197 Responses

  1. […] Gina Rinehart Is Our Friendly Voice of Moderation […]

  2. Michael July 26, 2012 at 11:31 am |

    Brilliant synopsis of a truly free market businesswoman.

    What doesn’t the commentariat criticise corporatist business people like Gerry Harvey, Solomon Lew and Frank Lowy with the same zeal they attack Rinehart for?

    I know why, because her life’s mission and business success doesn’t rely on her expending great effort to sanction the illegitimate state that enables success for Harvey, Lew and Lowy.

    1. Ken August 31, 2012 at 11:24 am |

      What an elitist fish you are. You want people to “work harder and drink less” all while you are attempting to bring cheap labor into your country for your benefit. You are an elitist HOG. You inherited your business from your daddy and you want to further break the back of your country’s citizens while claiming they are jealous of people of wealth like yourself. You are an out of touch elitist Hippocratic and you should be run out of your country on your fat ass.

      1. derbyiter August 10, 2013 at 6:46 pm |

        Why oh why, Now we are hiding these PR pages, so ya only get the good comments,eh ? Why not allow the gina knockers to have their say too ! There is always 2 sides to people ! Oh, yep, I’m also one of these that dis-like her ideals and corrupt ways ,too ! As we are the honmest one’s that let the truth be known, and not hidden behind closed sites :P.. Sorry mark. But still wondering just why ya bother doing her bidding if there’s nothing in it 4 u ? Scam or just another pr stunt being underhanded paid ,eh ? I await ya reply….. But I do doubt this will be posted , eh . just like your fb bs /pr site too! hava a great day, feeling the guilt or is it shame )?( that I found this here ? lol

      2. Bill Barnett February 9, 2015 at 1:35 am |

        Take notice of any of these critics Gina if their parents left them a few bob what would they have done with it , Throw it in the dustbin I don’t think so .
        Enjoy yourself girlie ,I would have done the same as you and so would all those
        Schneider critics.

    2. Diane September 11, 2012 at 12:36 am |

      Credit to Gina for her business success but doesn’t that success counter her own argument. Surely if Australia was such a restrictive and closed economy that was being held back by socialists we would have gone into recession by now. Also, if her arguments hold true then the US, which has a much lower minimum wage and less tax on businesses and the wealthy should be in boom times. Last but not least; foreign interests have been exploiting Africa’s natural resources for many years, to their great success, but what benefits have the hard working workers toiling in some of the most treacherous conditions in the world yielded for their $2 a day. Really, is that the way of life we want to emulate in Australia.

      1. Benjamin Marks September 11, 2012 at 10:13 am |

        Diane: Your economic analysis does not take all the variables into account. But to just focus on communicating to you that the minimum wage creates compulsory unemployment and HURTS the poor the most, check out this short fun video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMMN3UIQmEk . Do you find it convincing?

        1. Diane September 20, 2012 at 12:09 am |

          Unsure what variables you are referring to but 20 plus years of continuous economic growth in Australia is certain evidence that the conditions for business are more than fine. The video is unconvincing, to use your own argument, it does not take all variables into account. There is no shortage of people willing to work for less than the minimum wage. The fact is the Mexicans living, often illegally, in the US will work for less than the minimum wage. However, they often survive by sharing housing and pooling resources to afford to live. However, much of their savings goes back to Mexico where by comparison the value of that money is much greater. Low wages are not offset by cheaper products. Market forces do not create this ideal equibilirium because business are often motivated to minimise costs and pocket greater profits. Was the world better off when it could use slave labour? For example, Bonds. Although now paying much reduced taxes and wages due to moving their operations to China, there has been no reduction in prices of their products. On the other hand you have the highly successful Bavarian companies who are that way because they don’t pursue the myth of perpetual growth, they pay very generous wages they have no debt and they are happy with their profit margins, they don’t want to move operations to China to grow their profits. For further information see http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/ I’m unsure of what the right answer is but lets face it, a pure liberal market based rationale is not what is best for this world , there must be a balanced approach including safety nets for the most vulnerable and parameters for the most profit driven otherwise hello to slave labour, monopolies, collusion and price setting.

        2. Marc Payen December 9, 2014 at 12:10 pm |

          all wages need to come down if you want to improve employment and the economy Tricklr down economics has never worked nd never will it, a conservative capitalist lie ,scam .and it,s conservatives that want a low cost workforce read class so she is full of it

    3. mc August 16, 2013 at 9:53 am |

      Gina Rhinehart will go down as the definition of greed is great. Has there ever been a less respected and more disliked billionaire in Australia? I look forward to seeing here money spread throughout Australia for all Australians when she passes. 🙂

  3. Carly Atha July 26, 2012 at 1:53 pm |

    Ms Rinehart is a ground breaker in being a very, very successful business woman. Other women who have found critisism to be unfair, I believe, are Hilary Clinton and Julia Gillard, who are constantly denigrated for their appearance. Perhaps it is part of the evolution of women becomming truly equal. In time people will learn to take the female powers in this world seriously, due to having no choice I suspect lol.

    I would like to see the tone of the above article changed in one respect. Sentances that list Ms Rinehart’s attributes and end on Ms Rinehart’s perceived faults, could be reversed. For example: “She is a moderate, not an antagonist; a peacemaker, not a lobbyist; a goodwill ambassador, not a Liberal Party overlord.” becomes:

    She is not an antagonist; not a lobbyist; not a Liberal Party overlord; but a peacemaker, a goodwill ambassador, a moderate.

    Finally, it is my opinion that the Labor party are getting away with too much hate mongering and also spreading lies. It is my belief that you must not let lies stand. You must take them to court, if necessary, so that your efforts are not vilified by lazy, left wing media. As wealthy as Ms Rinehart is, she is but one person in a democracy. Only a political party that relies on propaganda should be afraid of a free press.

    As an Australian and a woman, Ms Gina Rinehart makes me proud as punch!

  4. Truston B. Davis July 26, 2012 at 10:54 pm |

    I have always been fascinated with all things Australian and I have fond thoughts of the country and the people. I hate to see your country so divided over media and mining. On the other hand maybe something good and unifying will come from the discourse.

    Not knowing much about finances or economics I find it in my interest to try and follow the arguments on both sides. Not being an Australian I think that I will learn more by staying out of the heated debate. However being a Black American, I can’t but wonder if Ms. Rinehart would be treated differently were she a man. I must say that people aren’t afraid to criticize her or I would not have heard of her.

    My only criticism of Australia is its past immigration policies. When I was young it was difficult for non whites to attain Australian citizenship, but my guess is that in reality we would have found better treatment; there, than our USA citizenship afforded us here. Most wealthy people are highly respected but most are men. I don’t find it odd that so many people have issues with Ms. Rinehart but I do find the harsh disrespect unsettling.

    Wealthy people in many cases see their interest as different from the everyday working employee and middle class business person. That’s to be expected, and it is our job to engage them and find solutions. Labor unions, elected officials,clergy, trade guilds and creative thought can help find solutions and common ground.

    I for one am glad to see a woman with power and wealth and I can’t help but think that people can grab her attention with a tactful and respectful approach. It seems to me that Black men: and women in general are despised when poor and then hated and called sell outs when successful. On the other hand to criticize Ms. Rinehart or any other head of industry doesn’t make one a communist or a representative of the Kremlin.

    I sincerely hope that your country will find solutions which will allow for great employment opportunities, a healthy environment and a free and open press, with pride that your country has produced such beautiful and powerful woman. BE AN EXAMPLE !

    1. derbyiter August 10, 2013 at 6:59 pm |

      Hey BRO, when ya can use and abuse there own children’s trust accounts left by [daddy] from which was as his wishes ! It’s call corruption ny uncommon gest ! The real story isn’t being told in truth ! Be warned, and don’t be sucked into thy BULLSHITE that flows on these elaborate pr sites without even telling nor boosting guilt !

  5. Peter July 27, 2012 at 5:11 pm |

    This is really GREAT satire.

    1. Benjamin Marks July 27, 2012 at 5:14 pm |

      Yes, but of what?

    2. Cameron Roberts August 31, 2012 at 10:41 pm |

      I KNOW RIGHT!? I am baffled as to whether it actually is or not!

      1. Assi October 31, 2012 at 2:31 pm |

        Me too, I am still not entirely sure if this is for real or not.

  6. Simon G July 31, 2012 at 1:35 pm |

    As somebody wrote recently in a letter to the Herald-Sun of all places: What exactly did Gina Rinehart do to make Chinese demand for iron ore sky rocket?

    She’s just another plutocrat whose inherited wealth has expanded to obscene levels simply by having the luck of owning the right thing.

  7. Mervyn Sher August 1, 2012 at 12:42 pm |



    Best laugh I’ve had in a while. Exceptionally well written article, I love a deviant mind.

  8. Greatsoutherncross August 1, 2012 at 4:12 pm |

    You’ve scratched the surface but there is a lot more to Gina. For someone who is considered greedy she does seem to donate a lot behind the scenes. But you’ll never hear about it because that is the way Gina operates.

    1. prad bitt August 31, 2012 at 9:10 pm |

      Aww yes, it’s sweet that she’s secretly benevolent. But hey, it’s a given that any ultra high net worth individual can easily be generous. And so they should, if only for insurance of their own karma.

      As for the positive merits this essay lathers up (sorry, my eyes glazed over half way through, only a conservative nugget could possibly have the stamina to go further ), it means nothing for those with a more holistic conscience that believe no individual deserves a right to lord over such huge sovereign resources, let alone on native lands and let alone that it was handed to her on a platter.

      Savvy, influential and misunderstood she may be, but omnipotently deserving of respect? Not by a long long stretch.

  9. madeline tousaint August 30, 2012 at 6:32 pm |

    Gina Rinehart has abandoned all sense of decency, humanity and morality, morphing into a vulgar gutless bully using her billions to denigrate and belittle both the powerful and the powerless simply because she can. We can only pray that she dies in agony of a horrible disease, and soon.

    1. mc August 16, 2013 at 10:02 am |

      Its a shame that someone with so much can want to do so little good.

  10. Alan August 30, 2012 at 10:36 pm |

    It is so easy for those who have not earned their way to their riches to comment on those who are trying to make themselves wealthy in this country.
    Gina Reinhart is NOT a self made billionaire and is no where near adequate to comment on such things.
    It is extremely easy for those children of the real workers of the family who have inherited millions and billions to sit there and falsely claim that they worked hard and that people should get off their butts if they want to be rich.

    Gina’s incredible failure here is that she has never had nothing to fall back on. it is easy to make money when you have money, however try making money from hardly anything or on a normal wage? With little assets. Assets that you have to work for in order to buold upon. No Gina you are a spoilt little brat using yoru fathers hard earned money as a base to make your fortunes – you are hardly self made of anything. Give it all away – start from scratch THEN you will have earned your place in history as a self made billionaire. You are not better than the Packers and Murdochs riding on the coat tails of their fathers success’s – you are nothing.

  11. emily August 31, 2012 at 2:08 pm |

    What I particularly enjoyed here is the point that the Liberal party are not interested in the free market. This needs to be pointed out more often.

  12. Cameron August 31, 2012 at 11:06 pm |

    I don’t wish to make this sound like an attack. I still can’t actually work out if this is incredible satire that is right up my comical alley. I especially like the whole “You can’t make me angry” vibe you have going in debate. Whether I agree or disagree with someone I like when they can debate in a calm manner.

    So… I am going to assume this is real for the sake of commenting. I assume (apologies in advance if I am way off the mark) from this site that you are a believer in self regulating free market truly creating the perfect capitalistic world. I am interested in this from a purely If this is the case of ideology.

    Is Australia (and Gina) really any different to the rest of the world? This essay presents an image of Gina as a perfect capitalist, but is the idea of the perfect capitalism in Australia really any different to the idea of perfect communism in China? It comes down to the fact that humans have their self interest at heart. I think the overall social, economic and environmental unsustainable issues caused by capitalists like Gina on capitalist countries in the western world has become increasingly evident in the global financial crisis.

    Self regulating free market is not sustainable. If Gina was a monopolist in the fishing industry instead and could over fish the oceans at great profit and efficiency over 5 years, this would not be of overall benefit to us all because we would not have fish in 6 years. The efficiency of free markets does not take natural capital into account. Therefore it does not recognise its own unsustainability in depleting and reducing its own efficiency. Infinite expansion on a finite world.

    Unless of course technology saves us… if technology saves us… if…

    Good talk! I look forward to your answer and then next week I will wonder why I cared so much to even bother commenting in the first place.

    (Still hoping it is wicked satire)

    1. ned June 22, 2013 at 9:32 pm |

      There is no free capitalism in Australia, there never was.

      In free capitalism there is no:

      -Income tax
      -Fractional banking
      -Central bank
      -Legal tender law
      -compulsory schooling
      -social security

      that is only some major things that Australia have and what all world countries have, more or less.

      1. mau August 5, 2013 at 6:35 pm |

        Well said ned.
        Free Market Capitalists like Gina, Lang, Nev and all the wonderful others I have met through my life look to the very long term of their enterprises, and do so without their fingers in the public trough.
        They create and provide work as a byproduct of their vision.
        Lang could have left the minerals in the ground… they had certainly been there long enough.
        Nev could have left us to squeeze through cartons of stuff in our own homes… etc etc
        Benjamin, you have joined the ranks of those who will be thought of as dumb, silly, shortsighted, blinkered etc because we live our lives without the great benefit of a government appointee, official or opportunist giving us advice on how to**** up our lives.
        Pity so many think you are either paid by Gina, or just being a smarty pants satarist.
        Some of us know you do it like other great thinkers…. because the words need to be got out there.
        Well done

  13. CFMEU on Rinehart | Chris White Online September 1, 2012 at 4:53 am |

    […] For those who know me as a left-winger here is balance and a pro-Rinehart argument for her freedom to be a capitalist – believe it or not: I thought it was satire, but no: http://www.ginarinehart.info/gina-rinehart-is-our-friendly-voice-of-moderation/ […]

  14. Kelsey September 2, 2012 at 2:04 pm |

    Looks like someone got worried about the heat they are taking over comments they made so they got someone peddling political crap to make amends. Once the cat is out of the hag you”ll never get it back in. Don’t fret to much all us dumb, lazy, drinking poor folks have a short memory.

  15. patrick sylvester September 2, 2012 at 11:58 pm |

    we now need people like gina to drive debate the pollys has lost the plot the unions power is spent the new world order is going to be about workers and capital vorging a new relationship this economic zone will serve our nation well solving mulity layer of problems the higher wages , and dollar , lower iron prices the boat people migrant workers environmental refugees in future cheaper labour cost plus kick starting the development of the north and a great vision to open up the country to drive oppotuinities for future generations and wealth creation for tommorow this is and over view of possibilitys that i will lobby ,work and support our nation need this now the world is changing around us all we hear is lies from the pollys myself and my consulting team support this vision of gina

    1. Mervyn Sher September 3, 2012 at 12:53 am |

      Patrick Sylvester, your Mum must be so proud of you!

  16. Pedro September 4, 2012 at 11:31 am |

    Gina you fat-ass women u r rich not because you worked for it, u r reach because u earn a heirdom, if any1 need to work to be someone it’s you !!!

  17. Macciza September 5, 2012 at 12:45 pm |

    The number of classical logical fallacies in your argument makes it difficult to address them all – but quite frankly, many of your arguments simply don’t hold up to close scrutiny.
    1. no – it leads to the fact that Australian workers should be employed in Australia, and yes Australian food should be produced in Australia.
    2. Geography? Umm Canberra is the capital of Australia. The other places you mention are irrelevant to any socio-political discussion regarding Australia.
    3, Customer Interest? The more efficiently and cheaply that mines operate, the more money that Gina makes, fullstop . . . Are you telling me she is only doing this in ‘customer interest’ ? seriously . . .
    4. Price signals – Hang on aren’t you arguing against ‘minimum wage’? Your arguments are worth nothing so I will pay you nothing? And no doubt you should be proud because working for less than the minimum wage does such good things for the country . . .
    5. Risk – How many billions are she, and her investors, going to make out of all this? What ‘risk’ is there? Or are you arguing that because foreigners have invested they should be able to use cheaper, foreign labor?
    6. Property rights? Why are you talking contract law? Viewed in a property rights context the minerals she seeks to exploit are the ‘property’ of all Australians which pretty much voids most of your argument.

    Your ‘secession’ and ‘constitutional’ ‘arguments'(for want of a better word’ are ridiculous and naive.

    And finally ‘ Monochromatic’ does NOT have ‘shades of grey’ – monochromatic means ‘containing or using one colour’ – black is absence of colour , white is all colours, grey is the range in between – you cannot have monochromatic greys. Perhaps you were not aware of the actual meaning of ‘monochromatic’.

    Pointing out oxymorons may be important but pointing out morons is even more so – consider yourself, and gina, to be pointed . . .

  18. Macciza September 5, 2012 at 1:51 pm |

    I suggest you do some rudimentary research into Mineral Rights within Australia. From 1855, colonial parliaments legislated for ownership of minerals to be retained by the Crown in future grants of freehold title. Thus, the situation developed where throughout Australia, the Crown in right of the State owns nearly all the minerals. But I guess you consider that Gina owns it all.
    And your Sydney-phobic comments do little to advance your argument – the real question is ‘Should Australians have a right to Australian resources?’ Answer- Yes!

    Re-read the original statement , my comment and the first part of the Wikipedia article. We are discussing Monochromatic’ not ‘monochrome’, you are talking about an ‘image’ and the common (inaccurate) terms used by lay-people. But it suits your purpose to ignore the first line of your reference ‘Monochrome[1] describes paintings, drawings, design, or photographs in one color or shades of one color.’ Grey, like black and white, is not a colour. And you think my position absurd?

  19. Mervyn Sher September 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm |

    Macciza, as you are clearly able to reference textual fact that is greater than your own contribution to this article, look up the word “satire”. Then look up the word “comedy”, followed by “tongue in cheek”.

    Once you have a good understanding of these words, apply them in context to this article by Mr Marks, and then sit back and show deference to someone who clearly has a superior intellect and wordsmith capability than yourself.

    Addendum – Who actually gives a flying fig who it is that is supposed to “own” the minerals in the ground? The reality is that anyone can apply for a mining permit, and providing they are assessed as compliant they get to extract the minerals and make the big dollars.

  20. Macciza September 5, 2012 at 2:13 pm |

    If that is supposed to be ‘tongue-in-cheek satirical comedy’ than Mr Marks would be better off as a FIFO worker on less than award wages in Pilbara, cause he ain’t gonna make it comedy . . .

    Who ‘owns’ them is important, as that is who has to be paid for them ie Australia!

  21. Pete September 5, 2012 at 4:16 pm |

    The best I can make of this bullshit in Benjamin Marks is the biggest tosser of all time and Gina made her fortune from Daddies money and the Chinese thirst for iron ore. If my pet dog was left the money and assets Gina was he would be rich to. If she was such a loving person why do her kids hate her that tells the real story not what this clown Benjamin is spinning

    1. Kelsey September 6, 2012 at 4:21 am |

      Well said Pete, you couldn’t be any closer to the truth. Stuff like this makes you wonder how the writer is going to benefit. Maybe they are on someones direct payroll trying to influence the uneducated working folks because they believe they are stupid and to lazy to take any action against what is being said. The only time someone comes out with crap like this is when they have something to gain either directly or indeirectly over time.

  22. Pete September 5, 2012 at 4:26 pm |

    Do you have a life or is this it Benny, got nothing better to do.
    I’ve had my say bye and enjoy your boring life

  23. Deborah September 5, 2012 at 10:17 pm |

    Are you and Benjamin Marks, comedy writer of comedywriter.com.au, one and the same?
    If so were you wearing a funny hat whilst writing this essay?
    …. and did she pay well?

  24. Rick September 6, 2012 at 12:43 pm |

    For the love of money is the root of all evil..
    Gina you have only GOD to answer to..

  25. Daniel September 6, 2012 at 11:03 pm |

    Oh, Benjamin. These are such peripheral issues. It’s nice to know that you have read your neo-liberal handbook and no doubt get off on watching Ron Paul videos on YouTube, reading Ayn Rand and unsticking the pages in your copy of The Howard Factor, but you haven’t read your history. Lang Hancock lined the pockets of politicians to stake his claim in the Pilbara. Do you think Gina inherited her wealth because her daddy was such a champion of the free market? Without grotesque government corruption, Hancock could never have claimed one of the most valuable mineral assets this country possesses. He lined the pockets of many a politician to stake his claim. Gina should kiss the hand of every state and federal politician who allowed her daddy to drop sandbags in the Pilbara for a mere pittance.

    On a more fundamental level, every attempt to liberalise markets have resulted in the rise of oligopolies. The concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few, like Rinehart, is anti free market and anti democratic.

    The problem with neo-liberals is that they are blind to private tyranny; all they can see is the tyranny of the state. It would be interesting to create the world you so brazenly espouse–you wouldn’t want to live in it very long. Absolute freedom sounds nice and all–but only if one believes in benevolent divine providence–otherwise, bend over for the billionaires, the multi-nationals and the oligarchs, and please … scream nicely.

  26. Doug Jane September 7, 2012 at 6:18 pm |

    Gina Rhinehart is fat, ugly and stupid. And it would be really nice if she would shut the fuck up!

  27. F.A. Hayek September 8, 2012 at 12:14 pm |

    Classic satire.

  28. Jarrod September 8, 2012 at 12:31 pm |

    For those who want a serious engagement with the topic, instead of the coarse, outdated fundamentalism on offer here, I recommend Economist Paul Collier’s book “The Plundered Planet”.

    It goes into the issues of propinquity (e.g. on what basis and to what sensible degree are the people of a nation entitled to a share of resource profits?) and also many case studies of resource extraction and taxation throughout the developed and developing world. Supported by extensive recent studies, the analysis is within a pragmatic classical economic context but, crucially, sans the libertarian dogma holding back the simplistic arguments on this website.

  29. craig September 10, 2012 at 8:44 pm |

    i am not about politics im about the person its simple she is a self obsessed bitch who is looking out for no one but her self, she has never shown a glimmer of thorght or words for any one outside her own body.

  30. Daniel September 15, 2012 at 4:56 pm |

    “the taxation industry — the largest extractive industry in the world.”
    Tax isn’t an industry, but I like how you make it seem like it’s a global business. I know that’s a quote and you didn’t say it, but you shouldn’t use it.

    “If the taxation industry thinks it is useful and justified, then it should rely on voluntary mutually consensual payments and investments, rather than its current protection racket model.”
    Well, I’d say the “taxation industry” is VERY useful, maybe not so much justified, but that’s another matter. Tell me, good sir, of how much of her endless (because it almost is) wealth will Gina Rinehart so generously hand over to improve the lives of all Australians, if tax was based on “voluntary mutually consensual payments and investments”. And can you promise that her investments would not be selfishly motivated to earn her even more than $600 a second?

    Honestly, if she is so generous and selfless, and cares about the well-being of ALL Australians, then why is she not already spending millions of dollars on national schemes to stamp out homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, teen suicide, etc etc.

    “(despite the unwillingness of many Australians to work in remote locations)” the link provided with that sentence does NOT express “the unwillingness of many Australians to work in remote locations”. All it shows is that there is a competitive worker market BETWEEN MINES. THIS DOES NOT AT ALL INDICATE “the unwillingness of many Australians to work in remote locations”

    “and that she’ll spend $26 million training them.” The way this is worded, implies that $26 million is coming out of her own pocket! But in fact, it is the COMPANY which she is a CHAIRMAN OF that is spending the $26 million. MISLEADING

    “You are ignorant of where your own arguments lead. Why not argue that only workers born and bred in the Pilbara be allowed to work there? And why not say that all food available in the Pilbara must also be produced in the Pilbara?”
    What is the point of this point exactly?

    “It is ridiculous that Sydneysiders complain about the employment of foreigners in W.A. when the capital of Indonesia (Jakarta) is closer to Perth than the capital of Australia (Canberra), and Sydney is further still. Sydney is closer to the capitals of New Zealand (Wellington), Fiji (Suva), Vanuatu (Port Vila), Solomon Islands (Honiara) and Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby), than to Perth.”

    “The more efficiently and cheaply that mines operate, the more affordable will be the resources mined and the more capital there will be to invest in more mines and other projects that increase the standard of living for everyone,”

    “…making luxuries like cars and computers the necessities of tomorrow that everyone can afford.”


    “And if you think that employers must be forced to pay more to their employees than their employees consensually agree to work for, then equally all readers of this essay should pay me, as I agree to make this essay available to you for free, and given the low price of “free””


    “it must mean that you should be forced to pay me more. After all, there are far more of you than there is of me, so I am at a great disadvantage in my negotiations with you.”

    “Foreign investors are risking their capital in the Hancock Prospecting projects that Australian investors neglected, and now the same Australians who did not invest in the project are hypocritically complaining that they will not be employed there!”

    “Lang Hancock and Gina Rinehart have only ever asked for a 20 year income tax holiday, when a better compromise from her point of view, and a more proportional one, would be 70 years, because that is how long the income tax has already been around. And it is not proportional that her ideas should have sunset clauses, when the government, even when they do something only for wartime, emergency or temporary measures (like, say, the income tax!)”

    Taken from (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_John_Curtin_do_as_Prime_Minister_of_Australia_that_made_him_so_well_known):
    “…to rationalise the income tax system so that there was only one income taxing authority – the Commonwealth Government which returned to the States their share of income tax revenue”


    “Wherever government interference decreases, productivity increases.”

    “Why is it that people are allowed to divorce themselves from their marriages, which actually involves saying in front of witnesses “till death do us part”, but are not allowed to divorce themselves from the political bonds that there was never any evidence they consented to?”

    “Speaking of which, she is too modest and humble…”
    “…to hijack the feminist movements to attract sympathisers in her push for less government interference and secession.”

    “That if the vote on it was valid, then that only means it may have the support of the majority, which is no justification for oppressing the minority!”

    “That it is equal to the pact of association of a criminal band that outlines how to elect gang leaders and distribute the loot!”

    “That it is totally different to shareholders voting in a public company, because shareholders choose to be shareholders, consent to the voting arrangement when they buy the shares, and are allowed to sell their shares and keep the proceeds!”


  31. Dave Wane September 25, 2012 at 3:31 pm |

    As someone who worked in the Pilbara (mainly Dampier) in the 70’s and appreciated the massive wealth of iron ore that was pretty much discovered by Gina’s Father, Lang Hancock, I have retained a strong interest in the region, in iron ore mining, in mining in general, in all wealth-creating industries and in risk-taking-entrepeneurs of all kinds: people like Gina Rinehart.

    I am 59 years old and have been in small business for pretty much 40 of those years. As a result of my “real-world” experience in the market-place I have no hesitation in endorsing the words written here.

    I wholeheartedly, yet sadly, agree with Lang Hancock that the Liberal Party is a party with a semi-socialist philosophy. Unfortunately, especially these days, far too many Liberal Party candidates have never had a real job in the real world, let alone been a small business owner.

    Australia, unlike the United States, has always had a liking for socialist-type policies. Whitlam, of course, was able to use that “affection” that Australians have for a “mothering, nanny-state” society to get Labor elected in 1972. And as those of us who were around in those days know only too well, he pretty much destroyed Australia in three years.

    Therein lies the problem: The socialist tendencies that were around within the Australian populace in 1975 have continued to grow (should I say fester) until now; so that many Australians really believe that government is the only source of wisdom and somehow think that governments “somehow” create wealth!

    Crazy I know. But whenever Labor is in power in any territory, state or federally a program of big government, including additional rules and regulation and massive expenditure of silly-social policies. All increasing the need for more taxes and additional borrowing, whilst reducing productivity, competitiveness and destroying the wealth of the nation.

    I do not believe in socialism. I do believe in freedom – in all aspects of human endeavour.

    The Labor Party is clearly a socialist party. The Liberal Party says they are against socialism yet rarely demonstrate through actions that they practice what they preach; that is small limited government, low taxation and minimum regulation and intervention in the marketplace or in the lives of individuals.

    Gina’s views, and indeed many of Lang’s views are in line with my personal political philosophy.

    1. Sally Moore February 17, 2013 at 5:11 pm |

      This is commonsense from one of Australia’s millions of small business owners, each in his/her own way, doing exactly what Gina does. No better, no worse, just and most importantly, the bedrock of society’s economy. Making a living for themselves by taking the initiative and risk, and in the process creating jobs, prosperity and the products/services we need and want. (and, incidentally creating the taxes to pay for welfare, etc and millions of bureaucrat salaries). So, thank you, Dave, and your millions of fellow “Daves/Davinas”, and Gina too. Big and small, it all adds up.

      1. Dave Wane February 17, 2013 at 8:44 pm |

        Thanks Sally.
        Whilst there are other wise folk like you out there, I often feel like I am crying in the wilderness, as so many Australians are afflicted, or at best partially afflicted with the socialist disease.

        The over-regulated, over-taxed, big-government, nanny-state is now apparently popular. The once legendary self-reliant Australian has been replaced, in the main, by wimpish yet loud-mouthed parasites who want even more taxpayer-funded largesse and even less productivity – and all supported by “the government”.

        Of course the numbers of wealth-producing, productive Australians is rapidly decreasing, so the obvious question is “where will the money come from?”

        But as we know,Gillard, Rudd and other Labor Socialists just go out there and borrow it on our behalf. Eventually the interest bill starts consuming more and more or the government’s income; then along comes more taxes and charges. This further destroys the economy, weakens business and consumer confidence and creates more unemployment.

        This is the typical Labor/Socialist way from the party that claims to look after the so-called “.workers”.

        Clearly the answer is far smaller government, and all that goes with that, including: far less regulation, much lower taxation and much more freedom for individuals and business.

        1. Sally Moore February 18, 2013 at 1:50 am |

          But the majority of people can’t or won’t see that smaller government, less regulation, lower taxation and increased economic and personal freedom will actually increase prosperity and so enable workers to be better off, and enable us to have a sustainable and sensible welfare safety net and maintain a nice environment. Governments will just keep near-killing “the goose that lays the golden egg” (business) in order to buy the votes of government employees and those that receive net government benefits. These people comprise more than 50% of the population/votes now.

          To pay for the ever increasing demands of these dependent majority of constituents, governments will have to keep increasing taxes (killing initiative, raiding private savings such as Super) and/or increasing debt (eg Spain, Greece) in order to pay for their accelerating outgoings, or print money (eg 1920’s hyperinflation Germany). Eventually the country will become broke and totalitarian (eg Nazism which came out of 1920’s Germany), and/or there will be massive civic unrest and violence (eg Greece today). There won’t be any welfare, and government employees will either be put off or not get paid. The socialist dream was a mirage all the time.

          Because most of the Western World is headed down this path now, there won’t be any rich USA to rescue us like it did after WW2 to Germany, not any rich contemporary Germany to bail us out like it is doing for Greece (Germany has enough on its hands with not just Greece but also Spain and Italy). Goodbye democracy, freedom and prosperity, hello poverty, corruption (look at Greece!) and a world of “dog-eat-dog”, with the ever dwindling wealth held in the hands of an elite few. How perverse – socialism ultimately leads to inequity and poverty, capitalism to greater equity and prosperity.

          1. Dave Wane February 18, 2013 at 11:46 am |

            Well said Sally. So obvious, yet so few are willing to accept it.



            Dave Wane

            1. mau August 5, 2013 at 6:54 pm |

              well said sally and dave..
              if nothing else, this page of ben’s using gina as a springboard, will help you and the silent thousands become aware that you are not alone.
              Democracy whilst better than most of the other political models is still the tyranny of the majority, especially those that want to vote for a living rather than work for a living.
              The only model that has not been given a chance in political evolution is that of the libertarian. maybe because there are so few like ben who give up their time to help us all understand the libertarian model better

  32. MALMAC February 16, 2013 at 12:25 pm |

    Please may I ask a few simple questions here (?) :-

    1. How many paid staffers are ‘ replying to the comments’ made here ?
    2. If Gina( as staed, withinthe above) is prepared to employ Aussies (?) and train them as such stated, ” Where do i apply ? ‘
    3. I am certain there are many people within the Pilbara/Kimberley’s [East and West] that would like a chance of employment ! i have never seen/heard or found a recuitment person throughout the last 30 odd years living up here pass through Derby or our northern regional areas !
    4. i suspect it’s another bit of a Public Realations ‘STUNT’ in the effort of shining/ showing a glowing light on GINA to look good to continue her merry way of whatever plans she has made or decided to do ???

    # So, if this is true dinkum, honest in facts;- Am i going to be offered a job ?
    yep, i am a electrican, with practical ” Kimberley experience ” that not a FIFO creeper !

    1. Benjamin Marks February 16, 2013 at 5:26 pm |

      I am not paid anything. This is my site. I answer to nobody and am endorsed by no one and never have claimed to be. As for your alleged interest in working on Hancock Prospecting projects, why haven’t you thought of going through their website? http://www.hancockprospecting.com.au/go/employment

    2. Dave Wane February 16, 2013 at 6:35 pm |

      If I was an electrician living in the Pilbara (where I worked in the 1970s) I would have my own small electrical contracting business, and probably be doing well. I eventually left Dampier and came to Darwin, then left Darwin for Queensland – and after starting and operating the first legal Jet Ski Hire business in the state of Queensland, I returned to Darwin, where I have run a small plumbing business for the past 33 years. Semi-retired now, I have travelled to many parts of the world near and far. I strongly recommend all young tradespeople seriously consider going into business. Not that there was anything wrong with working in the mining industry on wages. I liked that too. Although I did not like parasitical union bludgers coming around telling me I must join their union. I managed to get away without joining, even though my employer Fluor Corporation did all they could to push me into the union’s clutches – to try and keep the industrial peace. One maori unionised(sheep-like) employee even threatened to kill me if I did not join. Have a go MALMAC, do not whinge and whine about things. Have a go! Trust your judgement. And never ever become a horrible sheep-like union bludger who wants more, more, for less, less, less. Be enterprising. Be productive. Then rewards will come your way.

      1. MALMAC February 16, 2013 at 7:50 pm |

        Dave Wane,
        I too, am a licenced electrical contractor of the Kimberley’s area ! ( I love the place) or i wouldn’t be here. my point I was trying to make is those that FIFO have very little regards to just “WTF US LOCALS HAVE TO PUT UP WITH” and the excessive cost of living is over infl;ated due to them.
        It don’t bother me, much at all (thou;- All the minnow’s ‘ shire workers and the lower paid people’ are suffering from it!) i am or rather trying to highlight just what has been offered to the northern locals as per said is total shit, in regards of looking after the local yokels of the Pilbara/Kimberley region!
        yet they cxan fly others from over from the East Coast [ over night in perth and jet them almost straight to site] … Come on now, they have never looked after or tried helping or using local people since the age of time! Unless, they score a helping hand from the government to do it. If not, they more interested in the 457 visa holders… So, as we say up here locally, ” STOP BULLSHITTING AND DRIBBLING SHIT TO THESE MEDIA OUTLETS AS THEY DO ! and show some true respect for us bush/ outer metro mob! ”

        # P.note: I’m bloody white skinned,too…. yet the offers are rarely given to the locals ever….

        1. MALMAC February 16, 2013 at 7:57 pm |

          Benny M,

          i would like to ask do ya have any idea as to the percentages of local employee’s to the FIFO crowd ? it would be interesting to know! claiming ya own the site, and not a paid employee of the gina crowd/group of mining cohorts… Cheers for the supplied info, if ya supply ittoo.

        2. Dave Wane February 17, 2013 at 12:04 am |

          Whilst FIFO was pretty much unheard of in the Pilbara of the 1970’s, I guess it simply reflects supply and demand pressures for those personnel who are required. If the required people cannot be sourced locally, then obviously they will need to be brought in from somewhere else. I fail to see what your gripe is. You are a contractor. But in regards to others: Are you seriously suggesting that there are productive, qualified and reliable people living in the Pilbara who cannot find a job? If true, I find that amazing. Back inthe 1970s I arrived in Dampier with no prior notification and within a few days had work. Good productive people will always be hired. Darwin is awash with FIFO people at the moment. They are obviously good productive folk. That is just how it is. The marketplace at work, as it should be.

          1. MALMAC February 17, 2013 at 12:23 am |

            here is the straight cut and pasted part of this BS Spill that i say is “BULLSHIT! ” re-read the above statement as follows ( check it out and have a think if it’s true ?)….

            C&P’ed ;- ‘ When criticised about wishing to employ foreigners, Gina Rinehart tries to appease her critics by saying: that she wants to employ many more times as many Australians (despite the unwillingness of many Australians to work in remote locations) and that she’ll spend $26 million training them. This is a very soft and caring response to the egos of her critics, making them feel that their argument has some merit. The reality is that those who criticise the employment of foreigners have not given the matter the slightest thought. ‘

            ### Now after living in the kimberley’s for over 30 years, it’s shit… never heard/seen or ever recall any offers or chances of employment from this group!

            1. MALMAC February 17, 2013 at 12:26 am |

              Hello, ” we are the true bloody “NORTHWEST WORKING PEOPLE WITH FAMILY TIES, and also,love our country dearly to stay up this part of AUSTRALIA… “

            2. Benjamin Marks February 17, 2013 at 1:22 am |

              Dude, why would any company want to employ someone who doesn’t even think to try to get a job with that company through that company’s website!?

        3. Dave Wane February 17, 2013 at 9:10 pm |

          Malmac, could it be that the locals are just not as experienced, qualified or productive as those they import from the eastern states?

          In Darwin right now, there are hundreds of people working on the INPEX project who come from all over the Australia and overseas. I have no problem with that.

          Surely the company should be able to select the best ,most suitable,most experienced and productive workers for their project?

  33. MALMAC February 17, 2013 at 2:47 am |

    part of the cut and pasted section;- YOU HAVE STATED ” that she wants to employ many more times as many Australians (despite the unwillingness of many Australians to work in remote locations) and that she’ll spend $26 million training them. This is a very soft and caring response to the ego of hers! Come bl;oody on get real bro!

    I find it totally BULLSHIT is sure a dribbling out here!

    ## if the local’s need to apply via: ‘ her website for a job, really is she such a caring person ?

    She and yaself stateing she’s a cares to employ local aussie’s it bs to me and others up in the north!
    sorry, i feel ya ain’t telling the truth here after all is said and done…

    oh yeah, enjoy the backhands i reckon ya scoring here,too!

    1. Dave Wane February 17, 2013 at 8:58 pm |

      Are you saying that the locals are too useless, tired or just plain lazy to bother checking out opportunities on the web site?

      This seems to be the Australia of today, where everyone wants to be spoon-fed.

      Whitlam’s “dream” is well and truly still with us. But of course it was always a nightmare in the making, as your comments sadly suggest.

  34. MALMAC February 17, 2013 at 2:54 am |

    ## if the local’s need to apply via: ‘ her website for a job, really is she such a caring person ?

    She and yaself stateing she’s a cares to employ local aussie’s it bs to me and others up in the north!
    sorry, i feel ya ain’t telling the truth here after all is said and done…

    oh yeah, enjoy the backhands i reckon ya scoring here,too!

  35. MALMAC February 17, 2013 at 2:55 am |

    part of the cut and pasted section;- YOU HAVE STATED ” that she wants to employ many more times as many Australians (despite the unwillingness of many Australians to work in remote locations) and that she’ll spend $26 million training them. This is a very soft and caring response to the ego of hers! Come bl;oody on get real bro!

    I find it totally BULLSHIT is sure a dribbling out here!

  36. Leon Mahony March 21, 2013 at 4:27 pm |

    I would like to know if as mining magnate and largest female Aussie’s producer of fossil fuels, whether you would support an endeavour to create workable realistic solutions to energy creation in the form of technologies that are similar to voltaic solutions and would need little development using modern mechanical technologies to provide a different yet highly marketable energy facilitator, assuming you were in the drivers seat of the push towards such goals and stood to further your profits?
    If you know of somebody ‘appointed by you’ who would like to be in this position please contact me as I have solutions but no funding and find that most businesses I have approached have have been afraid of being bought out by the magnates and sold for parts.
    I am interested in a direct reply and response and could use your experience and influence or even interest.

  37. pool cleaner 101 May 20, 2013 at 6:27 pm |

    How much did that fat slut pay you to write this propaganda?

    1. Dave Wane May 20, 2013 at 7:49 pm |

      To whom are you asking that silly question?

      All my words are my own and based 100% on my philosophy of freedom, small government, minimum regulation and low taxation.

      In the main Gina Rinehart supports these basic principles, so I therefore am a supporter of her.

      Of course, I am also impressed by her business skills, her enterprising foresight, and her passion to create a far more productive Australia – especially in the north.

      What do you believe in?

      Are you a socialist? If so, there is little point in continuing to correspond with you. I have found throughout my life that socialists have precious few arguments to back their views.

      If you are not a socialist, I would be interested in hearing your views on how we can improve Australia’s pathetic productivity and thereby increase the wealth of all Australians.

  38. Dave Wane May 21, 2013 at 7:34 pm |

    I find it absolutely astonishing when people are critical of an individual, or even a company for no apparent reason.

    For example:I am often critical of Julia Gillard and the destructive socialist government she leads. Similarly I am critical of premiers O’Farrell and Barnett, and former premier Baillieu for failing to seriously reduce the massive size of the governments they inherited from previous Labor governments.

    However, I cannot say that I have any serious criticism of Gina Rinehart. I have met her once and found her to be a very pleasant and interesting person.

    If people have a gripe, a belief or an opinion about anything or an individual, of course they should express a view. But surely the criticism should be based on facts and should offer an alternative argument? Do you agree?

  39. ken svay July 28, 2013 at 3:45 pm |

    Gina is a wonderful woman who is also caring and kind.I would be quite happy to work for two dollars a day if a house only cost $1000 and a new car $100.Can Gina sort this out?
    PS to Gina.Please stop donating money to bad causes on Cambodia, the abused and homeless in this country should be first in line.

    1. Dave Wane August 8, 2013 at 7:30 pm |

      In Australia, the main reason almost everything is so expensive is due to the actions of governments – local, territory, state and federal. The massive taxes and charges that are applied to so much of what we do and what we buy; together with state-owned electricity utilities;green subsidies; unnecessary rules, regulations and red-tape as well as general government intervention in the market place all make the once “lucky country” one of the world’s most expensive countries in which to live. It is the cancer of Big Government and all that goes with it that is destroying Australia and making life difficult for people wanting to buy a house at an affordable price, or a litre of fuel, a carton of beer and a whole lot more. The smaller the government, the more wealth can be created by individuals and retained by individuals to buy houses or whatever they want.

  40. ken svay August 8, 2013 at 2:19 pm |

    This site is comedy gold.Henry Ford was quite a successful caplitalist and he doubled the workers wages so they could buy his products.Lord Lever was another highly successful capitalist, he introduced all sorts of improved pay and conditions for his huge workforce and even housed them all!
    Gina claimed a while back that third world people were happy to work for two dollars a day- no they are not happy at all.Poor housing, poor diets, horrific health issues for their children, no educational opportunities- the list goes on.
    Ghandi said that there is enough in the world for everyones need but not everyones greed, take note Gina.And why is it that the high wage, high tax scandinavian countries do so well and have the happiest people?

    1. Dave Wane August 8, 2013 at 7:53 pm |

      Yes Ken,
      Henry Ford was interested in his workers doing well. Ford was also very interested in productivity – realising that without productivity there can be no profit, and without profit there can be no commensurate wage increases. It is all relative, Ken. However, never forget that Henry Ford did not have to deal with anything like the plethora of industrial laws, state-controlled wage-fixing and unrealistic union demands. Ford operated his car-making business in a free-market in almost every sense of the word. This is what is required in Australia today – far more market freedom. Excessive government control of the marketplace has plenty to do with the failure of the Australian car industry. A fully flexible wage-fixing arrangement negotiated between employer and employee, with no government control, would have possibly saved Australian car-making.
      Again, get Big Government out of the way, and everyone who wants to be productive will prosper. Government is rarely “the solution”, but nearly always “the problem”.

      1. More Seriously Not Morgan August 21, 2013 at 3:37 pm |

        Wow – you’re ignorant of history mate. Ford had WAY bigger problems with unions than just about anyone today – so much so that he employed people like Harry Bennett (former Navy boxer and violent strike breaker) to actually physically beat UAW (a unions) representatives with clubs. Indeed so fanatical against the unions was he that he nearly broke up his company out of spite rather than find some kind of working relationship with them – something that was only stopped when his wife threatened to leave him if he did so. He later came to agree that she was right incidentally.

        Further whilst Ford didn’t like unions he also LOATHED people like Gina Rinehart who he’d have said was practically the epitome of bad management and the CAUSE of unions – he believed that smart managers would look after their workers so as to prevent unions from gaining ground, to prevent the need for and appearance of excessive regulations. As for wage fixing – Ford realized that by paying his workers far more than the minimum he’d encourage productivity and wouldn’t need the government to step in to fix poverty created by underpaying workers.

        The problem is there aren’t many Henry Fords – most capitalist and free market obsessed types simply want to take and take and take and give absolutely nothing back. Hell Gina wants to pay Aussies 2 dollars a day (Ford paid his workers more than that in 1914). Indeed so incensed are they at paying taxes that they wish to remove all welfare and social safety nets. This is counter productive because poverty reduces demand and EVERY country that has introduced welfare has massively reduced poverty.

  41. ken svay August 8, 2013 at 9:30 pm |

    Talk about silly,she wants to pay workers two dollars a day but gives money away to an opportunist? And people think that she is clever?

  42. derbyiter August 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm |

    Hey ATT:- MARK,
    Now may I suggest you get a copy of today’s ‘ WESTERN AUSRTALIAN NEWSPAPER ‘, bro. If you do, feel free to check out page 9, of it !

    lang hancock fallout ;- ‘ GINA LETTERS REVEAL FAMILY SPLIT ‘
    # The Exclusive written by – Steve Pennells #

    Please Note;- It makes for very interesting reading for one and all ! It even highlights [ A DEAR DAD ] letter, too…. dated jan 1987.

    And another point of interest is the 5th paragraph ( She is now following suit as her own daddy did to her, To her own CHILDREN NOW!
    This proves beyond all reasonable doubt that she is a liar to the hilt of being corrupt as her own daddy was ! Sorry bro, you lost this one for sure. And I wish to say a big thanks to ‘STEVE PENNELLS ‘ for this bit of info, too… :). maybe try another course of boosting her ego,now,eh ?

  43. Morgan Trent August 19, 2013 at 10:13 am |

    Huussshhh! The’yll hear us!

    But Gina is the only true friend we have… She moderates us yesss..

    But the others the are jealous of our precioussss…

    How do we stop them? So many… so many…

    We’ll let HER take care of them… yess…


    Yes, HER!

    She’s ALWAYS hungry…

    1. derbyiter August 19, 2013 at 10:31 am |

      Then maybe, we al should let her eat all her cake too ! Thou, she could do without it. It might even help save her from being the ‘sourpuss’ she’s become, no ? It’s NOT as if she needs it :P…..

      1. Morgan Trent August 19, 2013 at 10:49 am |

        Derbyiter – this comment sounds disrespectful to Our Rightful Democratic Leader, please report to one of Mrs Rinehart’s Re-Moderation Centres for Re-Moderation and De-Socialisation immediately.

        Ministry of Friendly Moderation

        1. derbyiter August 19, 2013 at 11:07 am |

          Ok, will do ! I for some unknown reason(ing) of using basic common sense from being to honest, I again will most likely [FAIL] once more to thy joining our great Political Correct CROWD, thou………. But, I guess, the more times we are put through these ‘social work camps’ we will convert or be damned 4 it ! so, Morgan T :- where do I need to appear (?) at her mine, just down thy road. Or at thy HER LORDS side ? for retraining….

          1. Morgan Trent August 19, 2013 at 11:37 am |

            Remember citizen-slave derbyiter – more than three failures to complete basic Re-Moderation and De-socialisation will result in mandatory Recycling in Our Glorious Democratic Leader’s privately owned lime kilns.

            If you find yourself struggling in your obligations then remember the words of the Great One herself: “Arbeit macht frei!”

            As true today as it was in 1938.

        2. derbyiter August 19, 2013 at 11:10 am |

          Shame they don’t have a like ‘ BUTTON ‘ to see what the true reflection of what them/us lower classed pleb’s think of these replies !

  44. david September 20, 2013 at 4:17 pm |

    I was just wondering if you could give me the details of the book you list in the conclusion – Mine Camp. I tried to find it myself but found it a bit of a struggle.

  45. Amy October 13, 2013 at 8:00 pm |

    Hi there. Why are your political and religious views on Facebook Women? I am genuinely curious.

    1. Dave Wane October 13, 2013 at 8:41 pm |

      What do you mean by “Facebook Women”? Women who have a Facebook page? I have a Facebook page. My wife has a Facebook page. My daughter and my son have Facebook pages. I have many Facebook friends who are women, as I have many who are men. What is it that you are trying to understand about the political and religious views of “Facebook Women”? It seems to me their views are as many and varied as women in the general community. Is that not your view, also?

  46. Suze March 14, 2014 at 5:33 am |

    Since you’re making statements on behalf of Gina Rinehart, and the five reasons below are hysterical, I’m now of the opinion you’ve set this page up as a satirical exercise. If I’d read this earlier, I would have realised. Well done.


    Rather than calling for secession (as she did when she was younger), Gina Rinehart is calling for the Pilbara (and the rest of Northern Australia) to be made a Special Economic Zone. Here again her modesty shines through, for the following five reasons.

    Even if the Special Economic Zone is exactly synonymous with secession, it is not secession down to the individual level, which would be the principled uncompromising position.
    And even if it is secession down to the individual level that she is promoting, she wants it to be legislated for by the Canberra Kremlin, as though the authority of Canberra is of some legitimacy. In short, Gina Rinehart is not proposing any civil disobedience, unlike such significant Australian political and business leaders as Hugh Morgan, Neville Kennard, Bert Kelly, John Singleton and Ron Manners.
    Lang Hancock and Gina Rinehart have only ever asked for a 20 year income tax holiday, when a better compromise from her point of view, and a more proportional one, would be 70 years, because that is how long the federal income tax has already been around. And it is not proportional that her ideas should have sunset clauses, when the government, even when they do something only for wartime, emergency or temporary measures (like, say, the federal income tax!), see fit to continue it permanently.
    She is only asking for part of Australia to receive less government interference, even though she knows that her arguments are equally applicable to all of Australia. Wherever government interference decreases, productivity increases.
    She is asking for less than what she and millions of other Australians have already achieved far more radically when it comes to marriage. Why is it that people are allowed to divorce themselves from their marriages, which actually involves saying in front of witnesses “till death do us part”, but are not allowed to divorce themselves from the political bonds that there was never any evidence they consented to?]

  47. paul fox March 21, 2014 at 1:50 pm |

    She is a fat turd end of story.

  48. […] section titled “The Liberal Party Is Socialist” in Benjamin Marks, “Gina Rinehart Is Our Friendly Voice of Moderation,” http://www.GinaRinehart.info, July 26, 2012. In that essay you will also find a link to what she […]

  49. […] Australian history. This is the first time it has been publicly shown in over 40 years! Thanks to our friendly voice of moderation, the brave and daring Gina […]

  50. […] of the first idea — pointing out the fact of Gina’s moderation — in such essays as “Gina Rinehart Is Our Friendly Voice of Moderation” and “Gina Rinehart Is Our Least Controversial Celebrity”. And I’ve already […]

  51. rayna March 4, 2015 at 7:44 pm |

    before I read any thing here, I want to try remember what the fuck what was my determination, fucking drunk now I reckon, stoned a little still! What was the subject ??? “Gina” fucking what? turns out I’m drunk, fucking don’t anything but,,,, wish..

  52. […] look like a diplomatic genius, finding a middle-ground between Kennard and the Labor-Liberal Party. Rinehart should consider positioning herself in this way, since it is truthful and helpful for her. It would be useful to her because it would mean she could continue advocating the same policies […]

Leave a Reply

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.