Peaceful Tranquility

Well, well, well. The party that claims to represent ordinary Australians against the wealthy elites is now facing allegations that one of Australia’s richest billionaires, Gina Rinehart, is influencing its policies. According to an investigation published by The Age, former One Nation national campaign director Sean Black alleges that Rinehart influences the party’s policy direction through James Ashby. And it doesn’t stop there. Questions have also been raised about Ashby’s financial arrangements, including a reported $56,000 shed funded through a party-approved arrangement on private property. Black has also made claims about continuing to work with One Nation after his public dismissal, although he subsequently denied those claims to journalists. These are allegations, not proven findings, and One Nation disputes aspects of the reporting. But they certainly deserve scrutiny. Here’s the hypocrisy. One Nation has spent years telling Australians that the political establishment is controlled by wealthy elites, vested interests and powerful corporations. Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce regularly position themselves as champions of everyday Australians struggling with the cost of living. Yet now we’re hearing allegations that one of the wealthiest mining magnates in the country may have significant influence over the party’s direction. Apparently billionaire influence is only a problem when it’s someone else’s billionaire. And here’s the question One Nation supporters should be asking: whose interests are actually being represented? The pensioner struggling with electricity bills? The worker trying to afford a mortgage? The family struggling with groceries? Or the billionaire mining interests that stand to benefit from favourable government policies? Nobody is suggesting wealthy Australians shouldn’t have political opinions or support political parties. But when a party builds its entire identity around fighting powerful vested interests, its own financial relationships and political influences deserve exactly the same scrutiny. You cannot spend decades attacking the political establishment for being controlled by wealthy donors while expecting nobody to question your own connections. One Nation calls itself Australia First. Australians are entitled to ask whether that means ordinary Australians first, or billionaires first.

ONE NATION IS NOT AUSTRALIA FIRST — IT’S A PATHWAY BACK TO THE LNP. One Nation claims to put Australians first, yet Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce have backed Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu over a war in Iran that has contributed to rising fuel prices, fertiliser costs and cost-of-living pressures. How is supporting a foreign war that hurts Australian households putting Australia first? But there’s a bigger political question Australians should be asking. Is One Nation really an alternative to the political establishment, or is it simply a vehicle to divert disillusioned voters back to the Liberal and National parties? For years, sections of the conservative media have promoted One Nation as the answer to voter frustration. Yet its political positioning raises questions about whether it ultimately helps restore the Coalition’s influence rather than offering genuine independence. The influence of wealthy figures such as Gina Rinehart and media interests associated with Rupert Murdoch also deserves scrutiny. Australians should question any party claiming to oppose the establishment while supporting policies and political alliances that serve powerful interests. Putting Australia first means making decisions in Australia’s interests not Trump’s, Netanyahu’s, billionaire donors’ or the LNP’s.