Knutti below – publicly admit model flaws and uncertainties (aka ‘challenges’), but it makes no difference to disciples of the alarmist paradigm.

          “It is common that more research uncovers a picture that is more complicated; thus, uncertainty can grow with time…..Judging the potential success of such a project is speculative, and it may simply take a long time to succeed. However, if the past is a guide to the future then uncertainties in climate change are unlikely to decrease quickly, and may even grow temporarily….It is likely that impact-relevant predictions, for example of extreme weather events, may be even harder to improve.” (Knutti, 2012, page 5)

          • Rob Ellison says:

            I like a nice literary conceit. Science is self correcting and Knutti is one of the many better ones.

            Prof. Latif cautions against too much optimism regarding short-term regional climate predictions: “Since the reliability of those predictions is still at about 50%, you might as well flip a coin”.

            Failing theoretical breakthroughs – what say we replace the whole mess with a work experience kid tossing coins?

            The problem with complex, dynamical systems is that abrupt changes can be extreme. 16C locally and a factor of 2 in rainfall in months to a decade. Tails. Damn.

          • Rob Ellison says:

            “Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.” Julia Slingo – head of the British Met Office – and Tim Palmer – head of the European Centre for Mid-Range Forecasting.

            Here’s what it looks like schematically. There are many divergent solutions starting from slightly different starting points (within plausible limits of data accuracy) for any model. Chaotic – as Lorenz showed in the 1960’s. It’s just maths.


            What they do is choose one solution arbitrarily and send it to the IPCC where it is graphed against single arbitrarily chosen solutions from many models. It is called an opportunistic ensemble. This is an accurate description of the scientifically absurd procedure they indulge in. Understood as such in the modelling world.

            ” Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.” James McWilliams.

            Models cannot predict climate because of sensitive dependence on initial conditions and structural instability due to the depth and extent of coupled processes. Change the input data slightly – add or change a process in the model – and change in the result the result is unpredictable. This was the problem that Lorenz encountered. He truncated some data from 6 to 3 decimal places and the result was puzzlingly anomalous. The change in results was not small. Thus the third great idea in 20th century physics – chaos theory – was discovered. The solutions of the Lorenz equations came to be known as the Lorenz attractor – or more colloquially as the butterfly effect.

            Criticise climate models but understand why. It is the difference between opportunistic ensembles from the IPCC that have no plausible scientific rationale – and probabilistic ensembles that have as yet limited practical utility. You can be sure that climate alarmists don’t understand.

          • Rob Ellison says:

            There is another way of looking at it. Models can generate thousands of plausible solutions. Sensitive dependence and structural instability. One of them might be right but there is no way of telling which.

      • Geoffrey Brown says:

        In the Lab, CO2 causes warming. In the atmosphere we know that there is a logarithmic effect. See The Logarithmic Effect –

        We also know that, this century atmospheric CO2 has been steadily rising whilst temperature have not risen significantly, See Global Warming Plateau –

  • Tony Thomas says:

    I lodged this complaint with the ABC tonight. Maybe I will get a substantive reply, that’s be interesting.

    Baseless sexual innuendo about a woman politician by ABC news staff

    This photo montage falsely implies that Ms Pauline Hanson is promiscuous or in other ways operates with “pants down”. There is no basis whatsoever for such a smear and for such disrespect to a female. Could you please let me know what are the ABC guidelines on respectful treatment of females, especially avoidance of gratuitous references to sexual behaviour (in this case, also false). Can you also tell me whether the pic montage above complies with such ABC guidelines, and if not, what remedy you intend, and whether the ABC will make a public apology to this female politician.

    • Mr Johnson says:

      I love it – but let’s not hold our breath. The ABC is blind and deaf to conservative complaints.

    • Jody says:

      Don’t be fooled; the ABC has its significant share of misogynists and they’re mostly homosexual men!! Why do you think they dress us as nuns and portray themselves as female tarts if they are NOT misogynists?

    • Michael.Fry says:


      In my experience complaints to the ABC get nowhere unless you explicitly invoke breaches of the ABC Code of Practice. In this case the ABC clearly breached Section 7 Harm and Offence, under Standards 7.1, 7.6 and 7.7.

      But even then you are likely to get a brush off – the ABC doesn’t actually understand accountability and due process.

      If Sky had run a piece about (to quote a great ALP leader) Winging the Wong number to Penny, or Tanty Tanya, they would surely have been hit with howls of outrage and complaint.

      That would surely have got a run on ABC Media Watch (not the original TM Nancy Media Watch version, I hasten to add).

  • Joel OShea says:

    Tony Thomas, always writing the wrong we all saw, first.

  • Bushranger71 says:

    It is not just the ABC indulging in this vile character assassination,rtually the whole of the politically correct inclined media realm. Just galling.

    What was equally disgusting was the John Howard led assault by the 2 major parties to destroy her when the issues she raised were resonating with real Australians, just as they are now.

    At 79, I can remember when Australia was much sounder under protectionist policies strongly defended by the likes of Sir John McEwen.

    Now; we no longer have an Industry Commission but a Productivity Commission more oriented toward social and financial engineering. There are some functions that a wholesome nation needs to retain, even though there may be lower cost offshore alternatives.

    I disagree with your perception Tony of Pauline’s economic policies as ‘ratbaggery’. After all, it is rampant out of control capitalism that is getting Australia into a worsening mess.

  • colinstent says:

    As a Defcon (Defiant Conservative), I watched a couple of her election interviews and slightly cringed. She’s is not great in the face to face interview, but a lot of conservatives suffer the same problem. I,100% support her stand on climate policy. I believe so called Free Trade Agreements do need careful re-consideration, but not thrown away. The trouble is that they are a misnomer, in fact they are a Trade Agreement with nothing free about them. Someone always loses and someone wins.

    Some of her other policies are truly frightening to me, nonetheless she was in my mix of senate preferences but not my first. She is a hard working courageous individual who has been most unfairly treated. A true Conviction politician. As a conservative, I feel we could have a lot worse in the senate and I am hopeful her presence will be positive for the cause and herself. As an Abbott supporter, his involvement in her wrongful jailing is a blot. As a Howard supporter, his blatant theft of some of her policies and phrases without acknowledgement, is also a blot.

    One thing I have yet to understand, what happened to the ALA vote? Or rather, why did it not materialise?

    • Mr Johnson says:

      Simple – Pauline reentered the political arena. The journos and commentators went bananas, and she ended up getting over $1m worth of free media exposure. At a time, when political brand awareness is gold, her ‘I hate Islam’ message was enough to eat the ALA vote alive.

  • says:

    How dare Pauline Hanson parody transvestites by dressing up as a woman.

  • Geoffrey Luck says:

    The major political parties are responsible for the Hanson phenomenon. In their supine repetition of “Islam is peace” they vacated the field, and the moral ground, to her.

  • mags of Queensland says:

    I think some here are underestimating Pauline Hanson. She is older and wiser since her last stint in Parliament and has made it her business to go to the heart of the problems faced by most Australians.Should Malcolm Roberts also get in she will have an adviser who can help her articulate her ideas more clearly and perhaps temper them somewhat.

    I get so sick and tired of those who rubbish anyone who doesn’t boast a university degree but makes a stand to protect the rights of Australians first before anything else. Most of those with academic qualifications haven’t any practical experience of anything apart from their specialty. Doesn’t qualify them to denigrate others. many of the problems we face in Australia are the direct result of academics working on the Peter Principle.

Leave a Reply