There was a feeling within the Pauline Hanson Support Movement, that Hanson was not taking us too seriously. True she was 'busy' but busy doing what? Gradually the elected representative of the people of Oxley was not only becoming a travelling road show, that meant that she spent much of her time outside the Parliament, but also something of a petulant 'super-star'. I for one was not terribly impressed. Here we were a group of unsolicited volunteers, calling public meetings and requesting from her the simple endorsement of her name so that our application for incorporation could proceed. This was important to us. We needed to be protected against possible public liability and be insulated against what the organisation might say and have attributed to the movement as a whole. This reluctance, that we found out was deliberate, was of great concern to us but was flippantly treated by Hanson. It must be remembered that at the time Hanson's demeanour had not come under the public gaze as it was to later. Hanson was to develop a totally destructive attitude to things and people who upset her delicate equilibrium of civility.
Hanson had told me that we had her authority to use her name, but she refused to a request from the Corporate Affairs, to co-operate. This not only called our integrity into question but also suggested that we were trying to pull some sort of stunt. It was from this that public perception was beginning to ask why Hanson refused to even acknowledge us. One day I was questioned by Channel Ten's Patrina Zaphir about this. In a lengthy interview only a 'grab' was aired, but it was on target enough to rile the 'sensitive to criticism' M/s Hanson. My comment was directed at the tardiness of Pauline to address the serious issue of 'incorporation.' Referring to this I said that her 'communication skills were absolutely bloody appalling.' Taken out of context, as they were ... for any attempt to suggest that Hanson's communication skills, particularly in public, were anything but extraordinary, they would have to have been crazy ...these comments were seen as being criticism. It was not long before I was stopping flack from some very close quarters, not the least being Paul Trewartha and some of the females on our deadweight committee. I remained resolute.
As founder of the movement, I was also its nominated spokesman. I was not answerable to Hanson, though I took great care not to cut across her political views. This did not mean that I was to wear rose-tinted glasses, as was the natural inclination of those who hero-worshipped her. I did not. For one who was firmly and more damned committed to her cause than anyone else I have ever come across, I was remarkably pragmatic about her. I simply would not entertain hero-worship, nor was I daunted by her. I saw Hanson, as much as I admired her, warts and all.
My 'speaking to the media' became a matter of extreme paranoia. I have never been less than available to most journalists and I am not one to pull punches as the public address I delivered in support of Hanson would indicate, but I was not going to be told by Hanson, Pasquarelli or anyone else outside the movement what we could say or not say.
This gave considerable rise for concern when Hanson, after a mystery meeting with a man in the grounds of the Federal Parliament, decided to head off to the United States for five weeks over the forth-coming Christmas. The first we heard of this was when Hanson demanded a meeting with the PHSM on the Gold Coast. It was agreed that she would come and see us the day before she left for the States, namely Dec 24th 1996. This would dovetail in with our last meeting of the year.
After waiting for thirty minutes we started our meeting. There was no sign of Hanson. Finally we turned to the final business of the year. No sooner had we done so than Hanson and Hazelton hot and flustered came in profusely sorry for being late. We understood and after welcoming them, Paul Trewartha duly handed over to Hanson. It very quickly became evident that Hanson's mission was for one purpose; to silence the founder of 'her' movement. The sheer presumption of the woman, who first of all lacked the grace to even acknowledge that she was in our debt and secondly proceeded to tell me in no uncertain terms that I was not to speak to anyone. Her focus was like that of a kid with a magnifying glass trying to start a fire. I was something that she was going to ride over. It didn't happen that way. I turned the attack back on her telling her that she was traipsing up and down the country telling everyone who would listen that John Howard and all her critics were trying to suppress the freedom to speak out, and her ...in particular. If it was good enough for her, then I saw no reason why she should be so upset when I used the same criteria as her. Very quickly the debate degenerated and when Hanson was being outgunned on the principle of her argument the gallant Ron Pattison jumped to his feet and threatened to walk out if I did not 'back off.' This was an interesting phase of the Hanson phenomenon although none of us saw it at the time. It revealed a flaw in the Hanson persona that was to surface many times in the future. Hanson could never hold her line or reason in a debate before she resorted to personalising it and it also revealed how many men were besotted by her penchant for becoming 'intellectually stranded' so triggering their defence mechanisms.
This was really the beginning of the end. The meeting instead of defending me as their founder, chose to support Hanson in her bid to completely suppress me from speaking while she was on holiday in the States. Whilst I understood her need to be reassured of any one speaking out on issues such as those she had built her notoriety upon, I was not about to be silence on what we as her support movement would say in her defence. I remained just as defiant on this until the committee took a vote on the issue and it received the endorsement that was music to her ears. On the strength of that I undertook to adhere to their opinion.
In effect I had been gagged. Democratic, yes ...but Hanson had no right, her name or not, to impose the suppression of free speech upon our organisation. Hanson's remedy was very simple as I told her on the day. 'If you are not happy with what we are doing, if you feel threatened by what I say, then have the guts to tell the media and they will do the rest.' But it did not come to this. Hanson's paranoia was being driven by influences that we were not know of at the time. As we were to find out in the none too distant future Hanson was already acting by remote control.
Toward the end of the meeting, which ended with an afternoon tea, we where told that 'big things were going to happen after Christmas, when Pauline returned from overseas. Hazelton and Hanson also promised that the first thing that they would attend to after the break was our Incorporation endorsement. Although the conversation was friendly Hanson gave nothing away, preferring to be coy. We would just have to wait.
I mentioned that I had undertaken to abide by the decision of the committee. This I gave to both Hanson and Hazelton. In the next couple of days this was thrown back in my face with interest. At the time I gave that undertaking, two interviews that I had given to the Courier-Mail and Herald -Sun journalists were in the system. News items usually appear on the day in question but feature articles written often appear at a later date or sometimes not at all.
One of these was centred around our increasing concern about the lack of funds. With the number of branches now close to thirty our resources were taxed to a point where we could no longer afford to keep going. Hanson certainly made no offer to assist, yet all our energies were focused on assisting her. We had discussed option of calling for corporate help, but nothing immediately came of it. During the course of a discussion with the Herald-Sun journalist I had mentioned this looming situation and indicated that we might have to pull the plug, as we were not receiving the payments from the branches to sustain our efforts. No sooner had I spoken about this, when I thought upon the idea of approaching one or two businessmen.
When I look back on it, I wonder how I ever got the nerve to even approach John Elliott. The truth was that at the time I was so driven by the need to establish this 'army of soldiers' behind Pauline, that I never really gave it a second thought. The other mitigating reason was that I was so 'politically naive' to the machinations that go on, that I simply did not realise the full implications of what I was about to ask. That afternoon December 23, 1996, I rang John Elliott's office. His secretary answered and informed me that he was not in, but said that he would return the call later. After leaving my name and phone, I hung up. To be honest I did not expect the call to be returned, so it came as a shock when I answered the phone at approximately twenty-five to five to hear, 'Elliott here, I understand you wanted to speak to me.' I must admit that I was somewhat thrown, when I heard this. Usually 'big names' or celebrities don't faze me. My feelings for such people is governed not by their position in society, but by my respect for them. Elliott to me is a larger than life character, very powerful, but a larrikin who thumbs his nose at the wielders of red-tape. In some ways I admire this ability to cut through this nonsense whilst at the same time I am not oblivious to the power of money. Yes I knew that John Elliott was the former Federal President of the Liberal Party, but I believed that if he was sympathetic, then he would be one man who could possibly help. I have often been asked how much I would have asked for. The answer to that would have been anything that had been forthcoming. At the time a thousand dollars would have been music to my ears. In the event specifics were not mentioned.
I remember saying to Elliott, that I 'understood that this was quite presumptuous of me because he would have never heard of me.' His reply was quick and incisive, ' I know precisely who you are,' he replied. This eased the initial fright that I had experienced when I first heard his voice and we went on to speak for twenty minutes or so. What surprised me was that this busy businessman, was prepared to spend his time listening, with patience and courtesy. I had told him that we wanted to find corporate funding so we could continue to function and promote Hanson's cause. The indication that I drew was that there were two financiers in Melbourne who may be sympathetic; that he himself could not be involved and that if funding was forthcoming then I should appreciate that it would not be specifically directed to Hanson, but to facilitate 'clearing the blockage in the Senate'. I was candidly surprised, not only by the clearly defined objective, but also that arrangements were already in place to raise money to that end. Elliott went on, 'You understand that this means the decimation of the Australian Democrats.' I certainly did!
Although I later sent Elliott a resume of my credentials such as they were, I was never to hear from him again. To this day I don't know whether he took me seriously or whether he was just playing with me. He was after all a very seasoned campaigner in politics and I, ... well in this league, probably very green.
After Hanson had left for the States, the Herald-Sun article, written by Greg Abbott appeared. Its headlines screamed Hanson team going broke! In part the article went on:
Despite a claimed membership of 2,500 at $5.00 per head and about 23 branches, Mr Whiteside said that the group existed on a shoe-string budget which never peaked over $3,000.
A simple calculation here would indicate that something was wrong and that the membership would have grossed at least $12,500. The reader could reasonably ask, where was the remaining $9,500. In fact our budget peaked at $4,400 on the 31st Dec 1996. What the article does not make clear is that we started with nothing. The writer makes it clear that I had paid for a much needed fax machine on my personal bankcard. The initial monies came from the public meeting; from this came the expenses of preparing and posting starter-kits. When these kits went out, those who were organising the establishing of the branches, were responsible for their own branch accounts. They were to repay our original costs and reimburse us with 10% of all revenue collected from new memberships.
In reality something very different happened. That difference occurred when Hanson in leaving for the United States, left instruction with Hazelton. Those instructions saw meetings held at Hazelton's Gold Coast residence, to which I was privy to one. The effects of those meetings and what transpired were to change the whole course of what we had set out to do.