Why is gina rinehart hated

Rinehart has since been engaged in a gloves-off war with three of her children over a trust set up by Hancock. She has described them as lazy and spoiled and warned their security would be at risk if they persisted with the action. The trip was an early expression of the views of father and daughter -- the need for recognition of the importance of the mining industry, lower taxes and less red tape. Against miners, workers and related industries who strive to build the world.

Apparently not a joke, but certainly a reductio absurdam. To take the most central point, Gina Rinehart has, to the best of my knowledge, never discovered, mined, sold or transported even a single kilogram of minerals of any kind well, perhaps she transports a kilo of precious metals around with her in the form of jewellery.

Certainly, given their presumptions you can make a logical case that Gina Rinehart is indeed our rightful ruler, and that, should the courts decide in their favour, her children will rightfully inherit this position.

Any system of thought that yields this outcome is obviously wrong. What do you think of the Frank Fetter and Murray Rothbard quotes in the last section of the essay?

I have for so long believed that the politicians should be paid no more than the minimum wage and paid or earn commissions at a modest 3. I feel they may make less expensive mistakes and waste little time and more so waste less of the pot of gold they are handed in the way of taxes collected by all, including them on the dole! I think Gina Rinehart is a perfect example to show how silly these ideas are when taken, as you have done, to their logical conclusion. A system that produces Gina as our natural leader is as bad as a hereditary monarchy, or worse, given the lack of any noblesse oblige on her part.

You still have not engaged with the Frank Fetter and Murray Rothbard quotes in the last section of the essay. I think you should be proven in every field of occupation! I think even under the current political system Ms Rinehart would do more good than bad should she be interested. Australia is not a hereditary monarchy but it does have Nobility.

I am guessing you just have a warped sense of humour as that was the most ridiculous piece of propaganda I have seen in a long time. Hope you were paid well for it. Surely that is not the smartest thing to do? Please read it before commenting. You purport that Gina and her family a feuding in court for fun, then offer a second possible scenario IF it is not just for fun, then its her children who are to blame. And at the same time, you admit that you have absolutely no insight whatsoever into her family dynamics which places your bizarre piece of fiction deeper into the realms of fantasy land.

Oh right….. Then if we read in the comments here and there it appears that you have no close relationship with Gina or her family, and no special insight what so ever.

Now you state that it is ridiculous for a person to respond to you with some reference to her family dispute, even though it forms a good part of your essay. I am guessing you are a rather abstract sort of thinker Ben?

What do you think of the fact that Hancock would often give money to the Labor Party just to keep the Liberal Party out? The one where we vote for someone to represent our best interest but once they get into power, they look after people like L.

Yeah yeah i know. I am dreaming. In this day and age there is no true democracy. Robin Hood is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity.

He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures — the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich — whom men have come to regard as the moral idea.

Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive. The argument could be made that he earned it all by being better than anyone else at robbing people. She only wants control over her own property; her critics want control over the property of others! No one is less power-hungry than Gina Rinehart.

This site is not funded by anyone but myself, and my income does not come from the mining industry, the lobbying industry or anything like that.

Your contribution is being some sort of simpering mouth piece for their machinations, trying to justify their right to exercise their considerable power to undermine our democracy. A short heavy club, usually of wood, that is thicker or loaded at one end.

To hit with or as if with a heavy club. To overcome by or as if by using a heavy club. Mrs Rinehart is using voluntary means to prevent coercive confiscation of her wealth. It is you, or those you are defending, that bludgeon. No Mr. Marks, you appear to be an editor of a website, that seems to be owned as a subsidiary of fair fax media, I think that speaks more for bias than anything you sad above.

However, I guess if one objects to being ruled ruthlessly in an absolute monarchy, whose line of accession is based purely on wealth, where an individual has no right to vote, and no right of representation other than a single appointed individual voted in by noone.. By that line of reason… taxation that takes from the rich to give services to all, must also be based on pure envy? You should read what I write before you criticise me. Also, specifically on your claim that taxing the rich to give services to all is not based on envy: if it is not envy, then it is basic economic ignorance, as you fail to realise that it is large accumulations of capital to invest in mass production for mass consumption that has done most to raise the standard of living for all, especially the poor.

Benjamin is one million percent right here — after all in ancient times when the capital was accumulated in only a few hands, everyone had a job! To claim otherwise is basic economic ignorance and indeed leads to evils such as socialized medicine and public schooling!

Indeed they might start to question why Gina pays less than the business tax rate while taking a non-renewable natural resource owned by all Australians. Fortunately when Our Rightful and Glorious Democratic Leader takes over the socialists that have spread such lies will be the first to be Re-Moderated and set to work in the Great Mines.

The sting of backbreaking physical labor will quickly get their hearts and heads in the right place, appraising them of the benefits of capital accumulation in the hands of a powerful minority of oligarchs. Keep up the good work love the sarcasm its the only way to push the no moral greed driven types on this site out of there self righteous delusions that they are helping the community with there unbridled greed.

The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you posted here. Yep I agree that your name is Ned and somehow you felt that little bit of sleep typing was for John Falken. I am sure he is far wiser for having read that. Seriously man, is there a complex round of Chinese whispers that goes on between your brain and your fingers?

Cada pais tem a cultura que os seus governantes dao ao seu povo. Sou de pais emergente, um pais lindo com pessoas inteligentes, mas ingenuas perante seus governantes. Gina pois nossa cultura e diferente, mas a admiro pela sua forma de empreendimento e trabalho.

Imagine o que seria do amarelo se todos gostassem do azul? Portuguese translated via the help of Google translate : Each country has a culture that their rulers dao to his people. I am emerging from parents, a beautiful country with smart people, but naive before their rulers. Gina for our culture and different, but admire its form of enterprise and labor.

It would be so convenient for her to retire and live your life, shopping and traveling, oblivious to everything and looking only for itself. And family and children are the same worldwide. Imagine what it would be yellow if everyone liked the blue? Recevez Madame Gina Rinehart nos salutations fraternelles. If I had a time machine I would go back to a feudal time and drop you there, without wealth, as a serf, and let you live the life for a while, then, pick you up and return you to our contemporary Australia.

I do believe you would write a different sort of article. Why do you believe that? I hope you get to reading this. You are a wonderful, virtuous, and productive woman. I want you to read it. Atlas Shrugged is the story of a man who decides to shut down the motor of the world, by a strike of the mind. The productive and virtuous like yourself found a hidden city like Atlantis.

Gradually, all the productive go there. The story also teaches a philosophy: Objectivism. I did as follows:. If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1.

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought.

Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. In a system of full capitalism, there should be but, historically, has not yet been a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

This philosophy will better enable you to defend yourself and defend capitalism in a way that is more consistent than defenses in the past.

Selfishness is what needs to be defended, that is, rational selfishness not whim worship in the short term. To defend selfishness, you need to understand the nature of the Universe. The primacy of consciousness being the idea that reality can change on ones wishes supernaturally. The problem is pragmatism, intrincisim, and subjectivism. Just wow. Thanks you John. That post just expanded my universe…. I particularly loved the use of big words.

If you want really emoction…please,contact me and we cqan a change…one houre of your life for a life whith really emoction,understund???? God Bless You! Atentamente Alvaro Palacios email: alvarochepen hotmail. Chad: Do you think capital accumulation and investment enables mass production for mass consumption, which makes things more affordable for poor people?

Explain to a starving child in Africa why a single individual should have billions. Mass investment does enable mass production and mass consumption which is producing the worst problems we have seen as a species such as global warming, mass slavery and an the highest obesity rates of all time. Chad: Are you really blaming Gina Rinehart for child starvation in Africa? Anyway, suppose she gave all her wealth to impoverished Africans; what makes you think they would know where to invest it wisely to maintain and possibly even increase their capital?

How is your proposal for capital dissipation, rather than preservation and expansion, a sustainable solution to world poverty?

Yes Gina is definitely responsible for the starving children in Africa. Does an Arican child deserve to die simply because he is born in to poverty? Does Gina deserve billions because she is born in to wealth? She would spend her time criticizing and undermining her workers to whom she owes her wealth. With great wealth comes great responsibility and as the richest women in the world Gina is a disgraceful failure.

Chad: She is not criticising workers, only bludgers. Your criticism of her vis-vis her children is addressed in the 2nd and 3rd sections of the essay above. And lastly, unlocking resources and creating new jobs are initiatives that help the impoverished.

You should be celebrating her, not criticising her! I am writing on behalf of the association and that we support young talents. On this occasion we require support to perform in good ballet competition. We invite you to Mangalia, Romania was awarded the festival.

All participants are professionals or future professionals of the world ballet scene. Speram ballet scene we can perform a ballet in Australia. Amount needed prime competitors and guests of the gala competition is 15, Euros. Well written Gina — Nice article! I need dolar. But probably i can not give you back even if i want to. I am looking forward to get your reply.

Take care…. At first I was concerned by what I read on this site… then I realised that the author of this site also writes for comedywriter. Thanks Simon. Do you think this article is a cutting satire of the mainstream idea of democracy? Do you think the points the satire makes are true or false? If false, why do you think they are false? Interesting piece Ben. What I like best is that you ask people to actually read things, consider them, and to then have an opinion.

I encourage you to read more widely yourself though, because you obviously have a keen interest in the wider world and your narrow set of influences and views are going to prevent you from being taken seriously, and that would be a shame. Thanks Andrew. Feel free to actually make some criticism, rather than merely claim that criticism can be made. These are the ways of the wise and kind.

To create a happier world, where exhibiting these benevolent aspirations should be the common goal of all humans…that is a better world for you and me. And that is exactly what she is doing. She is not the slightest bit greedy. She is risking her own capital to try to create jobs and unlock resources that customers demand. Without capitalists, the standard of living of society in general would be much poorer and the poor could not even afford the little they can today.

Congratuation Ms. I wish you all the very best in your endevours. There is much support for you albeit a silent one.

If you every get to Queensland it would be a pleasure to meet you. Madeline: You should stop hiding your criticism with your empty insults.

In the essay above many arguments are made. Evidently you agree with them, since you offer no objection to them. How can you so vigorously defend such a greedy, selfish, manipulative, power hungry individual?

This obsessive beast does not have an automatic right to power, purely because she is rolling in such obscene volumes of cash. She is the antithesis of what so many good hearted Australians stand for, and represents a tiny minority of very fortunate individuals born into wealth, and desperate for political domination.

Her hunger for power is fuelled by her insatiable appetite for fortune. With so many people around the globe experiencing immense suffering, she truly embodies the very worst aspects of our species.

Thanks for your comments Milo. Yes, she does have a lot of property, but she uses it to invest in unlocking more resources at cheap prices that make them more affordable for poor people, and she heroically does this despite the unfair criticism people like you level at her. Instead she could just go on a permanent expensive holiday, and fritter away her capital, rather than try to preserve and enlarge it by creating jobs, unlocking resources and satisfying customers.

I guess what you want her to do is to give her money to people with a very poor track record of preserving and enlarging their wealth; geez, what a genius you are.

It is capital accumulation that allows investments in big projects for mass production for mass consumption, which has lifted and continues to lift so many people out of poverty.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Sorry, I did not realise you actually intended by your remarks to make some genuine criticism. Well, one easy way to refute your argument is simply to point out that Neville Kennard was always very fit and thin, and he agreed with her politics, and would have gone even further in favour of a free-market.

Kennard was the founder of Kennards Self Storage. And how about that lean vegetarian named Adolf? Good theory though! Rinehart in particular typifies the worst kind of wealth and her pathetic inability to stop gorging on whatever food comes across her gaze reflects a personality which has little grasp on reality; one which sees the world as hers to consume, yet which has no notion of the repercussions.

So none of it is really her work, yet she pretends as if she were a self-made billionaire worthy of mention along with truly great people like Frank Lowy or a Bill Gates — people who have actually added value to their own societies and others. These are people who have truly built their own success out of nothing.

She is not forcing you to. It is you who is trying to force her, through the government, to part with her wealth. Therefore, you do have great respect for her wealth! Clearly she is not squandering it by progressing even further in her business — she is someone to be admired for this, not scorned. Anyway, she really does actually need to lose weight — people like her need to stick around for a long long time becuase in a the battlefield of ideas, we need people like her. Or would that make it harder to deify him?

In the quote you mention about Aboriginals Hancock was referring to the futility of government welfare and of breaking the cycle it creates when repealing welfare handouts is not an option which it should be. For example, giving handouts to those who are not productive encourages them to continue being unproductive and discourages taxpayers from continuing to produce.

Here are some great essays on Aboriginal welfare by the famous Australian John Singleton: 1. Interesting piece of right wing propaganda. So you are either being compensated by her in allowing to keep this domain or possibly in some other way. This is not right wing Gareth! It is pro free-market. I oppose government spending for both right wing and left wing causes.

I oppose socialism, including national socialism, unlike people on the right and the left, in the Labor and the Liberal Parties. Gina Rinehart and Lang Hancock have similar views. For example, Hancock said :. Socialism simply puts power in the hands of the government. There is nothing much wrong with planning. The question is who is doing it. Founders of the Liberal Party once believed that people should be free to plan their own lives.

Our Federal Governments, Liberal and Labor, now believe they must plan your life for you. It is a simple choice: Will you run your own life, or will you be forced to obey the dictates of bureaucrats, do-gooders, pseudo-intellectuals, failed journalists, tariff lobbyists and communist unionists?

I am not funded by Gina Rinehart, her associates, the mining industry, lobbyists, think tanks, or anyone like that. I am not squatting on her domain name!

This is my site where I provide information defending her against her critics. You also failed to acknowledge Gina for her role in Total Recall, which seems a poor oversite in your research. You are wrong to conflate something being funny with something being false. The comparison with Socrates works perfectly because no one dismisses his ideas and area of interest philosophy just because he had difficult family relationships.

So if you dismiss Gina Rinehart for this reason, then you also have to dismiss some of the greatest statesmen and philosophers of all time! You chose to compare Gina Rinehart to one of the seminal individuals of Humanity. The comparison is far too grande and fails for that very reason. It actually detracts away from your message because it is so absurd to compare Gina to Socrates. I just think the choice of individual is poor. You question why people do not like the image Gina cultivates for herself?

Fortunately for her, and everyone else for different reasons she lives in a place where she can be democratically elected. As such she will never run for prime minister in the immediate future for the benefit of others, but will instead just attempt to apply pressure to government departments from the sides to enable her own self interested agenda.

This process has already started by the purchasing of shares in channel 10 and Fairfax as well as her continued interest in bringing American styled right wing media coverage to Australia…. Either way, while I will agree to disagree with your opinions you articulate your arguments very well. The person in that picture is also not Arnold Schwarzenegger but Priscilla Allen. Less time spent on here in future please… more time with other Schwarzenegger films instead…. Well, that comment has made clear that you are: a ignorant of Socrates; b ignorant of basic economics; and c have not even read the above essay of mine that you are meant to have been commenting on.

What most people, including yourself, would mean by democracy is majority rule, which is just the philosophy of the pack hunt, the lynch mob and the gang rape.

That is not how I am using it, as the last section of my essay makes clear. Socrates was on trial for corrupting the minds of his fellow citizens. Your arguments for free market economics are logical and at times elegant, Benjamin, although when defending your idol your language at times borders on worship, which I think puts your critics out and brings them to question your motives.

The free market philosophy requires that all people are inherently selfish, and that each man ought prosper according to his greed. I propose that those able to accumulate great wealth, do so by shrugging the opportunity of sharing their fortune as it occurs. Can you possibly argue that media outlets do not employ subversive tactics, misinformation, misdirection and spin to influence government AND business?

The people are right to treat one so powerful with suspicion, if not contempt-. Ash: Who is my idol? Such ignorance! It is people like Gina who amass and attract the huge amounts of capital necessary to start risky huge mining projects to unlock resources, create new jobs and provide what customers want as affordably as possible.

The free-market philosophy does not require that anyone is selfish; it just requires that people do what they want which could include charity, life insurance, cancer research, etc with what is justly theirs provided they do not infringe the rights of others to do the same. You may have convinced me on the arbitrary borders vs foreign workers argument. As examples go, the Atlantic slave trade could well be considered a lucrative investment, but I feel it falls down on ethical grounds.

Is the free market free of compassion? Is it more than a weaponized law of the jungle? I was disappointed that you failed to defend coercive vested interests in media, or incidentally, your own motives for running this site. Ash: We need to focus! This article is about Gina, not about corrupt businessmen who have no principles, of which there are many. Talking about Gina and the slave trade is a total distraction. Gina is not forcing anyone to do anything. The free market is consensual; government is not.

Taxation is not voluntary. When a government acts, individual critics are powerless to change the result. They can do so only if they can finally convince the rulers that their decision should be changed; this may take a long time or be totally impossible. The market is the resultant of the decisions of all individuals in the society; people can spend their money in any way they please and can make any decisions whatever concerning their persons and their property.

The jungle is characterized by the war of all against all. With all on a subsistence level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one man gains only through serving another, though he may also retire into self-sufficient production at a primitive level if he so desires. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the market that all men gain through the development of the division of labor and capital investment.

The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption.

On the market, the charitable can provide aid, a luxury that cannot exist in the jungle. In the jungle, some gain only at the expense of others. On the market, everyone gains. Furthermore, the market, by raising living standards, permits man the leisure to cultivate the very qualities of civilization that distinguish him from the brutes.

As for your comments on the coercive vested interests in the media: I am against all coercive vested interests, whether they be in the media or anywhere else. Why do you say, or imply, that Gina is a coercive vested interest? This is a fansite where we defend her politics against her socialistic critics.

I think you need to reread your quotes and understand what they were really saying. Your desire to be noticed by Gina Rinehart is palpable. You are the worm that she steps on as she accumulates another million dollars. And as you squeal in her leavings she has already moved on to squish the next poor, deluded unfortunate. Please stop holding back your criticism with your vague derisory comments.

Please point out where any error in my reasoning is. Profit is beneath their dignity remember. Once again, let me say, how could you stoop to letting politicians out of a job they created for their own ends — without any need for deference to the taxed. Let them have it. Least Rinehart as profits to fall back on. Shame on you Mr Marks. Dont you think its funny that she thinks aussies would have more wealth if they drank and smoked less?

I think she would have more wealth if she ate less! I enjoy your complete failure to consider any sort of human perspective outside the world of economics. Not only have you failed to consider the sociological impacts of the wide spread greed that pure Capitalism seems to inspire but the mess at which we have arrived due to it. Please brush up on your complete and apparent lack of historical knowledge with the causes of Failed States and how their colonial masters, spurred on by reforms in the same vein as those for which you are calling, plundered ancient native societies only to leave them to rot for the greater wealth of their homelands see Spanish Empire and South America.

Bottom line: yes Gina Rinehard is great if the only thing in this world that matters is wealth and living to excess. You have got things the wrong way around.

It is Gina Rinehart who is exploited by the taxation industry. Gina Rinehart is the one who is forced to pay royalties to the government. Wonder if she would feel the same way if someone […]. The land doesnt belong to Gina, it belongs to the commonwealth of Australia and in a technical way the Queen.

What right does she have to any land that she hasnt purchased the rights to? And trying to say that her wealth gives her the right to rule our democratic country is like saying that because I am a relative of the house of York, I should rule Australia. We are a democracy not an oligarchy! Aaron: Mrs Rinehart is the rightful owner because Hancock Prospecting discovered it and mixed their labour with it.

What right does Queen Elizabeth have to the Pilbara? Ithe sloHave never read such garbage in my life. The only person Gina Hard heart cares about is herself. She is not qualified for anything but inherited greed.

She cannot even mange her own family let alone Australia. Your only criticism of the free-market appears to be that if taxes do not fund schools and healthcare, then their quality will decrease. If you really do believe this, then do you also think that food should be funded by taxes?

What a joke. A person supporting GR makes up a list of reasons according to them why some other people hate her and then repudiates each reason. An old marketing trick but I admit it does work sometimes.

Are you a libertarian by any chance? Also, in your opinion, do you think perhaps Ms Rinehart is? Thanks Ben. Regards, Pam. Thanks Pam. Yes, I am libertarian for example, see here. Mrs Rinehart supports a free-market in many areas, but not all. Are you a libertarian? Warren Buffett is also this temperament, Queen Elzabeth 2. Resilience and toughness, smart business acumen, lodgistical intelligence. GR is a brilliant example. You do a great service to broaden the perception of liberatrianism, and Gina Rinehart, she is herself, she can only be herself, and she is also a great Australian, the best way she can be.

Credit where credit is due, Ms Rinehart has built her business from virtually ground up, put in the hard yards. Incredible effort. Monumental business achievements.

Get off your soft shiny arses and get a real job in a mining camp and EARN some of your share of the rewards. Lang Hancock took no risks. He found the resource, fought for 10 years to have laws changed, without telling anyone of his find, and then bought the land and developed its subsequent mine. If you have no idea how his actions could be considered to be unethical or immoral then you are either not very intelligent or a very blinkered thinker.

Even most the conservative thinker would be able to comprehend that some may find his behaviour distasteful. But good for you, you stick to your guns and keep making that effort to consciously miss the point of peoples comments. I appreciate your encouragement.

Happiness is difficult to find sometimes, so knowing that I was able to give a little joy to you has made my day. Looking for Gina I am looking for a way to get something to Gina herself. I am a West Australian Female and I need just one chance to reach her, i need her advise and its urgent, so if anyone at all can help me find a way please do so, out of some kindness that people must still have somewhere in their hearts.

Ellie: Have you tried going through the contact page at the Hancock Prospecting website? You understand thus considerably in relation to this matter, produced me in my opinion imagine it from so many numerous angles.

Your personal stuffs excellent. All the time deal with it up! Do you firmly believe that all arguements that cannot be invalidated by your essay hold no merit? In a court of law, would you swear that what you have written is the truth as you know it to be and what you have written represents your own personal beliefs?

Thanks Karla. Yes, I am guilty as charged and ready for sentencing. I firmly believe in what I wrote, that Gina is good, etc, etc. Since , Gina has been the sole trustee of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust that the late Lang Hancock had set up for his grandchildren. But when the trust was due to vest on the youngest daughter Ginia's 25th birthday seen here with her mother , Rinehart sent out emails to her children saying that she was changing the vest date to and naming herself as the sole trustee again that means Rinehart would be in charge of the trust until she was The three eldest siblings are now fighting to have Rinehart removed as trustee.

Ginia, the youngest, has sided with her mother. Gina Rinehart attempted to keep the details of the lawsuit under wraps, but an Australian court lifted the gag order in March. The publicized documents show a lot of mud-slinging on both sides. Rinehart believes her children do not have the knowledge or skills required to administer the trust, calling them "slackers," documents show, according to ABC News. Her three eldest children shoot back that Rinehart behaved "deceitfully" and with "gross dishonesty" by changing the terms of the trust with no notice, not to mention withholding the trust documents, ABC News reported.

For you. World globe An icon of the world globe, indicating different international options. Get the Insider App. Click here to learn more. A leading-edge research firm focused on digital transformation.

Good Subscriber Account active since Shortcuts. Account icon An icon in the shape of a person's head and shoulders. It often indicates a user profile.

Log out. US Markets Loading H M S In the news. Executive Lifestyle. Megan Willett-Wei. Rinehart's comments about 'jealous' poor people caught everyone's attention in August. She was also lambasted by the media when she called for an Australian miners' wage cut.