Pauline Hanson's daughter Lee Hanson vows political comeback after failed Senate tilt
The daughter of One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and failed senate contender Lee Hanson has vowed to return to politics after she just missed out on a Senate spot.
After weeks of counting, the Australian Electoral Commission confirmed the six senate vacancies were won by Labor's Carol Brown and Richard Dowling, Greens senator Nick McKim, Liberal senators Claire Chandler and Richard Colbeck, as well as firebrand senator Jacqui Lambie.
Despite early fears that Ms Hanson could topple Senator Lambie, the first-time contender came in seventh and fell short of a seat.
Speaking to NewsWire on Wednesday, Ms Hanson said that despite only running a four-week campaign, she was able to amass a 'phenomenal' amount of support, and vowed a return to politics.
'I'm only getting started … There's such a need for effective change and adequate representation in parliament,' she said.
'I've got three years now to campaign if I choose to run in the next federal election … I'll continue to work with them regardless, and do what I can to support them regardless of holding a federal position or not.'
Ms Hanson, who resigned from a senior role with Hydro Tasmania to run in the federal election, wouldn't rule out becoming a political staffer for One Nation, stating she was 'keeping all options open'.
'I don't know what the future is going to hold now. They're all decisions I'll need to make over the coming weeks and months,' she said.
Ms Hanson said her four-week campaign had revealed people had several 'misconceptions' about One Nation, specially that the party was only 'Queensland relevant'.
'We do look at localised issues and advocate for localised issues as well as common national stances as well,' she said.
'The ones that typically do get a run in the media are immigration and things ... but if you look at the solutions and the policy offerings of One Nation, they're far (reaching).'
She also accused media of pitting her against Senator Lambie, stating comments from Senator Hanson stating that she wants 'to see her (Senator Lambie) gone' were made through her mother's 'own working experience with Jacqui in the Senate'.
'That's the spin that they (the media) pushed … even though it was never (part of) any agenda or any message I tried to put out in any way, shape or form,' she said.
While Ms Hanson said she had never had any contact with or spoken to Senator Lambie, she wished her well and called on her to '(listen) to the 'feedback she's received through the election period'.
'I did hear that many Tasmanians did not feel that Jacqui was representing them adequately, and those who did vote for me wanted a change,' she said.
'There's number of reasons why they didn't feel she was representing them, I know, specifically in the salmon industry.'
Following confirmation of the Senate result, Senator Lambie, who has previously said this six-year term would be her last, vowed to fight for Tasmanian people 'doing it tough'.
'Interest rates are coming down and that's good, but for many Tasmanian families it will barely touch the sides,' she said.
'I want to ensure the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide are implemented properly and that they make a real difference to the lives of veterans and their families.'
Following the federal election, Labor now holds four of the 12 Tasmanian Senate positions, while the Liberals have four.
The Greens hold two seats, with the remaining spots held by independent Tammy Tyrell and Senator Lambie.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
Pies masterclass too much for Hawks
AFL: Collingwood have further cemented themselves as the favourites to win this year's competition with a thumping of Hawthorn in front of a packed MCG.
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Defence minister concedes Australia's military spending may need to rise after meeting US counterpart Pete Hegseth
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has urged Australia to increase military spending, a day after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese blasted a leading security think tank which warned this country was poorly prepared for the growing risk of regional conflict. Ahead of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Defence Minister Richard Marles has told his US counterpart that the Albanese government is willing to have a 'conversation' about lifting expenditure. Australia is on track to reach defence spending levels of 2.33 per cent of GDP by 2033-34, up from its current level of 2.02 per cent, but for months the Trump Administration has pressured the government to get to at least three per cent of GDP. 'I wouldn't put a number on it, the need to increase defence spending is something that he definitely raised,' Mr Marles told the ABC's Afternoon Briefing program following his meeting with the Pentagon boss. 'You have seen the Americans in the way in which they have engaged with all of their friends and allies asking them to do more and we can completely understand why America would do that.' 'What I made clear is that this is a conversation that we are very willing to have, and it is one that we are having, having already made very significant steps in the past.' 'But we want to make sure that we are contributing to the strategic moment that we face, that we all face, and what Pete Hegseth said is entirely consistent with in the way that the Americans have been speaking to all their friends'. 'We understand it and we are very much up for that conversation. On Thursday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese lashed out after a report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) warned Australia could be left with a "brittle and hollowed defence force" if military funding was not increased. "Well, that's what they do, isn't it, ASPI? I mean, seriously, they need to … have a look at themselves and the way they conduct themselves in debates," Mr Albanese told the ABC following the report's release. "We've had a defence strategic review. We've got considerable additional investment going into defence — $10 billion," the Prime Minister said while insisting his government was acting. Mr Marles is due to meet with counterparts from a range of other countries on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue, which brings together leaders, army chiefs, defence ministers and analysts from across the globe. On Saturday the Defence Minister will use a speech at the event to warn 'we also have to counter the grim, potentially imminent, possibility of another wave of global nuclear proliferation as states seek security in a new age of imperial ambition.' China has been rapidly building up its own nuclear arsenal, while Russia has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons since its invasion of Ukraine. The Defence Minister is expected to call that behaviour a 'profound abrogation of (Russia's) responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council,' warning that the behaviour of states like Russia, Iran and North Korea could drive nuclear proliferation around the world. 'Not only does this work against states disarming their own nuclear arsenals, as Ukraine responsibly did in 1994, the war is prompting some frontier states most exposed to Russian aggression to consider their options,' he will say. 'And this has dire consequences for our region too. Russia has agreed a strategic partnership with North Korea to access the munitions and troops Moscow needs to continue its war.' 'The probability that Russia is transferring nuclear weapons technology in payment for Pyongyang's support places intolerable pressure on South Korea.' The Defence Minister will also once again criticise China for undertaking the 'largest conventional military build-up since WWII', saying it's doing so 'without providing any strategic transparency or reassurance.' 'This remains a defining feature of the strategic complexity that the Indo-Pacific and the world faces today,' he's expected to say. Mr Marles's speech comes in the wake of a series of meetings this week between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and a host of Pacific counterparts in the southern city of Xiamen. Officials from Australia, the US, New Zealand and Japan have all monitored the gathering closely, while China has hailed it as a major milestone in its ties with the Pacific. Beijing didn't unveil any major initiatives at the meeting. And while Pacific nations backed Beijing's claim over Taiwan, they didn't issue a direct endorsement of China's commitment to 'reunify' the self-ruled island with the mainland. But one Pacific government source told the ABC that China's criticisms of the Trump Administration's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs, as well as its move to slash aid and dump the Paris Agreement on climate change, resonated with the Pacific countries at the meeting. Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Matt told the Financial Times that 'the Trump administration's economic policies have created some uncertainty' in the Pacific. But Mr Marles declined to say if he raised Australia's concerns about US aid cuts with Pete Hegseth, simply saying the Trump Administration 'understood' the importance of the Pacific region.
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Tariffs a sideshow to greater US problem: economist
Samantha Donovan: Well up until the last couple of weeks, the financial markets have swung wildly after Donald Trump's every utterance on tariffs. Recent reaction to the President's trade policy shifts has been more muted though. Australian Justin Wolfers is a Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan. He told our business correspondent David Taylor, tariffs are now a sideshow to a much greater concern for the international community. Justin Wolfers: The Constitution gives the power over tariffs to Congress, not the White House. Now over the years, Congress has given some of that power, handed it off to the White House, but only in a very limited and constrained way. So a simple reading of the rules would say the President can't do this. So in order to have across the board tariffs or what he calls reciprocal tariffs on every country in the world, he's had to call it a national emergency and invoke the Emergency Powers Act, which is interesting, first of all, because that act says nothing about tariffs. And secondly, there's no emergency. The so-called emergencies, the US has trade deficits with many countries. Bilateral trade deficits are not themselves a problem. So it's been in the works that this was going to get knocked down and it finally hit court last night. The court said this is quite clearly unconstitutional. It was a three judge panel, an Obama judge, a Reagan judge, and a Trump judge. So it seems like a pretty clear decision. So that all seemed pretty clear until the US federal government, the Trump administration, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals unsurprisingly agreed to hear the case. And while it's waiting to get its work done, so while they're reading the documents and so on, it decided to stay, that is to say reinstate the Trump tariffs. All of this is going to be on a pretty expedited schedule. So within a couple of weeks, they're going to come back with their decision. If, as I expect, they find this to be unconstitutional, then the tariffs will be back off again. Then we'll be off to the Supreme Court. We'll see the same drama play out one more time. And then what happens after that is what's really interesting. Because this is saying you can't have across the board tariffs, but recall Congress delegates certain tariff powers to the White House. And it turns out there's a lot of other statutory authorities that they could use. They're a little narrower. And so for instance, that's why the tariffs on steel and aluminium and cars are going to persist because they did not come through this overreach. And it would be easy to get further tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals and so on. So my guess is the White House lawyers are just going to find other ways of creating international trade havoc. David Taylor: That kind of goes to my next question though, Justin Wolfers, based on your understanding of recent history and Donald Trump, what is, and I know this is a very complicated and difficult question to answer, but where is Donald, where would you think that Donald Trump's mind is at? What do you think his next move is likely to be? Justin Wolfers: His lawyers will be telling him as of this afternoon, Mr. President, the statutory authority we were using will come under question. But if you want to push ahead with tariffs, I've got lots of other ways that you can do it. My guess based on past history is he'll say that's terrific. Let's keep going. David Taylor: Given that, and given how much you know that financial markets can't stand uncertainty, the market reaction, the financial markets reaction over the past 24 hours, I would describe as being quite muted compared to... Justin Wolfers: I agree. David Taylor: Yeah, why? Why? Justin Wolfers: Yeah, I've given this a lot of thought. So the S&P 500 rose one and a half percent when this was announced. That's quite muted given that the day that Trump... So, and this announced all of these tariffs are illegal and they're off. Compare that to seven days after Liberation Day when Trump announced a 90-day pause on the tariffs that led US stocks to rise by about 9%, like six times more for a pause as opposed to it's unconstitutional and you can't do it. So a few thoughts here. One is perhaps this is markets betting that this is going to be overturned at a later point. Another possibility is markets, even if markets don't think it's going to be overturned, and I don't think it's going to be overturned, I think the use of the Emergency Powers Act will be ruled unconstitutional. But even so, Trump has other ways of imposing tariffs. So I suspect that this is markets understanding someone's getting in the way of Trump creating tariffs the way he wants to, but he's probably just going to come back and do it a different way. If you're really interested in this, I'm going to give you one more interpretation. So the markets were incredibly volatile in early April when he announced Liberation Day tariffs, they tanked. When he paused, they soared. They acted like this was a huge thing. Now there's two interpretations of that. One, markets believe that tariffs are so fundamentally important to the profitability of American businesses they have no choice but to rise and fall dramatically every time something happens. If that were true, then you would have thought that the Supreme Court making it unconstitutional should have caused markets to absolutely soar today, and they merely rose a little. So the other possibility is that the original policy announcement was so incoherent, so poorly thought through, so dramatic, so unconstitutional on its face, so absurd, so much overreach in both the economic, political, and legal domains that it signalled an administration that's out of control, and that could do a lot of damage. And so maybe that's what markets were learning in early April. They reacted a little bit to tariffs and a huge amount to learning that this is an economically unhelpful administration. And if that's the case, then all that we learned today, when the courts say Trump wasn't allowed to do tariffs in a particular way, you're only going to see a small reaction because it's still true that the White House is full of lunatics, and that still weighs on people's minds. Samantha Donovan: Professor Justin Wolfers from the University of Michigan. He was speaking with our business correspondent, David Taylor.
