by Peter Charlton, Courier Mail, May 29th 1998
Commentary on this article by Scott Balson:
Charlton is one of many Australian journalists who I refer to as "intellectual prostitutes". The term was first used by John Swinton, chief-of-staff of the New York Times, in 1953 when he described the ethics of reporters.
In the article below you will see how Charlton spins the line that One Nation is somehow "racist" and uses comments by Malcolm Fraser as the basis of this line of attack. Fraser has, of course, as much credibility as a madam in Kings Cross.
Charlton also refers to the "bogus VC" as an example of One Nation's lack of credibility. I am on the record as having said that I, without One Nation's authorisation, placed this on the page after being assured that the facts were true by the person who had allegedly received the VC. One nation had absolutely nothing to do with the "bogus VC".
Now does Charlton check his facts? I know that he does not. My recent visit to the Australian Press Council (APC) in Sydney where I met a startled and totally unprepared Charlton alerted me to the deceit behind his privileged position as a reporter to The Courier Mail. Charlton, you see, is not a member of the Australian Jourmalist Association or any other professional body where ethics are encouraged. He is a loose cannon used to expound the views of his Murdoch masters.
At the APC meeting Charlton stammered his way through a number of fallacies about the Internet - fallacies I was delighted to expose in front of his peers. He did not like the intimidation, I do not like his unethical reporting style and will continue to report on him as and where I see fit.
Here is one of his classic trashy statements: "Respectability for a party happy to include survivalists, racists and the “mad, bad, dangerous-to-know” lunar Right. Respectability for a party that has been captured by the gun lobby and is actively proposing repealing the gun laws enacted in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre."
Here is a transcript of Charlton's entire article:
As the Liberal Party embraces Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party in a desperate ploy to gain preferences in the Queensland election, it is forgetting the basic tenets of morality and decency that its supporters expect.
The Liberal Party’s decision to place Pauline Hanson’s One Nation ahead of the Australian Labor Party in the Queensland election is politically short-sighted and morally indefensible.
For the National Party, a party never particularly troubled by morality or principle, the politics of its decision is simple and sadly predictable.
Opinion polls show that One Nation is drawing support from disaffected former National Party voters in parts of rural and regional Queensland. And, although the National Party appeared briefly to wrestle with its conscience on the issue, it always knew it was going to tap the mat.
But the Liberal Party is different. Or it used to be different.
Liberal Prime Minister John Howard is fond of proclaiming that he is governing for all of us. Indeed, the slogan, with suitable capitalisation, will be familiar from the last election.
The veracity of that statement can be tested but that’s for another column.
The Liberal Party’s current embrace of One Nation must make its genuinely liberal supporters and voters wonder what has happened to its principles and its decency.
It must make them wonder whether “all of us” includes Aboriginal Australians, Asian Australians and the other targets of One Nation bigotry.
Whatever the motives and the aspirations of its leader and its members, there can be no doubt about the policies of One Nation. They are as former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, said yesterday, “anti-Asian, anti-Aboriginal and anti-Semitic. Its policies are racist.
And, as Fraser added: “Where major political parties compromise their basic principles with a racist political party, experience more often than not has shown that the influence of the racist party has grown and, in far too many cases, become dominant.”
Fraser asked Liberal and National Party voters “to think deeply about this issue and to ignore the injunctions of their parties and to place One Nation last”.
“Placing One Nation before the ALP implies a respectability of One Nation which that party does not deserve. When individuals cast their vote it is their personal decision, individuals cannot hide behind the backs of their parties, they are responsible for their own vote. I appeal to you all to put decency and principle before the most base political expediency.”
Now that Fraser has spoken, other former senior Liberals might be tempted to follow.
Earlier this week, several used the old “I’m out of politics now” excuse. At least one spoke of his fears of business retribution if he spoke out.
Privately, they are appalled at the party’s decision; publicly, they have nothing to say.
That’s a great pity. If more respected Liberal Party figures followed the examples of Fraser and Sir James Killen, the part’s machine men might rethink their decision. They might restore to the Liberal Party some of the principles and decency which Fraser fears have gone.
As Fraser says, putting One Nation ahead of Labor implies a respectability which One Nation does not deserve. It is respectability for a party that is prepared to claim the support of a bogus Victoria Cross winner. Respectability for a party that preaches division and prejudice.
Respectability for a party happy to include survivalists, racists and the “mad, bad, dangerous-to-know” lunar Right. Respectability for a party that has been captured by the gun lobby and is actively proposing repealing the gun laws enacted in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre.
These gun laws have been the high point of Howard’s period as Prime Minister. In the face of solid National Party opposition, the laws were responsible and courageous. Yet Hanson claimed that gun owners have been “convicted without trial for political purposes”. Howard’s response has been to say nothing, the same response he made to her maiden speech in September 1996. He might say One Nation is bigoted and backward looking but he is either not prepared to use or capable of using his leadership position to insist the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party changes its decision on preferences.
Leaving aside the Prime Minister’s timid opportunism, the Liberal Party’s decision is also dumb politics. The exemption of the seat of Sunnybank demonstrates that the Liberal Party is concerned not to offend the electorates large Asian-Australian voters. In a very real sense, the exemption merely reinforces the moral cowardice of the decision.
It will come back to haunt the Liberal Party, in Queensland and Federally.
Yesterday, Sydney’s Deputy Mayor Henry Tsang produced a petition signed by 10,000 voters opposing Hanson’s One Nation Party.
“Pauline Hanson is splitting the nation,” he said, warning that political parties that directed preferences to One Nation would lose the support of the Chinese community.
In Sydney today that one in eight people is of Asian origin. The Chinese community is concentrated on the North shore and they form a sizeable slice of the electorate of Benelong, currently held by John Winston Howard.