So I have a more narrow issue I'm targeting in your comment than what your reply here seems to be replying to. I'm not trying to attack you for saying something positive about Hanson. A lot of your points I wholeheartedly agree with. Its about giving an unnecessarily wide band of excusibility when compared to her political/finances conduct. She seems to have shown a pattern of corrupt intent when it comes to financing and seems to have no intention of acting in good faith or sincerity where there is no perceived threat of journalistic exposure. This has led to the endless rolling financing scandals that she shows no intention or capacity to alter.

Its not about an insincerity of her beliefs around race or her backward looking frankness of Australia. Its the seemingly duplicitous intent behind the finances that without journalists constantly holding her to account she's loathe to acknowledge.

Take Sarah Martin's (Guardian) reporting,

One Nation senator, Pauline Hanson, has breached Senate rules, declaring another flight taken on billionaire Gina Rinehart private jet more than two months late.

This is a random example I found within moments. She's only acting honestly around her political finances when tge pressure is on.

This is more of an overview article

From the article,

According to Ashby, the declaration of the Florida flight and Rinehart’s hospitality failed to happen on time because of an administrative error. Ashby, who has been working in parliament for more than 15 years, claims he submitted the wrong paperwork and only realised his error when contacted by the Guardian... ...But last week, after further questions from the Guardian, which were ignored, Hanson’s office suddenly found three more undeclared flights that had been gifted to the senator through Rinehart’s beef company, S Kidman and Co, last year. The party updated the register along with a dump of flights provided for the South Australian election campaign, where the state’s new laws ban political donations... ...Whether deliberately or absent-mindedly, Hanson has concealed the extent of Rinehart’s support for her. Indeed, in December, back on the ground from Florida for only a few weeks, Ashby said suggestions Rinehart was bankrolling the party were unfounded. “I haven’t seen any money from her,” he said. ...

Noticeably a lot of the behaviour in the article is from Ashby, which on face value supports your thesis that her Party may be dodgy, but she's "upfront". But this view cannot be accepted due to her dictatoral control over the party itself. This control means Ashby and the rest are conducting themselves with the formal or informal consent of Pauline Hanson by dint of her position of total constitutional control. She has the power and the knowledge of these failures to demand reporting improvements but seems not to.

Hanson president for life of One Nation. Published 12 May 2018 2:40pm, in the years since I haven't found changes that reverses this course.

"The president of the party is Pauline Lee Hanson," the constitution now states.

"Upon resigning from the position of president, Pauline Lee Hanson shall appoint her successor to become the next president of the party."

Only after the resignation of Senator Hanson's hand-picked successor will the party's national executive be able to elect future presidents by majority vote.

Looking back at your controversial take, what set me off was,

upfront about the gifts, it's all in the open

When it takes journalists digging through and asking questions about expenses and many instances of corrections to the public record after that fact, that demonstrates an intent to conceal, not an intent to be upfront.