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
John Quiggin 
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.
Then maybe the growers should set up some co-op mills and bring it all back into the family.
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 ?
@Smith
And how, exactly, would David Marr be expected to know that ?
Really ? And how is it that this is definitively known ? And what happened in WA ? Did the ALP only win on ONP preferences ?
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
@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.
@Smith
Goodoh, thanks.
Well they made sense to me, what was your problem ?
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 ?
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.
@Julie Thomas
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.
@John Quiggin
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.
@GrueBleen
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/
I confess I’m struggling to see what the benefit of this proposed approach would be.
@Tim Macknay
Err, you mean the Kosmos Sanaras approach ?
@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.
@GrueBleen
Sorry, my comment wasn’t very clear. I meant the approach suggested in the OP.
@Smith
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” ?
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?
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.
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.
You’re blocked. I really don’t have the time to deal with apologists for racism
@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.
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.
@Svante
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.
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.
@Julie Thomas
But does that amount to racism and by which/whose definition ?
He’s playing goody-twoshoes again ? He never stops, does he.
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.
@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.
@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
@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.
@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?
@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.
@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.
” 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?
@John Quiggin
” Since race is an entirely spurious concept, used only by racists, ”
Yes.
@GrueBleen
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.
@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.
@John Quiggin
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
Putting ON last means not putting LNP last. This is a difficult decision to make.
@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.
@Donald Oats
Toss a coin.
“But by all means, ban away, ProfQ. ” OK, done.
“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.
@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.
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.
“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.
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.