Gina Really Said This – Did She Realize What She Was Saying?

Mining billionaire Gina Rinehart has proposed a new way to broaden Australia’s tax base – allowing convicted criminals to buy their way out of jail.

In a column for Australian Resources and Investment magazine, Mrs Rinehart says the Government should consider letting non-violent offenders pay to get out of prison – or pay to avoid serving time altogether – because Australia needs more workers and taxpayers as the population ages.”  The ABC

It’s true that jailing people places a tax burden on the community, and if we can find a way to keep people out of jail, that’s great. Of course, we don’t want dangerous people roaming the streets, but if the person is no risk, far better to keep them out of jail.

And, if they can afford it, why not let them pay to stay out of jail?

Ok, before you all start jumping up and down with indignation about the rich getting special treatment, I want you to consider what the REAL problem with this. The rich have an enormous advantage anyway because they can afford better legal representation.

No, the problem with this is what constitutes a “non-violent” crime.

Drug dealing, for example, is potentially non-violent. So, after being convicted of selling a large shipment of cocaine to school children, I simply pay my fine and go back to business.

Yes, I’m being ridiculous. Obviously, that would be an exception. We’d surely exclude drug dealers. So what are we left with? Tax evasion? Insider trading? Money laundering? Fraud?

Mm, it seems then that a lot of these crimes would potentially be like the “pardons” the Church sold in the Middle Ages. You could buy absolution for your sins. You could even buy this before you sinned. So potentially someone could make a bucketload of money with, for example, insider trading, and, if caught, just buy their way out of trouble. Removing the threat of jail from crimes like these is like going to the Casino with someone else’s money.

If non-violent criminals are allowed to “buy” their way out of jail, it raises the obvious question: Would we better off not sending them to jail in the first place? And when you say no to that question because we need some form of deterrent, then why should that deterrent disappear for people who have money? Where’s the deterrent for people like Rupert Murdoch not to break the law? He could tell his journalists not to worry about the law, he’d pay their way out of jail.

And then, we wouldn’t have the high standards of ethics that exist in the Murdoch Empire!


Categories: Rossleigh

40 replies

  1. This would be hilarious if La Dame Gina Rinehart wasn’t serious. This is another of those ludicrous brainfarts she comes out with similar to those outlandish ideas from her father.

    Doesn’t she live in Singapore to avoid paying personal tax here? If so it is rather hypocritical of her to be “worrying” about increasing the country’s tax take. If she paid some we might all be better off.

  2. Retweeted on #auspol and #ausvotes I don’t like to be abusive or vindictive but this moronic cretinism is beyond the pale and somehow has to be stopped

  3. I reckon Gina knew exactly what she said.
    I fugure she is worried that a few of her rabid right mates could be in strife, once Ashbygate reaches its natural conclusion
    Gina could buy her mates out of Prison,
    just leave the poor in there

  4. Hmmm, not very well thought out at all.

    Still, at least we live in a country with free speech where pearls of idiocy like this can be spoken, heard and pilloried. As opposed to the country where certain people would apparently have us live in.

    It’s a pity she didn’t say it earlier; Professor Clive could have run it as one of his platforms.

  5. I have to agree … who’s Gina Rinehart, anyway? – Oh yes, I remember now, that rich bitch that inherited $600 mil from Hancock & said workers should take a pay cut…

  6. Exactly. Thanks Ross.

  7. Just easy as buying an election, except many of those in prison are there because of a lack of money. Gina is so in touch with all the population.

  8. It’s a pity we even need to respond to nonsense.

  9. i am waiting for someone who agree’s with this. where are you ? please make it interesting.

  10. I agree with her !!!!! I’ve just thought, maybe she could end up in gaol !!! Have you ever thought of the expense of building a cell for her, my god !! Now your talking expense iiii probably need 500 men to build it, and there is unemployment fixed, oh! But yet again they would probably bring the builders from overseas, thanking you….

  11. Colin Thai
    No mate,
    they’d use 457 visa’s

  12. well if they fined her a billion, then gave it to pensioners. now i agree… : )

  13. But she can get this and every other wacko idea to happen. She just needs to put herself up as a candidate at the Next election.You know, get elected.

    Phhff. Silly me, she has abort to do her bidding.She can just continue to sit on her fat a#$e and get the underlings(like the next PM) to abide by her wisdom.

  14. Am I hallucinating or did Gina say that people with lots of money should not be equal under the law?……that their money puts them above other miscreants?

  15. Gina must be running out of employees to utilise her tax evasion and money laundering programs…

  16. Gina who? Gina nobody with lots of money. I agree with John, I’ve been sucked in. Why do we even credit this with response?

  17. Reading anything about Gina is unbearably painful. Apologies Ross I do believe your work is of much higher quality than any of the sewerage that is now produced by the MSM and I will try to read this when I have built up my immune system sufficiently

    Gina is living proof that wealth can be held by those without intelligence of any kind, actually she proves that an ant could be a billionaire. This perversely also shows the lie in the conservative belief system that insists that wealthy people have earned the right by their own superior intelligence to suck the life out of those with less fortune.

    As to the topic, how it can not be completely obvious to even the most ignorant that allowing people to buy their way out of jail is head slappingly dangerous to the just and fair rule of law in a democracy is just more proof that ants are smarter than mining magnates with inherited wealth.

  18. Whenever Gina makes her pronouncements from her penthouse in Singapore – could she be our own Howard Hughes ? – she often calls for more workers ,frequently suggesting that they be imported or now released from our jails. Never does she promote her undoubted commitment to traineeships and Australian apprentices; does anybody actually know how many apprentices she currently has under training ?

  19. The woman is rich in inherited monied wealth, mined out of Australian sovereign owned wealth. The LNP always complains about sovereign debt yet encourages individuals like her to cause it as they collect their 1% share from her largesse.

  20. My god, she really believes money can buy you anything. What a sad pathetic loser, rich loser….. looser all the same. Tell me Gina, when you finally keel over and die from obesity what will you do with your precious dollars then? eat them?

  21. If I had her money, the first thing I’d do is book an appointment with a plastic surgeon. That is of course, if I were pig-dog ugly like her.

    Thankfully I’m stunningly attractive. :mrgreen:

  22. You people are just jealous. How can someone with that much money possibly be wrong.

  23. Charming Michael. Your true nature for all to see.

  24. My true nature, Dagney? Yes, a sense of humour. You’d be well advised to acquire one.

  25. Gina has an amazing sense of humour. Indeed I suspect she’s a frustrated stand-up comedian, given most of what comes out of her mouth is a joke.

  26. Abuse of women, physical or verbal, is not something to encourage. Argue on the merits of her views, not her looks. Calling a woman “pig-dog ugly” is something I thought we had moved on from.

  27. Point taken, Dagney. I guess it was immature.

  28. Yeah, mocking Gina on her appearance or family relations is totally unnecessary. Her strange ideas and offensive viewpoints are more than enough to mock!

  29. But heh, she’s not averse to making vile,inept and crushingly stupid comments, herself. And really, while I can empathise with Dagney’s PC view regarding comments about female appearance – I would have thought that acknowledging any similarity with Gina Rinehart, even one of gender, would be anathema to any self-respecting female.

    The fact is that political correctness in regard to female appearance has gone too far – far too far. When it is used purely as a tool of spite or derogation with no other valid reference to support the statement, then it may be reasonable to criticise it. When it is purely a satirical adjunct to a whole string of evidence that suggests a personality devoid of character and a complete absence of intellect – and when that person is, by any normal standards, plumb ugly – then, shout at me if you will, but I refuse to accept that PC over-rides the satire.

    Nothing to apologise for, Michael. Whether people choose to acknowledge it openly or not, men have and will always note a woman’s looks before her intellect and, similarly, before women have experienced how singly focused men are, they too will judge on appearance. I haven’t got the research and don’t even know if it has been done but I doubt that there would be many first relationships which are based on intellect rather than physical attraction.

    Some recent university research (UNSW, I think) did show that when introduced to a new female, men look automatically at her crotch area whilst women when introduced to a new man, look at the face! So judgment on appearance is not valid,eh? Come on, I agree that we can do better if we try but I also believe that we can’t be watching our P’s & Q’s every second of every day and how dull it would be if we did.

    Ok, ladies, I’m hidden under the pillows – go for it, throw your rocks …. 🙂

  30. “Her strange ideas and offensive viewpoints are more than enough to mock!”

    I agree.

    In fact, if Gina was attractive her warped vision would be worse – at least she fits the the wealthy oligarch stereotype; Clive Palmer is another living caricature. Both could afford the best plastic surgery, neither give a damn.

    Or is it less acceptable for a woman to be plain? Michael? Mikisdad?

    Will not enter into any discussion, am busy digesting the idea of PM Abbott…

  31. If only billion dollar fines could be applied to the monumentally stupid for boring the rest of the population. At least it would be worth paying attention to this other suppository of wisdom.

  32. Why do we give air time to ignorant, entitled, isolated billionaires whose idea of a family reunion is a lawsuit against their own?

    Seriously, mate, only a fool gives another fool the time of day.

  33. … because, just as have you, we sometimes feel that we just have to comment – it doesn’t make us fools, just human beings capable of frustration with banality and sometimes a need to express it.

  34. Lang Hancock discovered the ‘mother’ lode. He obtained the WA licence to mine the resource. But he also borrowed heavily from the Australian people through institutions like banks and mutual insurance companies to build the infrastructure and so on. I recall when he passed away that it was reported his will was heavily contested. People have luck, they also use their luck to make huge amounts of money. But people who inherit great wealth, well that’s another story and many books and films are available for us to read, enjoy and even ponder upon.

  35. Sometimes it is important to remember what these people are REALLY like.

  36. Surely Ms Rinehart is not so stupid as to understand her powerful monied reach? Buying off politicians. But how many Australians have been stupid for voting into power some people who’ve been feted and financed by the likes of her? She and few like her fully understand the meaning of the word Oligarchy. Because by using their monied power they can influence politicians. In Australia’s case its the few with deep pockets that influence the voters, forming political party’s with their wealth. Of course at one time, it was common for the nobility or the major landowners to rule as an aristocracy. you only have to watch the TV series “Downton Manor”. In some countries today, as seen currently in the NEWS, military leaders are the rulers, governing as an oligarchy. Australians work hard to maintain the continuum of our styled democracy, seeking a good balance between freedom, order and equality. But we must remain vigilant to preserve our ever threatened democratic rights and responsibilities. How we’ll be served by the Abbott Government in the next three years, time will tell.

  37. “Downton Abbey”? Didn’t Abbott say that was his favourite show?


  1. Gina Really Said This - Did She Realize What Sh...

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: