Kate🦋M©

The White Trash of Asia? With Labor in Charge it’s a VERY Real Possibility katesjustsaying.blogspot.com/2026/05/the-wh…

No. But if the argument is that advisers will fill the gaps, then you’re effectively acknowledging the gaps exist. Every PM has advisers. The difference is that the PM is ultimately responsible for evaluating the advice, challenging it where necessary, and making the final decision. That’s why experience, judgement and demonstrated leadership matter. Good advisers are an asset. They are not a substitute for competence at the top.

@Kate3015 Decisions made in balance with advisers. Do you know who her advisers are?

Pauline Hanson confirms ambitions to lead Australia as Prime Minister. There is little doubt over her commitment but Prime Ministerial material? No way. news.com.au/national/polit…

I am fully awake, thank you. “Better than the current PM” is a comparative argument. My comment wasn’t. The question is whether someone has demonstrated the experience, capability and leadership required for the highest office in the country. Those standards don’t disappear simply because people are dissatisfied with the current government.

@Kate3015 wake up, whats the alternative, shes 100 times better than whats in now!

No. It’s because the position is bigger than personality, authenticity or popularity. The PM isn’t just a spokesperson or advocate. They are responsible for the economy, national security, foreign affairs, Cabinet government and representing Australia on the world stage. That’s not a “mould”. It’s basic common-sense criteria for the person seeking the most important job in the country.

@Kate3015 Why, because she doesn't fit your mold??

As I was saying - "there is no economic case for taxing work and investment the same". A CGT that taxes investment like work is a bad CGT. It will destroy productivity and with it the economy.

Growing opposition to proposed Mount Lambie wind power facility. Communities across the Central West are standing together in growing opposition to Alinta’s proposed Mount Lambie Wind Farm, saying the industrial-scale development threatens the character, environment and future of the region. @windwatchorg wind-watch.org/news/2026/05/2…

You do miss the point frequently, and you’re also making assumptions about my motives rather than addressing the argument itself. My comment was not “One Nation has bad policies” or “don’t vote for Pauline Hanson.” It was a response to a specific claim: that Pauline Hanson has ambitions to be Prime Minister. When assessing whether someone is prime ministerial material, experience, results and suitability are entirely relevant considerations. The fact that the same criteria can be applied to other politicians doesn’t invalidate them. If anything, it demonstrates they’re objective standards rather than partisan ones. You keep returning to whether the Liberals, Nationals or Labor have failed. I’ve criticised all three over the years. But their failures don’t automatically qualify Pauline Hanson for the nation’s highest office. Nor is it a defence to say One Nation has never been in government. In fact, that’s part of the issue. A person seeking to be Prime Minister should be judged on their demonstrated capacity to govern, not simply on the fact they haven’t yet had the opportunity. You’re free to disagree with my assessment. What you can’t do is turn a discussion about Hanson’s suitability for Prime Minister into a discussion about my voting preferences and then claim you’ve rebutted the argument. In all of your replies, you haven’t actually addressed the substance of my point. Instead, you’ve repeatedly redirected the conversation to the failures of other parties and your perception of my political preferences. You’ve rebutted nothing. What you have demonstrated very clearly, however, is your own partisanship. You appear unable to separate a discussion about Pauline Hanson’s suitability for Prime Minister from your support for One Nation.

I do not miss any point. The point is that you use an argument which can be universal be applied to any politician with a few exceptions. In other words it is not negative of @PaulineHansonOz, it is a characteristic of any politician. It is a bit of a circle arguing with you, isn't? You argue the abilities of one minority party in specific while the responsibility of government has been consistently not this party. What is the sense in that? Your point is to showcase that they there are not necessarily an answer to our problems due to experience, numbers and policies. As I currently see it, @OneNationAus has currently the most comprehensive policy portfolio published. And none of the other four parties in the last 20 years did us any good. So why your criticism to Pauline when it applies just as much to everybody else? You want to make me belief that you only deliver this criticism because of an article. I don't think so, you are disingenuous. You criticise a lot Labor. You criticise One Nation. Where do you criticise the Liberals or Nationals? That is for me sufficient proof of a preferred option. And yes, I am going to call people out who like to rub away Liberals and Nationals lack of performance by ignoring them in universal criticism while attacking others who did not had no responsibility in their matters.

@stanbeer She is a politician, she has been a sitting federal MP for decades and leads a registered political party. People can fairly disagree about how they view politicians in general, but it’s not accurate to say she isn’t one.

@Kate3015 People are sick of what self appointed arbiters consider to be "Prime Ministerial material". Politicians are nothing more than self interested grifters. Pauline is not a politician but a genuine person who loves Australia. That's good enough for me. onenation.org.au/issues

It’s not about whether someone can learn, of course people can develop skills over time. But the role of Prime Minister isn’t an entry-level position where on-the-job learning happens from scratch. It requires already having demonstrated the ability to operate at that level: managing major portfolios, making high-stakes economic decisions, handling international negotiations, and working within Cabinet government. Those capabilities are normally built over years in senior executive roles before anyone reaches the top job.

@Kate3015 So you’re saying she can’t learn all this?

Wanting to be Prime Minister and being equipped to be Prime Minister are not the same thing. Pauline Hanson states she wants to be PM. There’s no question she has conviction, persistence and a loyal support base, but she has never: • Served as a minister in a state or federal government. • Managed a major government department or portfolio. • Led a government or been responsible for implementing a national policy agenda. • Participated in Cabinet decision-making and collective ministerial responsibility. • Demonstrated the ability to build and maintain the broad parliamentary coalitions needed to govern. • Managed the economic, fiscal and regulatory responsibilities that come with executive government. • Negotiated major trade agreements or represented Australia in high-level international negotiations. • Managed complex diplomatic relationships with allies, regional partners and strategic competitors. • Responded to international crises in an executive leadership role. And before anyone says ministerial experience is no guarantee of success, I agree. Australia has had ministers and prime ministers with decades of experience who have still proven ineffective. But if experienced ministers can struggle with the demands of the job, it is difficult to argue that having none of that experience somehow reduces the risk. If anything, it increases it. After decades in politics, Hanson’s greatest achievement has been influencing debate rather than governing. There is a significant difference between identifying problems and demonstrating the ability to run a country.

Sunday evening giggle There were four churches and a synagogue in a small town: a Presbyterian church, a Baptist church, a Methodist church, a Roman Catholic church and a Jewish synagogue. Each church and the synagogue had a problem with squirrels. The Presbyterians called a meeting to decide what to do about their squirrels. After much prayer and consideration they determined the squirrels were pre-destined to be there and they shouldn’t interfere with God’s divine will. At the Baptist church, the squirrels had taken an interest in the baptistery. The deacons met and decided to put a water slide on the baptistery and let the squirrels drown themselves. The squirrels liked the slide but, unfortunately, they knew instinctively how to swim, so twice as many squirrels showed up the following week. The Methodists decided that they were not in a position to harm any of God’s creatures. So, they humanely trapped their squirrels and set them free near the Baptist church. Two weeks later the squirrels were back when the Baptists took down the water slide. The Roman Catholics came up with a very creative strategy. They baptized all the squirrels and consecrated them as members of the church. Now they only see them on Christmas and Easter. Not much was heard from the Jewish synagogue, however. They took one squirrel and circumcised him…..they haven’t seen another squirrel since!

The Churchill comparison doesn’t really hold up. He wasn’t an outsider with no track record, he’d already held senior government roles, and his reputation included both successes and real failures. WWII didn’t magically validate every position he ever held. History also isn’t a reliable guide where “rejected = correct”. Plenty of rejected politicians were rejected for very good reasons. So the question still comes back to today: do the policies and capability stack up now, not who they get compared to from history.

@Kate3015 Well there’s a couple of years to go yet. Winston Churchill was frequently rejected. He was considered too radical & uncontrollable, & constant, unrelenting warnings about the rise of Nazi Germany were dismissed as "scaremongering". He was the mastermind behind Britain’s victory.

You seem to have consistently missed the point. I’m responding to a news story about Pauline Hanson, so naturally the discussion is about Hanson. If the story were about another politician’s suitability for office, I’d be discussing them instead. That is not “selectively targeting” someone; it’s responding to the subject of the story at hand. The fact that other politicians may also be inexperienced or unsuitable doesn’t invalidate discussion about Pauline’s suitability. That’s a classic “what about everyone else?” argument rather than addressing the point being made. More broadly, I’ve never argued that poor leadership or bad decision-making is unique to Pauline. There are examples across all parties. But pointing to failures elsewhere doesn’t automatically make someone qualified to be Prime Minister. Another point you consistently overlook is that dissatisfaction with the major parties and support for a minor party are not the same thing. Being frustrated with Labor or the Coalition doesn’t automatically mean a different party has the policies, experience or numbers in Parliament needed to govern effectively. Criticism of the alternatives is not proof of the capability of the preferred option.

You forgot my claim that you were selective by targeting @paulinehanson for being committed by ignoring all others who are also committed by also have no experience and knowledge. Running government is only complex with more than 1 million public servants. The environment is the same as a business but then without the fat that doesn't add anything to the end product. By default governments don't contribute to anything. They only cost money. Public servants should be the knowledge to the political figure and their advice should be political unbiased and correct to the truth. Watch the hearings in parliament, do they sound like knowledgeable or experienced to you?

@MLoParis @MarthaThomas20 I know you aren’t 🥰🥰

@Kate3015 @MarthaThomas20 That was my point Kate. I'm not being argumentative w/ you to be annoying & rude. Merely was venting my frustration at was has been infuriating from a personal POV.

@RyanJones6980 Loudly and clearly

@Kate3015 Nothing says communism more that gag orders

Labor backbench gagged… Labor MPs told to ride out budget backlash as confusion reigns supreme. “Amid government preparation for a longer-than-usual budget sell given the scale and complexities of its controversial tax changes, MPs are under strict orders to toe the line and avoid speaking publicly without authorisation from the Prime Minister’s Office and senior Labor figures. Those that disobey face being reprimanding from leadership or even the Prime Minister, in a crackdown on debate that is sparking frustration across the backbench, many of whom admit they don’t fully understand the newly announced tax measures.” theaustralian.com.au/nation/labor-m… via @australian

You’re conflating a few different issues here. It’s turned into a bit of a rant. Everyone supports cracking down on NDIS fraud, but fraud savings are not the same thing as permanently available revenue for tax cuts. Even if tens of billions were saved, governments would still need to fund disability services, health, aged care, defence, infrastructure and debt servicing. As for the ABC, calling it “propaganda” is an opinion, not an argument. Plenty of Australians disagree with aspects of its coverage, but that still doesn’t answer what replaces its regional broadcasting, emergency warnings and public-interest journalism functions. And if your proposal is to keep the ABC for news and emergencies, then you’re not actually abolishing it; you’re arguing for a smaller ABC. There are still substantial costs associated with providing those services. That’s a very different proposition from shutting it down altogether.

Cutting NDIS fraud and bureaucrats would save more than $30 billion That's enough to give everyone earning below $60,000 ZERO income tax As for the ABC, they are propaganda and that needs to go - they can be limited to just news and emergencies ------ "Key context from the latest ATO data (2022–23)Total individual income tax revenue: $298 billion. ato.gov.au Bottom 50% share: ~11% (≈ $32–33 billion). en.wikipedia.org This group includes roughly 8 million taxable individuals (out of ~16.1 million total lodgers). Many in the lower half pay zero or very low net tax because of the $18,200 tax-free threshold, the Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (phased out but with lingering effects), and other credits. For comparison, the top 10% of earners typically pay 45–52% of all personal income tax, and the top 3% alone account for ~28–29%. pbo.gov.au Why the share is low and stableAustralia’s personal income tax is highly progressive. The bottom 40–50% of taxpayers (THOSE EARNING UP TO AROUND $60–65k taxable income in recent years) pay only a small fraction" x.com/i/grok/share/d…

Those are examples of policies and decisions you disagree with, not evidence of “overseers” directing Australia. You can certainly argue that governments and bureaucracies have failed on immigration, housing, energy policy, national security, or cultural issues. But poor decisions, ideological commitments, or political self-interest are not the same thing as proving external control. If anything, those examples are a stronger argument that many of our own political leaders and institutions have got things wrong, rather than that someone else is running the country.

@Kate3015 Here’s an example of an ‘expert’ minister The evidence of overseers is easy to spot Mass immigration Housing crisis Men are also women if they choose ISIS repatriation Prosecution of war hero Energy costs rising here whilst exporting low cost fuel: coal, to China

I’d have to be living under a rock not to recognise that many people are frustrated. But that’s precisely why people need to care about who they elect, not stop caring. As for being “obstructed on a daily basis”, what exactly do you mean by that? That’s a pretty broad claim. And when you talk about security concerns, which ones specifically? The return of ISIS-linked supporters? China’s growing influence in the region? Foreign interference? Organised crime? Global instability? Different people mean very different things when they talk about security, so it’s worth being specific.

@Kate3015 Has it occurred to you that people are so frustrated by the current mainstream parties that they don't care? We are gaslit, vampired off and obstructed on a daily basis. That is without even going into the security concerns many now have.

I’m no fan of the ABC, but you’re making a lot of assumptions. First, there’s no clear causal link between funding the ABC and levels of antisemitism. That’s a separate social and law-enforcement issue. Second, while many of us take issue with the ABC’s political and social commentary, that’s only a small part of what it does. What replaces regional news, emergency broadcasting, and other public services it provides? Third, most people working for the ABC aren’t bureaucrats. And even if Pauline managed to abolish the ABC, which would require getting legislation through Parliament and likely controlling both Houses, that doesn’t automatically translate into meaningful tax cuts. The money has to come from somewhere, and removing funding in one area often means replacing services elsewhere or accepting their loss.

@Kate3015 @dehiggs5 First, it'll reduce antisemetism Second, we can save $1 billion+ Third, we can further cut bureaucrats to give tax cuts to the bottom 50% of Aussie taxpayers if One Nation wins and Pauline becomes PM

@thatreviewplace In fact ‘anyone’ might not be better. History proved that in 2022 and 2025.

@Kate3015 Anyone is better as PM at this point than the current crop of clowns running the joint.

@MLoParis @MarthaThomas20 The new Lib/Nats team are creating a clear divide and stating what they stand for. It’s been a while since we have had that.

@Kate3015 @MarthaThomas20 They play games Kate which is why I can't be bothered w/ them. They preference Labor & that's enough for me. Like Fat Slob Palmer. That said The Libs can't stand for everything & nothing. They get nothing. As has been proven.

@JourneyMacro @dehiggs5 She’d still need parliamentary approval. And how would it improve the lives of Australians anyway?

@Kate3015 @dehiggs5 She'll defund the ABC