by Malcolm Mackerras (senior lecturer in politics, University College, University of New South Wales, at the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra.
A political analyst says the controversial One Nation leader should stand for the Senate rather than the House of Representatives.
In July this year the headlines all over Australia were “Goss sets sights on Hanson”.
The lead paragraph under the headline typically was something as follows: “Two of Australia’s highest-profile politicians, Wayne Goss and Pauline Hanson, are headed for a battle for the seat of Oxley that will capture the national focus at the next election.”
Over the past six months I have been surprised at the large number of radio talk-back personalities who have asked me what I think of Hanson.
Just why a Canberra based analyst is more likely to be right than one who lives in Queensland has been a mystery to me.
Nevertheless, I have always given the same answer. In her capacity as member for Oxley Hanson is as dead as a dodo even the maggots are dripping off.
The next member for Oxley may well be Wayne Keith Goss, Anne Scott or Paul Gregory Tully, or a woman member other than Pauline Lee Hanson.; For her the prediction is clear: no way.
However, it is possible still to suppose a Senator Hanson in 1998, 1999 or even 2000. That does not require too great a leap of imagination.
If one stretches the old imagination almost to the level of ridicule Hanson as a member for the seat of Blair - a chance which marginally would be better than that of the snowball’s chance in hell.
Let us consider first her realistic option. As the lead candidate for One Nation she would only need 7.7% of the vote to win one of the twelve Senate places for Queensland in a double dissolution election.
If she received that she could sneer at every party which “put Hanson last” on their ticket. A mere 7.7% of first preferences guarantees election - without need for any support through later preferences.
In June and July last year the Pauline Hanson One Nation Party was getting about 10% in Queensland in all the respectable polls. I never could understand why she immediately did not announce her candidature for the Senate.
Here was the 1997 mystery to end all mysteries.
It is true she made a total fool of herself with the November video (not meant for release) in which she declared “Fellow Australians, if you are seeing me now, it means I have been murdered.”
Yet, even so, she was still getting about 6% of the Queensland vote in respectable polls.
Bearing in mind that politicians often make fools of themselves, her Senate prospects are quite recoverable still.
In July last year I wrote an article for a southern newspaper which asserted: “During the term of the next Federal Parliament she either will be Senator Hanson or she will be a private citizen managing a fish and chip shop in Ipswich.”
However, the article concluded: “So where is Mrs Hanson headed? Back to the fish and chip shop I would have to say.”
Nothing has happened in the intervening six months to change that assessment.
Rather, we have had two displays of Hansonite folly.
The first was the repeated ruling out of the obvious option - standing for the Senate. The second was the “I have been murdered” video.
All the above makes the assumption she is most unlikely to win the new seat of Blair. Some explanation is needed.
Let us first understand the very peculiar circumstances which enabled her to win Oxley in March 1998.
In 1995, she had been endorsed as one of three Liberal Party candidates in Queensland seats the party was most unlikely to win. On the ballot paper she was even described as a Liberal.
The House of Representatives had been dissolved on January 29 and nominations had closed on February 9. Her disendorsement on February 15 placed her very much into a best-of-both-worlds situation. Without a Liberal opponent, with a paradoxical blessing of the party’s disendorsement and in an anti-Keating atmosphere she was odds-on to enjoy a fluke win.
The 73,000 electors in the new seat of Blair comprise 24,000 from Longman, 20,000 from Oxley, 18,000 from Fisher and 11,000 from Groom.
The Coalition share of the two party preferred vote (on 1996 adjusted figures) is 67%. This seat is about as safe for the Coalition as Fairfax is for the Liberals or Wide Bay for the Nationals.
So who will win? My sense of caution tells me not to tip. It will be the candidate for Liberal or for National in a final count with Labor.
If she is so foolish as to stand for Blair Pauline Hanson will have been excluded at an earlier stage of the count.
Letter to the editor, Queensland Times 3rd January 1998 about Malcolm Mackerras' credibility:
There has been much comment in the newspapers about Cheryl Kernot’s past. However, much of this has been studiously ignored by more than sympathetic TV stations.
Malcolm Mackerras, whose speciality seems to be statistics, is somewhat out of his depth when it comes to predicting voter behaviour. He stated that this latest information will not affect her vote in Dickson.
Years ago, he confidently predicted Labor would win a Queensland state election, which Sir Joh won in his own right when two Liberals switched parties. Malcolm M lives a long way from Dickson.
Petrie, where I live is in the heart of Dickson. I speak to Dicksonians every day and personally I couldn’t say how people would vote here.
I can speak only for myself and even under hypnosis. I wouldn’t vote for Cheryl Kernot even if she stood for the Salvation Army Party.
Frank Bellet, Petrie