Gina isn’t that bad

Crikey readers weigh in.

Rinehart’s new book

Peter Matters writes: Re. “‘Mad beyond the dreams of Tamburlaine’: Rinehart book reviewed” (yesterday). Gina Rinehart is firstly a human being, secondly a money bags and thirdly a tough cookie. She adored her Dad, who adored her even if he was a true male machoist, got hurt when in his dotage he turned a gold digger into a trophy wife and thereafter obsessively fought firstly, to turn his big fortune into a gigantic one and secondly, to prove that a woman could outdo all the men. She deserves sympathy, for even with all the billions she can only buy satisfaction but not happiness.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

6 thoughts on “Gina isn’t that bad

  1. whatiris

    “irritation and envy”?

    Disgust and dismissal, here. Not the slightest mote of envy.

  2. Hugh (Charlie) McColl

    Peter Matters, the article was a review of Gina Rinehart’s book. Comments in the review are therefore firstly about the work and its author and didn’t appear to involve envy although perhaps irritation. It appears that no mount of courtesy or empathy will change the reviewer’s view that Rinehart as a writer, let alone poet, has some way to go. Perhaps when you have read the book you could share your thoughts?

  3. Matt Hardin

    Gina Rinehart may be a wonderful person to know with many redeeming qualities – I have no idea I have never met her – but her attitude to sharing the wealth that is being created by literally digging up the country and shipping it overseas is apalling. She is castigated not for who she is but for her views, her insults to the working poor and her ongoing efforts to not pay her share of maintaing the common weal.

  4. Matt Hardin

    *”maintaining” sorry for the typo

  5. Wayne Carveth

    Christine, the story will go away because the MSM will relegate the news about it to page 17 or the equivalent in the digital news. The story was reported on Bigpond News (which uses a feed from Sky News amongst others) yesterday as “Slipper ‘vindicated’ by case dismissal” and gave a pretty watery account of how stressful it had been for Slipper. Not a mention of the wretchedness of the case that was thrown out.
    The Godwin Grech affair, the attacks on Craig Thomson and Julia Gillard were just as “nasty, negative, unfortunate politics” as the Slipper affair and are stock in trade for the current opposition. The destroyed individuals along the way are a small cost for the prospect of a great victory.
    The $50,000 paid by the government to Ashby was a considered strategy of the government. Obviously the government would not run out of money to fund the case but it had to consider the best use of taxpayers’ money. There was a chance that the government could have lost and would have had to pay more. If it won, there would have been no clawing back any of the costs from Ashby. Unfortunately, many private companies use this “best economy” get out and it gives the green light to some to take a company on and walk away without a trial with a reasonable amount even after giving the contingency lawyers three quarters of the settlement. I’d be interested to know if Harmers got a slice of the $50,000.

  6. Malcolm Harrison

    Niall Clugston is spot on. why are you calling the appointment of slipper grubby. he was good at the job. it was politically expedient certainly, but grubby?
    p.s. have you been colluding with lenore taylor?

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details