These are a few of my most deeply disturbing things....about PUP

Now forgive me if I have got this sort of wrong and this may be an essay in naivete
But Australia is a democracy!

We got really worried about J B-P in Queensland...when it became so person focussed that Peterson could essentially do what he liked.
I actually think that he had the welfare of the State at heart, but he didn't do too badly out the deal. As did other very strongly State focussed politicians such as Henry Bolte in Victoria, and indeed Tom Playford in SA who though a liberal conservative was derided by his colleagues
as a socialist.
This, I suggest, is essentially because he sought the welfare of everyone. I suspect he was a selfless human being and what we might have called in previous generations a Christian gentleman. Indeed a Gentle  man.

It is interesting to read about Playford's relationship with the young Don Dunstan

"So, after a late session of parliament at night, Playford would give Dunstan a lift home in his car. As Dunstan's home was situated on George Street, Norwood, it was only a small deviance from Playford's normal route to his home in Norton Summit. The topics that the two discussed were not ever completely revealed, yet Playford, according to Dunstan, would talk to him in a paternalistic manner.^[134] The two built up somewhat of a relationship and developed a respect for each other, but due to the strength of their respective views (Playford was a liberal conservative, Dunstan a libertarian socialist), did not establish the same type of bond that Playford had with earlier Laborites." from Wikipedia

He was a pragmatist, no doubt, but also was seeking the benefit of the whole State.

What of Clive Palmer?
The multi-millionaire  would-be politician who can't be bothered turning up to acquit his Parliamentary duties.
Quite frankly I would have thought that if you are not going to go to (the admittedly often tedious) debates and votes in Parliament...then don't presume to get yourself elected.

I must admit that THE most disturbing thing about PUP is that it is named after a person..Palmer himself
Oh who was the last person to name a political party after themselves...that's right Pauline Hanson!!

Now as I understand it Mr Palmer is a member of the Lower House, yet he is the one who apparently calls the shots in Senate.....how dare he? 
Well he dares I guess because he is extraordinarily wealthy and is calling the shots. He is, no doubt, bankrolling PUP...the party named after him.
But let's not pretend this is DEMOCRACY
this is what is called PLUTOCRACY...the rule of the rich.
In an alleged democracy, plutocracy has no part to play
It is, and was always going to be, a farce.
But an individual....as rich as he is...and a member of the Lower House....as limited as he is has NO RIGHT to direct Senators .
His personal charisma is fine, but we should be deeply worried if his personal wealth is dictating the agenda . That is NOT how Democracy works.