Home > Oz Politics > Reciprocating Hanson’s boycott

Reciprocating Hanson’s boycott

March 27th, 2017

Apparently, Pauline Hanson and One Nation are refusing to vote for any government legislation until the government intervenes on the side of canegrowers in a dispute with millers and marketers*

Coincidentally, I was considering the question of how to deal with Hanson’s presence in the Senate and came up with the opposite way of implementing the current situation. The major parties should refuse Hanson’s support, and should show this by having four Senators abstain on any bill where One Nation supports their side. Obviously, this isn’t going to happen with the LNP. However rude they may be about Hanson and other ONP members when they say something particularly appalling, ONP is effectively part of the coalition and is being treated as such.

But for Labor, I think the case for shunning One Nation is strong. The arguments for a complete rejection of One Nation’s racism are obvious. The costs would be

(i) In votes where Xenophon went with the LNP and Hanson with Labor and the Greens, this would turn a win into a loss (I think – can someone check)

(ii) Open hostility to One Nation would probably shift some ONP voters to change their second preferences

I don’t think either of these points have a lot of weight. But the self-styled Labor “hardheads” whose brilliant moves have included putting Family First into Parliament and abolishing optional preferential voting in Queensland, just when would help Labor most, will doubtless disagree.

* These disputes have been going on for decades, reflecting the fact that, because sugarcane is costly to transport, growers are very limited in their choice of mills, and millers similarly depend on a relatively small number of growers to keep them in business.. I haven’t looked into the merits of this one

Categories: Oz Politics Tags:
  1. Smith
    March 27th, 2017 at 11:12 | #1

    There’s a very good article in today’s Guardian by David Marr, based on his just released Quarterly Essay, on what drives One Nation supporters. It quotes a Labor Party official, Kosmos Sanaras who says that they are going to (try to) engage ON supporters by addressing their economic insecurities. They are not going to denounce Hanson as racist.

    There are now as many ex Labor voters who support ON as ex LNP voters. Labor wants those voters back, and not just through preferences. There is no chance Labor will shun Hanson, as morally satisfying as that might be.

  2. GrueBleen
    March 27th, 2017 at 12:29 | #2

    growers are very limited in their choice of mills, and millers similarly depend on a relatively small number of growers

    Then maybe the growers should set up some co-op mills and bring it all back into the family.

    I haven’t looked into the merits of this one

    Well I’d know even less than you, but why, I dazedly wonder, is this issue of such overwhelming importance to PH and/or the ONP ?

    Anyway, shouldn’t we be banning sugar cane farms in the name of extending human lifetimes ?

  3. GrueBleen
    March 27th, 2017 at 12:34 | #3

    @Smith

    David Marr, … on what drives One Nation supporters.

    And how, exactly, would David Marr be expected to know that ?

    There are now as many ex Labor voters who support ON as ex LNP voters

    Really ? And how is it that this is definitively known ? And what happened in WA ? Did the ALP only win on ONP preferences ?

  4. Julie Thomas
    March 27th, 2017 at 12:51 | #4

    This is how Pauline lies to her fans on the facebook page..

    Question from Vicki : “3Rd time. Did u vote three nite ago with turnballs to scrape penalty rates???”
    21 likes posted· March 24 at 6:50am

    Pauline Hanson’s Please Explain “No Vicki. The decision was made by the fair work commission. They’re the same commission that decide on pay increases, but no one complains when they frequently make those decisions.”
    116 likes · posted March 24 at 7:26am

  5. Smith
    March 27th, 2017 at 13:07 | #5

    @GrueBleen

    Marr knows because of research by a pollster, Ian McAllister, of the Australian Election Study. You can read his work at your leisure.

    Your questions about WA make no sense. ON polled poorly for various reasons: poor organisation, gaffes by Hanson and terrible candidates. One can hope that this will be repeated at subsequent elections, but you wouldn’t want to just sit back and assume it.

  6. GrueBleen
    March 27th, 2017 at 13:22 | #6

    @Smith

    Ian McAllister, of the Australian Election Study

    Goodoh, thanks.

    Your questions about WA make no sense.

    Well they made sense to me, what was your problem ?

    you wouldn’t want to just sit back and assume it.

    I wasn’t sitting back and assuming anything, I was asking for an explanation when what happened in the WA election appeared to contradict your assertion. the ALP didn’t get ONP votes back through ‘preference’ they got a lot of direct ‘first choice’ votes from people that were apparently expected to vote ONP.

    Ok, so you say this was due to “poor organisation, gaffes by Hanson and terrible candidates”, and we know this how ? Was this another testimony by a pollster ?

  7. John Quiggin
    March 27th, 2017 at 13:28 | #7

    You only have to read the comments section of the Oz, and consider the demographics of its readership to work out that there are a lot of Hanson fans who aren’t (at least objectively) suffering from economic insecurity. And the same is true in the US; the vast majority of those who voted for Trump were Republicans who’d previously voted for Romney.

    Racism, on a spectrum from alt-right/neo-Nazi to the more typical “I’m not a racist, but the real crime here is that I get called one when I say racist things” is the norm among Hanson voters as it is for the LNP base.

  8. GrueBleen
    March 27th, 2017 at 13:29 | #8

    @Julie Thomas

    Pauline Hanson’s Please Explain

    That’d pretty much put her on a par with most policians, wouldn’t it ? Both Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce are particularly adept at that kind of ‘please explain’. “turnballs” isn’t all that bad, either, especially when he’s conducting his imaginary orchestra.

  9. GrueBleen
    March 27th, 2017 at 13:39 | #9

    @John Quiggin

    You only have to read the comments section of the Oz,

    No thanks, it would cost me money to be able to do that – unless i go to the library very often.

    So, given that Kosmos Sanaras is somewhat off the money, how do “we” appeal to ONP voters ?

    Anyway, I’m re-reading a very interesting post: Guided By The Beauty Of Our Weapons by Scott Alexander on slatestarcodex.com. Most thought provoking indeed. I’ll include the actual URL in a separate reply so it can await moderation.

  10. GrueBleen
  11. Tim Macknay
    March 27th, 2017 at 13:43 | #11

    I confess I’m struggling to see what the benefit of this proposed approach would be.

  12. GrueBleen
    March 27th, 2017 at 14:05 | #12

    @Tim Macknay

    Err, you mean the Kosmos Sanaras approach ?

  13. Smith
    March 27th, 2017 at 14:15 | #13

    @John Quiggin

    The denizens of the comments section at the Oz, if they are ON voters (not just fellow travellers) are ON voters because they are angry that Abbott got rolled, will never accept Turnbulll, etc etc etc, have parked their vote at ON and have a need to vent. The comments section of the Oz provides a convenient and place where they can do this amongst friends from the comfort of their retirement village or wherever. The truly committed are a tiny group, 200 people max, very unlikely to be representative of anything.

  14. Tim Macknay
    March 27th, 2017 at 14:23 | #14

    @GrueBleen
    Sorry, my comment wasn’t very clear. I meant the approach suggested in the OP.

  15. GrueBleen
    March 27th, 2017 at 15:04 | #15

    @Smith

    Marr knows because of research by a pollster, Ian McAllister, of the Australian Election Study. You can read his work at your leisure.

    Well what a total waste of time that was – McAllister dealing with a self-selected sample small enough to be seriously error prone (which he does kind of admit), and Marr building that up into a rave about things he knows nothing about. He doesn’t even know, or won’t admit, that there is a considerable difference between opposing large scale immigration and being “racist” – which is a term he makes absolutely no attempt to define or even explain.

    ProfQ also believes that PH-ON is “racist” also without explaining or defining the term.

    So what exactly are we talking about here ? Can it be possible to oppose “open borders” without actually being “racist” ?

  16. john
    March 27th, 2017 at 15:45 | #16

    Both sides of the debate have a problem in as much One Nation has a deciding vote.
    The very name of the party gives away its attitude.
    Nothing underlines it more than the champagne celebration of the USA president’s election.
    Let alone the idea that Australia needs a leader like Putin.
    Perhaps a read of “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” is in order.
    All the Alt Right parties are exhibiting the exact same type of speech, and actions in Putin’s case, as happened in the late 1930’s and lead to a terrible cost for Europe and the world.
    Is society in general so very poorly educated not to see the danger in fostering this festering blight on society?

  17. deftones
    March 27th, 2017 at 18:33 | #17

    One Nation ran an Asian candidate in WA and one in Qld until she was axed for homophobic. I note the Guardian has had no trouble
    finding Sri Lankan etc ON voters. I will be voting ON at the next election because no other party takes population growth seriously. Is it a clever strategy to make Hanson a pariah? My guess is that it will only make more of us extend the middle finger and vote for the Boaty McBoatface candidate.

  18. Ron E Joggles
    March 27th, 2017 at 21:22 | #18

    JQ writes “until the government intervenes on the side of canegrowers in a dispute with millers and marketers.”

    This is just one industry among several with similar problems that no Govt is willing to deal with.

    The shift to corporate, usually stock market listed, ownership of the value-adding infrastructure and business has made abject price-takers of formerly collective farmer/mill owners, who were in charge of their own destiny, at least to a degree.

    It seems that the very purpose of an industry, to gainfully employ a community in a productive activity suited to their climate, geology and aspirations, has been discarded in favour of powerless dependency on absent masters whose only concern is the profits of their shareholders.

    Deregulation of the dairy industry has had the same result.

    Little wonder then KAP and ONP and their like continue to find support, outside the urban centres.

  19. HED PE
    March 28th, 2017 at 01:19 | #19

    You’re blocked. I really don’t have the time to deal with apologists for racism

  20. Svante
    March 28th, 2017 at 02:27 | #20

    deftones :I note the Guardian has had no trouble finding Sri Lankan etc ON voters. I will be voting ON at the next election because no other party takes population growth seriously.

    @deftones

    dt, I wonder, are any of those Sri Lankan PHONey voters Tamils?

    On population growth I tipped PHON a low preference but probably shall not again. Just think about how quickly they back flipped on the greedy banks being made accountable, and why, and then think about the banks vested interest in high population growth and BIG Australia.

    Sustainable Australia is one party that can be relied on to take the population issue seriously. votesustainable dot org dot au Their time will come. The main four are bloody hopeless.

  21. Svante
    March 28th, 2017 at 02:52 | #21

    GrueBleen :</strongWell I’d know even less than you, but why, I dazedly wonder, is this issue of such overwhelming importance to PH and/or the ONP ?

    Come election time that string of sugar cane growing electorates can make or break governments state and federal. A Queensland election is looming, already sitting MPs have jumped the LNP and swung over to PHON. Last time ON got started they had eleven MPs. They want to at least repeat that. Qld Labor is in the same and overlapping electorates spruiking bigger coal for the same reasons. For the same reasons federal Labor has decided to side with Brandis this week and trash Native Title rights yet again.

  22. GrueBleen
    March 28th, 2017 at 08:28 | #22

    @Svante

    Come election time that string of sugar cane growing electorates can make or break governments state and federal.

    Yes, I guess that would explain it. Thanks for that.

    Was a significant number of Pauline’s seats won in her previous incarnation in the cane-farm belt ? Like most Mexicans, I don’t take all that much interest in matters north of the border. Too many years of Bjelke-Petersen set a pattern that persists.

  23. Julie Thomas
    March 28th, 2017 at 09:22 | #23

    From reading the comments on the ‘Pauline Hanson Please Explain’ facebook page, there are very few of her people who have any interest at all in the cane farmers and their plight.

    The majority of the comments refer negatively to an interview Pauline did on some morning program in which Hinch diverted the conversation away from the cane farmer issue to other faults he sees with Hanson’s policies. From the number of comments that referred to their major concern and the thing that holds them together, their fear and hatred of Muslims, Hinch must have wanted to critique this aspect of the Hanson movement.

    I think that Hanson is ‘virtue signalling’ – a wonderful term that the rwnj’s apply to lefties because they don’t understand that sticking up for the least successful of the people in our society is in our own best interests.

    The point is that even though very few of her have any understanding of the sugar issue, what they see is that their brave Pauline is sticking up for the little people, the poor sugar farmers who are being screwed by the big people and the government.

  24. GrueBleen
    March 28th, 2017 at 10:36 | #24

    @Julie Thomas

    their fear and hatred of Muslims

    But does that amount to racism and by which/whose definition ?

    Hinch must have wanted to critique this aspect of the Hanson movement

    He’s playing goody-twoshoes again ? He never stops, does he.

    the poor sugar farmers who are being screwed by the big people and the government.

    But are they ? I’m not sure how much sympathy I have these days for the “pure white and deadly” growers. About as much as I have for tobacco growers, I guess.

    The thing about “virtue signalling” is that it’s a fine example of the RWNJ way: take whatever they’ve done, rotate it 180 degrees. and turn it on “the Left” as a condemnation. Right Wingnuts have been “virtue signalling” throughout my entire lifetime – and for quite a while before. But, as you say, expressions of genuine concern have to be bad-mouthed as “virtue signalling”. The so-called “identity politics” is another example.

  25. Svante
    March 28th, 2017 at 11:26 | #25

    GrueBleen :@Svante

    Was a significant number of Pauline’s seats won in her previous incarnation in the cane-farm belt ?

    Yes. And back then some Nats got in only on ON preferences. A minority Labor government was elected and manged to stick it out due to the ON shambles that ensued.

    Like most Mexicans, I don’t take all that much interest in matters north of the border.

    Such favour is returned with bells on, I’m sure.

    Too many years of Bjelke-Petersen set a pattern that persists.

    @GrueBleen

    No. Bjelke-Petersen followed a pattern set by Qld Labor.

  26. John Quiggin
    March 28th, 2017 at 11:29 | #26

    @GrueBleen

    Is there any definition of racism that isn’t satisfied by “fear and hatred of race X”?

    I really hope you aren’t bringing up the rightwing quibble about “Muslims aren’t a race”. It’s obvious that, for practical purposes, this distinction doesn’t work. Since race is an entirely spurious concept, used only by racists, you’re disappearing down a rabbithole with this one.

    “So what exactly are we talking about here ? Can it be possible to oppose “open borders” without actually being “racist” ?”

    This is stupid. Hanson’s longstanding record of racism includes Aborigines as a leading target. And her opposition to migration is obviously and openly based on race.

    I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, given that you’ve commented sensibly in the past. But I don’t tolerate racism or apologetics for racism, so you are right on the edge of a ban here.

  27. John Quiggin
    March 28th, 2017 at 11:35 | #27

    @Tim Macknay

    I guess I should never assume anything is obvious, not even ” The arguments for a complete rejection of One Nation’s racism are obvious.”

    So, spelling it out. Pauline Hanson is a racist and One Nation is a racist party. Racism is evil and racist political parties should not be treated as legitimate. A progressive political party should have no dealings of any kind with a racist party. That includes preference swaps and bargaining for votes. On the other hand, One Nation has seats in Parliament and its elected representatives cannot and should not be prevented from voting, and these votes may be cast in support of progressive policies for one reason or another.

    The best way to do this, in my view, is to place One Nation last on preference ballots and refuse to accept their support in Parliament, which can be done in the way I suggest.

    Now that I’ve been explicit about my reasoning, maybe you could be similarly explicit about yours.

    @John Quiggin

  28. Svante
    March 28th, 2017 at 11:36 | #28

    @GrueBleen

    “Was a significant number of Pauline’s seats won in her previous incarnation in the cane-farm belt ?”

    Yes. In addition, back then some Nats got in only on ON preferences. A minority Labor government was elected and manged to stick it out due to the ON shambles that ensued.

    “Like most Mexicans, I don’t take all that much interest in matters north of the border.”

    Such favour is returned with bells on, I’m sure.

    “Too many years of Bjelke-Petersen set a pattern that persists.”

    Bjelke-Petersen followed a pattern established by Qld Labor.

  29. Julie Thomas
    March 28th, 2017 at 11:43 | #29

    @GrueBleen

    “But does that amount to racism and by which/whose definition ?”

    I don’t think it matters that much if this attitude is racism and who or how racism is defined.

    What matters is that this fear and hatred is an attitude that is not based on any facts and the perpetuation of this attitude will not lead to a better life for me and will not lead to the sort of society or Australian way of life that I think provides people with a good life.

    There are people who live in my town who think this way so I’m basing my attitude toward the problem on what I read on the Hanson site where they all go to whine and on the reality I experience. I wouldn’t read the Australian either and surprisingly very few of my neighbours do; they seem to get their attitudes from gossip they exchange when they meet up with each other; maybe at church where they go only to keep up with the gossip. lol

    My Pauline voting friends are well aware of my views. I don’t call them racists though when I challenge their viewpoints and I don’t make fun of them because that is counter productive if you want to change people’s views and I want to change their views not feel virtuous about me not being racist or full of hate and fear about the ‘other’, or indulge my need to vent my frustration about how ignorant people are and how wilfully they indulge their basest impulses to create an ‘evil’ other to blame for real or perceived problems.

    Most people in my town don’t even understand what the term ‘the other’ means and they don’t give a rats about 18C. lol they say what they want and only raise their stupid points about how leftie PC is ruining their lives when they run out of any real arguments.

    Yesh sugar farmers should be able to see the writing on the wall, see the disruption that is coming and get into growing something that will add value to our society and way of life. 🙂

    And identity politics? Isn’t it the case that politics has always been identity politics; just the identity being protected was the wealthy white man?

  30. Tim Macknay
    March 28th, 2017 at 12:04 | #30

    @John Quiggin
    Well, I guess I differ from you on your evaluation of the ‘costs’ of the policy. It seems to me that your point (i), in which you say the progressive parties should in effect sabotage the passage of good policy because of a coincidence that One Nation might also be vote in favour of it, carries quite a lot of weight, and that such an act would amount to counterproductive idiocy.

    I agree, of course, that there should be no preference deals or vote bargaining with One Nation, but the idea that parties should cancel out their own votes in order to ‘erase’ One Nation’s, even at the cost of sacrificing good policy (on the rare occasion it arises) has no upside that I can discern. I accept that a situation where a policy is put up by the current government that is likely to attract support from progressive parties and and One Nation is likely to be rare, but to me your view that such policies should be sacrificed in order to demonstrate total repudiation of One Nation seems to go from the sublime to the ridiculous. It simply doesn’t strike me as necessary in order to get the message across that One Nation is beyond the pale. That is all.

  31. Svante
    March 28th, 2017 at 12:08 | #31

    @deftones

    “I note the Guardian has had no trouble finding Sri Lankan etc ON voters.”

    Were any of those Tamils?

    I doubt it.

    “I will be voting ON at the next election because…”

    Due to their long term stance on population growth I backed one of them (certainly not Roberts!) low in my unexhausted preferences last time. Having now seen them backflip ever so quickly on the issue of bank accountability (on which I gave Labor some contrary to ticket preferences)

    I believe due to similar pressure from the pro BIG Australia ponzi banks they will backflip on population if ever the question should come anywhere near a legislative vote. IMO, apart from the ill fated chance taken on population and banks a vote for ON has simply been a vote for the LNP, and pretty much will remain so.

    “..no other party takes population growth seriously.”

    Sustainable Australia does.

  32. John Quiggin
    March 28th, 2017 at 12:09 | #32

    ” It simply doesn’t strike me as necessary in order to get the message across that One Nation is beyond the pale.”

    Do you think that message is getting across now?

  33. Julie Thomas
    March 28th, 2017 at 12:10 | #33

    @John Quiggin

    ” Since race is an entirely spurious concept, used only by racists, ”

    Yes.

  34. Tim Macknay
    March 28th, 2017 at 12:11 | #34

    @GrueBleen

    I’m not sure how much sympathy I have these days for the “pure white and deadly” growers. About as much as I have for tobacco growers, I guess.


    I’m as aware as anyone that consuming too much sugar is not good for the health. But I must say I find the current fad for treating sugar as somehow the equivalent of tobacco as overblown nonsense, and just as likely to lead nowhere as the previous fad for insisting that fat was evil.

  35. Julie Thomas
    March 28th, 2017 at 12:13 | #35

    @Tim Macknay

    If you read some of the ON comments and other rwnj comments you can see that some people are so ‘damaged’ – or something – that they take pride in being beyond the pale.

  36. Tim Macknay
    March 28th, 2017 at 12:18 | #36

    @John Quiggin

    Do you think that message is getting across now?

    Not really, but I am skeptical that the extreme end of the approach you suggest will make any difference, and if implemented it would have obvious negatives, i.e. good policy being voted down on the floor of Parliament.

    More broadly, it seems to be that as long as the Liberal Party continues to court One Nation, it will be difficult to get that message across. As I said, I agree that progressive parties should refuse to do preference deals or vote bargains with One Nation, but the prospect of effectively voting down good policy because One Nation is voting in favour of it seems to be a bridge too far. They should also put pressure on the Liberal and National Parties to repudiate One Nation, although as far as I can tell that is already being done to some degree.

  37. Tim Macknay
    March 28th, 2017 at 12:24 | #37

    @Julie Thomas
    I know. I think the aim of the approach Prof Q is suggesting is to try to prevent One Nation from becoming regarded as a ‘normal’ political party, and therefore potentially acceptable to voters who don’t exhibit the kind of ‘damage’ you’re talking about.

  38. Svante
    March 28th, 2017 at 12:38 | #38

    @Julie Thomas
    “Yesh sugar farmers should be able to see the writing on the wall, see the disruption that is coming and get into growing something that will add value to our society and way of life.”

    Sugar products help sustain the livestock industry, especially during drought. Sugar has always been a chemical precursor for many industrial products all about you that are unrelated to sweeteners.

    @GrueBleen

    “But are they ? I’m not sure how much sympathy I have these days for the “pure white and deadly” growers. About as much as I have for tobacco growers, I guess.”

    It is set to become green, and yet more deadly with the expanding E10 and higher fuel mandates. A dark murky green.

    The growers don’t earn that much. In some regions many have switched entirely to bananas. Howard helped heaps of them to leave the farm. Foreign interests were able to buy sugar assigned land and the mills. Many are now back working the original family sugar cane farm, but as sharecroppers for the mills – colonial sugar refined.

  39. John Quiggin
    March 28th, 2017 at 13:13 | #39

    To be concrete, the example I have in mind is a Senate vote on a Royal Commission into Banks. This would almost certainly be defeated in the Reps* It’s a piece of political symbolism which won’t have any practical effect. In my view, the symbolic cost of doing a deal with One Nation (if their votes are needed, which isn’t clear) is greater than the symbolic benefit of hauling the banks over the coals in the process of debate

    Coming back to reality, the relevant cases at present consist of legislation that is proposed by the government, opposed by Labor and the Greens but supported by much of the crossbench including Xenophon. In these, and only these cases (if I have my count right), One Nation’s vote matters. Are there any cases you can think of that matter significantly.

    Of course, the issue will become sharper if Labor wins next time around and One Nation still has swing votes. Do you think that, without a bright line, it will be possible to avoid accepting ON amendments as the price of those votes? Won’t the same arguments you are using against a bright line be used to say that it’s necessary to deal with Hanson as an equal?

    * If the government could be defeated on this in the Reps, the Senate vote would scarcely matter.

  40. Nicholas
    March 28th, 2017 at 14:12 | #40

    This sounds like a foolish and petulant proposal that would destroy the occasional good policy outcome merely to gain posturing rights on a motherhood statement to the effect that racism is bad. Racism is a bad motive, but people who say racist things are not all bad, and sometimes people end up on the right side of an issue for wrong or garbled reasons (e.g. right-wing nationalists who supported Brexit or opposed the TPP). When that happens, pocket the policy win and continue to promote your own non-racist framing of the issue.

  41. Nicholas
    March 28th, 2017 at 14:22 | #41

    How does insulting One Nation voters and adding to the exclusion and disenfranchisement that they’ve already experienced assist progressive causes? Progressives should be running on full employment, price stability, sustainable resource use, and fully funded social goods. Neoliberal centrism has failed abysmally. Scolding people for being drawn to right-wing nationalism is silly given that the mainstream left has vacated the field on people’s material concerns for jobs, incomes that rise for everyone in line with national productivity, and practical opportunities to experience contribution and belonging.

  42. Donald Oats
    March 28th, 2017 at 15:49 | #42

    Putting ON last means not putting LNP last. This is a difficult decision to make.

  43. GrueBleen
    March 28th, 2017 at 16:19 | #43

    @John Quiggin

    Is there any definition of racism that isn’t satisfied by “fear and hatred of race X”?

    Ok, so you’re saying that racism isn’t “fear and hatred of all other races”, just “fear and hatred” of any one race. But it is both “fear and hatred” not just fear OR hatred. How much fear and how much hatred ? A little ? A lot ? Some fear and a lot of hatred ? Some hatred and a lot of fear ?

    Is there any “description” of racism that is in any way satisfied by “fear and hatred of race X” without any other commentary and refinement ?

    bringing up the rightwing quibble about “Muslims aren’t a race”.

    Que ? I do happen to believe that “Muslims aren’t a race” but I thought I had studiously avoided introducing this diversion into the discussion. Could you please point out to me where I have said or implied any such thing ?

    This is stupid.

    Que ?

    Hanson’s longstanding record of racism

    Well that’s fine if all you’re interested in iis Hanson’s record. I was just trying to consider a situation in Australia at present: irrespective of Hanson and ONP, is it possible to oppose “open borders” without actually being “racist” ? I personally think it is, but is that just because I don’t have your insight into racism ? Then the followup question: is it necessary ?

    But I don’t tolerate racism or apologetics for racism, so you are right on the edge of a ban here.

    “This is stupid” (I hope you don’t mind me quoting you). Since I haven’t consciously tolerated or defended racism by any definition so far as I’m aware, I would appreciate you pointing out what I’ve written that has given you the idea that I have.

    But by all means, ban away, ProfQ. It’s your blog, your rules.

  44. GrueBleen
    March 28th, 2017 at 16:21 | #44

    @Donald Oats

    Toss a coin.

  45. John Quiggin
    March 28th, 2017 at 16:54 | #45

    “But by all means, ban away, ProfQ. ” OK, done.

  46. Ikonoclast
    March 28th, 2017 at 17:21 | #46

    “These disputes have been going on for decades, reflecting the fact that, because sugarcane is costly to transport, growers are very limited in their choice of mills, and millers similarly depend on a relatively small number of growers to keep them in business.. I haven’t looked into the merits of this one.” – J.Q.

    I think this shows that in agricultural production there are cases of local or regional natural monopoly. One local sugar mill is a local monopoly… or is it a local monopsony? In any case, the issue is clear. The same often applied to the old regional milk cooperatives.

    In these cases, I think it would make sense to regulate fairness to some extent. And indeed cooperatives (mills or dairy factories, cheese factories etc.) would be better and fairer with the farmers owning all or a good part of the cooperative and having votes on the board that makes decisions. There is nothing worse than big boys in the city far away making decisions which can wreck rural lives and livelihoods.

  47. Tim Macknay
    March 28th, 2017 at 17:22 | #47

    @John Quiggin
    I don’t disagree with any of the examples you’ve given. It seems to me that the issue in your point (i), i.e. the prospect of voting down good legislation (which was what bothered me) doesn’t come up. We may be talking past each other without actually disagreeing in substance.

  48. Svante
    March 28th, 2017 at 17:38 | #48

    Re the OP: “The major parties should refuse Hanson’s support, and should show this by having four Senators abstain on any bill where One Nation supports their side. … But for Labor, I think the case for shunning One Nation is strong.”

    Would it work as intended, or push more ALP leaning voters away by drawing particular attention to the way Labor actually votes? Could such arithmetic even be seen by your target group, and, if seen, seen as intended, when after all is said and done Labor votes mostly with the LNP? Look, see… it’s the duopoly.

  49. Ikonoclast
    March 28th, 2017 at 17:39 | #49

    “some people are so ‘damaged’ – or something – that they take pride in being beyond the pale.” – Julie Thomas

    So true, we only have to look at Donald Trump for that example.

  50. Ikonoclast
    March 28th, 2017 at 17:50 | #50

    When I see Pauline Hanson talk on the media she seems frightened. She has a quaver in her voice. Now, here I have to admit that if I had to talk the media I would be frightened too and I would have a quaver in my voice. However, knowing this, I would never do it and I would never put myself in the position or a job or a place where I had to talk to the media. They are twisting mis-representers and any sane person would be frightened or at least very wary of them.

    If PH is afraid of the media and spotlight (although she has ambivalent feelings and loves the attention too) then what drives her to do it? Well, maybe enjoying attention and notoriety is one aspect but I think another aspect which drives her is that she fears other things more, like Muslims. Her world is a fearful world, full of terrors. It must be sad and damaging to live there. At the same time she is doing a lot of damage acting out. PH ON needs to be excised in the legal tactical manner J.Q. prescribes or via some very similar tactics.

  51. Svante
    March 28th, 2017 at 18:58 | #51

    Ikonoclast :
    If PH is afraid of the media and spotlight (although she has ambivalent feelings and loves the attention too) then what drives her to do it?

    That’s an easy one. Follow the money.

  52. Julie Thomas
    March 28th, 2017 at 21:26 | #52

    @Svante

    The money is important because it means success but there is more, it seems to me, that drives her to be so determined and overcome the fears that Ikon recognises. Perhaps a need to prove something or be somebody that comes from her upbringing.

    David Marr had some interesting things to say about her background in an interview on Late Night Live with Philip Adams today and he acknowledged that it does take considerable bravery to do what she does. He was also sure that she is not on track to increase her following.

  53. Svante
    March 28th, 2017 at 22:28 | #53

    @Julie Thomas

    The money is important because it’s easy. Personal planes, personal services, personal staff, parties, personal wardrobe, etc, etc. You don’t get to afford that on marginal/hobby farm income out the back of Ipswich, nor from a battling fish shop super, nor aged pension, and, of course, money is power. There is also money from the moneyed in return for favour. Play the game, hit the jackpot. Fortune favours the brave.

  54. Tim Macknay
    March 29th, 2017 at 00:01 | #54

    The Sydney Morning Herald published an interesting piece on Hanson in 1996 that was republished in 2014: http :// www .smh. com.au/good-weekend/gw-classics/pauline-hansons-bitter-harvest-20140828-109dbf.html
    I think anyone who claims she is not a racist is deluding themselves.

  55. J-D
    March 29th, 2017 at 05:10 | #55

    HED PE :
    … Pauline Hanson was married to a Jew …

    I don’t think that’s right. What makes you think it is? It’s not in David Leser’s article.

  56. Collin Street
    March 29th, 2017 at 05:55 | #56

    Mr Quiggin, you seem to think it is fun to falsely accuse people of being apologists for racism.

    There are two possibilities here.
    + JQ is correct, you are in error and the accusations of racism are not false
    + JQ is in error, you are correct and the accusations of racism are false.

    Either way, the accusations of racism will seem to you to be false. How do you think a person might distinguish between these two situations?

  57. Julie Thomas
    March 29th, 2017 at 07:43 | #57

    Pauline Hanson is a racist; it is possible to argue that she doesn’t understand that she is a racist but according to the most basic definition of racism – that believing that there are human races is racism – she is a racist.

    @Svante

    Perhaps it is a mistake to follow up on this issue with you. But clearly making money this way is not easy for Pauline Hanson. You are mistaken if you think that people are motivated entirely by money and having personal servants and suchlike.

    Money is power, yes, and it is a lot more than that. Humans are very complex and the things that motivate us are not that easily understood. The idea that wealth explains the motivations of all individuals seems to me to be the basis of libertarian economics that has been so thoroughly discredited.

    I think it is clear that Pauline has a belief system that is not classically libertarian – although she does use bits and pieces from that ideology – and she does exude a sort of sincerity that is apparent to people who are as uneducated and lacking in insight into their own motivations as she is.

  58. Julie Thomas
    March 29th, 2017 at 07:46 | #58

    From the Leser article:

    “There’s also her eldest son’s grandmother, Hanson’s former mother-in-law, who almost single-handedly raised this son. She is an elderly woman who survived Dachau concentration camp and arrived in Australia with her three-year-old child (Hanson’s first husband) after the war. She is petrified that Hanson wants to have her deported. You can see it in her trembling hands. When asked about this, Hanson declines to comment.”

    I suppose it is from this that the Pea Head discerns that Pauline married a Jew.

  59. Svante
    March 29th, 2017 at 09:41 | #59

    @Julie Thomas

    Candidates upon reaching a threshold few percentage points of votes cast are paid various amounts for it by the various electoral commissions around the country. The pay out has an uncertain relationship to the amount actually spent on any candidate’s election campaign. This has been rather important to PH’s personal finances over the years in tiding her over. A nice little earner indeed. The dollars in votes has been a strong motivator. It’s formulaic. Maintain a high profile of a particular kind and there is at least an all but guaranteed threshold number of sympathetic voters. Over the years PH could never lose badly where it counts to her if the spend was tiny (Trump like there). PH routinely got a very nice return for her trouble and pennies. It’s a good reliable earner, a great deal better than a motivating trickle now and then as the wheels spin on the pokies. Play the game, win funding, win the jackpot.

  60. derrida derider
    March 29th, 2017 at 10:00 | #60

    “sugarcane is costly to transport, growers are very limited in their choice of mills, and millers similarly depend on a relatively small number of growers to keep them in business”

    Like John I don’t know the merits of the actual current issue. But from the first time I visited a cane growing area I’ve always wondered about this.

    What would be the actual economies of scale in extracting sugar from cane? Rather low I would have thought (crush the cane, heat it, squeeze it, and dry). Cane is incredibly bulky & so expensive to transport, but raw sugar and molasses not nearly as much. So why aren’t cane growers vertically integrated with a mini-mill on their farm? Or at least part of a really small (say 3 or 4 farms) co-op with a mini-mill?

    Sure you may need Transnational Engulf & Devour Pty Ltd to refine, distribute and market your sugar (and also to buy governments to fend off those pesky anti-diabetes people). But it doesn’t seem the basic economics favours Big Sugar at the raw production end.

  61. Julie Thomas
    March 29th, 2017 at 10:09 | #61

    @HED PE

    dude give it a rest. You are no match for me whatever you infer that I am. 🙂 And weren’t you blocked? Did you miss that bit? Or what?

  62. Julie Thomas
    March 29th, 2017 at 10:11 | #62

    @Svante

    I’m not denying that she is making money from her political activities but I am saying that there is more to her than that.

  63. Svante
    March 29th, 2017 at 10:20 | #63

    @Julie Thomas
    Yes, there’s more to her, as for anyone else, let alone any schemer. But if it weren’t for the money she’d be doing something else and be all but forgotten, buried as the generations roll on. In fact if it weren’t for the money she probably would never have been heard of in the first instance. The money is number one.

  64. Svante
    March 29th, 2017 at 10:24 | #64

    @Julie Thomas
    Note well what happened to the central and avowed position of PHONey on the banks when they came calling to pay their respects, and so quickly too.

  65. J-D
    March 29th, 2017 at 10:35 | #65

    I’m deleting this response to an abusive comment from HED, whom I’ve blocked

  66. J-D
    March 29th, 2017 at 10:39 | #66

    HED PE :
    Mr Quiggin, you seem to think it is fun to falsely accuse people of being apologists for racism. Grow up.

    It doesn’t seem to me that John Quiggin thinks it’s fun. I don’t understand what makes it seem that way to you.

  67. Julie Thomas
    March 29th, 2017 at 11:09 | #67

    @Svante

    Yes I’ll agree to that. If there was no money involved she wouldn’t be doing it but this is not a productive way to combat her influence with her fans.

    Although there is probably no way to combat the adulation of her core followers and/or the likes of Ashby who are helping her for their own reasons that again are not all about money; but for sure none of them would be doing it if not for the money.

  68. J-D
    March 29th, 2017 at 11:34 | #68

    @Julie Thomas
    Just for the record: although (unsurprisingly) there were some Jewish prisoners at Dachau, most of the prisoners there were not Jews and so the fact that the mother of Pauline Hanson’s first husband was a Dachau survivor is not sufficient reason to conclude that he was a Jew.

  69. Svante
    March 29th, 2017 at 11:39 | #69

    @Julie Thomas

    From her position it’s actually lots of money, and access to lots more. To her useful idiots she’s seen as a tool to get their issues up, and they, like the banks, pay… er, pay their respects.

    “…not a productive way to combat her influence with her fans”

    Don’t call it too soon. There may be a way. One thing the majority of her fans are agitated greatly by is money, their own hard graft vs the many they perceive to be on the take. It likely keeps them awake at night. If/when she’s exposed as the grifter she’s become they’ll start screaming. The screaming to be heard in WA carries only faintly across to Queensland presently. Queensland PHONey supporters seem to have been deaf to it. Give it time.

  70. Vegetarian
    March 29th, 2017 at 11:50 | #70

    @deftones
    There is plenty of anti-Muslim feeling among Hindus and other groups.

  71. Smith
    March 29th, 2017 at 12:02 | #71

    When it comes to One Nation, the focus on Pauline Hanson is understandable, but let’s not sleep on her No 2, the incomparable Malcolm Roberts. Yesterday in the Parliament in the 18C debate Senator Roberts, in what was arguably a racist rant, said 18C protects Muslim criminals:

    “If your Muslim Sudanese neighbour is engaging in female genital mutilation or your Syrian Muslim cafe owner is a terrorist building a bomb or maybe just the Afghan Muslims in the public housing flat next to you are molesting small children, chances are that you are afraid to speak out.”

    “Ordinary, decent people are simply afraid to speak the truth.”

    “We want to be able to call out Muslim drug dealers, child mutilators, hate preachers, terrorists and perverts.”

    He then went on to describe Greens as “koala-hugging commos”, which at least was alliterative.

    Congratulations, Queenslanders. Your elected representatives are truly a national adornment.

  72. Svante
    March 29th, 2017 at 12:33 | #72

    @Smith

    Some seven hundred voted for Roberts. How many voted for, say, Larissa Waters?

    In recent years the numbers of various new arrivals from those ethnic groups have risen sharply in the suburbs about here. Seven days a week in the late afternoons the newly renovated neighbourhood small park across from me now fills fit to burst with hundreds of kids and many parents engaged in what looks very much like recreation, sport, games, and fun. It’s a little over crowded for my taste, but despite the relative number no problem at all, not even litter. Judging by the girls’ and womens’ dress, on more than half the days most groups are predominantly of Muslim persuasion. The groups that annoy come after midnight from more established earlier arrivals including but not only Anglos; vandalism, litter, broken glass, boom boxes, yelling, drinking, and basketballs at 3:00am!

  73. Svante
    March 29th, 2017 at 13:11 | #73

    @Smith

    Smith :…the incomparable Malcolm Roberts.Congratulations, Queenslanders. Your elected representatives are truly a national adornment.

    I thought I better check and now must correct my earlier reply.

    Make that 77 votes for Roberts, not 700!

    By way of comparison Larissa Waters scored 18,191 votes.

    http://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/SenateStateFirstPrefs-20499-QLD.htm

  74. Ikonoclast
    March 29th, 2017 at 15:37 | #74

    @Smith

    Well “koala cuddling commos” would have been even more alliterative. 😉

    Alt-righties and righties in general love to abuse and denigrate don’t they? I use their methods a little sometimes and refer to them as “right wing wreckers” because they continually wreck the real opportunities of our economy and our society. That’s quite mild of course compared to right-wing vitriol. I notice that right-wing vitriol is so often directed at people who care about things and about animals and about people; indeed who care about anything except themselves. Clearly to the right-wingers to care is in itself and weak except of course for caring about yourself solely especially in terms of wealth and power by which metric the y measure everything. Being and acting like that is double plus good according to the righties.

  75. Julie Thomas
    March 29th, 2017 at 15:58 | #75

    Malcolm Roberts says that, “Ordinary, decent people are simply afraid to speak the truth.”

    He is saying that Australians are such wimps that they can’t call child services or the police if they think the people next door are harming their children or making bombs?

    Or are these thoughts the sort that The Tom Waits song “What’s he Building” is about?

  76. Tim Macknay
    March 29th, 2017 at 16:57 | #76

    So, let’s see. According to Roberts:

    Sudanese people genitally mutilate girls;
    Syrians are terrorists; and
    Afghans are child molesters.

    According to Pauline Hanson:

    Aboriginal people are not disadvantaged – they are just welfare bludgers;
    Asians are swamping Australia;
    Africans bring diseases like AIDS into Australia; and
    Muslims are also swamping Australia and Halal certification is a terrorist plot.

    But it’s OK. They’re not racists. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. Move along, move along.

  77. J-D
    March 29th, 2017 at 19:02 | #77

    Premise 1: Ordinary decent people are afraid to speak the truth.
    Premise 2: Malcolm Roberts is not afraid to speak the truth.
    Conclusion: ? Left as an exercise for the reader.

  78. Smith
    March 29th, 2017 at 19:45 | #78

    @Tim Macknay

    The rich irony is that if Roberts says these things outside Parliament then under 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act he could be nailed for being offensive to Sudanese, Syrians or Afghans, but not for being offensive to Muslims – at least not until someone runs and wins a case arguing that giving offence to Muslims as such is offensive behaviour on the basis of “race, colour, national or ethnic origin.”

  79. Germaine Steiner
    March 29th, 2017 at 20:17 | #79

    Tim Macknay

    Many moons ago Pauline Hanson said Asian immigration was too high and their were subsequently some integration issues at a time when John Howard and the historian Geoffrey Blainey were making similar claims. Such claims may be motivated by racism but they could just as easily be a pragmatic observation about different ethnicities not mixing and getting along (Hutu v Tutsi, Serb v Croat, Armenian v Turk etc …). I see Pauline Hanson being smeared as racist but I have not seen any concrete evidence. If you are still having trouble may I suggest you ponder the motivations of a black academic railing against white privilege. Do you think the motivation of such a person is necessarily racist or do you think a more charitable interpretation is just as plausible if not more so? Remember Tim, nuance is not a four letter word.

  80. Julie Thomas
    March 29th, 2017 at 21:39 | #80

    @Germaine Steiner

    How do you define racism? What would be racist behaviour in your opinion?

  81. Svante
    March 29th, 2017 at 23:31 | #81

    Germaine Steiner :Tim Macknay
    If you are still having trouble may I suggest you ponder the motivations of a black academic railing against white privilege. Do you think the motivation of such a person is necessarily racist or do you think a more charitable interpretation is just as plausible if not more so?

    What then are the motivations of white pollies PH&Co railing against black privilege? Name some more charitable interpretations than opportunistic racism.

  82. Luke Elford
    March 30th, 2017 at 01:36 | #82

    @derrida derider

    According to the website of the Australian Sugar Milling Council, Australia has 4,400 cane farming “entities” covering 380,000 hectares and producing up to 35 million tonnes of sugarcane per year. These supply 24 mills owned by seven companies. Average output per farming entity would thus be up to about 8,000 tonnes per year; the average family farm would presumably produce less than this. The average mill would process about 1.46 million tonnes per year, with one mill per 183 farms. Wikipedia reports the yearly capacity of 15 of the mills; they range from 0.7 million to 3.74 million tonnes.

    This paper, ‘Economies of scale in sugar milling’, uses data from Queensland sugar mills to estimate cost curves:

    https://www.assct.com.au/media/pdfs/41-69.pdf

    The catch is that it’s from 1969. For what it’s worth, it reports that average costs are minimised at about one million tonnes per year (footnote nine, page 46), though it cautions that average costs may not really increase beyond this scale. Cost increases are relatively moderate down to about 250,000 tonnes (figure four, page 45), which would correspond to the output of 31 farms, but costs are still over 1.5 times the minimum. A mill processing 80,000 tonnes—the output of ten farms—would have costs over five times those of the cost-minimising mill.

  83. Collin Street
    March 30th, 2017 at 06:22 | #83

    I see Pauline Hanson being smeared as racist but I have not seen any concrete evidence.

    Sigh.

    Racism -> irrationality, by definition.
    “A Racist” -> person bound by racism -> person bound by their irrationality.
    A person’s choices -> choices taken according to their understanding of what’s reasonable -> irrational choices taken do not appear obviously distinct from other choices taken, from the inside.

    If you are bound by your own racism, you won’t be able to tell from inside your own skull. Your racist choices and priorities would appear to you just, sensible, and normal. But this also extends to your assessment of other people; an other person’s choices that match your [irrational] choices will appear to you to be just/sensible/normal the same way your own choices do.

    So. If you’re racist in the same way that pauline hanson is racist, then the “concrete evidence” of pauline hanson’s racism will appear to you to not be concrete evidence of racism but, y’know, normal and sensible.

    [this is an a-fortiori result of “people don’t in general know why or how they’re wrong”; there’s no big red flag saying “you’re making a mistake” when someone tells you about them. More self-doubt and humility is needed here; less assumptions that you’ll be able to avoid mistakes or that your inability to see something that others claim to see demonstrates the falsity of that claim. Not that I’m actually saying you’re racist, but I can tell you that you don’t/can’t know.]

  84. Julie Thomas
    March 30th, 2017 at 07:31 | #84

    In A New Daily article, I find that Hanson’s definition of racism is “….to believe your race to be superior to another.” and that is what she claims that she has “never, ever said that.”

    Chinese Australian Forum President Kenrick Cheah said “Pauline’s definition of racism is a bit too narrow” and ““She might think there’s a very narrow definition, but it’s the effect of her words in the community that constitutes racism.”

    As well as that, it seems to me that it is implicit in her comments about other groups of people that she does believe that she and her ‘race’ are in fact superior to others. I’d like to understand what ‘race’ she thinks she belongs to. The white race perhaps?

    Perhaps Germaine could tell me what race she belongs to and how we are not superior to other races.

    Hanson says “I’ve had racist comments said to me. But I let it go over the top of my head. It’s water off a duck’s back,”.

    She is unable to see that these insults do not bother her because she is certain that she is from the ‘superior’ race. But she reasons – in her own irrational way – that they don’t bother her because she is a superior person and one who is capable of understanding what is good for this country.

    She is unable to understand that the effect of insults are very different on people who do know that they are regarded as inferior by a cohort of ignorant Australians who were raised to think of themselves as the best and quite clearly the superior race and/or civilisation.

  85. Julie Thomas
    March 30th, 2017 at 07:44 | #85

    And Charlene, about different ethnicity not getting along.

    There used to be a lot of this sort of thing in Australian soccer but people got over it; that is what the Australian way of life is all about.

    It is all about giving people a space where they can get over the problems in their own country that leads them to want to come to a place where they can lead a better life and all happy and healthy people want to contribute to making the place they live an even better place.

    Some of these people are refugees who come from war zones that we can be held responsible for creating, and they need support and understanding for them to be able to contribute. Of course we could stop messing with their borders and bombing them and repair the damage that colonialism did to their cultures and that would reduce the numbers of refugees.

    The intolerant attitude and unwarranted belief in your own superiority that you and your racist cohort have contributes to the problems these people have and makes it more likely that they or their children will not want to be part of the Australian way of life that they see and experience as racist.

  86. Tim Macknay
    March 30th, 2017 at 11:07 | #86

    @Germaine Steiner
    Your comment drove home for me the truth of JQ’s remark a while back that the only real political correctness in Australia is that nobody’s allowed to call anyone a racist. I’m still bemused at the number of people who want to insist that Pauline Hanson’s repeated generalised attacks on various minority racial and ethnic groups are not racist, either because of a more ‘nuanced’ reading that gives a less odious interpretation of her statements, or through the claim that a particular sort of mens rea is required for a statement to be construed as racist, which Hanson lacks.

    I’m reminded a bit of a former commenter on this blog, Ivor (now banned), who was a fan of the American geopolitics commentator Paul Craig Roberts. Ivor wanted to claim that Robert’s repeated declarations that world war 3 was imminent were actually sober, nuanced analyses of the geopolitical scene. In order to do that, he had to consciously ignore a large part of what Roberts actually wrote.

    I think that if one is going to claim that, say, Pauline Hanson’s remarks about Asians in her 1996 maiden speech (which she has not resiled from, as she confirmed in 2016) are not a generalised attack on people of Asian descent, but instead, a more ‘nuanced’ commentary on the risks of too rapid a change in the ethnic mix a la Geoffrey Blainey, then one has to perform a similar sort of trick as Ivor, or otherwise engage in a species of doublethink. Hence my statement earlier in the thread that anyone who claims that Pauline Hanson is not a racist is deluding themselves.

  87. Tim Macknay
    March 30th, 2017 at 11:11 | #87

    Prof Q, I have a comment in moderation. I assure you it does not contain anything inflammatory or contrary to the comments policy.

  88. Tim Macknay
    March 30th, 2017 at 16:19 | #88

    Germaine Steiner, I have a comment in automod – the gist of it is as follows. I confess I’m bemused at your and others’ determination to protect Pauline Hanson from being tarred with the ‘r’ word. It confirms for me the truth of Professor Quiggin’s observation that the only real political correctness in Australia is that you’re not allowed to call anyone a r-cist. It seems to me that to give Ms Hanson’s various attacks on different racial and ethnic groups the relatively innocuous construction you suggest, it would be necessary to ignore significant parts of what she has said, and their tone, not to mention their effects.

  89. may
    March 31st, 2017 at 13:01 | #89

    so the gist seems to be whether agricultural producers (of whatever) have control over the disposal of their produce?

  90. may
    March 31st, 2017 at 13:10 | #90

    as for racism, it seems to be ground into a basic fear of strangers.

    and often goes both ways.

    familiarity, minus strict separation policies, allowing communication without having to put up with
    preaching superiority in ones’ personal space seems to have worked reasonably well in OZ.

    i personally think P H is doing a sort of back handed service to the country in bringing the festering subject into focus.

    and into discussion.

  91. may
    March 31st, 2017 at 13:23 | #91

    sorry about the missing comma.

Comments are closed.