19th September 2000
by Bruce Whiteside
The issues that Pauline Hanson raised in her maiden speech were legitimate concerns. She touched on matters that the silent masses only whispered about at private functions, barbeques or over a few beers at the local. In late 1996 to openly admit to supporting this fiery redhead was to court ostracism, ridicule or worse still to be labelled a racist. Hanson by throwing down the gauntlet on the issues of immigration and Aboriginal funding had a battle on her hands. It was one thing to launch a missile from within the hallowed halls of Cowards Castle, it was another thing to take it into the public arena. Hanson needed friends; she needed them fast. What Hanson needed was a soul-mate but people as outspoken as Hanson were few and far between.
Ten years before Hanson had come on the scene, I had viewed the encroaching appropriation of Australian land ownership by foreign interests with concern. That concern produced a very hostile letter to the Gold Coast Bulletin, that triggered the Foreign Land Ownership campaign. In May 1988, against all advice I called a public meeting that resulted in 1500 people and the world media flocking to the hall. It caused reverberation around the world, particularly in the corridors of power both in Australia and Japan. I ran the bitter gauntlet of media, big business, tour operators and gutless politicians. I was painted by definition a racist. It was not pretty.
Pauline Hanson said last Saturday that these people, Oldfield, Pasquarelli and Whiteside, had never stood up to be counted. In my case Hanson was wrong, dead wrong.
Having undergone that baptism of fire, I picked up the challenge to be Hanson's unsolicited soul-mate and forge the movement for National Support.
It was this movement of the people that was to provide the platform and foundation for the now fraudulent One Nation. It was Hanson's two favourite son's Ettridge and Oldfield who conspired to ultimately use and destroy, what was never theirs, but the people's.
In the four years since millions of dollars have percolated through the Hanson camp, political opportunism has been rife and bitter, impropriety and abuse have been the order of the day; the message has become a casualty. The people have been neglected and where they raised legitimate calls of concern, abused, denigrated and treated abominably. Hanson's focus has been on personal relationships, that were exploited to nurtured personal ambition and power. Left now with that bitter legacy and public scorn she comes out fighting with a rapier tongue.
Hanson has placed herself ahead of the cause she set out to address. True campaigners are passionate for the issues; Hanson is not. The cause has now become the vehicle for self interest.
Now in a last bid to turn the clock back and save her bacon the quest for reinvention is launched on those who once believed and who like myself would have walked on hot coals for her. Hanson aspires to be Senator Hanson.
The question we must ask is simple. What if? What if Hanson became Senator Hanson. Who would benefit? Senator Hanson with eight years to launch the occasional one or two liner, perhaps provocative, perhaps ill-informed and a secure tenure for eight years, with a guaranteed income, followed by a gold-plated pension? Or would the people benefit? Given Hanson's propensity for not making her people part of the inclusive process, this is not likely. Democracy, Hanson tells us is about mob-rule. Qualified that strongly held view indicates that she and she alone has the wisdom of Solomon. 'This is my idea, my party …all I want is your support, your money, your help'.
Hanson's only remaining forte is to draw people. This is a great dilemma, for many of us recognise and acknowledge this valuable ability. If Hanson had been able to work with people, listen, absorb and act for the common good, she would have been a winner. The truth is, she cannot. A new champion of the people must be found.
Oldfield claims that he wrote 'every significant word' since her maiden speech. Hanson denies it. It suits her; her and Oldfield are now at each others throats. Yet nothing in that time was earth shattering. Hanson was meteoric during Pasquarelli's stewardship. In fact when you analyse Hanson, she is no more than a Sarah Bernhardt …an actor. The real brain, the real fire-brand was not Hanson, but Pasquarelli. It was he who crafted and created the centre piece of Hanson's world, her maiden speech. Since that day, the sham has survived by chance, public sympathy and bluster. The message is too precious to die in the hands of an incompetent!
We must seek out a new champion.
It is my intention to pursue this avenue. I am interested in forming group to work toward nominating and supporting a Senate position, that will follow through on the Hanson philosophy.
In writing this I readily acknowledge that Pauline Hanson is unique, politically. It is a great sadness to me that she aborted her fate with destiny Uniqueness is not a virtue in itself. I did not start out to support Hanson because I was ensnared by her particular brand of womanhood. I supported Hanson because I believed that she could do the job. She has proved beyond all doubt that she cannot. We have to accept that Hanson is a spent force. We do not need the remnants of the fragmented tearaways, but a genuine advocate with passion, with honesty and integrity. Somebody special.
If the undecided voters have a smorgasbord of Independents to vote for, then the power to effect change and government policy is diminished. Somewhere, there must be another Hanson. This time let us find an advocate worthy of the trust of the people. Let us begin the search!