15th March 2000
'Most intriguing of all has been his (Abbott's) personal crusade against One Nation, an entanglement that has taken him to the edge of survivable political risk-taking.' ...So wrote Deborah Snow in last Saturday's (11/3) Sydney Morning Herald. Snow is the latest in a long line of journalist who have tried to 'crack' the One Nation story. She is also the latest to have failed.
Snow at the end of a article on the ABSOLUTE ABBOTT, appears to fire off the main questions that she originally intended to build a story around. What Abbott's response was a rapid fire volley of 'No's.' Snow had asked the questions ...and left it there.
The truth is that NO political journalist in this country is ever going to be allowed to 'push' this matter of the wider One Nation 'scam.' Why ...simple. IT WILL BRING DOWN THE HOWARD GOVERNMENT. The only way that the truth might finally emerge will be because it can no longer be ignored because of persistent people like myself. The trouble with writers and observers like myself, I do not have to serve a Murdock or a Packer. The natural defence to those outside the 'mouthpiece scribes' is to label them 'colourful eccentrics' like the sloppy Marilyn Wilkinson of the Sydney Morning Herald did or to write them off as 'disgruntled.'
In Snow's article she alludes to Abbott's involvement in One Nation. For goodness sake, I was writing to journalist about this three years ago.
Lets have a look at some of these 'political' journalists. Greg Roberts, SMH: Fia Cummings, Alex Mitchell, Sun Herald, Frank Levine, Australian. Kerry O'Brien, 7.30 Report. At the end of 1998, I spoke to Jeff Sommerfeld of the Courier-Mail. All of these people shared one thing in common; they wanted to tell the story that I told them. None of them got it past their editors. Recently Paul Ransley of the Channel Nine Sunday Program, picked up my history of evolving events on the International Internet, only to come serenading me to 'tell all.' I did. Ransley was over the moon, until he presented it to the Channel Nine lawyers. They are still running. So why the protective veil around Tony Abbott?
Greg Robert's knew the score. 'Bruce, they'll never run it. You know that. I don't know that I would go along with what you say, but that is not to say that you are wrong. If they ran this it would bring down the Howard Government.' That was the pragmatic Roberts, two and a half years ago.
But times have moved on. Terry Sharples at great personal cost did what nobody believed he could achieve ...bring One Nation down. In doing so he became enmeshed with Warringah MP Tony Abbott. In part this brought Abbott's involvement with One Nation into the public arena. But this involvement has been given 'low key' exposure. As John Samuel told Deborah Snow 'I didn't want to see someone of Abbott's credibility involved.'
So why the need for protection?
Snow described Samuel as a 'character of obscure provenance from West Australia.' She really does not get a handle on him. Essentially Samuel was a bagman ...but for whom? Snow says 'Samuel won't reveal who his backers are, but he styles himself as Abbott's protector.'
Oddly enough had she taken up Terry Sharples invitation to ring me I could have 'enlightened her.' But investigative journalists as Paul Ransley told me recently are nowhere to be found in Australia, which begs the question ...just how competent are our reporters?
Well Deborah Snow, let this provide the steel for the article that you didn't write and the stomach to examine the tough questions that you fired off and left dangling.
First of all let me tell you a little about the 'obscure' John Samuel. Samuel was known to me in early November 1996. At the time a Chris Burke was heading the Pauline Hanson Support Movement in Perth. (There is still questions to be asked as to what happened to $4000 raised by the sale of 800 Registration Certificates. Chris claims that it is still in an untouched bank account.) She was a get up and go person. When Samuel rang he became a very regular caller. Samuel joined with Burke and both ran the new movement. I know that there were differences of opinion, but they were united on one score. THEY WANTED HANSON TO RUN IN THE 1996 WEST AUSTRALIAN ELECTIONS.
Samuel tried hard to use me as a fulcrum to involve Hanson, but Pauline was implacably opposed. I know that Hazelton was approached also, but this plan did not happen. What none of us knew then was that Oldfield was 'wooing' Hanson into a far more ambitious plan. The question I find myself asking now in the light of Snow's article is, did Samuel know?
What is not generally known is that Samuel was so anxious to bring Hanson into the West Australian election, that his wife Joan, along with Chris Burke and the two Huwsmith boys, actually campaigned under the PHSM banner!
Abbott claims that he and he alone orchestrated the assault on One Nation. Here is what he said to Deborah Snow:
'Look I really want to stress the anti-One Nation thing was all my doing.' Asked were any senior Liberals involved, he answers 'No.' Did the Liberal Party instruct him to pursue One Nation. Again the answer is No! He ends up accepting all the responsibility. "All my doing, for better for worse. It has got Tony Abbott's fingerprints on it and no-one else's.'
Snow adds the final touch: Which is precisely what has got some of Tony Abbott's colleagues worried.
And worried they should be!
John Samuel has powerful friends. Among them Harold Clough, a Perth engineering and construction magnate and John Elliott, of IXL, Adelaide Steamship and Fosters connections. Elliott was also the President of the Liberal Party. John Samuel for all his 'obscure provenance' was expansive enough to inform me that he was a major factor in bringing West Australia Inc, unstuck. He said his main occupation was that of security, but in the light of his 'cloak and dagger escapades' with Terry Sharples the meaning of 'security' conjures up more that lock and chain.
Until I read Snow's article I was not aware of subtle nuance that gave rise to me ringing John Elliott. I discovered that in looking for a fax that Samuel had sent me identifying his friend Harold Clough, that the Sunday Times of the same day December 22, 1996, was dated the same. Samuel had impressed on me that Clough could be 'sympathetic to Hanson's cause. Certainly the article, detailing Clough outlined in a pencilled box suggested just that.
Samuel knew I was being pushed for financial resources and he had often suggested that I ring his friend Elliott I wanted him to but he never did. This caused me to doubt his claim. I forget now why I rang John Elliott specifically on that day or whether it was purely a coincidence, but the fact is that I rang on December 23, 1996, the day after Samuel's fax.
Until now the opening remark of John Elliott's conversation, that lasted some twenty-five minutes, had surprised me. In excusing my intrusion on this busy man's time I had said that 'you would not have heard of me.' His reply took me aback. "I know exactly who you are.'
It is interesting to note that when Abbott was negotiating with Sharples about funding, that Abbott wanted his name kept out of things. He did not want the Liberal Party 'implicated'. Was this possible guilt by association or something more dangerous?
I have covered the discussion in brief that I had with John Elliott (Destiny Aborted, Chapter 8 that can be seen on this website) and the reason for the call. Elliott told me that 'the money would not go to help Hanson as such, but to clear the blockage in the Senate. He followed this up with, 'You understand that means decimating the Australian Democrats.'
Like Abbott, Elliott did not want to be identified with this plan.
Given that Samuel also set about destroying the Democrats in the West and told me personally on the phone that he was going to destroy Cheryl Kernot, it becomes disturbingly clearer that the Liberal Party were involved in a nefarious plot to NOT destroy Hanson, but to capitalise on her popular appeal.
In Snow's article, Abbott's nonchalant replies to her loaded questions, indicate that he knew much more about this whole affair.
Long before the 'Oldfield fallout' the plan was to second Hanson into the fold and build a Senate team around her popularity. This would allow the Howard Government to legislate on important policies, including industrial relations and waterfront reform.
Oldfield was given the job to rein in. Remember that Oldfield, just happened to be in the Le Grange Restaurant at the very moment that Hanson had completed her maiden speech. I have often quizzed John Pasquarelli on this 'chance in a million' meeting. I have also quizzed him on his part in all this. John just laughs it off as 'speculation' but he floored me a few days ago when he informed me that Abbott often called at his home. They were good friends. Draw what you like from that.
The reason in my evaluation of all this is that the Abbott 'anti-One Nation thing' as he dismisses it, was not so much about the 'knife in the back Oldfield', which was bad enough from the perspective of having 'egg on his face' but more to do with a 'damage control' mission.
'Was I doing this because the Liberal Party had told me to? 'No.'
Once again I believe that Abbott knew the score. Abbott, Howard's protege, knew full well that his future as a possible Cabinet Minister hung precariously in the balance. His job as Snow brilliantly brings out in her interview, was to wear the flack and protect John Howard. Abbott had to lay his job on the line and get rid of the now millstone of One Nation. Many will recall that during this honeymoon period for Hanson, that John Howard refused to lay a glove on her, even to the point of upsetting some of this country's nearest neighbours. Did Howard know of this plan to create One Nation as a favourable voting block. At the time the Bulletin magazine suggested that Hanson could get up to seven or eight seats, so the number-crunchers knew exactly what had to be done.
It all came unstuck when Oldfield realised that Hanson was putty in his hands. Raw political opportunism and the aphrodisiac of power, drove Oldfield. It was a brilliant scheme ...for him, albeit that in the end he had to settle momentarily for much less. Oldfield went so close to controlling the government of this country. Had greed not driven Ettridge into the Queensland elections, this scenario would have become a reality.
When Terry Sharples first came to me for help in putting together his court case, the names Abbott and Samuel were unknown to him. We argue about Abbott, for he claims that is 'rot'. Sharples is a fighter and I admire his single-mindedness of purpose, but he is also a user. He also has a convenient memory and an arrogance that is candidly frightening. This is a shame for Terry would have a made a very good politician, but there is no other point of view with him.
He claims that he knew of Abbott when he went into Everingham's office. I say he didn't. In fact I deliberately refused to use my fax to send material to Abbott, because I always believed that what is developing now would happen. I recall vividly how Sharples rang me on his mobile while travelling on the train and saying that Abbott had left a message on his answering machine. That was his first contact.
It was only a few days later that Sharples told me that 'things were getting heavy' because they were bringing security in from Western Australia. This rang alarm bells. 'Have you ever heard of a fellow named John Samuel.' Sharples had not and I would have been surprised if he had that stage.
Sharples and Samuel were to meet on many occasions. It was all so mysterious, so high powered, but it became a mosaic of intrigue from that time on. One thing is for certain Samuel never attempted to make himself known to me. Sharples, also kept him out of my sphere. For a man who I had spent endless time talking to about Hanson, I found this all so stupid.
So far the drama and escapades of One Nation have only impacted on the 'little people.' There is a hope that this will all go away now and Hanson buried. Hanson claims that this was all stage managed to get rid of her. The truth is that the destruction of Hanson came about more by accident than design. Hanson could well have become the darling of the Liberal Party and enjoyed a easy ride, but for her fascination with the two David's. Either way the concept of Hanson being of the people for the people and by the people was doomed.
What must be pursued now is the role that the Liberal Party played. Are we going to be satisfied with the destruction of 'bit' players, who will be forgotten tomorrow or are we going to tackle the pillars of the political society, who hold our destiny in their hands. Corruption is not the special domain of the nonentities, it permeates all levels. The question is; do we have the strength and commitment to weed it out? Certainly if we leave it to the mainstream newspapers, we will wait a very long time.
Howard will not call it, but the people must demand a Commission of Inquiry. Hanson must not be allowed to become, as she will, the scapegoat. If we allow that then in the wider domain we are all losers.