A Brief History
The Pauline Hanson Support Movement had its genesis in an impromptu speech that I wrote for no other reason than putting down on paper what I felt at the time. For me it was 1988 and the foreign land ownership debate all over again. Yet it was more than that. I saw in Hanson a soul mate who shared very similar views and further more she had the same capacity to get up on the public stage and enunciate what the more reserved, the more intimidated and the less gutsy were reluctant to do. I also found a common thread of upbringing accompanied by both Protestant and Roman Catholic threads that led back to England and more particularly Ireland. Yes, I did have tremendous admiration for Pauline Hanson, but it was not the admiration of sycophants, carpetbaggers or political opportunists. What I wrote and never altered was a month later the catalyst for a public meeting of moral and practical support for a lone battler. That meeting held in the Albert Waterways Community Centre on 28th October 1996 was attended by 850 people of which 125 immediately became members of what quickly became the Pauline Hanson Support Movement. Whilst this was encouraging in itself it must be understood that this movement was intended to be a local one, nothing more.
Within twenty-four hours the wider media had picked up on the Gold Coast Bulletin’s very poor reporting of the event and as result I appeared on top of the Today programme the following morning. When I arrived home at 8.30am that same morning, my wife Iris was locked into the phone, with pencil and paper working overtime. This went on for a month, by which time a handful of us had put ingenuity and resourcefulness into play and established not a local organization but a growing national one. And all this from one man putting down on paper what Hanson was attempting to get across in the public arena.
The original committee
For the record it was originally decided to call the pubic meeting mentioned three weeks earlier, namely 7th October 1996. At that time there was no committee. There was Iris my wife, the Clodd family and myself. The reason why this did not take place was very simple. When on September 23 1996, the Gold Coast Bulletin interviewed me about the idea of going public, it attracted well over 50 odd phone calls. The conversation was along the lines of ‘we are with you all the way on this’. Not so in reality. I could not afford to wear the cost of hiring a hall and limited advertising, so I embarked on a phone round up of thirty odd people for $10 each; all but one agreed. I arranged for a Postal Box number and waited until the donations came in. I waited two weeks and received one solitary donation. As a result I called the meeting off.
Three weeks later a Paul Trewartha who happened to catch me
out in the garden pulled up at the gate in his Land Cruiser and wanted to know
what had happened to my planned meeting . My response was ‘If Australians are so bloody apathetic, then they can
go to hell.’ With that he offered to fund any shortfall, but I suggested that he
make it a donation and I would reschedule the meeting. This was done and on the
day before the meeting October 28th, we called a meeting at our home to delegate
responsibilities for that meeting.
A provisional committee was put in place. Here it is:
Bruce Whiteside Chairman
Iris Whiteside, Secretary
Paul Trewartha, Vice Chairman
Lindon Litchfield, Treasurer
Well before this time a set of guide lines had been drawn up, registration
certificates at $5 each were printed. Banners, bumper stickers, tee shirts
and other items were created in their totality by the very hardworking and
supportive Clodd family and this did not take into account the reams of
photocopying that was done.
Later others were to take false credit for what they were supposed to have done
and also traded friendships born of this embryonic movement for the promises of
political fulfilment, but it was those who sought no reward but strove for gold
plated support for a people’s politician who were to become the casualties of
avarice and ambition.
As these pages unfold a sorry episode will become all too apparent.
The Guidelines for the PHSM
Not surprisingly when you have designs to hi-jack a movement, stories are generated to justify intervention. Told often enough the stories take on a life of their own.
So it was when Ettridge announced to all the world that Whiteside had no organizational ability and Helen Dodd in her book The Hanson Phenomenon, perpetuated the myth, it became an accepted fact.
Perhaps if criticism can be levelled at Bruce Whiteside for letting the movement down it was his inability to tolerate mediocrity and deception. When so many of his people accepted the ‘charm and guile’ of David Ettridge without question, he found it difficult to understand their ability to sort the chaff out from the oats. In short he believed he was wasting his time and more importantly his vision for change on people who lacked perception was patently evident. Yet what seemed obvious to him was not to others. David Ettridge fooled many, not the least being the Queensland Electoral Commissioner Des O’Shea.
Organisational ability or skills were something of a novel dimension when the PHSM was set up. It was a case of learning whilst on the move. And learn some did, but not the art of treachery. The movement was hi-jacked at Oldfield’s direction (see Dodd’s book), with the imprimatur of Hanson’s limp handed control and David Ettridge’s surgical operation, when they not only seized the membership, finances and branches but also the intellectual property of the convenor and founder. The Australian flag symbol was from Whiteside’s Heart of a Nation, that had attracted 1500 into the Miami Great Hall in 1988; the issue, the Foreign Land Ownership debate. The Registration Certificate, the kitset (that David Ettridge was to charge $1250 for, that the PHSM had passed on for free, to help build and promote the Hanson cause) and the general thrust of our objectives were seized by David Ettridge as his own.
Not withstanding this illegal seizure that had no link with Hanson, other than a moral duty not to impede or hurt her destiny, what was not stated or made known was that Pauline Hanson on the eve of her mysterious trip to the USA on 23 Dec 1996, gave strict instructions that whilst she was away that the Movement was not to make one utterance to the media. Whilst Hanson and her covert operators were happy to milk the embryonic movement it was having no part of its forceful and creative founder speaking out. That privilege it seemed was for Hanson alone.
This was classic One Nation philosophy, albeit months before the idea or illegal party came into existence.
It was at this point that the difference between Whiteside the founder on one hand and the PHSM committee on the other hi-lighted the cancer that helped David Ettridge, David Oldfield and the malleable Hanson to seize the essential infrastructure to build their dreams upon.
Whiteside fought Hanson vehemently on this directive to be gagged. He argued that it was Hanson herself who was bemoaning and criticising the Prime Minister John Howard for trying to deny her the ‘freedom of speech’. How could she in all sincerity, he reasoned now, try to gag the very organisation that was helping to give her the mounting profile that the movement was giving her? Not only that, but she was imposing herself upon a group of people who on one hand were totally supportive of her and on the other who had not incorporated her into their midst because it would politicise what was in fact a movement of support and not a political movement. This was deliberate to avoid the movement being taken over for political leverage.
There were in fact two reasons for this intervention which the mediocrity of those around Whiteside were unable to see. First it had been John Pasquarelli who had advised Hanson that he (Whiteside) was dangerous. He saw him as a loose cannon, but apparently one who threatened his very role as political adviser. It was no coincidence that the entry and directive of Hanson came fast on the heels of Pasquerelli's visit to Whiteside's home. He still retains the memory of the body language that day; ‘If I don’t watch out this bastard will have my job’. In fact he could not have been further from the truth. Whiteside was a trail blazer not a coveter of positions. There was enough of those already. The other reason was more subtle. The covert manipulation of Hanson was coming from the unknown David Oldfield. He saw the role of Bruce Whiteside as counter-productive to his agenda and instructed Hanson to stop him in his tracks. As Hanson had said at that meeting when the tea and goodwill were flowing ‘Big plans are going to take place in the New Year and that is why we want you to control Bruce’.
The outburst from Hanson, who having run late in arriving at the meeting, began with a all out attack on the ‘outspoken Bruce Whiteside’. The humour of this of course was lost on the meeting. They simply held Hanson in awe, whilst a disrespectful founder tackled Hanson at her own game. Neither was prepared to give on the issue. Whiteside refused to be gagged. Hanson as she always did when out-gunned lost the plot and floundered.
It was here that Ron Paddison, (who was to join with Trewartha and David Ettridge to seize the movement), jumped to his feet and like Raleigh of old threw down his cloak to rescue the demure and flustered Pauline. “We have come her to hear Hanson, not Whiteside’. From this Hanson sought to use the quorum of the meeting to insist that founder be ‘suppressed’. Whilst the vote was not unanimous, it gave her the clout to ask the committee to guarantee that anything he said would be ‘sanitised’ by Paddison, Trewartha and the Secretary.
From that point until March 30 1997, Whiteside uncharacteristically remained silent. It was his choice because there was no way that he was going to submit ‘copy’ to people who were clones of the sort of mediocrity that hampered any venture into un-chartered domains. Hanson’s greatest supporter was also her greatest asset, but she lacked the understanding of human beings and their ability to act with integrity. It was at that point that Hanson sowed the seeds of all that was to follow.
On March 31 1997, Whiteside broke his silence and spoke with the Sydney Morning Herald, spelling out the agenda of Oldfield and David Ettridge . As a result he became a target for personal denigration.
The role of Helen Dodd was lamentable. Working as she did for a while in Hanson’s office, her book became nothing more than a promotional mouthpiece for the propaganda of the two David’s. She interviewed them personally. She spoke briefly with the PHSM Chairman over the phone promising to call on him and research what they had done. That promise was never honoured. Dodd had the capacity to write objectively but like so many others she swam with the trio and enjoyed the exposure only to find out too late that the ‘silly old bastard from the Gold Coast’ had a clearer vision than all his critics. Irreverent, perhaps but the pragmatic old bastard as he cynically refers to himself to in the context to the Movement, realises it’s the substance and not the shell, that counts.
So in the end the claim of lack of organisational ability or skills was without substance. He was deliberately taken out’ to clear the way for the emerging covert agendas. In the meantime all the correspondence, donations and general enquiries were placed on hold. An unsavoury side-effect of this imposed silence was that Hanson had promised all her support people that she would NOT form a political party. This was perhaps the greatest concern to all those people that the PHSM came in contact with. They wanted Hanson unencumbered; a true Independent. Iris Whiteside as Secretary, whose last role was to attend the launching of the One Nation Party at Ipswich on April 11th 1997, resigned immediately, having been betrayed by Hanson’s words. She felt as though she had been induced to lie.
It is perhaps a quirk of human frailty that a person who engenders so much hate, unhappiness and trouble can enjoy the things that they themselves only have the capacity to talk about; loyalty, integrity and honesty .
A Cool Hanson and Enthusiastic Hazelton
It may come as a surprise to learn that Pauline Hanson was indifferent but not oblivious to the existence of the Movement supporting her. Hanson was consumed by the fact that she was very much in the public spotlight, not so much as a serious politician, but rather as a curiosity. As a sole Independent she did not realise the importance of having a groundswell of public support, believing that her appeal alone would carry the day.
Hanson’s personal secretary and at that time confidante was acutely aware of the valuable work that the embryonic movement was creating. Barbara Hazelton was an experienced political operator with a touch of human understanding. Concerned by the amount of work that involved personal expense by way of telephones and mailing costs she undertook to provide the group with a supply of stamps. Hazelton felt that Hanson was not sufficiently involved with what they were achieving on her behalf. She was concerned that this helping force was simply being taken for granted because Hanson herself was more concerned with the glitz and attention that the media afforded her.
It was Hazelton who insisted, then persuaded Hanson to travel to the Gold Coast to personally meet and thank her supporters. For this purpose an afternoon tea was provided at the Whiteside home. It was a warm and cordial group that met, yet Hanson in basking in the sort of adulation that followed her where ever she went was loath to speak with Whiteside himself, the one person who was singularly responsible for her support movement.
From his perspective and anyone else with a grain of intelligence, it made sense to meet and understand how they could work together. This opportunity was neglected in favour of back-slapping and a long interview with the Gold Coast Bulletin. Whiteside believes that Hanson was happy to titillate the fires of the media, but dead scared to be drawn on issues that involved a degree of intelligence and logical thinking. She rubber-stamped this perception in Whiteside's mind long before Tracey Curro, induced the historic ‘Please explain”. Whiteside says he has the greatest admiration for people who rise from humble beginnings but believes that the university of life is one of the greatest of all teachers. People, one of Hanson’s greatest crutches ('those out there') were no more that adulation fodder to an idol. Bruce Whiteside wanted and was prepared to support substance, but as hope sprang eternal he tried for seven years to instil a philosophy of the common-touch. He failed and so inevitably did she.
Hazelton for her loyalty and support finally went the way of all who got in Hanson’s way; OUT!
Hazelton was to Hanson what the Mona Lisa was to art. Hanson by comparison was a cartoon to a local newspaper.
Rules Governing Objective
The text in this folder differs from the remainder of the Website. This has been for a reason. David Ettridge who made many spurious remarks in order to denigrate my competence and ability and to reinforce his agenda to destroy Hanson, claimed that I lacked direction. In fact David Ettridge plagiarised much of what was removed from my office and that which was fraudulently obtained on a false undertaking by Steven Menagh. Menagh was rewarded with a directorship of One Nation Ltd. He along with Andrew Carne, were two of the five; the others being Ettridge, Oldfield and of course Pauline Hanson. Readers who received Membership Tickets from Ettridge's One Nation will note the striking resemblance to the wording in this Objective. These were also on the original Registration Certificates, issued before the PHSM became incorporated. For the record I have just recovered these files from the old computer that has lain idle for nearly five years. They were compiled on October 12th 1996 and saved to file at 5.55am. The significance of this reveals that they were written a week after the aborted meeting and completed a full sixteen days before the advent of Paul Trewartha. It was Trewartha who in a written affidavit at the Supreme Court trial Number 6318 of 1998 stated:
On or about 28th October 1996 with the assistance of Mr Bruce Whiteside and others I convened a meeting on the Gold Coast of people who were interested in supporting Pauline Hanson who was then the independent member of the Federal Electorate of Oxley. And this on oath!
What is produced below has not been touched, in spite of a couple of errors; namely dis-endorsement instead of disenfranchisement and multi-culturism, that should have been multi-culturalism. It is the copy of the original document and predates both Ettridge and Trewartha, both of whom were instrumental in destroying the intentions of Pauline Hanson and more importantly those million people who believed in her.
Pauline Hanson Support Movement TM
Rules Governing Objective.
P O Box 600
Phone 07 5535 6252
Pauline Hanson Support Movement
To lend practical and moral support.
To actively participate in the spreading of Pauline's concerns.
To respond individually or collectively to all adverse criticism
To help negate the accusations of racism, redneck, etc
To go onto the offensive, where this is possible, in the publicity sense.
To consciously wear down the climate of political correctness, catering for minority groups.
To help set up this movement throughout Australia.
To set up an organisational structure on the Gold Coast.
Register the name.
Allow local autonomy in other groups, within reasonable limits.
Initially all practical participation in administration will be voluntary.
Production of PHSM bumper stickers.
Creation of a Newsletter.
1. To lend moral and practical support
Moral support is tool of those who agree in principle with what the person
expresses. It requires little effort. The popular expression, `We are right with
you mate', we are right behind you,' may sound good, but are usually said in a
moment of euphoria. Unfortunately as the convenor of this movement can testify,
it does nothing, except help the politician feel as though his or her efforts
may not entirely be in vain. Practical support as any ant colony will
demonstrate, gets things done. In the days to come quality help will be needed
to get this idea up and running. It cannot be left to the willing few and if
there is going to be change in this political environment, then it will need a
small army to bring it about. Pauline Hanson lit the fuse of a generation of
public concern on some of this country's major problems. There have been times
when others have tried to raise the awareness of some of these disturbing
developments, only to have been messengers before their time or victims of the
social doctrine of political correctness. This insidious disease is not the
manifestation of the man in the street but rather the ongoing political
agenda hatched by those who's god is a form of `ism.'
Contact radio stations, commentators, television stations and newspapers;
speak on air if possible. Write to your newspaper, your local politician and if
possible that parliamentarian with negative comment or criticism. Be
particularly hard on Editorial comment.
2. To actively participate in the spreading of Pauline's concerns.
Great care must be exercised here. Pauline Hanson, is a very competent, astute young lady. That competence carries with it a shrewd political brain, one that has already come face to face with political reality. Nobody, can speak for her, or on behalf of her, but to speak out in defence of her, to protect her and demonstrate that she does not stand alone is the fundamental objective of this embryonic organisation. Certainly Mr Whiteside makes it perfectly clear that the movement will not indulge in politics; that is to say that it will not presume to speak on policy issues that are the sole domain of the member for Oxley. To do so invites from what is essentially a hostile media ammunition that may hurt her. The fact is that the media does not need to go looking for negatives to help crucify; it is more than capable of generating its own. This thought must always remain paramount in the minds of all who seek to support.
Study Pauline Hanson's speech. Understand what she is saying and do not assume your version or opinion. Read as much as you can about what she is doing and how the public both for and against her are responding. This way you will be better able to speak out with conviction. Remember, the press is always looking for a story that will work against her interest. Do not attempt to speak on policy, but entirely from the perspective of defending her and spreading the optimism of what she saying. Do not be scared, do not be intimidated and realise that your opinion is equally valid, possibly more so.
3. To respond individually or collectively to all adverse criticism.
In general terms the press and media have given Pauline Hanson, a `fair going over.'
As the Liberal Party have demonstrated, it is easier to distance an organisation from a political liability, that run with it. Perhaps it is ironic then that the Prime Minister, that great advocate of `a fair go' after walking away from her, should then lead most of his colleagues off the parliamentary floor, as Pauline Hanson delivered her maiden speech. A fair go, a nice sentiment; very similar to the doctrine of austerity to the masses, whilst protecting the right to the $2m retirement nest-egg.
Hanson is a thorn in the side to the established order of parliament. She is a leper. They may admire her secretly, not only for her courage, but for condemnation of many of the sick sacred cows, that bedevil the country's governments. Logic has no part in the machinations of power. The rules are corrupted to the order of political convenience. Logic can destroy the sanctity of the parliamentary establishment. The trouble is, either nobody told Pauline, or she simply chose to hold her peace and ignore them. Pauline by definition is a danger. She has let the genie out of the bottle The only course left is to denigrate and ridicule her.
This is the lot of the Pauline Hanson Support Movement. We have to seize every piece of negative criticism and attack it. You may have to ring the local or national TV station, the newspaper, or oppose a speaker. Write to your local newspaper, the national newspapers. It is not difficult. The main point to keep in mind is simple language. Aim your message at a child of 12 and the message will get through. It only requires a little time and a 45 cent stamp. These suggestions require the effort of everybody. To leave it to the other fellow is fatal. They simply leave it to you,....the plan collapses. If you want to help, then it carries with it effort.
As for 1.
4. To help negate the accusations of racism, redneck, fascism etc.
Racism. The word is dynamite. It is used in a generic sense to embrace a whole raft of ills. In Australia, where many races co-exist, it carries a very potent effect. It is in fact a tool of not only governments, but the whole host of government agencies that are dependant for their existence on public funding. The media pick up the scent and run with it. There are a few souls in Australia who have stood forth at their own peril and spoken out on controversial issues. Almost to a man or woman, they have immediately been branded racist. There are of course dubious organisations that do breed hate and violence. They have modelled their prejudices on colour, religion and race. They have encouraged dissension, division and anarchy. This is not the Australian way. Tolerance is a subjective quality. Where in the minds of men, do we draw the line?
The political doctrine in Australia during the last couple of decades has been one of socialist change as distinct from social change. The Labor Party, has by the doctrine of gradualism, introduced by drip-feed, changes that have subtly altered the political landscape. It has cultivated the program of Immigration until today it has become a contentious question. Australians of largely Anglo-Celtic and European extraction, have been by and large tolerant to broader or if you prefer Asian immigration. Disturbing developments are beginning to appear, that have been patently obvious to those who have worried about the ramifications of multi-culturalism for years. It should not be forgotten that the Labor Party, has been responsible for much of Australia's post war immigration. Not surprisingly when issues of concern or curtailment arise in the community, those who are usually most outspoken are Jewish, Greek or Asian leaders. To this can be added the very politically powerful minority group the Aboriginals.
There is no doubt that immigration and Aboriginal issues are the most flammable in the country. The trouble is that they are so politically sensitive that any utterance that does not meet with the political climate is automatically seized upon and given the label racism in its widest sense. This invidious practice excludes all logical and concerned comment. It is without a doubt discrimination in a manner that is not politically recognised.
Without going into chapter and verse on the subject, many of the denied oppressive practices have come down through the offices of the United Nations. In effect the External Affairs clause of the Australian Constitution, which can only be legally changed by the will of the people has been used as a conduit for change. Perhaps when you understand that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, the outfit that wants to examine the utterances of Pauline Hanson, this court of socialist Solomon, is a United Nation baby that was given birth through the Constitution by the Labor Government. This is the well orchestrated machinery of political correctness and social engineering. It is no friend of the man in the street.
The defence of racism is to respond positively. Ridicule their interpretation of it, ask them why they have a problem with it. Countries like China, Japan and Thailand, do not let it worry them. Racism is the political weapon of those who stand to lose the most. Remember it is racist to want to address Aboriginal funding, but it is not racist for Aboriginal leaders to attack those who speak out. Discrimination can be practised against non Aborigines, but the reverse can not exist. Try to turn the argument or accusation back on the accuser, no matter who that person is.
5. To go onto the offensive, where this is possible, in the publicity sense.
The plethora of news coverage since Pauline Hanson's maiden speech in parliament, leaves little doubt where the multi-media sympathies lie. Almost in unison they have berated, denigrated and denounced her. Perhaps since most of those engaged in the popular press have grown up in the climate of socialist doctrines within the education system, they can't help it. Not only that, the influence of government in the financial success or otherwise of media empires, is proportionate to favourable press. A cosy arrangement, not hard to understand considering the high stakes.
Ordinary people have one great advantage, mass. Ordinary people can do extraordinary things, given the courage to go ahead and do it. Howard recently said, 'freedom of speech carried with it responsibility'. What was he trying to say? Let me guess. `We as politicians can say as we like. As long as it is palatably acceptable to politically correct Australia. Pauline Hanson did not exercise that responsibility. I rather suspect that John Howard nurtures a special affection for Pauline Hanson sentiments, perhaps even envious of her.
Every time Hanson is set upon by the media, we must find ways of countering that. Turn the argument back, take the offensive, not in the manner of a Charles Perkins, but in such a way that the commentator is proved wrong or non-subjective. One of the best tools for this is to research the issues that Hanson is involved in. We all hear about the plight of the Aborigine, but what is that plight? We are told that for 40,000 years he roamed this land. This begs the question whatever happened in the last two hundred years that now makes him totally dependant on government handouts. We hear of the appalling living conditions, but do we hear about new houses that are vandalised simply because living in these `civilised' conditions are essentially alien to them. Have we ever stopped and asked, 'do the Aborigine people need our philanthropic paternalism'? Have we ever asked is the Aboriginal problem one created by Europeans from down-right interference. It is this sort of foray into the public perception that will bring about change. Remember the Labor Party was built on the Fabians philosophy of gradualism. Like the ad says, it won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
Discretion is required here. Temper comments with commonsense and logic. DO NOT
LOSE YOUR COOL! Remember how Charles Perkins lost it. He is no longer taken
To consciously wear down the climate of political correctness, the catering for minority groups.
Just as the drovers dog keeps the sheep quiet by tight control, so too does the government. The word racism has stopped many from speaking out over the years. I know of academics who are unashamedly scared of speaking out on contentious matters for fear of ostracism, ridicule and simply being branded. The tragedy of this is that keen and logical minds are isolated and put in deep freeze. The parliament has the brains that in turn come from the career bureaucrats. Whilst our convenor believes that much of this fear is self induced because of the fear of recriminations and/or retributions the fact remains that people from all walks would put not only their jobs on the line, but the safety of family and self.
Already Pauline Hanson has been summonsed to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission for utterances.
I put it to you, if a hundred people, a thousand people, were to publicly state that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission was no more than a `kangaroo court' and that those who were 'squealing about her comments', those whose delicate sense of self were somehow impinged by Pauline Hanson, then I put it to you that the powers or otherwise of this Commission would be hamstrung. Responsible comment is to be adjudicated on by people who are scholars and creatures of the system that is being put to the fire of public opinion. Who judges the judges?
Those who claim the high moral ground on immigration and Aboriginal Affairs, assume from their education, that there is no other argument. Remember that all people are created equal. Each and everyone is master of his or her destiny. It is not the sole domain of political doctrine, or socialist philosophy, to have the right answers. This question comes down to what is right or wrong for the majority. The government are representatives of the people as a whole, not to rule by decree for the few. Indigenous people are not exclusively Aboriginal. Anybody born in Australia is an indigenous inhabitant. Immigrants come here by choice and government policy. They do not arrive here to foster their interest, but to assimilate into the Australian way of life and culture. It has to be pointed out that despite the utopian view, pragmatism will always ultimately prevail. Unreality, that policy that has prevailed for twenty years, cannot succeed. The money runs out because too few are sustaining too many. Further, it is right of Australians to run this country, not dictates from foreign countries. Once again do not succumb to intimidation.
To help set up this movement throughout Australia.
There is little doubt that Pauline Hanson has struck a sympathetic chord with the Australian community. To date apart from a few letters to the local newspapers, there have been extensive radio talk back and radio polls. In the major cities there has been massive verbal support and whilst this of itself must be unsettling to the Federal Parliament, the bottom line is that once the novelty has worn off Pauline Hanson will be left to carry on alone. THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN!
The reason we have gathered here tonight is that we care. The idea of forming a support group has been well accepted. It is the opinion of the convenor that such is the universal groundswell of goodwill out in the community for Pauline Hanson that the concept will catch on in other centres. The Gold Coast will encourage joint membership across Australia. Due to its proximity to the Member for Oxley the inaugural group will become the headquarters.
Given that these expectations come to fruition, it will be the aim of the group, to establish competent people to deal with radio, television and the press. This largely will be left in the hands of the autonomous groups. Each group will be given the basic aims of the Pauline Hanson Support Movement and be affiliated with the Gold Coast. Initially a newsletter will be compiled on a monthly basis. Material of activities and events will be forwarded and collated, edited and produced from the Gold Coast.
In order to keep the Hanson name in the public eye a good idea would be to have
bumper stickers produced and possibly lapel badges.
Before closing the meeting we would invite people to come forward to help us form a working group. We will be calling for a President/Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer and committee members. All these positions will be on an interim basis until we are certain of how the group is developing. It is envisaged that this will be approximately three months.
No organisation can go far without financial assistance. Whilst it is
appreciated that times are not the best, this cause will not get past first base
unless there are funds to get it up and running. The important thing at this
stage is to get the show on the road and to engender confidence in the wider
community. Credibility is absolutely paramount in the public perception and this
is why this organisation will not encourage membership of those with anti
immigration or anti Aboriginal agendas. Whilst it may be claimed by some
minorities that Pauline Hanson is both of these things, those who know the
person and not the media image will know that is entirely fallacious.
Although the new group will have no direct association with the Federal Member for Oxley, it is important that those involved will retain the same demeanour. Establishing this credibility will be important to attract the business and corporate funding that will be needed.
Once the media realise that there is more to Pauline Hanson and her followers than meets the eye, they will begin to play another tune. The irony of the disendorsement of Pauline Hanson as a Liberal, may yet turn out to be a windfall for the Government. Pauline Hanson has pointed the way and now the troops are beginning to marshal behind her.
Revenue in the short term will be needed to cover costs, i.e. phones,
stationery, printing, venues and the like. Donations will be encouraged,
membership fees should be based on a minimum of $5.00. Sundry revenue can be
raised by the selling of lapel badges $1.00 and bumper stickers $2.00. Both of
these will be of temporary quality, designed to get wide publicity of her name.
The essential aim is for people to join a popular army. Remember the old maxim, united we stand.
The name Pauline Hanson Support Movement, to be registered with Corporate Affairs and the organisation incorporated in each state.
All positions will be voluntary. This will be reviewed at three monthly intervals. Each branch will be responsible to the Gold Coast Head Office.