Last night in a heated debate, I was taken to task for not admitting to shades of grey in government action. The discussion covered the failure of government, and I took an absolutist position in my disgust as to how government silences those that threaten its power.

Recently the mullahs in Iran took 3,600 reformist candidates off the ballots . It was an openly naked entrenchment of their position. They effectively silenced any political challenge to their monopoly on power. In Burma, Suu Kyi is under house arrest and has been physically beaten in the past. There are numerous other examples.

We would like to believe Australian politicians would never do this - but the law suit against One Nation is an example of the entrenched politicians silencing a political party, and effectively taking them off the ballot. Governments will use any avenue at their disposal to entrench themselves in the system and remove potential challenges to their power.

But Australians Don't Torture

I am not denying that torture is inhumane and utterly repugnant. But government will use any means they have open to them, to ensure their power is not challenged. In despotic and dictatorial regimes - where there is no rule of law, and just the arbitrary judgement of a single ruler - murder, torture and intimidation are commonplace. But that is because the lack of the rule of law allows it. In Australia there is the rule of law, so parties seek to use the existing system to ensure there is no challenge to their entrenched power.

1997 saw the meteoric rise of the One Nation Party. Its electoral success took voters predominantly from the Liberal and National parties. Consequently the Liberal Party, and possibly the Labor Party, through Tony Abbott sought to remove One Nation as a populist political force. Abbott constructed the "Australians For Honest Politics" organization to fund legal cases against One Nation.

One Nation

One Nation rose around a disaffected former Liberal Party candidate in rural Ipswich, Queensland. Pauline Hanson had been disendorsed by the Liberal Party for making racist comments on Aboriginal welfare. David Oldfield and David Ettridge helped form the party. The current party website is a bit of a shambles and does not contain an easily found, nor historical, platform. The 1998 court case records One Nation's political goals as;

1. To stop all immigration except that related to investment until all Australia's unemployment is solved.

2. To treat all Australians equally and abolish divisive and discriminatory policies, such as those related to aboriginal and multicultural affairs.

3. To restrict foreign ownership of Australia, repeal the Native Title Act, abolish ATSIC and reverse WIK.

4. To restore tariff protection, revitalise Australian manufacturing and initiate financial support for small business and the rural sector.

5. To take positive action on such matters as taxation reform, education, health, unemployment, crime and the discrimination created by political correctness.

One Nation has some political success with their discriminative and xenophobic policies, but any electoral success was often thwarted by internal chaos and disunity. Their first political impact was in the Queensland state elections. In the 1997 Queensland elections the party won 23% of the first preference vote and earned eleven seats in the Legislative Assembly. This was a direct challenge to the three party system in Queensland which divied the Assembly seats between Labor, Liberal and National parties.

The One Nation party candidates split in 1999 with the legislative members becoming either independents or joining the City-Country Alliance of Queensland. In the 2001 election, however, three members of the One Nation Party were elected to the Assembly with the party getting 9% of the vote. The splitting or jumping ship of successful One Nation candidates was to be a constant. Their electoral success in Queensland and Western Australia did not translate into any permanent place in the respective parliaments.

In the 1998 federal election the party achieved one seat in the Senate, represented by Heather Hill. The constitutionality of her position was challenged. She was a naturalized Australian citizen, but hadn't renounced her childhood British citizenship. Consequently she was deemed a citizen of a foreign power. Len Harris took her position.

In 2001 the party got one federal Senate seat . In the 2004 federal election Pauline Hanson ran as an independent candidate for Senate. Len Harris will have his term expire in June 2005. He was unable to retain his seat. At the state level, Rosa Lee Long seems to be the only One Nation member left.

Rise and Fall

One Nation effectively divided the conservative vote and eroded the National Party's base in rural areas. The Liberals were clumsy in allocating preferences with the arise of One Nation, and gave their preferences to One Nation over Labor. It appears that this thoughtless preferencing enabled One Nation to capture at least five Assembly seats in Queensland in 1997. By comparison Labor put One Nation below the Liberals in their preferences.

The fabrication of the "children overboard" affair and its appeal to xenophobia, discrimination and nationalism was definitely an attempt by the Howard Government to adopt the repugnant policies of One Nation and neutralise One Nation's policy resonance in the electorate. The Liberal Party has also moved to empathise with much of the discriminative policies without actually endorsing them. This is normally done through slimy political language such as, "I would never endorse that, but, I do understand why they would think that way." As an example, John Howard told Alan Jones;

... thought some of the things [Hanson] said were an accurate reflection of what people feel.

The quick rise and fall of the One Nation also has the appearance of fashion to it. The media is utterly responsible for the fashion cycle. Not to discount the voters who did vote for One Nation - there was definitely disaffection and alienation in the Queensland and Western Australia rural areas from the major parties. That is also not to deny that there remains a residual under-current of electoral support for One Nations discriminative and nationalist policies. However, the media did play a role in One Nation's political fortunes.

The elevation of Pauline Hanson into celebrity politics fitted entirely within the media's agenda of increasing circulation. As a political target she was undeniably perfect for mass media. The supposed "right-wing" commentators could make sensationalist, contrarian, discriminative claims on the Aboriginal people, on refugees, foreigners and nationalism. Designed to provide an echo-chamber for some and indignation in others .

By the same token, the so called "left-wing" media got to make fun of what they saw as an ignorant, simple country-bumpkin from the unenlightened drought ridden plains of outback Queensland. Pauline Hanson was also targeted for derision as she was devoid of the social grace and intelligence proximity to the South Eastern metropolitan centres enables [sarcasm]. All in all it made for headlines along with a constant froth of sensationalism and derision from the mass-media.

_{Orphan link : more information on One Nation ...}

The Slush Fund

A former One Nation party member, Terry Sharples, wanted to stop One Nation from receiving electoral funds. A party can receive public funding at the federal level if they achieve more than 4% of the first preference vote. Consequently a court case was brought against One Nation that they were in contravention of AEC rules, and under law, were not really a registered political party.

To fund this legal action, Sharples received funds from the "Australians For Honest Politics" group. This organization was set-up by Tony Abbott specifically to raise money to support legal action against One Nation. Trustees of the group included former Liberal MP Peter Coleman, who is Peter Costello's father-in-law, and former Labor minister John Wheeldon. From the 7.30 Report ;

He's [Abbott] told the 'Sydney Morning Herald' he did raise almost $100,000 for a political fighting fund named Australians for Honest Politics.

He said the job of Australians for Honest Politics was to fund court cases against One Nation.

Initially Abbott denied the organization's purpose but threatened with the possibility of deceiving a court, rather than just the media and people, Abbott came clean enough to avoid the law going after him. There is also no law requiring Abbott to divulge who the donors to the organization were. Something that would be of interest to know for voters to make an informed opinion on Abbott.

The other question in the slush fund is - did John Howard know? Sharples wrote a letter to John Howard when Abbott's cheques were not sufficient to cover the legal costs. Howard wrote back through his secretary that he considered it a private matter between Abbott and Sharples. There is little doubt in my mind that Howard was aware of the actions being undertaken. If he wasn't the driving force behind it, then I am certain he would have certainly been in the loop.

Pauline Hanson received a sentence of three years in jail for electoral fraud . John Howard commented on it ;

I'm very sympathetic towards Pauline Hanson and the severity of her sentence

Ironically, Peter Costello had voiced his support for a Liberal and National Party policy of putting One Nation last in preferences. If this had been adopted then One Nation would not have had the preference bounce in the 1997 Queensland election. John Howard made a gross miscalculation in this respect, and it is likely that refugees at Woomera and other detention centres continue to pay for his political mistake in 1997 of allocating preferences.

Sharples vs O'Shea (1999)

The Sharples vs O'Shea [Not Firefox compliant] court case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland with the judgement given in August 1999. The core of the case was;

The question of substance to be determined in this matter is whether or not Pauline Hanson's One Nation was properly registered as a political party under the Electoral Act 1992 . In the grounds of review as particularised the plaintiff essentially relies on three matters, and perhaps a fourth, to challenge the party's compliance with the requirements of the Electoral Act 1992.

The first three are that it did not have 500 members who were enrolled as electors in the State of Queensland; that it did not have as one of its aims and objectives the election of candidates to the Queensland Legislative Assembly; and thirdly, that the person who signed as secretary of the party was not in fact the secretary of the party.

The fourth consideration, which was not vigorously pursued at trial because of a lack of evidence, was that the political party's registered officer, Ms Hanson, did not give her correct residential address as her address as required. There is, however, no statutory requirement to give a residential address.

The plaintiff says that the second defendant, its servants and agents, knew that its application for registration did not comply with the requirements of the Electoral Act 1992 and obtained its registration by fraud or misrepresentation.

The first three issues became the questions before the court. The judge's findings were;

142 After reviewing the decision of the commission, I am satisfied that the decision to register Pauline Hanson's One Nation under the Electoral Act 1992 was induced by fraud or misrepresentation.

143 The order sought by the plaintiff is the setting aside of the decision of the commissioner and making a decision in substitution thereof. I set aside the decision of the commissioner made on 4 December 1997 and decide that Pauline Hanson's One Nation was not entitled to registration as a political party in Queensland as it did not satisfy the requirement of s.70 of the Electoral Act 1992.

The rule of law is the rule of law, and if Pauline Hanson did break the electoral rules than the judgement is just. However the manner with which the case was pursued outside of the courts brings nothing but disrepute to Tony Abbot and the Liberal Party. That John Wheeldon was involved also suggests that there was Labor Party complicitness in this process. Unfortunately it looks like we will not know who the donors to the laughably named "Australians for Honest Politics" were.

Conclusion

I find the core One Nation platform utterly repugnant in every way. I would never vote for a racist, discriminatory, xenophobic nationalist party. But this is where a party's fate is to be decided - at the ballot box, and by the people. Not by opposing parties seeking rulings to make a challenging party illegal. Certainly not by opposing parties funding those legal actions.

The wisdom resides with the people, and despite One Nation's initial popularity, it did not convert into real political power. Like the refutal of the referendum to ban the Communist Party in 1951, the Australian people do make the right decisions when asked.

The funding of the court case against the One Nation Party by the "Australian For Honest Politics" is undoubtedly an attempt to silence, break and remove a party which could challenge the ascendency of the two major parties, and in particular the Liberal Party who was lost the most voters to the extreme views of the One Nation Party. In this respect it is no different to the mullahs in Iran silencing reformist candidates by removing them from the ballot. The only difference between Australia and Iran in this respect was the manner in which it was achieved.

The Federal Government desperately needs a Independent Commission Against Corruption . I would urge all parties who are represented in the Federal Government to pursue ICAC legislation to ensure that corruption is exposed at the federal level. This instance shows that we cannot trust the politicians without this constant and independent check on their actions.

cam