13th March 2000
To be read to the accompaniment of the Dead March by Saul
It is so easy to fall into the trap of saying 'I told you so', but never one to mince words, I believe that I have earned, the right to say exactly that. I TOLD YOU SO!
One million voters were adroitly 'conned' along with two electoral commissioners and the bleeding hearts of One Nation. They were not 'conned' by Hanson, but by opportunistic carpetbaggers. The raw fact is that Hanson was naively vulnerable and was 'conned' more comprehensively than the rest put together. Before the party is over Pauline Hanson, may well live to regret the very mention of either David Oldfield or David Ettridge. Given the comments in the Weekend Australian, Hanson could well end up being personally responsible for repaying the $500,000 electoral funding to the Queensland Electoral Commission.
There are many One Nation devotees around today who would have once walked over hot coals for Hanson. Ten carpetbagging Queensland politicians, among them, who have written Hanson off and gone further ...formed new alliances, for no other reasons but to further their own political ambitions.
Had Feldman called for a Commission of Inquiry into One Nation, whilst he was still a member of the team, his credibility would have remained in tact and both Ettridge and Oldfield would have had a battle on their hands. Scott Balson, forwarded this suggestion in letter form from me to Ian Petersen and two members of The Independent Alliance Forum (TIAF), met with these politicians to discuss these ideas and others. The trouble was that the arrogant decision had been made to form the politically cynical City Country Alliance. Here again the arrogant manipulations of the few!
Few people in the ill-fated One Nation catastrophe, ever understood or bothered to find out why I have been so vocal and as it so happens better informed. The cold hard truth is that the PHSM was developed, organised and presented to the public without ANY OTHER PARTICIPANT. I claim, justifiably the unique organisation that spawned from that initiative; WHICH WAS ILLEGALLY SEIZED TO PROVIDE A PLATFORM FOR FRAUD AND DECEIT. The principle on which ONE NATION was founded has been an abhorrence to me from it's inception. The reason is simple. The only time I met David Ettridge, I told him to his face he was a con-man. For that I was vilified and blackened. The only time I ever spoke with David Oldfield he told me 'You were never going to be allowed to remain in the movement. You would have stood in the way of our agenda. WE are going to destroy you.' Oh yes, they did a good job of that ...but finally it was Ettridge and Oldfield, ably assisted by a very sour Andrew Carne who implicated them both, who finally sealed Hanson's fate.
But what of Hanson? Nobody has ever asked why Hanson has steadfastly refused to dump on the two David's. All this crap about their integrity, or more pathetically her version of it, carries no credibility now that the courts have proven them liars and cheats. But why has Hanson, to her great peril persisted in underpinning these scoundrels?
Since nobody else seems to have the intestinal fortitude to tackle this question then I will try.
Pauline Hanson is not stupid. Pauline Hanson, claims what many of us were the beneficiaries of; a healthy home environment, where commonsense, basic decencies and hard-work were instilled. These are fundamentals, if practiced (as Hanson claimed ad infinitum) that carry most of us through life. So why did Hanson negate those principles by turning her back on a million loyal voters and forsaking all for two proven carpetbaggers?
ONE MILLION VOTERS! Can any of us really grasp the marvellous harvest that was so stupidly squandered. ONE MILLION VOTERS! An opportunity that we will not see happen again. Hanson was an angel, Hanson was an answer to a prayer ...and if you doubt that why did a million people vote for her ...NOT ONE NATION! I have said many times that Hanson carried a crystal chalice, that of the people. It was precious ...not to be dropped ...but drop it she did. Why? The eternal question ...why?
As I have said, Hanson is NOT stupid, so there had to be a reason for this 'kamikaze' act that has brought her facing financial and political ruin.
Consider these: Was it infatuation with David Oldfield? I know of people who were close enough to Hanson to believe that she was emotionally involved. Some are less than complimentary, others again believed that this was very much a one way affair. Certainly David Oldfield's less than tasteful poses for the media with other women, do not indicate that he respected them. Was Hanson used for his political ambitions?
If we are charitable and accept the premise that one's personal life is one's own as Hanson had suggested, then we should also remember that Hanson was an icon of the people. What worried me most about this liaison was the real potential for Hanson to be subverted ...and not in the in the interest of Hanson. If my reading of this was wrong, why then did he promote the idea of Hanson running in the unwinnable seat of Blair, whilst securing number one spot in NSW for the Senate. Was it to gain control of the 'party'? Don't forget that had it not been for the Queensland elections, Oldfield, a self confessed National Socialist would have led a team that controlled the balance of power in the Senate. Power was Oldfield's aphrodisiac. Barbara Hazelton at the time Hanson's closest friend and Mother confessor told us that Hanson had said, 'David is all I wanted in a man.' This is not only believable but more than likely a fact. Under these circumstances Hanson's infatuation could easily have given way to pragmatism. Many may see Hazelton as a woman bearing 'sour grapes' but this old cliché became a paper crutch and was visited upon all who saw the truth.
What about blackmail or secretly drafted agreements? Was Hanson dangled a lucrative carrot? Was she made offers that she could not refuse? I have spoken with far too many people who have expressed deep concern about this death wish of Hanson's to remain wedded to the two David's. Whilst many have discussed these concerns and made various suggestions to 'rescue' Hanson, most, like the gutless lost legion who ran under her banner, simply walked away or denounced her. I can understand her being bitter.
Two people however contacted her. One of them was the rascally John Pasquarelli. Whatever you think of this man, he basically remained true to Hanson. John, who has rung me every week since his 'sacking', continued to have Pauline's interest at heart. Many times he rang her and appealed to me to do the same. John in the end lost heart. I hear him now ...'the silly, silly woman!' Not vindictive but in a manner of deep sadness.
I wrote to her on about six occasions,. She ignored the lot! I finally did ring her and her secretary said "She's standing right next to me, you can speak with her now.' I said, No, get her to ring me' ...I wanted to test her mettle. Hanson simply lacked the guts.
The question remains: Was Hanson compromised? Like I said Hanson is not stupid, so we have to consider that for a politician of the people to turn her back on a million loyal supporters and plumb for two men who the court has decided are con-men, that something intractable worked against her.
If this is the case then Hanson not only faces political oblivion, but possibly gaol and financial ruin.
Very few people hold the view that I am about to express. Almost to a person they see her as part of the problem. I agree, but I do not hold to the view that she was consciously a deliberate participant. I err on the side of caution as far as Hanson's involvement is concerned. I believe that her basic honesty (no I am not blinkered) would not have allowed her to perpetrate a deliberate plan to defraud. I believe her inherent naiveness, coupled to her school-girlish vulnerability, would not have allowed her to see the subtle nuances of intrigue, that enveloped her. This was a fact that was recognised at both the original court case and again at the Court of Appeal. The reason Hanson was not called, was that she would have been a disaster in the hands of cross examining plaintiffs and legal council. I have no wish to denigrate Pauline Hanson, but to put it very simply ...she was out of her league. Her security and future ...or so I thought was among her grassroots. The people would have remained loyal had she honoured her compact with them.
Pauline Hanson ignored the sound advise of John Pasquarelli. She followed Ettridge's advise and refused to speak to me. Now she has finally reached a point of no return. No longer will the facade of defiance, or false bravado stem the incoming tide. Ultimately, the law will take its course. This was never a plot to destroy ONE NATION, or Pauline Hanson. The truth is that Pauline Hanson had the world at her feet. She could and should have carved a special niche in the fabric of the political history of Australia, but she dropped the crystal chalice.
In four years we have witnessed the death of a fallen angel ...a promise unfulfilled, a destiny aborted.