AGENT PROVICATEUR

No personal ties whatsoever: No Jewish family, heritage, friends in public record, no visits to Israel, no meetings with Israeli leaders beyond standard political ones, no history of studying Hebrew, attending synagogue events, or engaging with Jewish culture or religion. Very little knowledge of Judaism or Zionism, either; no deeper discussion of Torah, Jewish law, holidays, diaspora history, or theology.  Any claim of meaningful connection to Judaism or Zionism is rubbish; it's 100% political signalling, not coming from any personal history or expertise. And that pretty much sums up her entire political life.

Her entire political career has been based on grievance politics and white victimhood. Her ”no good Muslims” comment sums it all up.  One of the most controversial figures in Australian public life, yet one of the least productive. Since entering federal Parliament in 1996, she has built a political career on confrontation, grievance and disruption. Her supporters describe her as fearless and authentic. I just see a pattern of division, provocation and poor judgement. But any fair assessment has to consider both the political influence she has wielded and the legal and ethical controversies that have followed her and her party.

She first rose to prominence after being disendorsed by the Liberal Party and winning the Queensland seat of Oxley as an independent. Her maiden speech, warning that Australia was in danger of being swamped by Asians, triggered widespread condemnation and cemented her reputation as a populist nationalist. She soon formed Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, capitalising on voter dissatisfaction with major parties and tapping into anxieties about immigration, Indigenous policy and economic restructuring.

From the outset, One Nation struggled with internal governance. In 2003, Hanson and party official David Ettridge were convicted of electoral fraud relating to the party’s registration in Queensland. Prosecutors argued the party had falsely claimed at least 500 members to qualify for registration. Hanson was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and spent 11 weeks in jail before the Queensland Court of Appeal overturned the convictions, finding the law had been misapplied. Legally, she was cleared. Politically, however, the episode reinforced perceptions of administrative incompetence and instability within her movement.

Legal trouble has not been confined to Hanson alone. Over the years, several One Nation candidates and members have been embroiled in controversy, including charges of campaign irregularities, offensive conduct, and extremist comments. While not all incidents resulted in convictions, the recurring pattern of problematic candidates has raised questions about the party's vetting standards. Critics argue this reflects a loose, personality-driven structure. Supporters counter that minor parties with limited resources inevitably face growing pains.

Hanson’s conduct inside Parliament has also drawn attention. In 2017, she entered the Senate chamber wearing a full burqa as a stunt to argue for banning the garment. The move was widely condemned, including by then Attorney-General George Brandis, who warned it risked alienating Muslim Australians and undermining national security efforts that rely on community cooperation. Even some conservatives considered the gesture theatrical and counterproductive. To her base, it was a dramatic demonstration of conviction. To many others, it trivialised a complex issue and inflamed social tensions.

She wore the blue-and-white scarf with the Israeli flag/Star of David and Hebrew lettering ("ישראל" visible) during a Greens motion commemorating the Nakba. The acting Senate president ordered her to remove it because it was a political slogan on clothing, which is not allowed. She took it off but used the moment to blast the motion as a "stunt" by Labor/Greens to chase Muslim votes, defend Israel's right to exist, and highlight Jewish safety concerns in Australia.

There have been other performative moments. Hanson has brought props into the chamber, staged walkouts, and used blunt slogans to attract media coverage. This strategy has arguably been central to her political survival. In a crowded media environment, spectacle ensures attention. The cost is a degradation of parliamentary standards and a shift from policy substance to headline-grabbing symbolism. She’s dragged us into the gutter.

On policy, Hanson has consistently opposed high levels of immigration, multiculturalism as an official framework, and what she describes as special treatment for minority groups. She has called for restrictions on Muslim immigration, a royal commission into Islam, and bans on religious dress in certain settings. Civil rights advocates and many legal scholars argue that such proposals conflict with Australia’s anti-discrimination framework and constitutional principles. They also contend that singling out religious communities fuels prejudice and weakens social cohesion. My opinion is a tad less wordy: there’s no room for ignorant, toxic, racist runts in Parliament.

Her economic platform is harder to categorise. It combines protectionist instincts, scepticism of privatisation, opposition to foreign ownership of strategic assets, and support for certain forms of government spending. At times, she has championed rural industries and criticised supermarket duopolies, positioning herself as a defender of small business and regional Australia. In Senate negotiations, One Nation has occasionally leveraged its votes to influence legislation, particularly where governments lack a clear majority.

And here’s my favourite: the NRA fiasco. One Nation chief of staff James Ashby and Queensland leader Steve Dickson had secretly met with the US National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups in Washington in September 2018. Hidden camera footage showed them seeking up to $20 million in political donations while discussing ways to soften Australia's strict gun laws and gain influence in parliament. They also endorsed NRA-style strategies for responding to mass shootings. The revelations sparked outrage, especially given the timing, just before Australia banned foreign political donations, and came amid heightened sensitivity following the Christchurch mosque attacks. One Nation denied any wrongdoing, with Hanson calling it a "hit piece" by Qatari state media, Ashby claiming they were "on the sauce", and the party insisting no money was received and no laws broken. No donations eventuated, and the Australian Electoral Commission found no breach of electoral laws since the discussions occurred overseas. Hanson, Ashby and Dickson got off lightly; they should still be in jail.

Yet despite repeated controversies, Hanson has demonstrated remarkable durability. After losing her lower house seat in 1998 and enduring years outside Parliament, she returned to the Senate in 2016. That comeback signalled a persistent constituency for her brand of politics. Distrust of elites, frustration over economic insecurity, and anxiety about cultural change, pure unadulterated racism and bigotry have not disappeared from Australian society. Hanson has consistently positioned herself as the vessel for those sentiments.

Supporters argue she has forced major parties to confront issues they would prefer to avoid, particularly around immigration levels and regional neglect. They credit her with shifting national debates and with giving voice to voters who feel sidelined by metropolitan political culture. But while raising concerns is legitimate, framing them through racial or religious generalisations carries long-term social costs.

In weighing the record, it becomes clear that Hanson’s career is defined far more by controversy and theatrics than by policy. Her time in jail, though ultimately overturned, remains a defining chapter. Her parliamentary stunts have ensured visibility but also drawn censure. Her party’s recurrent internal dramas have reinforced perceptions of volatility. At the same time, her electoral persistence shows she represents more than a passing protest; she reflects enduring currents within Australian political life.

Personally, I can’t stand the woman. She’s a liar, a fraud, a grifter, a hatemonger, a fearmonger and a racist pig. She’s not successfully introduced or passed any legislation that became law throughout her entire parliamentary career. Far better suited to frying fish.

To ensure I’m able to keep sharing my thoughts as clearly as possible despite my gradual cognitive decline, I’ve started relying on Grammarly to polish sentence structure, improve clarity and conciseness (helping rein in my tendency to ramble a bit), suggest words when they slip my mind, and ensure each post stays true to my own natural tone and voice. I write it, Grammarly fixes it. Respect for the reader.

If you’re enjoying my posts, please consider chucking in a few bob to support me.