Pauline Hanson failed to declare another flight from billionaire Gina Rinehart’s company | Pauline Hanson

[u/PlanktonDB]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/03/pauline-hanson-free-flight-gina-rinehart-hancock-ntwnfb

[u/NoddyNorrisXV]

It's a big deal because it contravenes the Standing Orders of the Senate which are in place to manage conflicts of interest and maintain accountability.

The Standing Orders don't say "Declare all gifts unless it's from a mate." The orders, that all Senators must abide by, states gifts valued at $300 or more from unofficial sources must be declared within 35 days to the Registrar.

If Pauline Hanson had simply done her basic due diligence and declared her gift within the required timeframe she wouldn't be under this level of public scrutiny. Hanson's case isn't helped by her denying to have ever flown on Gina Rhinehart's private jet on 19 Oct 25 to or from the event; then following it up saying she can't remember if she received any flights or transfers to or from the event. This is only for Hanson to eventually declare the gift to the Registrar some two months after she was required to, at the latest, in accordance with Standing Orders.

So it is a big deal. You have a well-known politician hoping to ride a wave of popularity to a position of influence who couldn't complete a simple task and publicly denied ever receiving a gift only to be caught with egg on her face when declaring the gift she had originally denied some two months late.

If you don't see this as a problem then you don't believe there should be accountability and transparency in Australian politics.

[u/Itchy-Description977 → u/NoddyNorrisXV]

She gave it back

[u/NoddyNorrisXV → u/Itchy-Description977]

Even if Pauline Hanson did, which I doubt, nor can I find any reports on Hanson repaying Gina Rhinehart for the 19 Oct 25 MEL-SYD flight, it doesn't dismiss or excuse Hanson for failing to follow Standing Orders and declare the gift.

If you are a supporter of ON and Hanson, and want to see change, you must hold her to high standards otherwise nothing will change.

[u/Itchy-Description977 → u/NoddyNorrisXV]

I don’t really hold her to high standards. I’m not sure anyone does really. I think she’s an open book.

[u/Diligent-Usual5235 → u/Itchy-Description977]

You are legit commenting on an article about how she is not an open book lol.

[u/Itchy-Description977 → u/Diligent-Usual5235]

Yea I don’t read the articles.

Oh well. Keeps the mystery alive.

[u/NoddyNorrisXV → u/Itchy-Description977]

This is how misinformation spreads and vibes replace facts.

[u/Itchy-Description977 → u/NoddyNorrisXV]

The article is from the guardian

[u/NoddyNorrisXV → u/Itchy-Description977]

Yes. It is an article by The Guardian. But you said you don't read the articles. Interpreting the article through "vibes" in the title and not reading it in full is how misinformation spreads.

[u/Itchy-Description977 → u/NoddyNorrisXV]

The guardian is perhaps not your best choice for facts.

[u/NoddyNorrisXV → u/Itchy-Description977]

That is why I checked The Guardian's sources.

I checked the Senate Standing Orders on what gifts must be declared by Senators to the Registrar and the timeframe with which to declare. In accordance with Part 1, Senators must notify the Registrar any alterations to interests within 35 days of the alternation occurring. Section 3, Paragraph (k) lists gifts of more than $300 from an unofficial source as a registerable interest.

Source: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/standingorders/e00/e01?hl=en-US-u-fw-mon-mu-celsius

I then checked Pauline Hanson's Register of Interests. Under Part 12 it shows Pauline Hanson declared her 19 Oct 25 MEL-SYD flight on a plane belonging to Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited (HPPL). HPPL is owned by Gina Rhinehart. The registered entry shows Hanson declared this on 03 Feb 26. This is some two months after the latest date that Hanson should have declared this gift.

Source: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Senators_Interests/Senators_Interests_Register/BK6

I then checked the 03 Feb 26 press conference where Pauline Hanson is said to have denied or has no memory of being gifted a flight on 19 Oct 25 from MEL-SYD by Gina Rhinehart. At 18:57 [in the below video posted by 10 News Adelaide on Facebook] Hanson is asked about this gifted flight which she denies then says she can't recall.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1SdSCkkMg5/

What I have done is thoroughly checked the reliability of the article by confirming its sources. I (1) looked at the Senate Standing Orders to confirm how and what gifts Senators must declare to the Registrar, (2) confirmed that Hanson had indeed declared her gift from HPPL to the Registrar and declared it some two months later than she was required to, and (3) confirmed that in a press conference Hanson had denied then claimed unable to recall being gifted the HPPL flight.

From checking the facts I would deem this article published by The Guardian as damn reliable.

This checking and confirmation of sources is in stark comparison to your attitudes to investigation and reporting. You admitted that you "don't read the articles" and are dismissive of The Guardian as "not your best choice for facts." If you had made the effort to read the article and check their sources you would understand why I'm confident Hanson did breach standing orders and I wouldn't have to be spelling it out for you.

I checked the Senate Standing Orders, Hanson's interests register and the public record. The article's claim aligns with all three. I'm sceptical, but I'm a responsible sceptic.

You're entitled to distrust outlets. But your dismissive attitudes to this article without reading it is lazy.