Another juicy look inside One Nation and Pauline Hanson's One Nation, Ltd., this time by Tony Jones and Four Corners, the article simply Inside One Nation.  This article has been screened three times in two days (the 10th and 11th of August, 1998) due to its impact, namely the defection of three Queensland One Nation members to the National Party following its airing.  Considering the content of the article and the implications of that content the only surprise could be the small number of defectors.

The opening scenes are cuttings from numerous One Nation rallies and protests, an early indication of the nature of the report, showing the clashes centred in and around the party and the people who comprise it.  Our first look at Ms. Hanson herself is as she is leaving a small motel, surrounded by security personnel.  A motel which struck me by its similarity in design to the one in which Martin Luther King was staying when he was assassinated, though the similarities between the two figures ends with the architecture of the buildings.  Some, however, might foolishly argue that Ms. Hanson needs a bullet a great deal more than King ever did and whilst it is true that King certainly didn't need (or deserve) the one he got, the last thing Australia needs is the martyrdom of Pauline Hanson.

The opening of the aired interview begins with a question of how Ms. Hanson feels about the many, often negative, articles about her in the press.  The response an amusing insight into the mind of the woman, she "distances" herself from the articles, it is as if she's "reading about another person."  Certainly this is a good way to avoid being hurt or humiliated by the articles, but if they no longer strike true how can any criticisms, valid or otherwise get through?  How long until she exists entirely in her own little world?  Or does she exist in such a mental state already?

On to the first stop, a meeting with older Queenslanders interested to hear what Pauline Hanson has to offer them.  People who grew up in the "good old days" during the reign of Menzies, when morality and the White Australia Policy went hand-in-hand.  A predominantly silver haired crowd, dreaming of the golden days of the Fifties and early Sixties and hoping the fired up red-head can return it to them.

Cut to David Ettridge working the crowd, making them feel comfortable and at ease, a people man.  In response to another's comment he refers to reading something from America about the tendency for people to vote for more attractive people.  Sex sells as America well knows, but this still doesn't explain the Hanson phenomenon.

Tony Jones closed in on David Ettridge, One Nation's Vice President and National Director, in regards to the stringent controls utilised by himself to keep the party in line.  The first method being assurements of loyalty of party members with the compulsory signing of undated letters of resignation upon joining the party.  Thus assuring either the loyalty of its members or the swift "resignation" of the disloyal ones.  This tactic is certainly not new to politics and was, in fact, employed during the 1992 American Presidential  campaign by Ross Perot, as one U.S. political correspondent discovered, to his chagrin, upon attempting to see the Perot camp from the inside.  Ettridge, in fine reptilian form, described the tactic as skink like; should a threat rise within the party it would be shed like a skink does its tail.  He made no comment, however, on the skink's tendency to run and hide under the nearest rock immediately following the loss of its tail.  One wonders also if the reptilian motif which keeps cropping up will include any other appendage lacking critters, the legless lizard for example.

Which brings us to the second David in the One Nation leading trio, David Oldfield.  His role as Pauline Hanson's Political Adviser seems, of recent times, to be extended to advising the entirety of the party's elected candidates.  The fragment of his lecture on always relying on the truth when dealing with the media was most amusing since it was invariably done more for the benefit of the camera than the Queensland MPs.

The parade of Queensland MPs were treated, as indicated by the excited gasp from Mrs. Pratt, to the special visit by the former Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bielke-Peterson.  The vocal support of the former Premier of Queensland may certainly go some way towards legitimizing the still fledgling party, especially in state politics.  Though one might want to keep in mind that it was this same Premier's party who brought in illegal assembly laws to prevent the gatherings of large groups of people in public, for any reason (totally contradicting Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).  Were these laws to be applied across the country then no protest against Pauline Hanson or her party would ever get off the ground, no matter how peaceful it was.  It is also no secret that this same former Premier has been in considerable financial difficulties since the lengthy and expensive legal battle against corruption charges; is it possible that he has returned to his old stomping ground, albeit peripherally, in an attempt to pay off these debts?

"I describe myself as a nationalist, no a national socialist, but that has connotations...very unfortunate connotations."
-- David Oldfield, Pauline Hanson's Political Adviser

This statement does place Mr. Oldfield in a particularly difficult position.  Either David Oldfield is a national socialist, a nationalist with socialist "tendencies" or something else.  I realize this seems fairly obvious, but bear with me here.  A national socialist is one who adheres to the philosophies espoused by the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei better known as the Nazi party, that being an extreme form of nationalism, often xenophobic, centring around one single unified nation.  A nationalist is often quite similar to the previous example, though not necessarily to quite that rabid extreme.  Still, nationalism does tend toward the mob mentality, though on a larger scale than most football crowds could achieve, with the possible exception of soccer.  Due to the enormous variety of definitions of socialism, Oldfield's description of his "socialist tendencies" can just be added to the list.  Since, however, his apparent view appears to be more in line with the older philosophies of Noblesse Oblige or some form of chivalry, a carry over from the feudal state which socialism reacts against almost as much as capitalism, it is difficult to equate these views with socialism, even if only "tendencies."  The third option, the "something else," is actually two interpretations of the previous two statements.  Either Mr. Oldfield is a very clever man who made a slip revealing his true political colours and very probably that of the party over which he has such vast influence as its political adviser, or he is considerably less clever than he has appeared to the point that he understands so little of basic political theory that he cannot even accurately describe his own political philosophy, let alone advise a party which is quickly becoming a major force on the Australian political scene.

Tony Abbott, a Liberal MP, who had David Oldfield as a member of his staff when the latter was part of the Liberal Party was quite adamant with his testimony that any claim to the title of "national socialist," no matter how it was broken down and described, amounted to nothing better than a Nazi.  A view which would probably be shared by many and is, not surprisingly, the "unfortunate connotations" which Oldfield himself referred to.

Mr. Abbott, however, has hardly a spotless record as regards One Nation since David Oldfield was still a part of his staff while simultaneously working to build up One Nation, before leaving the Liberals to work with Pauline Hanson full time.  An embarrassing situation at the least and not one likely to make him an impartial judge of Oldfield's character.  However, since "impartial judgements," much like "objective journalism," are virtually non-existent anyway, it's a moot point.

"My flag's not white and my emblem is not a burning cross.  Theirs is..."
-- John Phillips, defector from Pauline Hanson's One Nation

Confederate Action is not the only extremist group to flock to Hanson's banner, Robyn Spencer of Australians Against Further Immigration infamy joined the party...bringing with her an immigration policy, which has since been adopted by Pauline Hanson.  The launch of this policy incited one of the most frenzied press conferences in Australian political history, they hit Hanson like a school of barracudas.  Still with the heated debate around the race based immigration vs. multiculturalism this was really quite inevitable.

"If they're born here that they're Australians, but a lot of people don't want to give up their, their...and don't want to forget where they've come from and they continue that over here in Australia."
-- Pauline Hanson, MP for Oxley and President of Pauline Hanson's One Nation

Though a great deal of the non-assimilated asian culture often centres around religion and the observance of religious practice, which does tend to go in conjunction with observance of language and tradition.  She has not, as yet, even touched this aspect of her assimilation goals and if she has any chance of making it a real aspect of Australia's future then she must deal with it eventually.  Perhaps the thought of simultaneously picking an ideological fight with Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Jews, Taoists, Shintoists, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, assorted other religions and the United Nations is enough to give pause to even the Hanson-Ettridge-Oldfield triumvirate.  Indeed, any such battle which could result in both the Moslems and the Jews actually fighting on the same side would either be impossible to win, a sign of the End Times or both.

In this kind of political environment it is unsurprising that one finds dissent and the case of Terry Sharples, One Nation's candidate in the Queensland electorate of Burleigh, is a prime example of that in action.  By moving against David Oldfield in the form of not adopting his suggested party preferences, Sharples severed himself from the party just prior to the election.  Whether or not this was directly responsible for his not being able to seize the seat of Burleigh from the National Party is difficult to say and now largely irrelevant.  It did, however, cripple his campaign at a key moment and result in Sharples striking back at his party with allegations that it committed election fraud when it registered in the state election.  This accusation of election fraud has since frozen approximately half a million dollars worth of funds which would have gone to the party.

Due to the position Sharples had been placed in and his own lack of funds it was difficult for him to begin his own legal fight against One Nation.  That is until Tony Abbott entered the scene again, putting Mr. Sharples in touch with a lawyer, Paul Evringham, to deal with the case.  Paul Evringham, for the record, was a President of the Queensland Liberal Party for three years and now runs his own law firm.  Mr. Abbott, of course, denies emphatically that either the Liberal Party or its funds are in any way involved with Sharples' case, stating only that upon hearing of Terry Sharples' situation he him put in touch with someone who might be able to help.  This interview, however, was interspersed with cuts to an interview with David Ettridge saying that they believed cases like Sharples' were funded by another political party seeking to destabilise One Nation.  A fund set aside for the destabilizing of one's political adversaries may be a dubious practice, if indeed it exists, but certainly no more so than the compulsory signing of undated "letters of resignation."

Terry Sharples isn't the only dissenting voice within, or formerly within, One Nation.  There are others across the country who have fled or been expelled, often due to the acts and roles of David Ettridge and David Oldfield within the party.  Accusations run rampant that it is one or both of these men who pull Pauline Hanson's strings as if she were a marionette.  Some point to Ettridge's almost thug-like control of the party with his "loyalty agreements" and similar activities, while others point to Oldfield's now indispensable role as political adviser.  Quite a number of these people who have left the party, however, are still loyal supporters of Pauline Hanson, they just cannot abide what they see as the growing corruption and infestation by right-wing extremists within the party.

Of those there are some who maintain their own network aimed at working against One Nation, all the while pleading with Ms. Hanson to turf out those they see as power-hungry and corrupt.  In particular are a group operating in Western Australia who have found it necessary to target that state's leader, Len Spencer.

Len Spencer is One Nation's leading Senate candidate in Western Australia and his greatest pre-election hurdle is the accusations from One Nation dissidents that he owns and carries a concealed firearm.  This has since been compounded by the clear disagreements concerning this issue between himself and the three directors of the party.  Where he claims, to the cameras, that he neither owns nor carries a firearm, both Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge say that he has both explained the presence of the gun to them and that he has a licence to carry it, a concealed weapon.

Now I may be mistaken here, but I've always been under the impression that there were only six basic groups able to carry a firearm for a particular reason.  Those groups being military personnel, law enforcement personnel, other authorised personnel (e.g. agents of ASIO and ASIS), security personnel, farmers and sporting shooters (both target shooters and hunters).  In all of these cases the carrying of such weapons are carefully restricted and monitored according to the reason for carrying the weapon and only the first four of them may actually carry it on their person, whether concealed or otherwise.  I don't recall anything about a private citizen, whether one running for public office or otherwise, being permitted to carry a concealed weapon of any type, let alone a pistol.  If the issue was a matter of Spencer's security during his run for the Senate then I'm sure the matter would be dealt with by either the Western Australian Police or the Federal Police, not be left to a right-wing candidate with a fondness for a pistol.

The way in which he back-pedalled when questioned over the issue, however, does cast serious doubt, not only on his statements that he doesn't own or carry a pistol, but also that he's really an appropriate person to hold a government position.  Or, at the very least, able to hold such a position to full term without scandal and allegations of gross misuse of power.  Especially since such allegations have begun already, with some kind of base though little detail has been given beyond the gun, and the man isn't even in office yet.

Again, with such an environment within the party and its spearhead into the Australian political arena, it is no wonder that other members find objectionable aspects of it.  Alan Conn, a One Nation member and volunteer worker in Spencer's WA office claims to have witnessed the gun incident first hand.  Apparently it ended up pointed right at him by the end of said incident.  Quite understandably this is not the sort of thing one would expect to be confronted with when trying to help another member of one's own political party get into power.  This and other incidents in Western Australia culminated in three members driving to Canberra to speak to Pauline Hanson herself, an attempt to remove what they saw as the rot within the party.  It failed, instead of going to Western Australia herself, Ms. Hanson sent David Ettridge to deal with the matter, to bring the dissenting members of the party either back into line or to drive them out.  The description of his "kangaroo court" style tactics and accusations against the dissenters of treachery sounded like little more than bullying and thuggery.  Ettridge restrained and controlled the Western Australian branch through little more than stick wielding control of the mob mentality within the party.  A tactic which is so mean and dirty it isn't even used in student elections these days, yet Ettridge finds it necessary to resurrect school yard coercion to control One Nation.  Whether he opts for this type of action because of some form of sadistic satisfaction it grants or because he can't think of a better way to do it is difficult to determine.

With this kind of party environment and a party structure which prevents anyone but Pauline Hanson, David Ettridge or David Oldfield from holding any real control over it, combined with extreme nationalistic and prejudiced policies, it is little wonder that the reaction to the party often turns violent.  Following just such an incident in Hawthorn Victoria, Ms. Hanson reacted with the following statement:

"It is so un-Australian.  Who are these people?!  Who do they think they are?  No, they're not gonna beat me.  I'm not gonna go away.  I'm gonna stick by this and I'm gonna continue on and I'm gonna speak to as many people as I possibly can.  How would they feel is I was ever in a position and I turn around and say to them, "I'm going to take your right away to protest." ?!"
-- Pauline Hanson, MP for Oxley and President of Pauline Hanson's One Nation

Victoria seems to be very much an exception than a rule as regards public reaction to Pauline Hanson's One Nation.  The 6% in Northcote is one thing, but the 23% or so of Queensland is quite another.  There are now serious worries that One Nation might seize the balance of power in the Senate and/or the House of Representatives.  Though the Democrats are already moving against that possibility with an alliance with many of the smaller parties, such as the Greens.  Whatever the outcome, though, the campaign ought to be very interesting indeed, especially with such a clearly colourful cast.
 

Tuesday August 18th, 1998

Copyright © Benjamin D. McGinnes, 1998

Copyright © Benjamin D. McGinnes, 1998-2001