“The problem with Hanson is that she moans about what she doesn’t like but never says much about anything else”, wrote Zathras.
Could she be summed up any better than that?
She certainly has history.
When she burst back into the political scene at the last election – as it was in the late 1990s – she won ‘acclaim’ because “she’s not afraid to speak her mind” (or ‘moan’ as Zathras would say), or because “she speaks for me”, or this one: she “stirs things up“. I’ve heard those remarks on countless occasions.
Basically, it would seem, people like her because she speaks. Nothing else. Thousands of Australians voted for her for nothing else than she speaks. Wow, how good’s that? A person who practically holds the balance of power in the Senate is there because she talks. But that’s all she’s good at. She chatters away and sends the fact-checkers off into a frenzy (to ultimately discover that not only does she talk a lot, but she talks a lot of rubbish).
It’s not much of a credential.
Think about it. What solutions has she offered on the range of social or economic woes that recent governments have been incapable of addressing? The answer is simple: nothing. ‘Things’ social or economic are beyond her. Her response to any issue contains the same xenophobic rant, which might as well be “let these people in the country and they’ll take our jobs, get public housing, get the dole, wear clothing that offends me or pee in a hole in the ground”. Oh what a deep reservoir of knowledge she is.
She gets the privilege of having her regular moan to the fawning media and then sits snugly and smugly in the Senate voting with the government more often than any other non-Coalition Senator. So much for speaking her mind, speaking for me, or stirring things up.
At the end of her political career we can look back and ask, “What did she achieve?” Outside of Parliament she will be remembered, primarily, as a loud-mouth who through her intolerance of cultural differences fostered fear and hate towards minority groups. And those people who were inspired to elect her into Parliament – hopeful that fear and hate could somehow be codified into our legislation – will have been disappointed as her only ‘achievements’ were to side with a government who had taken the baton to the nation’s underprivileged.
How can she be speaking for you when all she does is rubber stamp whatever the government proposes? How can she be stirring things up while she’s continually siding with the government? How can she be speaking her mind when inside the Senate she just nods in agreement to whatever the Government says?
Seriously, why would you want to vote for a person like that? Why would you want to vote for someone who says everything and does nothing?
Here’s something else to consider:
The Turnbull Government is confident of securing Pauline Hanson’s vote on key pieces of legislation after she indicated to senior ministers that she sees Labor as her “enemy”.
Isn’t the Coalition the “enemy” of Labor? What’s the point of an independent politician or a party who is simply going to put the wants of government ahead of his/her/their electorate or the people who voted for them because the opposition is the enemy? Surely as an independent, Pauline Hanson should be voting on legislation and amendments based on merit rather than on her hatred of Labor
So again I ask, “Why would you want to vote for Pauline Hanson?”
“Because she speaks for me”, you might say.
Fine. But here’s the truth of the matter … she’s certainly not speaking for you where it counts.
She has history on that too.
Help Support The AIMN
Please consider making a donation to support The AIMN and independent journalism.