 |
Pauline Hanson has the place rocking, and it’s over to you for reaction. But first, I had a call from a bloke called Richard Rae, who’s doing the publicity for One Nation for the federal election. He plans to flog off to One Nation supporters a song called “Sunburnt Battler”, to be professionally recorded by an Australian band in three weeks. We’re hoping to put the garage version on the web today. Rae wrote the words and Hanson approved the words, and they hope that at $10 a pop, they’ll get the readies for TV and print advertisements. The garage version I heard has a Midnight Oil beat to it. One Nation will also record what Rae calls a “teen market” song called “Take it like This”, which will cut in a Hanson speech. The lyrics will give you a good idea of the market One Nation is pitching to. The cover – a reproduction of a pulp fiction novel painted by Australian comics artist Stanley Pitt – is an image of Ned Kelly in full metal headgear, back to a tree, flashing gun in hand. Scary.
The new One Nation jingle – a real pub stomp
Sunburnt Battler
A proud sunburnt battler
stands alone at his gate
a strong wife with child
on the veranda in wait
for the banks and the troupers
to come take their land
where are the mates
of this Aussie man
Through each generation
hopes grow and must last
turn to the future
not forgetting the past
covering our States
and Territories skies
we lift our heads facing
where the Southern Cross flies
It won’t be long now
so she moves to her man
son reaches out
to hold dads weary hand
then a neighbor walks over
and joins the small band
then more people come
from all across our land
Soon a million lone battlers
have built a wide wall
they march straight ahead
helping any who fall
they’ll fight with this family
for when it’s said and done
at the end of the day
we’re all One Nation.
GRAHAM COLE, Northern Territory
Calling Hanson a lightning rod for protest devoid of policies says it all. She came up to the Territory Show in July and the local One Nation group jammed her in a buggy behind 2 horses and ran her around the fair ground .Every one clapped her, black and white . I don’t think it was so much support as just the fun of the fair, because they were clapping louder at cattle dogs jumping over a wall 5 minutes earlier.
Any way a bloke I know is running as a One Nation independent candidate in the assembly elections and he’s protesting about the number of crocodiles that don’t get shot. Another fella I know is a member and he’s got a Darwin Chinese wife, another has an adopted Aboriginal grandson and joined up because he was lonely and they have good barbecues. You never can tell.
Any way when I saw Pauline at the Show I decided to get right up her. My kids are from Sri Lanka and I remember one of them saying to me when Pauline first arrived on the scene “Does, Pauline Hanson mean that I’ve gotta go back to Lanka?” So I fronted her, but she looked so pathetic and so badly dressed all I could say was, ” With your skin dear you should really get yourself a decent hat” and then I asked her for her autograph. So she asked me my name and I told her and she wrote it out and I put it in my wallet . I felt like some girl chasing the Bay City Rollers .
Where can I get a copy of your book? (MARGO: www.dymocks.com.au.)
TIM DUNLOP, Canberra:
There is no doubt a lot of truth in what you write about Hanson and the various elections. However, when you begin with “Wow! Here we are again, bedazzled by the extraordinary Pauline Hanson” I have to wonder who the “we” is. Is it “we” the readers or “we” the media? I want to suggest it’s the latter. You’re the ones who are bedazzled, to the detriment of your real reporting. I’m not saying she doesn’t have support or that the ON vote doesn’t merit comment. Only that the “Wow” the “bedazzled” and the “extraordinary” are media sentiments, not reader sentiments.
I reckon you ought to tone it down a bit. Give us a bit more context. As you say: “It will take a while to fully digest the ramifications of the WA result. The Queensland election on Saturday will give us more information on the nature of the one Nation threat, but even then there’ll have to be a lot of micro-analysis of who is voting One Nation and where they live before we can construct an informed scenario of the political year ahead.” So hold off on being “bedazzled “for a bit longer, please.
Even now we can see that some of the micro-analysis shows up other interesting facts, such as that the Greens got more votes than anyone predicted and more in metro WA than ON. They (or ON) might hold the balance of power in the Upper House. And what about the demise of the Democrats?
Other things I’d like to see some hard data on are the extent to which ON approaches to race HAVE actually changed (I keep reading hints to this effect, but no support). If they have, what does that mean? What about the new “party structure” of ON? Is it new? Is it as free and “floating” as one person in your piece suggests? What are the ramifications of this? (personally, I reckon it might be a good development in Australian party politics). And why doesn’t someone call Hanson’s bluff on the tag (given to her by Robert Manne, but undoubtedly part of her attraction) that she is an “anti-politician”? Clearly she isn’t any more. The ON preference strategy proves that. It might be “anarchy”, as you call it, but it is shrewd political tactic. She’s just another pollie now, and someone should point it out.
PIERRE DU PARTE, Worrigee NSW
Phoenix Rising.
Just read your Webdiary entry “Behind Pauline’s comeback”. I particularly liked “Hanson is an anarchist force in Australian politics. She combines an incredible sex appeal to middle-aged, threatened men” – I’m beginning to understand.
You write: “But let me make one policy prediction. One Nation’s resurgence means that the government will block the takeover of Australian resources company Woodside by Dutch predator Shell. John Howard can’t risk igniting the Hanson mantra of economic nationalism by letting Shell get Woodside. And that will be only one of several policy turnarounds in the run up to the election.”
Is that a bad thing? I mean, aren’t most sensible, thinking people entirely frustrated and disillusioned with the political majors seeming disregard for them? I know I am.
So if Pauline “Phoenix” Hanson and her mob cause major Lib/Nat/Labor policy shifts on important issues such as the Woodside/ Shell Monopoly Game, I’m not too disappointed.
LINDY EDWARDS, Canberra
Hey Margo
The WA election result was fascinating – but not for the reasons most
analysts are harking on about. I think the Greens vote signals something
really important. It really clarifies what the protest is about. The PM
has been running around for the last few years arguing that One Nation is
about so called politically correct social values, rather than economic
policy. Hence his justification for his socially conservative agenda. But
when we are getting huge showings of protest votes for progressive social
parties it means the PM can’t hide behind that argument anymore. It
indicates that people of a wide range of social values are pissed off with
the major parties. It is not about progressive vs conservative social
values. It is about economics. Finally, government might start to take a
closer look at its economic policy.
I think the Greens vote is also enormously important for a couple of other
reasons too. The first is the assertion of quality of life over pure
economic drivers. The electorate have made their priorities clear on the WA
forests. An end to growth at all costs?
Second, the green vote in itself is interesting. Is it possible that
environmentalism is the new morality? Contrary to all traditional political
thinking that people will only care about things that are tangible and
impact on their day to day lives, people have shown enormous concern about
abstract long term issues like greenhouse. I can’t help but wonder if that
is because people have latched onto the environment in a search for values.
We no longer judge an upstanding citizen by whether they have sex before
marriage, are God fearing or a member of rotary. Now we ascertain people’s
integrity by whether or not they recycle. Somehow caring about the
environment is about integrity, responsibility for the world we live in, and
being attached to something more real than sheer materialism. To me it
seems like people reaching out for something deeper.
A nice development I feel.
CATHY BANNISTER
The Big Red P
It appears that the formula for scoring the balance of power is easy:
1. Identify difficulties and prejudices, real and perceived, of a large enough target demographic;
2. Define as many groups as possible to blame for these difficulties; and
3. Promise to stick it to ’em.
Being entirely cynical about it, it should be possible to create a Pauline for the urban poor and between them they’d grab about 20% of the vote across the board. One of the radio talkback fascists would be a perfect figurehead. Imagine a party fronted by someone with charisma like Lawsy. All he would have to do is promise to stick it to the banks, illegal immigrants, non-English speakers, unemployed New Zealanders, “Spoilt Canberrans who get all the good roads”, “freeloaders” in general, recipients of arts grants, and greenies, and bingo! he’s in the Senate, no worries.
That these are pretty much all Coalition policies already is not a problem – our targets will have never noticed). Thankfully Laws would never bother, given that he has more power than a local council and earns what must be about ten times the salary of a backbencher.
It’s all rather depressing, really.
Anyway, I still reckon the whole Pauline phenomenon could be pretty much
erased by resolving the land rights issue the way responsible ex-British
colonies (i.e. Canada and New Zealand) have.
JIM MELROSE, Engadine NSW:
I am not a supporter of Pauline Hanson but I must make the comment that whereas she is asking the questions but doesn’t have the answers, where are the answers from Tweedle “Dumb” and Tweedle “Dumber” , alias Messrs. Howard and Beazley? Both leaders’ parties have forgotten what Government really is, while they spar at each other on unimportant issues.
I think Howard forgot that, in Australia, elections are not won – the Government simply loses. John Howard and Peter Costello have done such an excellent job of alienating so many people with their pig-headedness on GST, BAS and fuel that Kim Beazley simply has to keep his nose clean (perhaps not even that) to gain enough swing to win Government.
The coming recession will hit Australia particularly hard. You can’t crow about raising extra billions in taxation and pull it in faster without seriously interfering in the normal course of business. Something politicians and public servants just don’t understand.
If I may explain. Each quarter businesses will have to remit by 21 days (actually 19, as the Taxation Office idiotically treats Sundays as normal business days) PAYG, PAYW and GST. Businesses don’t pay each other in 21 (or 19) days. The normal term is 30 days after month end and not everyone pays within the 30 days. The farce is that the Government says they “have use” of their GST but the reality is that businesses have to remit everything to the Taxation Office before they have received 33% (more if some clients are slow payers) of the quarter’s money.
GREG WEILO
I’m not sure that the Liberals can fall too much further in Queensland, as their current representation would reflect fairly “rusted on” voters, as journalists like to say. I suspect that they will finish up within 2 or 3 seats of their current level. I don’t expect them to recover their previous (pre-1998) level of representation. I expect that the Nationals will do better, but not enough for the Coalition to win outright government.
I think that a hung parliament is the most likely result (say 45%), but I agree that an ALP win is much more likely (say 35%) than a Coalition win (20%).
By the way, did you notice Greg Robert’s preparatory spin in anticipation of a continued low liberal vote, despite their decision to put One Nation last? (MARGO: Greg is the Herald’s Brisbane correspondent.) “Coalition strategists fear many traditional Liberal supporters will vote Labor in protest against the National Party’s decision to direct preferences to One Nation ahead of the ALP.”
I suppose it was smart to give ownership of this ‘analysis’ to “Coalition strategists” rather than himself. I suspect he is just floating this nonsense to see if it will fly next week.
He must really think that the public is stupid. Liberals to vote Labor to protest a decision by the Nationals? Get real.
The reason that journalists can’t understand what’s going on, is that they are as out of touch as the politicians are.
FIONA FERRARI (a non de plume), Canberra
Anonymous contributors
I disagree with Tim Dunlop’s objections to the use of non de plumes. As a public servant working in a parliament, I know that it is unacceptable for me to write letters to the editor on political issues under my real name. I appreciate the opportunity to express my views through your site.
Tim claims the use of non de plumes shows contempt for your readers. Why? I think it shows respect for the views of people who know their professionalism and job prospects will be compromised if they write letters to the editor. You are promoting free speech.
This country has become more and more unnaccepting of freedom of expression and dissent over the last decade. Witness the defunding of WEL and peak youth bodies. And with more people employed on contract in the public service, more people with good inside information are inhibited from voicing their opinions.
You made it clear that those writing about marginal electorates should identify any political associations and I believe this is a sufficient check. Why do we need to know everyone’s real identity? Surely readers are capable of assessing arguments put by contributors on their merits? Please do not change your policy on non de plumes.
Woodside
It’s a pity Labor isn’t running hard on this one. I think a hard line supporting Australian ownership could help them take One Nation votes rather than give One Nation more steam. But they are scared of ‘the market’s’ judgement. Surely with the Australian dollar so low, though, one FIRB rejection of a foreign takeover isn’t going to spook ‘the market’ too much- they’ll still want to try and buy all our other cheap companies.
Still, the Woodside case is a beautiful illustration of Labor’s fundamental dilemma in the current political/economic environment. With globalisation, nation states, voters and governments have less power than they had in previous times. The range of policy options available to governments is shrinking at an ever-increasing rate and democracy is losing ground to the power of major companies and the narrow views of ‘the market’.
The ‘market’s’ views are not in tune with ‘the people’s’ views (Pauline’s parlance), and not in the interests of a significant proportion of ‘the people’ and often not in the national interest of individual countries.
The ‘market’ is especially bad at meeting the needs of country people, hence their support for One Nation.
While Tweedeldum and Tweedeledee have their ears tuned to what the market wants, they are not listening to what voters want. This then creates a frustration in those voters suffering under the new system of market domination. These voters (‘the people’) think their only way to be heard is to vote One Nation or independent. The recent re-emergence in WA of One Nation demonstrates that Howard has not learnt the lessons he said he’d learnt after the Victorian election.
Both major political parties need to work out a better way of resolving that fundamental conflict between the views of ‘the market’ and the views of ‘the people’.
Somehow One Nation has grabbed a large proportion of those disenchanted with ‘the market’ and with the Government’s over-the-top sucking up to the market. Unfortunately the fact that One Nation promotes racism and has no realistic policy solutions takes away from the real problem that governments have to find a better way to manage ‘the market’. It is really unfortunate that any questioning of ‘the market’s domination is considered old-fashioned, unreconstructed and uneducated because One Nation has linked it with racism and old-fashioned country values.
S11 is the only group to present a cynicism with market domination in a way that appeals to Australians who do not equate anti-market sentiment with racism, ignorance and backwardness. Labor, the Greens and the Democrats need to do something different so that educated Australians can feel comfortable challenging excessive market domination without being called a redneck. Labor needs to take the only good argument One Nation has away from them (that is questioning market domination) and hopefully that will squash the racist vote.