Random Letters Published
When my home was raided and all the files and records uplifted by Paul
Trewartha, who at the time was President of the PHSM, he relied on the fact that
my wife who at the time was Secretary had just tendered her resignation after
the launch of One Nation on 11 April 1997. I was absent at the time and
Trewartha said that he wanted all the files. My wife should but did not prevent
him from entering my den and taking all files.
Many had previously been recorded and only recently have I been able to find them. Were it not for News of the Day and their archival, they would not appear here.
They are random but to the historian will make interesting reading.
A Champion Must Be Found
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!
Whiteside says "goodbye" to Ms Hanson
6th October 2000
Open letter to Pauline Hanson from the founder of the Pauline Hanson Support Movement.
Four years ago this month I launched the Pauline Hanson Support Movement. The idea was to throw a shield of protection around you formed by ordinary Australians. At the time you were at the mercy of the press, politically correct politicians and an element of hostile groups hell bent on burying you. In those days your friends were scare on the ground.
Today four years on, you have a done a better job than all the forces combined. What you present to your people, those you used to refer to as 'those out there' is no longer an image of a battler for the underdog, but rather Australia's version of a Slobodan Milosevic. You are arrogant, at war with the world and absolutely contemptuous of anyone who stands in your way.
You have now adopted the infantile attitude that after four years you have finally tumbled to the cancer of corruption that was the One Nation godhead of Hanson, Ettridge and Oldfield. You try to convey the appearance of being concerned about the issues that have concerned the people who formed your hard core of support. This is a sham. What you are trying to do is to convey the false image that you are in control, that you have been hood-winked and now wish to convey the impression that you did not know.
As late as yesterday moves were afoot to bring you to your senses, but your relayed response was one of utter arrogance and contempt. By any yardstick you are consumed with your own invincibility, by any yardstick you are the very antithesis of a democrat. Remember, 'democracy is mob rule'.
Twenty-four hours is a long time in politics.
The people who gathered to form Pauline's army deserve better than the public brawling, the ill-disciplined leadership, and the non-democratic, deceptive and misleading dubious party. They deserve a leader, not a tantrum prone feline with bare claws at the ready. They are no longer prepared to listen to appeals for money, tears about bankruptcy, and the rubbish spewing forth about massive support for you since you dumped Oldfield. Lets not fool ourselves Pauline, Oldfield and Ettridge will destroy the little you have left. You are a sham and a woman, who's only concern is herself.
Four years ago you stood tall; people like myself would have walked on coals to support the lofty aims and concerns you advocated. Thousands have been hurt, financially and health-wise. Some have even died pursuing the dream that you presented. You're response was simple and demonstrably indicative of the woman; 'they didn't have to do it.' Such 'graciousness' was the hallmark of your brief sojourn with fame.
The issues that you ran on have long run out of hanson-puff since your total preoccupation has been with yourself. These issues were never 'Hanson' issues, so it now needs someone with genuine dedication to pick up the reins where you stumbled and fell.
We need an advocate, with passion, with dedication, who will not screw up. We need rationality, articulacy, appreciation and in-depth knowledge. In you we had none of those things. However we were prepared to allow you to be the icon for change and the woman who would deliver the shock therapy one liners. Therein lay your strength, therein lay the massive support, not for Pauline Hanson as such but as a viable depository for the protest vote.
Megalomania, is what now drives you. It is time to finally admit that you are beyond redemption, beyond help. We must now find a worthy advocate; it is time for the true believers to move on.
Finally a passing thought. It took an army of dedicated workers to build the largest ship of its day. It was said it was unsinkable, but it took an arrogant captain to send it to the bottom of the sea.
Gimme, gimme …SOP*
* Save Our Pauline
12th April 2000
It's like a scenario from a prisoner awaiting a lethal injection on death row, only in Hanson's case it is her political death. She is now fighting, not for her people, but for her own skin. A final appeal for clemency. The High Court does not work that way Pauline …even for you. The truth is that Pauline Hanson has lost all credibility. To be candid, who in the hell cares about what happens to this ex fish shop proprietor who thought that she was God's gift to the Australian electors. Certainly, I no longer care and in fact the sooner she is thrown on the scrap heap of political oblivion, the better.
The sheer presumption of the woman, who harbours the notion that it is so important for her to be elected to the Senate, defies the simple law of common-sense. But then common-sense was never a strong Hanson trait. What has she got to offer …more deception, more stupidity, and more misplaced loyalties?
Yes I was a great supporter of Pauline Hanson, but what was once respect and admiration, has turned to pity and anger. John Pasquarelli another great supporter advised her to run for the Senate, but she chose to listen to David Oldfield who told her to run for the non-winnable seat of Blair. A besotted Pauline who never liked Pasquarelli ignored him. So what has changed …why has the Senate become attractive after bold comments that the real business was done in the House of Reps and Hanson never took the easy option. Is Hanson also conning the people?
Scott Balson in today's News of the Day, says that only David Ettridge is the winner and that the whole exercise was one of sadness.
It was an exercise in gross madness. The real sadness that Scott Balson alludes to is that David Ettridge suckered the lot in. The need for greed, exhibited by so many from One Nation ignored what I was saying and preferred to brand me a 'white-ant' and a bearer of 'sour grapes'. Paul Trewartha, who was no less culpable than Ettridge and Oldfield along with eighteen others were witness to my bawling Ettridge out and branding him a con-man, that took the rest nearly four years to wake up to. Yet even my public rejection of these men went unheard. Nobody was listening, nor are they now.
Balson says that Ettridge is a winner …is he? Will the law finally pick Ettridge up …I believe so. You see in spite of two court cases, I have never been called on. The police in spite of their so-called on-going investigations have never approached me. I believe that I have the capacity to send both Hanson and Ettridge to gaol, but the fear is a political one. There are bigger players that are too close to government to risk that possibility. As a result Hanson will be made the fall guy, the patsy, the scapegoat. Where were her advisers and directors when she signed her guarantee. What were THEY doing to allow her to make such a decision. If she did not understand the meaning of 'xenophobe', then she obviously did not understand guarantor either.
Ettridge suckered Balson in as well.
My introduction to Scott Balson was an accident. John Pasquarelli informed me that some of my material had appeared on his website. This angered me as nobody sought my permission to use it. The material had been given to a One Nation executive by the new owner of the New Australian. In turn it had found it's way onto the Internet.
I rang Balson and asked for a please explain. He was affable enough and he expressed a genuine desire to meet with me. Like so many in One Nation he was a receptive mind to what Ettridge had said and written about me. Unlike the unquestioning lemmings, Balson had an open mind. We met over coffee in Brisbane and he was genuinely astounded at what I had to say. The article One Nation …Receptacle of Deceit, had a powerful effect on how he then went on to view One Nation. It was after this that he wrote the article that took David Oldfield to task.
But Balson's rejection by Pauline Hanson, was sheer folly. She simply rubber-stamped Ettridge's sick assessment of Balson's undermining of Oldfield. Emotion, not pragmatism fuelled her decision to concur with the rat who deserted the sinking ship. When I recall the sycophantic overtures to Hanson's cause by Ettridge and Oldfield, I am angered by the depravity of their plotting to 'suck her dry', and never an action from the lost besotted legions.
Paid or not, Balson's contribution to the Hanson cause was magnificent. Anybody with an ounce of decency or natural grace would have been indebted to the man who put together a chronological account of the rise and now ungraceful fall of One Nation. But not Hanson. Her unfailing capacity to kick in the teeth her loyalist helpers was a benchmark of her arrogant reign.
Last night I visited through links on News of the Day, the One Nation website. It was sickening, absolutely sickening. It reminded me of the German city of Dresden after the British had finished bombing it …a shell, with nothing left. From within the ruins comes this blatant call to bail out Pauline Hanson. Help I WANT MONEY. I was good to you, now I don't want to go bankrupt for I will never be able to go to parliament to look after you. Pauline, you think only of yourself. All you are interested in is saving your own skin …you are contemptuously transparently clear.
Perhaps you might just stop and think for a moment of all the people you hurt, the people you scorned, the people you accepted money from and ask yourself, don't they deserve to know where ALL the other money went. Don't they deserve to know why you stuck to the rats who have deserted you, whilst you gave them your blessing at the people's expense.
Nobody wants you anymore. You had the world at your feet, you had the people in the palm of your hands and you damn well squandered the lot. You were the catalyst, the icon and with that went tremendous responsibility. You took it on own to bed with rats and in doing so relinquished any respect we ever had for you.
You have nobody to blame but yourself. You are the victim of your own stupidly and the galling fact is that you will live with this for the rest of your life. The fact that people like Pasquarelli, Balson and particularly myself were right will make even that prospect indigestible.
I will remind you of what you told Barbara Hazelton and myself in our lounge way back in November 1996. "If any body is going to destroy what I started it will be me.' Well you have so why don't you quit while you are so far behind.
You're history Pauline and you've done it all yourself.
In writing this I fully acknowledge Pauline's plight. It IS sad. It should never have happened. Even with the intent by Ettridge and Oldfield to use Hanson for their own ends, the matter of the return of the Electoral Funding, that now compromises Hanson was one of gross negligence and incompetence by the Electoral Commissioner and the Judge who released those funds for payment. If Hanson's head must roll, then do the job properly; let them all face the executioner. I say once again: let us have a commission of Inquiry and let the cards fall where they will. Fully exposed this saga of which Hanson is not the key player I say again, has the capacity to bring down the Howard Government. But my plea as it did before will fall on deaf ears and closed mines, Amen!
Return to the Whiteside Column
In The Public Interest.
by Bruce Whiteside - 2nd September 2000
The re-registration of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party.
Pauline Hanson has lodged an application with the Queensland Electoral Commission for the re-registration of her party One Nation. This application will be gazetted on September 2nd 2000 and written submissions opposing this application close on October 2nd 2000. The reason for this new application is that the One Nation Party was found to be fraudulently registered, by the Supreme Court and this finding was upheld Court of Appeal. This notice is issued in the public interest.
There are many people in the community who believe that Pauline Hanson was the greatest thing to happen in Australian politics. I Bruce Whiteside was one of them. Unlike any other individual in Australia I did something to help her achieve that dream. I built a support base that became known as the highly successful Pauline Hanson Support Movement. That cannot be denied. It is fact! One Nation was built upon it.
Few people realise just how pivotal that movement was to the establishment of the catastrophic and disastrous One Nation Party. Fewer people still have a knowledge of what took place that created the disaster in the making that I tried so hard to prevent. Those who without thought and with pure knee-jerk reaction condemned me for criticising Hanson and those she was drawn to, do not understand that blind hero-worship is no panacea for hard-nosed pragmatism.
Pauline Hanson, I am deeply sad to say is a sham. Not a sham in the context of deliberate deception but a sham born of narrow views, poor judgement, vindictiveness and last of all arrogance. Pauline Hanson is incapable of the task of leading any political party for the reason that she is fundamentally devoid of the skills required to accomplish that.
Hanson's greatest attraction was her ability to speak out stridently in the language that ordinary people understood. I have no doubt that the very early Hanson was wedded to the views she expressed, but few people understand that the speech that crystallised her was a lifetime of one liners brilliantly choreographed and structured by her former advisor and mentor, John Pasquarelli.
Hanson never touched those height again, but those who were swept into the vortex of this political aberration, refused to acknowledge that their hero was fallible.
Those close to Hanson and pragmatic to see the signs of looming weaknesses were quietly concerned. As father of the support movement my concerns went beyond diplomatic whisperings and took on the mantle of trenchant critic. I had a vested interest; I did not want Hanson to self-destruct.
Hanson's path to ignominy commenced when she started to believe in her own invincibility. This was nurtured by background opportunists, who saw Hanson as a gullible and naïve woman. They proved it!
From this point on when she was directed to dispose of John Pasquarelli, her sense of loyalty, judgement and focus deserted her, never to return.
When John Pasquarelli left Hanson was left with no one with real political skills advising her …and this showed. What took his place was a self-seeking, self-evaluated, self-opinionated Liberal drop-out, who like Dr Goebels in the 1930's was seen as a brilliant strategist and very clever speaker. Like the same doctor, an avowed National Socialist.
What transpired was a legacy of autocratic, dogmatic and totally unprincipled ideals that embraced and finally encased Pauline Hanson.
It is this Hanson that has emerged from the murky effluent left by the narrow godhead of Pauline Hanson's One Nation. As a result Hanson, now deserted and disowned by those she implacably embraced, has been left with a legacy of debt and dishonour. Had Hanson kept faith with her grassroots and kept the common-touch, her people and those like myself would have walked on hot coals for her. Never again!
Hanson's ability to draw a crowd counts for little if she has nothing of substance to say or contribute. An empty vessel does not make a political party.
I come now to the essence of this message.
One Nation was found to be fraudulently registered by the Supreme Court of Queensland. There was nothing politically sinister about this. One Nation was brought down by One Nation stalwarts. There is absolutely no point in denigrating these people because in so doing this reveals the inherent weakness of One Nation supporters …the failure to recognise or accept constructive criticism. Terry Sharples would not have succeeded in his pursuit of the maladministration of One Nation had he not obtained my co-operation. I have very little time for Sharples, but the principle that he strove to expose, that of deception, was one that in all honesty I could not walk away from. Sharples will claim that he like St George he slayed the beast single-handedly, just as Hanson's Trewartha claimed he that he was founder of the support movement. Unlike these two I was never a member or part of One Nation.
The criteria for the re-registration of One Nation is 500 members of a political organisation who are on the Queensland State roll. Whilst I have no doubt that these conditions will be met, that a constitution will be forwarded and theoretically all is above board, I must advise all Pauline Hanson supporters to write to the Electoral commission and oppose this application. Why?
Pauline Hanson has had four years to prove herself. She has failed in substance, miserably. Millions of dollars have percolated through the coffers of 'her' One Nation and the end result has been debt and dishonour; the two D's. Hanson has never acknowledged responsibility or blame. She has no remorse. That money has come from the taxpayer at electoral level and from thousands of believing supporters from across the nation. There is such a thing as an article of faith. The people had an expectation born of hope, born of admiration ...both were defiled. Today Pauline Hanson has established that she is both vindictive and selfish. She has constantly lashed out at all who question the integrity of Ettridge, Oldfield or herself. She has in fact defended these men with religious zeal, one that raises very serious questions of propriety. With these qualities and record she arrogantly announces that she will run for the Senate. This of course presupposes that she is able. Hanson's agenda in seeking to re-register her One Nation is shallow in the extreme because it would serve only to validate the appeal to her supporters to raise urgent funds. Hanson by her own admission acknowledges that she must raise a further $400,000 before Christmas. If she does not she could be declared bankrupt. The fundamental truth is that had Pauline Hanson extended the same courtesy to Terry Sharples, as he extended to her by approaching her to avoid the necessity of legal action, the huge legal bills and the consequences of those legal actions would not have precipitated either debt or deregistration at this point in time. Sheer arrogance and the inability to tolerate any questioning of her responsibility or integrity precipitated this problem. The result seriously threatens to negate her running for the Senate. Hence the crocodile tears and tug of the heart strings. Pauline Hanson never coveted that role until all other avenues were exhausted. Hanson needs a Senate position, NOT to represent the people but to fulfil her personal want, created by the void of the collapse of One Nation. Hanson's tilt for the Senate is about personal financial security as Oldfield's was with the Upper House in NSW. For those who will be drawn toward sympathy for Hanson, I say, forget it. Hanson's compassion and understanding of others problems are purely synthetic. This attempt to reinvent a credible One Nation and a changed Pauline Hanson is steeped in the same political cynicism that people depended on her to address in the other political parties. The anti-politician has become just like the rest.
Hanson no longer has anything to offer. Her time was four years ago, when she had the element of surprise, when she had her opponents wrong-footed. Today much of her one-line policies have either been negated or partially addressed. She no longer captivates her audience or responds to the real political issues of the day. The truth is that she has been politically barren since she disposed of her old mentor and astute adviser John Pasquarelli. Since then she has attracted people with no political nous. Had she done so the man she touted as the 'best political brain in the business' would not have dealt such a losing hand. The hard facts are that under John Pasquarelli Hanson was at her most potent.
Hanson fell on her own sword. She had a very simple solution that could have avoided all this trouble. She could have renounced One Nation and all its associates and gone back to her grassroots. She not only ignored that gold-plated advise but poured contempt on those who warned her. She is beyond redemption, beyond learning from her mistakes. Given the chance she will do it all again.
Unless the unsuspecting public are imbued with the same incapacity to learn then they are bound to revisit a lost cause and pour good money after bad.
If Pauline Hanson is genuine in her desire to serve the people, then she might just bury her pride, recognise her limitations and ponder throwing her lot in with those she was more than happy to endorse at the last state elections. There are ten politicians in the Queensland parliament who if we are to believe the rhetoric, speak the language of Hanson. If stewardship and political acumen are as inherent in Hanson as she would have us believe then here is her challenge. Mending bridges and saying sorry however are not in the Hanson psyche.
The Sherman tank has lost its tracks.
Saturday, 2 September 2000 - Copyright Bruce Whiteside
John Howard: What do you know about One Nation?
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.
Return to the Whiteside Column
One Nation's de-registration
10th March 2000
Thank You Terry Sharples.
For one fleeting moment Pauline Hanson allowed her uncontrolled arrogance to get the better of her …for that she will pay a very heavy price.
Terry Sharples never wanted to bring Hanson down, in spite of all the vitriol that spewed from many One Nation supporters. The trouble with those who blindly followed Hanson, they mimicked those who purported to be her advisers. Their agendas, were not those of Hanson, but the politically ignorant Hanson gave them her imprimatur and the sheep followed. Some of us were not sheep and paid a heavy price for supporting her.
I met Terry Sharples before he was induced into One Nation. He is a man with strong beliefs and convictions. He told me that if he was elected to Hanson's team, that he would not be dominated by her. Whilst I expressed strong reservations to him about having anything to do with Paul Trewartha, who at that time was Vice President of PHON (or should that be phon-y), I saw him as an able politician in the making. But it was not to be. I fell out with Sharples a week before the election, but when I heard how he had been disenfranchised on the eve of the election, I fronted up and spent the day helping him. One Nation dumped him like a dirty rag.
It is a great irony that had Trewartha in sacking Sharples at the eleventh hour, refunded the expenses as well, the action that followed would never have eventuated. After the election Sharples came to see me. He wanted justice and a squaring off with Trewartha and Oldfield. Hanson he didn't want to hurt. For those cynics who find that hard to accept, take it from me …that am exactly how it unfolded. Sharples pursued Trewartha, Hill and others …and was treated contemptuously. Finally as a last resort he confronted Hanson at Tweed Heads, but her 'heavies' aided and abetted by her petulance made sure that she never got to hear about his gripe. From that point on I assisted Sharples and gave him material that helped build his court case.
At the time that Sharples was attempting to nail One Nation he attracted brought ridicule from every quarter. Until that moment Hanson, Ettridge and Oldfield were Teflon coated …nobody could lay a glove on them.
I used to shake my head sometimes and regret very much that Hanson did not utilise the marvellous capacity of this man to pursue the policies that she held to. Sharple's singleminded and thorough application to the task of proving that One Nation was fraudulent, should have been talents that Hanson harnessed for good. Instead her bloody-mindedness, her arrogance and her weakness for allowing emotions to over-rule commonsense, contributed to drive Sharples sense of justice. There were times when I felt used and told him so, there were times when his own arrogance worked against him, but I say unequivocally that the sheer admiration I had for this man never waned. Terry Sharples is basically a decent honest bloke, with a deep sense of justice. Many times he was justifiably angered by the duplicity and lack of integrity of those who purport to administer justice. His dumping of legal councils in my view was typical of his whole approach. He wanted the truth, not a contrived version by a circuitous route.
I say this. This victory, if victory is indeed the word, is the sole domain of Terry Sharples. I know from experience that there will be those who will now say that 'they knew Terry would win." There will be others who will take a little bit of reflected credit for seeing One Nation brought to its knees. No, Terry Sharples achieved this result by plain hard, tenacious and persistant work. His focus was at times almost obsessive and for this he and his family have paid too greater price.
There have been many people who have offered Pauline Hanson their loyalty and genuine help. Hanson's response has been to revile and denigrate them when they have been stung into action.
Hanson's loyalty has never been to anyone other than the two David's. Now the court has ruled that they deceived the people.
"David Ettridge, you are nothing but a con-man. Now bugger off back to Sydney and forget all about us." I addressed those words to him, when he visited us at Oldfield's instruction, with Hanson's blind impramater and hijacked our credible movement.
I now publicly thank you Terry Sharples for being the only man in this country, to give validity to those words. I thank him for doing the job of a gutless press.
As for Hanson I think the fear of possible fraud charges will give her many sleepless nights.
Lets hope that Terry Sharples will now be given the opportunity to tell the whole story and not that which is neatly tailored to allow others to escape. The only way this can be achieved is through a Commission of Inquiry.
Return to the Whiteside Column
Pauline's bankruptcy dilemma
26th March 2000
Why was Hanson born without ears and given crocodile tears ducts?
Unfortunately, tears will not help Pauline Hanson now. Even if the money given to this distress appeal were used to mount a High Court challenge, it is doomed to go the same way as the previous two. In any case the cost of this action is beyond the financial capabilities of the 'organisation' to pay. The inevitable cannot be stayed indefinitely. One Nation was established on fraud ...not by Hanson, but by the two David's.
Hanson's dilemma has been self induced. Her implacable loyalty to the two David's has now backfired. They like the individuals they are, have walked away and allowed her to face the music. 'Their' generosity extends to 'moral support,' how morally bankrupt can you get?
I am sorry if I offend those who refused to listen, but you were all warned. Hanson has at least six letters from me pleading with her to 'dump the two David's.' I called publicly on national television for her to dump them, to no avail. She chose to ignore these letters and a very public appeal. She read them, she saw them, but for reasons known only to her she wanted nothing to do with their message. Why?
It has been claimed that Hanson's speech was the catalyst for her support. It has been claimed that Pasquarelli crafted her career. Lets be clear about all this; Hanson created Hanson. Pasquarelli took her black and white 'people' speech and gave it colour ...THE BLUEPRINT WAS HANSON.
My contribution was very simple ...I tried to give the girl public support when everyone else in this country was whispering about their 'support' of what Hanson was saying. Once a few began putting their hands up the rest followed. We went on to build a movement that became a hi-jacked platform for a deceitful sham. The two hi-jackers should ultimately have to answer to the courts.
Ettridge was right, I did have the vision, but I also has the perception to see that something was horribly wrong ...not four years on, but at the very moment it started. The man who aided and abetted Ettridge and Oldfield was Paul Trewartha. Paul Trewartha did not as he claimed in the Supreme Court start the PHSM. Much of the evidence was tailored.
What Hanson never understood was that as architect of the movement I had first hand working knowledge of what was happening. Having drafted all the paperwork I knew exactly what was going wrong.
This gave rise to Oldfield saying: 'You were never going to be allowed to remain in the movement. You stood in the way of our agenda. We are going to destroy you.'
Hanson has steadfastly refused to implicate David Oldfield. The reason is based on pure illogical emotion. It is my guess that Hanson is still in love. Oldfield himself has scant regard for women as has been exhibited by his distasteful poses for the media. He used Hanson and she refused to see what was patently clear to the world. Who is to argue or understand that emotion. My anger is that this human weakness was exploited. Not only did Hanson pay dearly, so did the rest of us.
Pauline Hanson in my book is a very basic, honest person. She has proved that she is naive by going guarantor for the massive debt that both Ettridge and Oldfield would have assured her was never likely to eventuate.
It did. BUT IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE!
The pursuit of One Nation through the courts would never have taken place, had Hanson rung me up and asked, 'How can this thing be stopped.'
She never bothered ...and that was her undoing.
It might be informative to explain to your readers that Mr Terry Sharples initial approach to take One nation to court was done with considerable contribution from myself. Had it not been for the early documentation of the PHSM, Sharples would have not had a starting point to proceed upon. Sharples DID NOT want to destroy Hanson; he never set out to do that As I have said before he made an effort to track Hanson down in Tweed, in order to seek reimbursement of his expenses involved in becoming a candidate for One Nation. SHARPLES WOULD HAVE CALLED THE COURT-CASE OFF HAD HANSON AGREED TO SEVER HER TIES WITH ETTRIDGE AND OLDFIELD. Had Hanson agreed to talk I was to act as a broker. Tragically for Hanson, she took the advise of the two David's. Self interest, self preservation!
Recently I spoke to Maurie Marsden. Naturally he is very protective of Pauline. He believes he can sort this thing out with Senator Len Harris. He told me that Hanson has only two people she can trust; himself and Len Harris.
I told him that he was wrong. Harris remains Hanson's mealticket. He will no more stand alongside her than the other drop-outs. The reason: Harris had his chance as did Heather Hill. If either of these two were gold plated genuine they would have stood aside and allowed Hanson into the Senate. They did not; therefore they are no better than the other carpet-baggers. As for Maurie Marsden, I have never doubted that he has political nous, but is he too emotionally involved with Hanson to be totally objective?
Candidly I would like to see a handful of hard-headed grassroots supporters get behind Hanson.
As I write this yet another phone call comes in seeking to donate money to Hanson's cause. This one is for $1000. It comes at 11p.m. This is the tenth or eleventh call in two days. I ask "Why ring me? I have been disassociated with Hanson for over three years." They reply 'We didn't know who to ring and found your phone number on the original PHSM. We thought you would know how to contact her.'
Well the answer to that is that I don't. Why should I? Hanson in spite of her family ingrained values, have never displayed the a common courtesy of a reply. Hanson treats people like the proverbial.
Out of frustration I rang Marsden and told them to get their act together. The point I make is that Hanson has the capacity to draw people. If people clamour around for old pieces of paper to find a means of helping her in her hour of need, then rid of all the baggage of One Nation, she could make a comeback.
If Hanson can prove to the electoral commissioner by affidavits from those candidates who are supposed to have been reimbursed, were then I believe that Commissioner O'Shea will accept the cash shortfall as settlement of the debt.
My recommendation to Pauline Hanson is use the goodwill money to that end. It is with this in mind that I have gone to the effort to provide what help I can to the callers.
If there are people so inclined to make contributions then this is the contact I have been given :
Telephone: 07 3281 0077.
Address P.O.Box 428 Ipswich
Please note that information is being provided by the writer and not the editorial of this newspaper.
I have never doubted that had Hanson renounced the two David's that she would have gone on to build that third political movement that this country badly needs. The support, latent now, just needed that spark of hope. It was in her power to give it, ...some of us cling to the hope that it will come to fruition.
The real question is simple, why, with all the money that flowed into the One Nation coffers, must Hanson need to cry for cash. Or is this just another stunt? Is there in fact enough in the kitty to bail her out?
What has been done in the name of Pauline Hanson in my book it tantamount to criminal intent. There must come a day of judgement. When you play with public money, you have to be accountable. One Nation directors have much to account for.
Return to the Whiteside Column
Requiem to a Fallen Angel
13th March 2000
To be read to the accompaniment of the Dead March by Saul
It is so easy to fall into the trap of saying 'I told you so', but never one to mince words, I believe that I have earned, the right to say exactly that. I TOLD YOU SO!
One million voters were adroitly 'conned' along with two electoral commissioners and the bleeding hearts of One Nation. They were not 'conned' by Hanson, but by opportunistic carpetbaggers. The raw fact is that Hanson was naively vulnerable and was 'conned' more comprehensively than the rest put together. Before the party is over Pauline Hanson, may well live to regret the very mention of either David Oldfield or David Ettridge. Given the comments in the Weekend Australian, Hanson could well end up being personally responsible for repaying the $500,000 electoral funding to the Queensland Electoral Commission.
There are many One Nation devotees around today who would have once walked over hot coals for Hanson. Ten carpetbagging Queensland politicians, among them, who have written Hanson off and gone further ...formed new alliances, for no other reasons but to further their own political ambitions.
Had Feldman called for a Commission of Inquiry into One Nation, whilst he was still a member of the team, his credibility would have remained in tact and both Ettridge and Oldfield would have had a battle on their hands. Scott Balson, forwarded this suggestion in letter form from me to Ian Petersen and two members of The Independent Alliance Forum (TIAF), met with these politicians to discuss these ideas and others. The trouble was that the arrogant decision had been made to form the politically cynical City Country Alliance. Here again the arrogant manipulations of the few!
Few people in the ill-fated One Nation catastrophe, ever understood or bothered to find out why I have been so vocal and as it so happens better informed. The cold hard truth is that the PHSM was developed, organised and presented to the public without ANY OTHER PARTICIPANT. I claim, justifiably the unique organisation that spawned from that initiative; WHICH WAS ILLEGALLY SEIZED TO PROVIDE A PLATFORM FOR FRAUD AND DECEIT. The principle on which ONE NATION was founded has been an abhorrence to me from it's inception. The reason is simple. The only time I met David Ettridge, I told him to his face he was a con-man. For that I was vilified and blackened. The only time I ever spoke with David Oldfield he told me 'You were never going to be allowed to remain in the movement. You would have stood in the way of our agenda. WE are going to destroy you.' Oh yes, they did a good job of that ...but finally it was Ettridge and Oldfield, ably assisted by a very sour Andrew Carne who implicated them both, who finally sealed Hanson's fate.
But what of Hanson? Nobody has ever asked why Hanson has steadfastly refused to dump on the two David's. All this crap about their integrity, or more pathetically her version of it, carries no credibility now that the courts have proven them liars and cheats. But why has Hanson, to her great peril persisted in underpinning these scoundrels?
Since nobody else seems to have the intestinal fortitude to tackle this question then I will try.
Pauline Hanson is not stupid. Pauline Hanson, claims what many of us were the beneficiaries of; a healthy home environment, where commonsense, basic decencies and hard-work were instilled. These are fundamentals, if practiced (as Hanson claimed ad infinitum) that carry most of us through life. So why did Hanson negate those principles by turning her back on a million loyal voters and forsaking all for two proven carpetbaggers?
ONE MILLION VOTERS! Can any of us really grasp the marvellous harvest that was so stupidly squandered. ONE MILLION VOTERS! An opportunity that we will not see happen again. Hanson was an angel, Hanson was an answer to a prayer ...and if you doubt that why did a million people vote for her ...NOT ONE NATION! I have said many times that Hanson carried a crystal chalice, that of the people. It was precious ...not to be dropped ...but drop it she did. Why? The eternal question ...why?
As I have said, Hanson is NOT stupid, so there had to be a reason for this 'kamikaze' act that has brought her facing financial and political ruin.
Consider these: Was it infatuation with David Oldfield? I know of people who were close enough to Hanson to believe that she was emotionally involved. Some are less than complimentary, others again believed that this was very much a one way affair. Certainly David Oldfield's less than tasteful poses for the media with other women, do not indicate that he respected them. Was Hanson used for his political ambitions?
If we are charitable and accept the premise that one's personal life is one's own as Hanson had suggested, then we should also remember that Hanson was an icon of the people. What worried me most about this liaison was the real potential for Hanson to be subverted ...and not in the in the interest of Hanson. If my reading of this was wrong, why then did he promote the idea of Hanson running in the unwinnable seat of Blair, whilst securing number one spot in NSW for the Senate. Was it to gain control of the 'party'? Don't forget that had it not been for the Queensland elections, Oldfield, a self confessed National Socialist would have led a team that controlled the balance of power in the Senate. Power was Oldfield's aphrodisiac. Barbara Hazelton at the time Hanson's closest friend and Mother confessor told us that Hanson had said, 'David is all I wanted in a man.' This is not only believable but more than likely a fact. Under these circumstances Hanson's infatuation could easily have given way to pragmatism. Many may see Hazelton as a woman bearing 'sour grapes' but this old cliché became a paper crutch and was visited upon all who saw the truth.
What about blackmail or secretly drafted agreements? Was Hanson dangled a lucrative carrot? Was she made offers that she could not refuse? I have spoken with far too many people who have expressed deep concern about this death wish of Hanson's to remain wedded to the two David's. Whilst many have discussed these concerns and made various suggestions to 'rescue' Hanson, most, like the gutless lost legion who ran under her banner, simply walked away or denounced her. I can understand her being bitter.
Two people however contacted her. One of them was the rascally John Pasquarelli. Whatever you think of this man, he basically remained true to Hanson. John, who has rung me every week since his 'sacking', continued to have Pauline's interest at heart. Many times he rang her and appealed to me to do the same. John in the end lost heart. I hear him now ...'the silly, silly woman!' Not vindictive but in a manner of deep sadness.
I wrote to her on about six occasions,. She ignored the lot! I finally did ring her and her secretary said "She's standing right next to me, you can speak with her now.' I said, No, get her to ring me' ...I wanted to test her mettle. Hanson simply lacked the guts.
The question remains: Was Hanson compromised? Like I said Hanson is not stupid, so we have to consider that for a politician of the people to turn her back on a million loyal supporters and plumb for two men who the court has decided are con-men, that something intractable worked against her.
If this is the case then Hanson not only faces political oblivion, but possibly gaol and financial ruin.
Very few people hold the view that I am about to express. Almost to a person they see her as part of the problem. I agree, but I do not hold to the view that she was consciously a deliberate participant. I err on the side of caution as far as Hanson's involvement is concerned. I believe that her basic honesty (no I am not blinkered) would not have allowed her to perpetrate a deliberate plan to defraud. I believe her inherent naiveness, coupled to her school-girlish vulnerability, would not have allowed her to see the subtle nuances of intrigue, that enveloped her. This was a fact that was recognised at both the original court case and again at the Court of Appeal. The reason Hanson was not called, was that she would have been a disaster in the hands of cross examining plaintiffs and legal council. I have no wish to denigrate Pauline Hanson, but to put it very simply ...she was out of her league. Her security and future ...or so I thought was among her grassroots. The people would have remained loyal had she honoured her compact with them.
Pauline Hanson ignored the sound advise of John Pasquarelli. She followed Ettridge's advise and refused to speak to me. Now she has finally reached a point of no return. No longer will the facade of defiance, or false bravado stem the incoming tide. Ultimately, the law will take its course. This was never a plot to destroy ONE NATION, or Pauline Hanson. The truth is that Pauline Hanson had the world at her feet. She could and should have carved a special niche in the fabric of the political history of Australia, but she dropped the crystal chalice.
In four years we have witnessed the death of a fallen angel ...a promise unfulfilled, a destiny aborted.
Return to the Whiteside Column
Whiteside's resignation letter to the Pauline Hanson Support Movement - 8th April 1997
26 Bradley Ave
Miami Q 4220
Pauline Hanson Support Movement
P O Box 600
Miami Qld 4220.
This is not so much as a letter of resignation, but rather one of separation. In writing it I address it not to those who defected to the Hanson Ettridge duo, but to the remnants of the group that formed the Pauline Hanson Support Movement.
In my inaugural speech at the Albert Waterways Community Centre, I had cause to say, quote, "Gutless men, gutless women, aided and abetted by an equally gutless press." In the case of the PHSM, I would in general term have to reiterate those sentiments, except that this time it was aided and abetted by political opportunists to which you all were susceptible.
That committees are anathema to me was obvious to all. Ron Paddison suggested that I could not work with committee. From my perspective and with all due respect, I found that I could not work with the committee. The major contribution to the PHSM, has largely been that of talk, talk. Committee wise Paul Trewartha, Iris Whiteside, Joy Jacka and Ron Paddison, have worked toward the success of the wishes and demands of the Hanson/Ettridge duo. Lindon Litchfield has carried the financial problems. Only one person John Clodd, has really put in the hard yards and for that I am grateful. If ever there are any bouquets handed out, then he is the legitimate recipient. Without him, it would never have got to first base.
Should there ever be any doubt as to what I though of those I came to struggle with, it is this. Almost to a person, what drove you was not the message of Pauline Hanson, but the protocol of committees. Good old Ron, dotting the 'i's', crossing the 't's'. Diligently working on the constitution and then christening it by citing this rule and that clause to terminate the founders `membership', before the ink was even dry. Good work Ron, proud of you son. The stuff of empire builders.
Yvonne Gardner, whose one claim was to sound important and run like hell when there was any work about. Give her a free ticket to a Night to Remember', she is committee. And those who could not be bothered with typing out a floppy disk, yet was first in line for consideration for Pauline's imprimatur in the seat of Moncrieff. The man (Andrew Puls) can sing to, ...smile on me Pauline. Ken Waalwyk, who ran hot and cold, always wanting me to caress the Hanson image. And just who did wield the Ettridge sword of decapitation? Who killed cock Robin. Everybody and nobody. Well what can you expect, even Christ was disillusioned with what he saw. That much at least we have in common.
One person who has done a great job has been Iris Whiteside. I have witnessed at close hand the professionalism, the purposefulness of mind, whilst she struggled with inner turmoil. For that I have great respect. But there I leave the matter.
THE MATTER OF MY TERMINATION
The PHSM (not the Ned Kelly acquired version, despite its committee purists), were in breach of the process of committee procedure in its illegal hand-over of the people's movement.
1. Why was a special meeting for this move not advertised so that all those with Registration Certificate, the only verified identification with the movement could participate.
2. What was the requirements for a quorum, given that only a handful of the committee were in attendance.
3. Why was the meeting with Ettridge not recorded in accordance with committee protocol and procedure.
4. Who authorised the appointment of Hanson and Ettridge to the spurious "National Executive."
5. Another handful of people. Once again what was the position in regard to a quorum?
All this smacks at kids playhouse stuff and here I am thinking that running a committee should be in the hands of experts.
You may all feel easy about this whole affair. I do not.
The letter of termination left on my desk by persons unknown, accredited to 'Yes Minister, Ron Paddison', was the final straw. It achieves by the art of small mindedness the severance so desired by the pomposity of the rule of Constitution, of my association THE COMMITTEE.
The article of demand is flawed.
1. Membership of what association? My registration Certificate was with the PHSM, here on the Gold Coast.
2. The organisation to whom I was associated was of the people. It was not the bastardised version that has been politicised.
3. Even supposing I were a member of that outfit, I would have been in ownership of the said Constitution book, thereby able to ascertain the rules and clause that I stand indicted under. The fact I have no idea how I am able to lodge an appeal to a charge that I am totally oblivious to.
4. In fact the Constitution could hardly be used for any breach that I may stand accused of.
5. According to the 'charge sheet', rule 8: (3): d, is the section I will be drawn and quartered by.
6. There is no indication, suggestion or even bush telegraph communication that can throw ant light on the dastardly crime I have committed.
7. There is that word again COMMUNICATION.
8. If as I suspect the issue is Pauline Hanson, then be warned you are all on very thin ice. We are dealing here with the Movement. If I have done anything to harm, damage or hold in disrepute, the Movement to which I had something to do with, them have the combined guts to say so.
9. If as I suspect, this is about the public criticism of Pauline Hanson, then I hold you all in complete contempt.
The axiom that was as much a hallmark of Pauline Hanson', maiden speech, was all about, the `freedom of speech.' She has specifically said that she would not be a party to party discipline. She would not be gagged. I fully concur. This same lady directed that I should not speak to the media, whilst she was overseas. I AGREED TO THAT.
What you all failed to give me credit and integrity for was that I held to that agreement. I made it abundantly clear that two items of mine were already in the system. These came out after the assurance. That no contact was made to the media, after the `suppression order', was never accepted. You all believed what you wanted to.
The next time I spoke to the media was on April 1, 1997. This was telegraphed to Pauline Hanson on March 26th. She chose to ignore it. I make no apologies for saying what I did. Ken Waalwyk embraced me when I spoke 'nicely' about Pauline Hanson on the Anna Reynold's program.
None of you, not even Pauline Hanson, was in the unique position to openly throw cold water in her face, to bring her to her bloody senses. Of all the people in Australia, who could stop her in her tracks, I was the only one to whom an agenda could not be levelled. Time will judge whether I was right or wrong on that.
Just as nobody was strong enough to stand up to Pauline Hanson, so too did the committee exhibit weakness in dealing with myself. It should have presented a challenge, but you all prevaricated and failed to control the driving force.
None of you, with the possible exception of Paul Trewartha have thought through the ramifications of me working outside. Were I so inclined to emulate the things I have been accused of then I could do tremendous harm to the Pauline Hanson campaign. This is the dilemma you are all faced with now. If Pauline Hanson, David Ettridge, or Ron Paddison had had even a skerrick of political savvy, then it always made sense that the maverick could have been harnessed, for the good of the cause. It was a challenge that was set aside because small minds and piqued egos, proved too much of an obstacle. In the end the cause was lost.
In the words of that great Persian philosopher;
moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.
Nor all thy piety or wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line
Not thy tears wash out a word of it.