Do we really need politicians who consistently vote against decreasing the gender pay gap, increasing funding for education, affordable housing, environmental protection, equality between men and women for parental leave, government and business transparency, tackling tax evasion and in favour of religious discrimination against LGBT people? Because that's what she generally stands for
I disagree with almost all of her policy positions, but I think that's an unfair characterisation.
She's voted in favour of practical improvements to the rights and protections of transpeople, the only 'anti-gay' vote I can see was against making 'intersex solidarity day' official- I don't have an issue with anyone opposing pointless government virtue signalling.
Similarly the gender pay gap stuff was about increasing pension contributions which would have indirectly benefited women but put a burden on businesses during a pandemic- again I can see her point.
She's certainly very pro free market, cosies up to mining corps, socially fairly conservative and in favour of cutting benefits and government expenditure.
Those two speeches in the videos are excellent. I think articulate, passionate, principled women in politics is a good thing (even if I think they are wrong). Women are allowed to be right wing.
The idea that a senator can be compelled to attend a telling off by a quango for discussing policy is madness.