Reciprocating Hanson’s boycott (reposted from 2017)

I posted this in 2017. Not many people agreed with me, but I think my positiion has been justified by events. Hanson and One Nation have no legitimate place in public life.

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

68 thoughts on “Reciprocating Hanson’s boycott (reposted from 2017)

  1. It’s only Hanson plus one nowadays and the Senate is hardly sitting before the election anyway.

    The more interest question is preferences at the election. If the LNP puts ON last in the Senate (not counting those who are even worse) then in effect they are directing their surplus votes to Labor or the Greens.

  2. This morning I hear Morrison announced a formal lowered cap on migration numbers to 160k. Shorten has announced a big cut in overseas temps and a supposed willingness to ‘discuss’ migration later. In the light of Hanson and varied company more long overdue duopoly developments along those lines are to come.

  3. Pauline Hanson has not helped the immigration debate at all. Racist rationales for limiting immigration simply muddy the waters and get sustainability advocacy, for a stable population and lowered immigration rate, smeared with the same imputations of racist motivation.

    The imputations are correct in the case of Hanson, Anning and their populist base. The imputations are not correct in the case of sustainability advocacy per se. Lowered acceptance rates for voluntary immigration in and of itself does not imply nor require racist selection criteria.

  4. Agreed, Ikonoclast, but there is realpolitik, and the skinning of cats of whom rather fat moneyed ones acting together have controlled the issue, indeed they’ve dominated the entire territory here.

  5. Digressing, my recollection is that a large foreign own miller managed to gain control of the market and then drastically lowered prices paid to growers…more “Free Trade”.

    Most people see through Hanson, but her little battler shtick works well in an era of not unjustified fear of globalisation of the neo-liberal financialised kind.

  6. Continuing on from anonymous who is actually me, I’d have to say the utter dishonesty shown by politicians of all colors as to the implications of FTAS, funny deals etc, details kept opaque and undiscussed before clandestine agreement on such policies, has been a big factor in creating exactly the sort of Kafkaesque unease that creates fear of labour market dismantling, social infrastructure cutting, dumbing down and surveillance that keeps so much of Hansonist etc easy answers open as an option in a information desert.

    We can really think of an equivalence with “Insider Trading”, where the public are stake holders kept out, surely only for their disadvantage, against the narrow and self oriented interests of big business and big politics.

  7. could there be something to be said for the way the electoral system throws up this kind of minority malevolence?

    a minority (yes. minority.) and we would all of us have come across the occasional individual who is in full agreement or just “goes along to get along”, with the fear, anger and thoughtless alarm of well presented spite that is on show.(the newness of the internet exacerbates this but is not the cause)

    having this in full view lets us know what we have to face.

    and i would rather see it for what it is than have it come out of nowhere.
    especially, when, pointing to previous historical mistakes of trying to accommodate or wait out the rash of murderers the historical mistakes let loose, is severely frowned apon.
    apparently saying “lest we forget” is a no no.
    godwin sez “you lose”
    as far as i’m concerned when i hear “godwin”, i think “grech”(i got caught i’m so depressed)

    anning was elected with 19 primary votes?
    that means the front runners were rejected by a majority of the votes.
    his chances of being re-elected are nil.

    the help hansen has received from the coalition has ensured the ramshackle thought bubble has a vote. as long as she remains a “useful idiot” the coalition will use her.(and help her)

  8. Paul Walter, I agree with your points.

    may, only e.e. cummings can carry off no caps. 😉

  9. It is important to engage with Pauline Hanson and with those who support here. About half of Australians want migration from Muslim countries to be cut. It is not, at all, a minority viewpoint. If they are wrong – and I think they are – then it is important convince them not just to say their views are illegitimate and should not be heard. A major attraction of Hanson is her claim that she represents the silenced and to some extent she does.


    1. The problems of an excessively high immigration intake are mainly not race or religion specific. Congestion in our cities, slow wage growth, high housing prices and the destruction of our biodiversity base are, if anything, linked to population size – the environmental issues also too to the role of agriculture – not to the racial or religious identity of immigrants. I agree with Iconoclast on this.

    2. Muslims are in the main victims of Muslim terrorism rather than perpetrators – the killings that occur very frequently in countries such as Pakistan attest to this. The identification of Islam with terrorism is inaccurate and hypocritical given the West’s actions. The aim of terrorists is to create a civil war between Islam and the West and anti-Muslim attitudes help to realise these terrorist plans.

    3. Problems of unemployed immigrants with high levels of social welfare dependence reflected bad entry procedures under, for example, the Fraser Government. For equity reasons and also to benefit from skill externalities we should mainly target skilled immigrants in our intakes. The economic impacts of having many unskilled immigrants fall mainly on disadvantaged Australians as well as the taxpayer. Again this is not a race or religious issue but a question of immigration program design.

    4. There are biases in society against accepting the new or unfamiliar. In the past we have had this with Italian, Vietnamese and more recently Chinese and African immigrants. The consequent changes create social anxiety which dissipates as familiarity increases. Immigration authorities need to be aware of this and not move too quickly but we also as a society need to be aware of our own biases.

    I remember the shock to my own preconceptions and biases when I first became friendly with Muslim students. It isn’t just an abstract endorsement of such people – at a human level you need to intuit the commonalities.

    If you dismiss Hanson as a racist bogan you are missing the point that she does represent real fears even if she is neither particularly intelligent or articulate in doing so.

  10. @harry Clarke

    Can we put to bed once and for all, at least on this blog, the idea that Hanson represents the “silenced”? How are they silenced? They can say whatever they want on social media. In the mainstream media, their views are represented by all the tabloid newspapers, the only national broadsheet, on television (Sky News) on radio (2GB for sure and probably other stations).

    If the answer is that they are not silenced as such but their views are ignored by the powers that be, then that is also bollocks. The Prime Minister himself is an on again, off again, race baiter, depending on what is expedient at the time, and the Minister for Home Affairs, who has immense power, is an on again and again and again race baiter. The Hanson supporters have had the rails run since September 2013 and if they are too dumb to realise it then there’s nothing anybody can do for them.

  11. Puting aside for a moment the even bigger more relevent issues, if Australia or Germany or the USA or the UK, would selectively go through pool of potential immigrants and pick and choose those that had skills which would allow them to quickly find jobs in their new homeland then these industrialized countries would be taking those people who are most capable of adding value to the nations that they are comming from.
    More attention should have been paid to the development of these other countries by the former colonialists starting back in the 1950s. But in addition to that we needed to recognize that the Catholic Church’s impracticle position on population control was an extremely distructive force which has caused an even bigger problem in creating a society that a lover of Truth and Justice would have smiled upon.
    The Communists Chinese were the only people who handled the Catholic Church in a manner that was fitting for the Catholic Church. Speaking of the God of Truth and Justice and Reasonableness (which has nothing to do with a Biblical God) I think that it is time for me to return to the sand pit and pound some more sand.

  12. We hear talk of, or occasionally are allowed to hear of, or made to hear of: Immigration; Skills shortage; Water; Aging demographic; Congestion; Migration; Climate destruction; Agricultural degradation; Regions; Market size; Defence; Economy; Infrastructure; Jobs; GDP; GDP per capita; Training; Sustainability; Wages; Housing; Environment; Quality of life; Race…

    Spun the same lines round and round we’re sent, many bewildered, some diverted, misdirected, and deceived. Some at each other’s throats! Any reasonably adept lip reader would see that the issue is POPULATION! Is there a population policy? Is it benign? Is it acceptable to the majority? What serves as the default population policy currently? Who makes it? Who benefits? What is a proper population policy? What should it be? How should it be arrived at and administered – openly, arbitrarily, scientifically, democratically, commercially, sneakily, or by a deep state bureaucratically?

    Read my lips: Royal Commission into Population. Now!

  13. Hanson might not be intelligent but she is smart – even here she has everybody talking about her, some in support of her…..policies….prejudices….politics?

    Hanson has no expertise, she is a racist and does not deserve to be included in any discussion. But there she is, bobbing up on all sorts of media, keeping the fake fear factor bubbling along. Real issues, like climate change, are not even acknowledged.

  14. rog,

    This all says more about our media and those who manipulate it than it says about Hanson. She’s a useful cypher. She is a nonentity to the powers that use her and a method of delivering a (not very) coded message. Indeed, her message is often quite open. It is the source of the message that is coded. She’s a front for a message from hidden sources.

  15. Harry: “About half of Australians want migration from Muslim countries to be cut.”

    As the article states, Fairfax’s polls showed this is virtually the same number of Australians (46%) who wanted immigration cuts from all countries (45%).

    Table 29:

    15-22% of Australians believe it should be possible for immigrants to be rejected on the basis of race or ethnicity.
    18-29% of Australians believe it should be possible for immigrants to be rejected on the basis of religion.

    Table 35:

    23-39% of Australians have a ‘somewhat negative’ or ‘very negative’ personal attitude towards Muslims.

    Table 27 is also worth looking at.

  16. There has been a number of polls and about 50% are against Muslim immigration. seems to be consistent figure.

    Those polled were not particularly knowledgable re Muslim immigration so I guess it was an attitude picked up along the way.

  17. rog, two of those polls are the ones referred to above. The third (Essential, 24 April 2018) didn’t ask about Muslims.

  18. Smith9:

    Can we put to bed once and for all, at least on this blog, the idea that Hanson represents the “silenced”? How are they silenced? They can say whatever they want on social media. In the mainstream media, their views are represented by all the tabloid newspapers, the only national broadsheet, on television (Sky News) on radio (2GB for sure and probably other stations).

    If the answer is that they are not silenced as such but their views are ignored by the powers that be, then that is also bollocks.

    Mainstream folk, including mainstream left wing folk, are repeatedly silenced by the Regressive Left, which for the time being is the dominant paradigm in academia and progressive media outlets such as The Guardian. It is the Regressive Left who, inter alia, deplatform people like Richard Dawkins.

    It is ironic and emblematic of the problem that the moderate Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, who apparently coined the term Regressive Left, ended up on the Southern Poverty Law Centre’s extremist hit list.


    My apologies if I’ve triggered anyone.

  19. Perhaps the question could be, “do we need high immigration at all, when two-three million people already here are un or underemployed as it is?”

  20. It is the Regressive Left who, inter alia, deplatform people like Richard Dawkins.

    Here is Richard Dawkins’ web site

    which anyone can read and which conveniently lists his upcoming lectures and sells tickets to his events.

    His Twitter feed has 2.8 million followers. You can buy all his books on Amazon. You can follow him on Facebook.

    If the objective of the regressive left is to deplatform Richard Dawkins, they are wildly unsuccessful.

    There are places where people are silenced, such as China, Russia and Turkey (to pick a topical example). Nobody is silenced in Australia or like countries.

  21. What is this “regressive left” nonsense?

    Anyone who disagrees with the detestable neoliberal ideology and policy of high unemployment??

  22. Just spotted this online for the benefit of the snide idiots who talk of the “regressive” left.

    Here is your ally, Alan Tudge, the man responsible for robodebt at a time when millions have been un or underemployed.

    Beter regressive left than the ilk of Tudge?

    And how do poor countries make up for their shortfalls of skilled labour, btw?

    Better regressive left than neo liberal fascist.

Comments are closed.