The Controversy Behind Australia’s Richest Woman And Her Portrait

Australia’s richest woman, Gina Rinehart, recently demanded the removal of her portrait from the National Gallery of Australia (NGA). This portrait, crafted by renowned Aboriginal artist Vincent Namatjira, is part of Namatjira’s first major survey exhibition in Canberra. The NGA rebuffed Rinehart’s demands, and the subsequent media coverage has resulted in the portrait gaining far more attention than it might have otherwise received.
Rinehart’s efforts to suppress the portrait have inadvertently amplified its visibility, a phenomenon known as the ‘Streisand effect’. The public’s response on social media has been overwhelmingly in favor of the artist and the gallery, with many users mocking Rinehart and sharing memes related to the controversy. This increased attention has not only highlighted the portrait but also reignited discussions about Rinehart’s family history and past controversies.
Understanding the ‘Streisand Effect’
Rinehart’s attempt to suppress the portrait has inadvertently triggered what is known as the “Streisand Effect.” This term, coined after Barbra Streisand’s 2003 lawsuit to remove an aerial photograph of her California beach house from an online archive, describes how attempts to hide or censor information can lead to its unintended proliferation. Streisand’s lawsuit led to the photo being viewed by nearly half a million people within a month. Similarly, Rinehart’s actions have amplified the visibility of Namatjira’s portrait, drawing global interest.
The Portrait and the Exhibition
The contentious portrait is part of the exhibition “Vincent Namatjira: Australia in Colour,” which opened at the NGA in Canberra in March and will run until July 21. Namatjira, a 40-year-old Aboriginal Australian artist, is renowned for his unique style that blends humour and exaggerated features to comment on the influential figures he portrays. The exhibition includes depictions of notable personalities such as Queen Elizabeth II, former Australian rules football player Adam Goodes, and former Prime Ministers Julia Gillard and Scott Morrison.
Namatjira’s portrayal of Rinehart features her with a misshapen head, downturned lips, and a double chin. This unflattering depiction has been defended by the museum and the broader arts community, despite Rinehart’s attempts to have it removed.
Namatjira, an Archibald Prize-winning artist, issued a statement following the controversy: “I paint the world as I see it. People don’t have to like my paintings, but I hope they take the time to look and think, ‘Why has this Aboriginal bloke painted these powerful people?’”
His artistic intent, as he explained, is to provoke thought and dialogue about the subjects he paints. He also encourages viewers to consider the significance of his choice to paint powerful and influential individuals, and the messages conveyed through his work.
Rinehart has appeared in Namatjira’s paintings on several occasions before. She appears alongside the artist in his 2017 paintings Gina Rinehart and Me and Gina Rinehart and Me II, as well as as a single portrait in his 2017 series “The Richest.”
Museum and Arts Community Response
The National Gallery of Australia has maintained its decision to display the painting, saying in a statement on Wednesday that it “welcomes the public having a dialogue on our collection and displays.”
“Since 1973, when the National Gallery acquired Jackson Pollack’s Blue Poles, there has been a dynamic discussion on the artistic merits of works in the national collection, and/or on display at the gallery,” the National Gallery of Art stated reported by Time . “We present works of art to the Australian public to inspire people to explore, experience and learn about art.”
This stance is supported by the National Association for the Visual Arts, which asserts the right of artists to create and exhibit works that address any subject matter. The association’s executive director, Penelope Benton, reinforced that while Rinehart ‘has the right to express her opinions about the work’, she does not possess the authority to compel the gallery to remove the artwork.
Media and Public Response
Since news broke of Rinehart’s demand, there has been a noticeable increase in both physical and digital visitors to the NGA. Google Trends data indicates a significant spike in global searches for “Gina Rinehart,” with interest peaking two days after the story was first reported. This surge in interest is not limited to Australia; countries like New Zealand, Austria, Ireland, and Slovenia have shown considerable engagement with the story.
The portrait and the ensuing controversy have been featured in international media outlets, including The New York Post, CNN, The Mirror UK, BBC, Hindustan Times, and South China Morning Post. On May 16, major coverage began, and by May 17, the story had received widespread attention. Even American television personality Stephen Colbert referenced the incident on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” highlighting the global reach of the story.
The unintended publicity surrounding the portrait has inspired various creative responses. For instance, Australian comedian Dan Ilic has initiated a crowdfunding campaign to display Namatjira’s portrait in New York’s Times Square. As of now, $17,000 of the $30,000 goal has been raised, reflecting significant public support for the initiative.
Gina Rinehart’s Influence on Australian Swimming
Rinehart, known as Australia’s wealthiest individual, has carved an unparalleled niche in the domain of Australian swimming through her substantial financial contributions. As Cate Campbell, a four-time Olympic gold medallist, asserts, Rinehart has “saved swimming” in Australia. This sentiment is echoed by her sister, Bronte Campbell, who labels Rinehart as a “unique patron,” and Kevin Hasemann, CEO of Swimming Queensland, who hails her as the most significant benefactor in Australian sports since “Santa Claus.”
The turning point came after the Australian team’s disappointing performance at the 2012 London Olympics, where the national swimming team, the Dolphins, secured only one gold medal and faced the “Stilnox six” scandal, and sponsors began to withdraw their support. It was at this critical juncture that Rinehart stepped in. Over the past decade, she has injected between $40 million and $60 million into swimming, a figure regarded by some analysts as the largest individual contribution to any Olympic sport globally. Her financial backing extends beyond swimming, encompassing rowing, beach volleyball, and artistic swimming.
Two years ago, Rinehart’s mining conglomerate, Hancock Prospecting, cemented a major partnership with the Australian Olympic Committee in a deal slated to run until 2026. Concurrently, she was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia for her distinguished service to sport. However, Rinehart’s influence is most notable in her direct-to-athlete funding approach, initiated after a dispute with Swimming Australia.
Through the “Hancock Swimmer Support Scheme”, athletes receive tiered salary-like payments: top Olympians, near-national team members, and promising younger swimmers benefit from this model. In 2021, Australia’s best swimmers reportedly received $32,000 each directly from Rinehart, supplemented by Swimming Australia funding and commercial endorsements.
Kevin Hasemann lauded this scheme as “the lifeblood of performance swimming in Australia,” emphasizing its critical role in maintaining professional careers. Enhanced with a medal incentive fund, this model awards $20,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver, and $10,000 for bronze, with world records fetching an additional $30,000.
The Controversies Surrounding Rinehart
Despite her contributions, Rinehart’s involvement in sports is not without controversy. Her withdrawal of funding from Netball Australia in 2022, following players’ concerns about wearing the Hancock logo, is a prominent example. The company, founded by her late father, has a troubled history, and Rinehart has never publicly disavowed his contentious remarks about Indigenous Australians. Rinehart’s views on climate change have also sparked debate. Known for her scepticism of climate science, she funds one of Australia’s leading climate-denying think tanks. This stance contrasts sharply with the increasingly climate-aware positions of Australian sports and athletes, creating a complex dynamic between her support and the values ​​of the recipients.
The recent controversy involving portraits by Vincent Namatjira at the National Gallery of Australia highlights the potential influence Rinehart wields over the athletes she supports. Olympic gold medallist Kyle Chalmers and his colleagues campaigned for Rinehart about these portraits, an action reflecting the significant financial dependency on Rinehart’s patronage. This incident however raises questions about the extent of her influence and the possible insinuation for athletes who rely on her funding.
What happens to swimmers who choose not to align with Rinehart’s views or campaigns? The fear of jeopardizing future funding remains at large, leading to questions about where athletes should draw the line in supporting their benefactor’s political or personal agendas.