Tag: Pauline Hanson

The Three Disciples and the Triangle of Hope

2017 will see the demise the of Liberal Party as we knew it. No longer will it be a centre-right party espousing a broad-church base, instead it will be an extreme centre or mild centre left party with a base that is made up of progressive moderates. Many conservative members of the Liberal Party have resigned. Some have decided to go with another political party and others are waiting to see what progresses so that they can find their new home. As far as I can see, there are three alternatives in our political landscape which could house ex liberal members. Lets call them the three disciples. Together they are The Triangle of Hope.

On the bottom far right side of the Triangle of Hope we see Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. One Nation has proven to be an effective player on the electoral scene. Social policies such as climate change, tough immigration, tough on crime, and tough on welfare attracts conservatives however their economic viewpoints – which historically united the liberals – veers to the left of politics. They do believe in protectionism on industry and they aren’t fond of free trade. This could be a major turn off for conservatives. Many conservatives believe in economic freedom therefore no regulations should interfere with economic progress. On the other hand to give credit where it is due, Pauline Hanson and One Nation have treated many economic issues on merit rather than having a blanket rule approach. For example One Nation does not believe in foreign ownership, however they do support the Adani Coal Mine in Townsville. This shows that One Nation is willing to negotiate for the good of the nation in particularly when it comes to jobs. Organisationally however Pauline Hanson’s One Nation belongs to Pauline Hanson. It is her Party. This will not gel with conservatives. One of the main reasons why many conservatives within the Liberal Party are leaving is because the membership is not allowed a voice. If One Nation wants to pick up these conservative votes then they need to change their organisational structure. Otherwise conservatives will look to others within the Triangle of Hope.

On the bottom far left side of the Triangle of Hope we see the Liberal Democratic Party. The LDP have a libertarian slant to their policies. They stand for low taxes, small government and individual responsibility. This sounds more like a conservative party however whilst they may feel at home with their economic viewpoints they may struggle to comprehend their social policies. The LDP do believe in legalising same sex marriage (but protecting religions from being sued if they refuse to marry same sex couples), legalisation of drugs, prostitution, abortions and euthanasia. At the end of the day they believe that humans should be free to make decisions about their own lives without the nanny state interfering. Whilst conservatives don’t believe in the ‘nanny state’ as such these policies are not something conservatives feel strongly about, many conservatives despise prostitution, abortions and euthanasia. As for the organisational structure of the LDP it is not based on personalities unlike Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. All members have a say and this is a potential win for conservatives.

Is there a better way? Finally on top of the Triangle of Hope we see the Australian Conservatives. A newly formed Conservative Party founded by former Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi. The Party believes in advocating for building a sustainable and prosperous economy and maintaining civil society. What does this mean? Well as the Party has just only been founded there are no exact policies on issues however when you go through Hansard and other media outlets and you read up on Senator Cory Bernardi, you will find that he believes in the free market, limited Government, personal responsibility, and a civil society (traditional Judeo-Christian values). The party also believes in democratic processes therefore according to it’s website, all party members will have a say on party matters. According to Paul Murray Live (3/7/2017) the Australian Conservatives in NSW have already reached 4,000 members, this is impressive hence why it is on top of the Triangle of Hope.

Conservatives in Australia have a choice. They could continue to stick with the Liberal Party and be frustrated with being powerless and support leftist policies such as the folly of renewable energy targets, open borders and gay marriage. Alternatively they could consider the Triangle of Hope. Australian Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. These three disciples have potential to shape our nation. There are options and there is a better way.

 

Banning Islam is not the answer but………….

There is a lot of talk at the moment about the thought of banning Islam in Australia. Queensland Senator, and Leader of One Nation, Pauline Hanson has introduced this as part of her policy. Senator Hanson has recognised that before banning Islam, constitutional constraints hold this policy back. 

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution states:

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonweath

One Nation has called for a Royal Commission into Islam to see whether or not it is a religion or a political ideology. By determining whether it is a political ideology or a religion, Senator Hanson believes this will solve the constitutional constraint to ban Islam.

The concern I have with such Royal Commission is that any religion that has a vast history such as Islam will always be determined as a religion not a political ideology. All religions have a certain degree of political ideology and that is due to it’s past existance. For example you only have to look at the Roman Empire to see that it had a catholic ideology behind it’s governance. Therefore having a Royal Commision into Islam would be a waste of time, effort and taxpayers money. 

One Nation could adopt a policy whereby that they will push to have a referendum to ammend section 116 of the Australian Constitution. This referendum would also cost taxpayers a lot of money and with a Double Majority rule for constitutional change, could mean that such move could be lost. Not many referendums are successful. On the otherhand One Nation will be giving the people a say on the matter.

The other areas where One Nation could focus their attention is to adopt a discriminatory immigration policy. One Nation has already upset the apple cart by saying that they want to ban Islam – as I pointed out this is hard to do – so by having a discriminatory immigration policy whereby there is a halt of immigration on those from Islamic Arab Nations, will slow down the rise of Islam in Australia and will not hinder One Nation’s political capital.

Many on the left, centre and even the right will say that we can’t have a discriminatory immigration program as it will take us back to the White Australia Policy – the fact is Australia already has a discriminatory immigration policy, we discriminate on the basis of health and occupation therefore this argument is flawed. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation as I see it right now is the only hope for Australia to follow in Trumps lead, they just need to clean up their policies first. 

A Green View of Democracy

Australia is such a wonderful place, amongst its pristine beaches and warm weather it espouses a Greek concept called Democracy. A system whereby we are all equal, no one is above the law and that we all must have equal access to the legislative process. Every three years Australians go to the polls to vote in a federal government. This notion is envied in many countries which don’t hold democracy as part of their values.

Sadly, there are some people who want to take advantage of the principles of democracy. On Wednesday 30th November 2016 protestors stormed Parliament House, glued their hands to railings and disrupted a democratic process called Question Time.
The Greens praised these ill-informed nitwits, congratulating them and saying that they are proud of their actions. Those with any form of decency have condemned the actions of these Marxists, but I note many on the left have stated that this is their democratic right to protest. As mentioned, Australia does have a proud history of the concept of Democracy, however there is a huge difference between protesting peacefully outside, and protesting in a house whereby it has rules and regulations to uphold the very same principle we espouse; DEMOCRACY.

What we have seen today is a Green View of Democracy. A viewpoint whereby we must shut down debate that is in opposition to the left-wing agenda. Those nitwit Marxists who protested today were not exercising their democratic right to protest, what they were doing was shutting down freedom of speech.
The right are not innocent either, I was the first to complain when the right stormed Gosford Anglican Church dressed as Islamists and disrupted the service provided by Father Rod, the difference between that incident and the one today at Parliament House, was that all those on the right, including Pauline Hanson, condemned the actions of those involved.

Richard Di Natale, as the Greens Party leader you must show leadership and condemn these actions and inform these protestors to go elsewhere to protest rather than holding our democratic process to ransom. Adam Bandt needs to apologies for his ungodly tweet praising the protestors and the rest of the Greens need to be educated on the concept of DEMOCRACY.

Having a leg on the Trump Train was everything but in vain.

Having a leg on the Trump Train was everything but in vain.

American politics is something that I never really was interested in. Their system compared to the Westminster system is confusing and this is merely due to my ignorance. As a right wing advocate I have always leaned towards the Republican Party rather than the Democrats. I believe in low taxes, less spending and more protection of borders. In saying that I do believe in government assistance to the most vulnerable in our society. What we have seen in America and around the world, are leaders who have dismissed these beliefs and have only pushed agenda’s according to whoever has donated the most to their election campaign. The 2016 Presidential Election campaign offered a real alternative to the status quo of politics, Hillary Clinton was seen to represent the establishment whilst Donald Trump in the eyes of many political commentators represented the ‘forgotten people’. Never in my time have we seen two presidential candidates that had complete opposition views on issues, mind you I am only young.

Hillary Clinton is a polished politician with many decades of political ‘wisdom’ and ‘astuteness’, her husband is a former President and Hillary Clinton herself was a lawyer. This provided the Clinton Campaign both pro’s and negatives. Pro in that she has had experience in government and as a ‘leader’ but negative in that the electorate saw her as a typical politician.
Donald Trump isn’t a politician, he is a businessman, a multimillionaire and a reality tv star.
On face value Donald Trump appeared to be a ‘Clive Palmer’ of US politics and at times I agreed with this notion. Under the bedrock of this idea the electorate felt that they needed change, and like many countries around the world this change is growing; you can only look at the rise of UKIP, Gert Wilders Party and in Australia, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.

I had a leg on the Trump train because of three reasons.
Firstly, as mentioned earlier, I believe in three principles;
1. Low Taxes
2. Low Spending (whilst protecting the most vulnerable)
3. Strong Border Protection
Unfortunately Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have never held these beliefs. The Democrats like the Australian Labor Party believe in higher taxes to be able to afford more social programs rather than empowering people to find work and earn a living. As Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott once said “..the best form of welfare is a job.” This is something the left no matter where you are in the world does not believe in.
In regards to Border Protection, this clearly has been an issue in America, like it is currently in most Western Countries, the only candidate that addressed this issue regardless of how extreme it is which in my opinion isn’t that extreme, was Trump.
Automatically I was compelled towards the trump factor.
Second reason why I had a leg on the Trump train is because around the world the media have been taken over by left-wing liberal socialists who kept down-playing the rise of support for Trump. We saw this during the Brexit campaign. As a result of this bias I felt that supporting trump would be putting the middle finger up to the chardonnay latte sipping socialists.
Thirdly, the Western World needs change, and given that United States of America are the leaders of the Western World it is important that this change starts with them. The fact that Trump now is President it makes it easier for people to vote for an alternative political party or candidate. It sends a message to the electorate, regardless of country, that it is okay to vote for UKIP, it is okay to vote for One Nation, it is okay to vote for Gert Wilde. This is a game changer.

These reasons why I had a leg on the Trump train clearly has resonated across America. I was over in New York during the election. All media outlets, including the ultra right-wing Fox News even thought Trump wasn’t going to win prior to the closing of the Polls. What we have seen is a revolution. The electorate wants action, they want change, they want to be listened to. This is a wake up call to both the media and our political elites that the system they have put in, under the right circumstances, can actually backfire on them. People Power.

Myth Busters on Pauline Hanson

Well she did it. She told the rabble back in 1998 that she will be back, and she is, this time bigger than ever. Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Party have secured FOUR senate seats. This is impressive considering two years ago they were a distant memory plagued with infighting and internal abyss.

Given that she is back with a vengeance, the left and her opponents on the right continue to spread several myths about her despite many media commentators such as Andrew Bolt, Rowan Dean, Paul Murray, Miranda Devine and others share Pauline’s beliefs on certain issues. Lets explore these myths about Pauline Hanson.

  • Pauline Hanson hates Asians.

“We are in danger of being swamped by Asians….”

A famous quote which lead the racism label on Pauline Hanson. The only critical thing here that I can say is she used poor choice of words on the matter. The fact is we are in danger of being swamped, not by Asians but by the Chinese. RACIST!! BIGOT!! I hear people shout. Well let us explore more.

We have seen already the impact Chinese buyers have on the housing market, and despite that some economists are saying it’s slowing, many Australians have been pushed out of the Market. The dream of buying your own home no longer exists.

The other issue is Chinese companies, which have links with China’s Communist Party are buying up Prime Agricultural Land as well as buying infrastructure such as Ausgrid. Even Scott Morrison, the Federal Treasurer has concerns about this and blocked it.

To rub salt into the wound, we have heard allegations that links to Chinese Communist Party have been donating money to the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party. These three issues that I have mentioned should send alarm bells to the Australian people, now when Pauline Hanson said we are in danger of being swamped by Asians, what more proof do we need? Do we really want Australia to be a communist nation? Controlled by the Chinese elite? This myth that Pauline Hanson hates Asians is simplistic and all it does it stifles debate on serious issues that affect Australia. MYTH BUSTED.

  • Pauline Hanson hates Aboriginals.

This comes from Hanson’s maiden speech where she called to abolish ATSIC and to reform the welfare system so that everyone is treated equally.

Well from memory, the Liberals abolished ATSIC because of the corrupt nature it was spewing from its offices. This is exactly what Hanson was talking about in her maiden speech in 1996.

Reforming the welfare system to ensure that everyone regardless of race, colour or creed does not make Hanson hate Aboriginal people. Australia is in debt, and the debt is rising. Unemployment is also rising. Therefore by abolishing some welfare payments and rolling them into one whereby no one is treated any different actually serves the Aboriginal community with more respect. Many Aboriginal leaders have come out and have said exactly what Hanson has been saying, such as former Labor National President Warren Mundine. Again this myth that Hanson hates aboriginal people is wrong and ignores the real issue within indigenous communities. MYTH BUSTED.

  • Pauline Hanson is Islamophobic

With the ever-increasing threat of Islamic Extremism within Western Civilisation, Pauline Hanson has called for the following:

  • Royal Commission into Islam
  • No More Islamic Migration
  • No More Mosques
  • CCTV In Mosques

The fact is any attack on citizens whereby the suspect shouts “Allah Akbar” has everything to do with religion and nothing to do with mental health.

Our political leaders are soft on this issue. Former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott did touch on the issue and was tackling it, however extreme left winger – I say extreme because the Liberal Party is suppose to be a right wing party – Malcolm Turnbull has tip toed around the issue of Islamic Extremism.

Pauline Hanson’s approach may seem extreme, however in extreme circumstance, extreme measures need to be implement rather than hash tags, feel good slogans and government funded community programs.

Firstly I’m going to discuss the Royal Commission issue. Hanson does need to define the terms of reference on this, because yes it is a religion and yes has some political ideology. All religions at some point have political leanings. We can see this with the Christian Democratic Party and Family First Party.

Having the terms of reference, which investigates all aspects of the religion, is warranted such as Halal Certification, Sharia Law practices within our community, and potential terror links attached to certain mosques. Calling for this does not make one islamophobic, the term should be ‘Islamoaware’.

The other issue stopping Islamic migration has caused howling from the left saying that we do not want a discriminatory migration program. Well in actual fact we already have a discriminatory immigration policy. We discriminate on the basis of health and occupation, therefore why can’t we discriminate on the basis of religion and culture? As one former Prime Minister said.

“We decide who comes into this country and the circumstance they come…”

We ought to have a policy whereby the culture has greater chance of assimilating to the host culture; otherwise we will create ghettos of hostility like Europe is currently experiencing.

The issue with Hanson’s other policies such as calling for a halt of mosques and CCTV is that is it all practical? This is a debate for another time.

Does all this make Hanson islamophobic? It depends on the definition of Islamophobia. The left argue that Islamophobia is hatred towards Islam, but when you break down the words, phobia means scared. Therefore is she scared of Islam? Well I’m not going to answer on Hanson’s behalf but if she says yes, then she has every right to be scared of Islam. So the myth of is Hanson Islamophobic? Well that is dependent on the definition of Islamophobia but using the lefts definition that she hates Muslims – MYTH BUSTED.

  • Hanson has no economic credibility.

As a Conservative Libertarian, I do sometimes find myself at odds with Hanson and One Nation’s economic platform. To say however that Hanson has no economic credibility is and should be, insulting to small business owners in Australia. Prior to 1996 Pauline Hanson was a small business owner, the infamous fish and chip shop. To own a small business and to employ staff must show that one has some economic credibility.

If you go to Pauline Hanson’s Facebook page and see the people who have liked her posts, and you explore their profiles many are either self-employed or a manager or managing directors of companies. This tells me that Hanson must have some credibility otherwise these people would not go near Hanson.
Hanson might not have the same view as most economists, but she does hold particular views that in the past have brought nations out from the abyss. This myth is BUSTED.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party has a long way to go in terms of policy development especially when there are upcoming State Elections looming. One Nation as a political force does need to revise their policies and to educate the public what they do stand for, because otherwise the left and Hanson’s opponents will continue to spew out false myths which will unfortunately stifle debate on issues that need to be discussed.
In saying that, the party has just begun and I say to Pauline Hanson, Congratulations and look forward to seeing One Nation grow to be a major player in Australian Politics.

Is One Nation, Australia’s UKIP?

When the Liberal Party knifed Tony Abbott last year they should have known that it would create controversy amongst the rank and file conservatives who pay $100 a year to be Party members. They should have also known that non party members who lean towards the right would also be disgruntled to see a Malcolm Turnbull resurrection. Unfortunately they believed that Malcolm Turnbull, despite alienating the right, would attract those on the left and subsequently those on the right would still vote Liberal because let’s be honest, do we want a Labor Government? Little did the Liberal Party elite know that someone, a blast from the past, a nagging former Liberal and a figurehead for the right was working tirelessly to reform her political party and provide an alternative to the two major parties. Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party.

Pauline Hanson became famous in 1996 when she stood up and spoke what the majority were thinking, she formed Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party in 1997 but failed to retain her seat in 1998 Federal Election but her party gained one senate seat in Queensland. The Queensland based Party gained 11 seats in State Parliament, 8 more seats than the Liberal Party, the Liberals had a measly 3 seats. In Western Australia in 2001 it gained 3 upper house seats and produced 3 excellent MLC’s. Problems arose for One Nation with infighting rife in all state divisions of the Party and ultimately it destroyed itself from within. Last year, Pauline Hanson took over the reigns of the Party and rebrand it with a new colourful Logo. It has produced policies, or broad policy statements if we want to get technical that doesn’t just talk about Immigration. Pauline Hanson has managed to improve her public speaking skills and has managed to get with the times with the use of social media and acquiring a plane which has the party logo on it, not as big as Clive Palmer’s plane though. Pauline has also obtained a vehicle which is heavily signed, great form of advertising. Pauline Hanson has been invited on many news programs such as Paul Murray Live, Today Show, Sunrise and has been heard on many radio stations. It’s safe to say Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Political Party is back and is ready to fill that void the Liberal Party has created by knifing Tony Abbott. The question remains though, can Pauline Hanson do it? Can One Nation ultimately rise to be the third major conservative voice in Australian Politics? In other words, is One Nation the UKIP of Australia?

As mentioned in previous posts we have seen a rise in the number of right-wing political parties such as:

  • Rise Up Australia
  • Australian Liberty Alliance
  • Katters Australia Party
  • Australia First
  • Hinch Justice Party
  • Jacquie Lambie Network
  • and more! 

The difference between these political parties and One Nation is Pauline Hanson. Pauline Hanson is a great figurehead for One Nation, her brand has been around since 1996 and the party gained a lot of electoral support. It has been proven without Pauline Hanson the party failed to continue to sustain their electoral successes.
There has been talk that many disgruntled Liberals have gone over to the newly created Australian Liberty Alliance but unfortunately they have not gained much media attention unlike Hanson therefore it would be hard to see ALA as a potential third major conservative party, this leaves One Nation on top.

The issue now is can Pauline Hanson’s One Nation continue to rise? In order to cement themselves to be that third major conservative force it is imperative that Pauline Hanson is elected into the Senate in Queensland. If she is elected into the Senate, it will give One Nation Political Party some focus, a means for people to join. At the moment they are classified as a micro party, with a member of parliament, people will see that One Nation has potential and purpose. If Pauline Hanson fails to win a senate seat, I think it could be over for One Nation as an organisation unless they remain focus and on top of the issues especially if Malcolm Turnbull or Bill Shorten remain as leaders of their retrospective parties.

I see great things for One Nation, the knifing of Tony Abbott and the infighting amongst the factions within the Liberal Party is a blessing in disguise for Australia as it does open the door for a third major conservative political party. It makes sense for One Nation to fill that void as it has already been established, has community recognition, has a figurehead and a potential youth movement called Young Nation, which can be reformed. It all comes down to whether or not Hanson can gain that senate seat.