GrodsCorp

Pauline still sucking at Australian taxpayers’ teat

Thursday 10 January 2008, 10:47 am

The Editor

Tags: AEC, funding, indpendent, LachlanConnor, money, PaulineHanson

Pauline Hanson — who gets rooly, rooly upset when you accuse her of running for Parliament just for the cash — has received $213,000 in funding from the AEC in the wake of the 2007 federal election. This is a 12% improvement on her $189,000 haul at the 2004 election.

Nice work if you can get it. Run for Parliament every three years with a campaign budget of virtually zero and rake in a few hundred grand of taxpayer coin. Why a campaign budget of nothing? Well, Pauline doesn’t need to spend the money that other independents do on getting their name and face into the heads of voters; there’s a hardcore group of rusted-on Pauline voters out there who will continue to tick her name forever. And the media gives her a free run every time — the sort of advertising that other independents simply can’t buy.

In related news, independent candidate for the Senate in Victoria, Lachlan Connor, has missed out on AEC funding to offset the costs of his campaign. “Theoretically I was owed about six dollars for my two votes,” Mr Connor said. “But I fell a little short of the funding threshold so once again independents suffered and our democracy was weakened in Australia.”

22 Comments

John Surname (Thursday 10 January 2008, 11:33 am) #

And there’s still the case of the missing One Nation donations, unless it was solved by a group of meddling British children and their dog, in which case, case closed.
Esplendor (Thursday 10 January 2008, 11:44 am) #

No, it wasn’t the meddling British children and their dog, it was those folk who live up in the Magic Faraway Tree and beyond.
Mondo Rock (Thursday 10 January 2008, 12:18 pm) #

That’s democracy guys.

If there’s a significant section of our community that supports racist and brain-dead politics (most of the AWHers admit to voting for Pauline) then their representatives are entitled to equal access to Australia’s electoral laws.

Pauline represents a particular segment of Australia and is at least honest enough to admit to her views. She is vastly preferable, in my opinion, to the dog-whistlers like Howard who represent the same segment in secret.
Ant Rogenous (Thursday 10 January 2008, 12:21 pm) #

Ed, please don’t place the words “Pauline” and “teat” within 30 paragraphs of each other ever again.
The Editor (Thursday 10 January 2008, 12:23 pm) #

Sixth result on Google, Ant.
Ant Rogenous (Thursday 10 January 2008, 12:28 pm) #

Ah, I see: method, madness. Well done!
The Editor (Thursday 10 January 2008, 12:31 pm) #

I never want to meet a person who actually Googles “Pauline teat”.
brokenleftleg (Thursday 10 January 2008, 8:49 pm) #

Two words sum up this situation.
“professional” and “racist”.
Jeremy (Thursday 10 January 2008, 10:07 pm) #

I’m staggered at the idea that the AEC refunds money that was never spent.

I’m perfectly happy with it refunding parties up to a set amount per vote; but the party should be required to provide receipts for every cent it gets back from the taxpayer. It’s not a bloody lottery.
The ghost of Tim McVeigh (Friday 11 January 2008, 2:01 am) #

Mondo, ah hate ta disagree, but…can ya really blame those workin’ folk who’ve been screwed over by years’ a Keatin’ style economic rationalism (globalisation)an’ their State Labor disciples…ah mean, havin’ got tha stuffin’ punched outa me by tha VicPol thugs on the Richmond Secondary School picket line…fer basically nuthin’, cuz Bracks basically ran with Kennett’s reforms when he wuz elected and Brumby is doin’ tha same thing…ah don’t think its fair to label ordinairy folk as racist when they look to a party that seems ta offer an alternative ta tha Lib/Lab duopoly. Ta my way o’ thinkin’ its more like the leaders of all dese parties are racist an’ workin’ folk need there own!
Which one is Pink? (Friday 11 January 2008, 10:05 pm) #

Next time Lachlan should dye his hair red and get plastic surgery from Dr Daniel Lanzer to look like a bull terrier. Then all he has to do is wear the OZ flag like a superman cape and he’s a shoe-in. I’m surprised Jacob didn’t think of this.

Next election LC needs an image consultant.
Mikey (Saturday 12 January 2008, 1:37 am) #

I thought you had to crack 4%. Didn’t she only get 1.7%?

Also it goes to her party, not her this time. I’m guessing the party rules would have something regarding monies incoming.

Wouldn’t they?

Unless they adapted a Tennis club constitution again…
The Editor (Saturday 12 January 2008, 9:12 am) #

Her group total was 4.19% unfortunately, Mikey.
Jangari (Monday 14 January 2008, 3:04 pm) #

Excellent point Jeremy. I claim reimbursement for monies spent during my field research, which is paid for by a research grant administered by a tertiary institution. So in many ways, it’s similar to the AEC electoral funding.

I however, have to meticulously keep every receipt for fuel, food, accommodation and other expenses while I’m away. If an expense isn’t on a receipt, I don’t see any money for it. The AEC funding system should move more in this direction.

I certainly don’t think this system should be scrapped, as without it, many parties wouldn’t be able to run candidates. The Greens, for instance, run a candidate in every lower house seat, most (all?) of whom pay their own campaign costs and duly receive reimbursement.
Bruce (Monday 14 January 2008, 5:34 pm) #

Jeremy wrote:

I’m perfectly happy with it refunding parties up to a set amount per vote; but the party should be required to provide receipts for every cent it gets back from the taxpayer. It’s not a bloody lottery.

In part I have to disagree with this. Say you have a group of people living in poverty that want to start a political party. A system of refunds of money already spent favor the rich over the poor.

Money should be up front, but yes, receipts kept. Anything not spent specifically on acceptable campaigning expenses must be returned and any substantive misuse of the funds (eg say to help refinance a personal home loan) should attract both greater-than-nominal interest and criminal charges.
Jangari (Tuesday 15 January 2008, 12:32 am) #

Bruce, the current system is just as favorable to the rich as, I believe (but am perfectly willing to be shown wrong) that monies aren’t given up-front, rather it is up to the candidate to fund their entire campaign and then to seek reimbursement after the election.

While it would be great if electoral funding could be up-front as you suggest, in reality it may turn out to be an administrative nightmare, and what of those who don’t poll the requisite 4%? They would be legally compelled then, to return all money to the AEC, which would further impoverish an already poor candidate. That is unless, of course, the AEC were able to provide income-contingent loans - along the same lines as HECS - which would be the best solution.
Bruce (Tuesday 15 January 2008, 1:22 am) #

Bruce, the current system is just as favorable to the rich as, I believe (but am perfectly willing to be shown wrong) that monies aren’t given up-front, rather it is up to the candidate to fund their entire campaign and then to seek reimbursement after the election.

Sorry to give the impression otherwise, my bad.

Am aware the my suggestion would have involved some logistical nightmares, but I’m not sure it would be impossible.

That is unless, of course, the AEC were able to provide income-contingent loans - along the same lines as HECS - which would be the best solution.

Something like this seems equitable. Although, I gather that people leaving the country could provide a similar problem to that posed by graduates going to work overseas.
Wah (Tuesday 15 January 2008, 1:26 pm) #

Admit it, you’d do her!
The Editor (Tuesday 15 January 2008, 1:28 pm) #

I believe the official GrodsCorp term for “do” is “tap“, Wah. But you weren’t to know.

And what you have just suggested made me throw up a little bit in my mouth.
John Surname (Tuesday 15 January 2008, 4:18 pm) #

Pauline gets no tap.
Jangari (Tuesday 15 January 2008, 8:23 pm) #

If you use ‘tap’, then you may not use a personal pronoun her, only an impersonal pronoun that, will do.

I’d tap that

is fine, whereas

I’d tap her

sounds too odd.
Jesus, it’s all odd!
The Editor (Tuesday 15 January 2008, 8:27 pm) #

“Tap that” tends to turn the woman into an object a bit, doesn’t it? John Surname (the author of that particular term) would never do that.