It was somewhere down in Toffsville in a city’s smoke and steam,
That a blueblood club existed, called the Oik Exploiters Team.
As a Privatising Greed-Gang ’twas a marvellous success,
For the Members were distinguished by unseen, unscreened largesse.
They had ‘economic policies’ so nice and smooth and sleek,
(‘Cos their opportunist owners changed the bastards once a week.)
And they started up for Oxley in pursuit of Anti-votes,
For they meant to (quietly) help these angries hit their angry notes.
Despatched their useful ‘Leader’ (social-climbing Sydney grub),
‘Ere they started operations on the Anti-Every Club.
G’Day. As you read Howard’s blather on Hanson today (PM labels Hanson’s jail sentence ‘severe’), bear in mind that his close mate and political hatchet man Tony Abbott – the bloke who hand-picked the appalling David Oldfield to work in his Canberra office – was involved in destroying One Nation.
Last night’s Johnathan Harley Lateline report Hanson’s fall the result of long campaign is instructive. Abbott got disaffected One Nation member Terry Sharples a barrister with close Liberal Party connections to mount a civil case against the registration of One Nation and promised Sharples he’d help fund the case. He denied this on the record to Four Corners. When confronted with a document proving his lie, he said misleading the ABC was not as bad as misleading Palriament. We know from the last couple of weeks that misleading parliament is cool these days. Here’s an extract from Deborah Snow’s SMH feature Absolute Abbottpublished March 11, 2000.
After One Nation shocked the Coalition by winning 11 seats in Queensland in June 1998, Abbott determined to dig up every piece of dirt he could on Hanson and her associates. He soon hooked up with Terry Sharples, a Gold Coast accountant and disgruntled One Nation candidate.
Sharples had evidence he believed could show One Nation had fraudulently registered as a political party in Queensland. This was potential dynamite. If successful, it could stop One Nation receiving half a million dollars of public money under the State’s electoral funding laws, money that otherwise would flow into the movement’s Federal election war chest.
Abbott’s troubles began with a meeting he instigated with Sharples at the Brisbane offices of solicitors Minter Ellison on July 7, 1998. Also present were the late Ted Briggs, a disaffected former State treasurer of One Nation, and Tom Bradley, a solicitor and a mate of Abbott from student politics.
The meeting discussed how to raise money for a court application by Sharples to stop public funds being paid to One Nation. Within days, the action had been mounted and would ultimately succeed – although not without a massive and convoluted falling-out of the anti-One Nation players along the way.
What has been at issue since is to what extent Abbott promised to bail Sharples out if he got into financial difficulty (Sharples is now being sued for bankruptcy by One Nation in Queensland).
At the original Minter Ellison meeting, Sharples maintains, Abbott asked him to “keep his name out of things” because, claims Sharples, Abbott didn’t want the action seen to be connected with anyone from the Liberal Party. A few days later, Sharples asked Abbott for a written undertaking to cover Sharples’s costs.
That agreement, a copy of which has been obtained by the Herald, was handwritten by Abbott and promised “my per-sonal guarantee that you will not be further out-of-pocket as a result of this action”. It was witnessed and dated July 11, 1998. A few days later, when interviewed by the ABC’s Four Corners, Abbott denied any such deal existed.
The morass worsened when Sharples entered the witness box in court on August 21, 1998, and also denied any agreement over funding with Abbott. He now claims he believed the questioning related to the injunction, not to possible cost orders.
Sharples, citing Abbott’s indemnity, is now furiously pursuing the minister for money to cover his massive court costs. To date Abbott has publicly ducked the indemnity issue, insisting his involvement came to an end within weeks, when Sharples sacked the pro bono lawyers that Abbott had arranged.
But, as recently as four months ago, correspondence seen by the Herald shows Abbott’s lawyer writing to Sharples asking him to accept $10,000 to call the whole matter quits (although still maintaining this is not “an admission of liability”). How does Abbott explain the inconsistencies?
When the Herald first put to him Sharples’s claim that he’d promised money at the outset to be paid into a solicitor’s trust account, Abbott said: “No, it’s not correct.”
But later he concedes: “I had secured the agreement of a donor to provide up to $10,000, if necessary, to cover any costs award made against Sharples. This person had no connection whatsoever with the Liberal Party. That was the basis of my letter. I wouldn’t accept that it was an indemnity.”
Challenged about the conflict between this and his denial on Four Corners, Abbott initially replies: “Misleading the ABC is not quite the same as misleading the parliament as a political crime.” But later he argues that he took the reporter’s question to relate solely to the provision of Liberal Party funds.
Abbott also denies speaking to Sharples and asking him to keep his name out of things in court. “I said to him, ‘Terry, this thing is out of control … You should just terminate this action. There’ll be a costs order against you and I’ll look after it.’ And he said, ‘No, I’m on a crusade’, or words to that effect, and away he went. Sharples thinks he can take this matter to the High Court if he wants and Abbott’s going to pay every step of the way.”
On signing the indemnity, Abbott says: “Obviously in hindsight I shouldn’t have done it. But if I had my time again and it was necessary to make an alliance with some pretty unusual people to stop a very serious threat to the social cohesion of the country, well, I would do it. I mean, how else were we going to stop One Nation at the time?”
Yet many nagging questions remain. Sharples says Abbott began referring him to a man called John Samuel for money: “Abbott told me a number of times that I should speak to Samuel about the dollars and cents.”
Samuel turns out to be a character of obscure provenance from Western Australia, who first turned up exposing cost overruns at the State’s casino and questioning its deals with the now-disgraced former Labor government. Later he was involved in efforts to split the Democrats in Western Australia, and later still, joined One Nation, only to lead the revolt from inside the organisation in that State.
Samuel won’t reveal who his backers are. But he styles himself as Abbott’s protector, telling the Herald: “I didn’t want to see someone of Abbott’s credibility involved. I spoke to my friends in the West and they all agreed. I spoke to Tony and said I’d take it from here.”
Abbott admits that “in discussions with a number of One Nation people – and One Nation people were always wanting money for this or that – I would say go and talk to John Samuel. He has access to people who might be able to provide access to that sort of thing.” He says he doesn’t know where Samuel’s alleged financial backing comes from, and admits asking few questions.
Meanwhile Sharples, who has fallen out with a number of his erstwhile collaborators, fights on. He is now single-hand-edly battling an appeal by One Nation – with no funds for legal representation.
Abbott is adamant he’s got nothing to hide: “Look, I really want to stress, the anti-One Nation thing was all my doing. Were any senior Liberal Party people involved? No. Were any junior Liberal Party people involved? Well, apart from me, no. Was I doing this because the Liberal Party had told me to? No. Was I doing this because I thought the Liberal Party wanted me to do it? No. Did I get any encouragement from the Liberal Party after I’d been doing it? No. Has anyone in the Liberal Party ever said to me, ‘Well, Tony, thank God you did that’? No.
“All my doing, for better or for worse. It has got Tony Abbott’s fingerprints on it and no-one else’s.”
Which is precisely what has got some of Tony Abbott’s colleagues worried.
***
Jack Robertson says of Howard’s latest spin:
Howard said today: “I don’t think Pauline Hanson’s political abilities were high, I think her policies were ill-developed and she did from time to time touch prejudicial elements in the community but not perhaps to the extent that many of her critics suggested.” If you can keep from laughing hysterically, you can have merry japes imagining JWH on other ‘Great Moments in Nation-Changing History’:
On Federation: “Not a completely pointless exercise in bumf-shuffling, I suppose.” On Gallipoli: “Lost the odd bloke or two, but it all came out in the wash, eventually.” On the ’42 strategic switch: “Winny was tied up with something in Burma, so Curts gave Frank a dingle instead. No biggie.” On Gough’s Revolution: “I was blinking at the time myself, but apparently he knew Ancient Greek.” On Kennett: “Jeff? Name-calling? Funny, no-one ever told me.”
He’s not seriously expecting anyone to cop tripe like that, is he? My bemused admiration at his chutzpah knows no bounds. Guess he clocks the ‘New Oz’ more acutely than I ever will. Or want to, really.
By the way, the party structure adopted by Hanson and co was the very one recommended to her by another Liberal, former Western Australian Liberal senator Noel Chrichton Brown, who was one of several far right figures courting her to form a party before she picked Oldfield. He wrote Hanson a detailed letter setting out the structure, arguing that democracy in the party would destroy it.
ABC election analyst Anthony Green wrote an important piece on the Hanson matter in the Herald today, Perils of Pauline: her breach of ‘club’ rules was technical rather than deceit. He points out that if Hanson had been a member of the Queensalnd parliament, she could have registered her party the way she did without a care in the world. The pollies club, you see. He also points out that the Sharples civil action against ON’s registration which finally led to the charges against her was defended by the Queensland Electoral Commission, which thought all was fine. There is no requirement for a democratic structure in political parties, none at all, as the major parties can attest to.
At the end of another dismal political week, readers in seats owned by a Liberal or National Party MP should know that your MP voted against referring Tuckey to the House of Representatives privileges committee to examine his multiple parliamentary misleadings this week. The government and its tainted MPs weren’t even prepared to have an internal inquiry into the matter by a committee on which it had the numbers. The case is so open and shut no-one could put their name to a report exonerating Tuckey.
So when Richard Alston and John Howard carry on about the ABC needing an independent review body for complaints, bear in mind that at the least the ABC conducted an internal review. The Alston/Howard poison against the ABC has nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with preserving their regime from scrutiny.
Your Hanson emails keep pouring in. I’ll start with Webdiary’s One Nation contributor Greg Weilo then a selection of short ones before our versatile columnist Jack Robertson’s ode to Pauline and John. My favourite one liner is from Colin Griffiths: I do not agree with the polices of One Nation but with the sentence of three years for Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge this country now has the lowest common democracy.
I’m on holidays next week and back September 1, for Spring. Antony Loewenstein has agreed to guest edit a Webdiary on Hanson, so keep you responses rolling in.
***
Greg Weilo in Adelaide
In the blink of an eye, Big Media has reversed its spin. Pauline Hanson, the most vilified Australian since federation, is no longer portrayed as ignorant and stupid. She has now been cast as a Machiavellian plotter, deviously pursuing nefarious schemes in order to destroy Australian democracy and overthrow the Commonwealth.
The fiendish plot is necessary in order to justify her three-year prison sentence, whereas confusion over the bureaucratic details of a political party registration just doesnt have the same impact.
The Judge seems to believe that Hanson deviously tried to deceive the voting public, by arranging to get “Pauline Hansons One Nation” written on voting papers next to the names of people who supported her policies. Most people would find this clarifying rather than misleading, but many judges seem to enjoy demonstrating their remarkable ability to twist the truth into incomprehensible conclusions.
Apparently its OK to make and break promises about “no children living in poverty by 1990”, “L-A-W tax cuts”, or “never-ever GST”. Its OK to lie about your electoral address, to branch stack, rort your travel allowance or to receive votes from dead people. That’s not deceiving voters, that’s just politics, but letting the voters know what they are voting for is beyond the pale.
Apparently its important to split hairs when determining whether One Nation had 500 supporters or 500 members when deciding if it should be registered as a political party. The fact that the party received over one million votes was ignored in the federal election, so why should it matter now?
The fact that the party registration was independently checked, verified and approved by a government official is beside the point. If a mistake was made, the fact that it was a first offence and performed without intent is also irrelevant.
The $500,000 funding was intended to reimburse political candidates for election campaign costs. The costs were incurred, receipts were provided, but the money was still ordered to be returned. It was. Hanson had already effectively received a $500,000 penalty for an alleged mistake in applying for party registration.
Bizarre legal decisions are par for the course when it comes to One Nation, as evidenced by the Heather Hill case. Activist High Court Judges put their ability to creatively interpret the law into overdrive, when they decided that the Queen of Great Britain, defined as Head of State in the Australian Constitution, was a “foreign power”. Just don’t mention the catch-22, in that every federal politician must swear allegiance to this “foreign power” upon entering parliament, and therefore become ineligible to hold office.
Meanwhile, most Big Media journalists can hardly contain their glee, with gloating references to strip searches, prison uniforms and maximum security cells. The Democrat Senator Aden Ridgeway, acknowledges the treatment that white Australians can expect when they become a minority, with sneering remarks about the need for protective custody within the prison environment. Our prisons are just like Zimbabwe in miniature, and a glimpse into our multicultural future.
Anybody questioning the fairness of the legal system is ridiculed as a “conspiracy theorist”, yet what hope is there in finding 12 unbiased jurors to assess Hanson’s innocence or guilt after years of relentless vilification by Big Media? What hope of a fair trial when the police, the public prosecutor and the judge depend on Hanson’s political opponents for their appointments and promotions?
What kind of judicial impartiality imposes a three year custodial sentence for a legal technicality and a victimless crime, when last May the same judge delivered a six month sentence on a serial pedophile who abused an 11 year old girl? (The Australian):
PAULINE Hanson yesterday received six times the jail term the same judge gave a pedophile who molested an 11-year-old girl in her bed. In May this year Chief Judge Patsy Wolfe sentenced the 52-year-old man with a history of sexual, drug and violent offences to six months in prison. The grandfather was a repeat offender and had previously been jailed for 2 1/2 years for attempted rape 30 years ago.
How can Big Media claim that “white collar crimes” receive harsher penalties, when HIH’s Ray Williams and Rodney Adler retain their millions and their freedom?
Everybody knows that Hanson was sentenced as a political prisoner, with people from Bob Carr to Natasha Stott-Despoja virtually admitting the obvious. The world has now seen how Australia treats her political dissidents, but no doubt the silence from the “human rights activists” will be deafening.
Despite all the obstacles put in her path, Hanson and her supporters have only ever pursued democratic change. Hopefully they will never change this strategy, but it is worthwhile keeping JFK’s words in mind:
“If you make democratic change impossible, then revolutionary change becomes inevitable”.
***
Paul Forsyth
Re Margo Kingston’s Mother of the nation in jail, it’s father in charge, the Herald has gone too far (again!) with the libellous pen of that miserable dish rag of a creature, Kingston.You people still believe you run a quality broadsheet newspaper,huh??? The creature is a lunatic.
***
Peter Adams in Adelaide
Congrats on this morning’s piece on Pauline Hanson. As one of the many small-L liberals swimming harder against the political tide I found the situation superbly summarised and articulated in your piece, especially highlighting how the political professional in Howard hijacked the amateur’s agenda. I grew up in Bjelke-Petersen’s Queensalnd, but what we’re living in now frightens me even more. Keep up the good fight !
***
Paul Dillon
Your piece on Hasnon is the best article of its type I have read this year. Unfortunately it will probably be too truthful for the many who should heed it. The Opinion section of the Herald provides a source of information, understanding and balanced views that is becoming increasingly essential as our society corporatises and the “father” of our nation leaves us in the care of big brothers. (Margo: See Governing for the big two: Can people power stop them? for the imminent danger to your independent Herald.)
***
Duane van Twest
Just one word is really needed – “Exactly!” Thank you so much for this article and so many others on all the topics effecting us today. There are so many things that enrage me about this matter but over and over it comes down to the fact that the big boys club is at it again – just one of many tricks as you’ve highlighted in the many articles I’ve read (and forwarded) over the last few months.
It’s quite ironic that the power the members of the various boys clubs wield is disproportionate to the integrity of the individual members themselves. Isolate them and they are cowards, full of insecurities, without confidence to stand by their convictions, very self centred and without vision. In an imbalance in natural selection, these people have risen to an artificial level of importance and power – due only to their collective strength.That is why they so fear the collective strength of those they try to manipulate.
PS: I’m not a long suffering blue collar worker. I am a quite well off professional who just doesn’t like seeing injustice.
***
Howard Petts in Nowra, NSW
Hi! I’m wondering if it was Wilson Tuckey who uttered those ridiculous statements about Aborigines being unable to handle public funds because of their ‘cultural’ tendency to look after relatives first. (Margo: It was indeed.) If it was, then the recent uncovering of Wilson Tuckey’s own ‘cultural’ dispensation to look after his own family (and lie about it) as a minister is ironic. More than that, it is a case of the pigeons coming home to roost (or the truth being revealed). It is a strange irony too that Pauline Hanson, who advocated tougher sentences for criminals, is now receiving what she asked for.
I liked your piece on the hypocrisy of the major parties regarding the imprisonment of Pauline – it seems that it is an advantage to be in charge when you’re engaged in corruption, lies and deceits. I was reminded that the leaked DFAT reports of a few years ago talked about the widespread corruption of Pacific Islands leaders – it seems that now we truly are fit for leadership in the Pacific!
***
Maureen King in Lane Cove, NSW
Have you noticed that not so many people seem to care very much about what happened to David Ettridge? I suspect that they feel like I do – that Pauline does not deserve to be treated so harshly by the courts because she was such an incredible dill. But then other stupid people have not been able to use that as a defence, so why should Pauline be treated any differently to them? I understand ignorance is not an excuse under our legal system.
Another comment I would like to make is that I wish the general public would make as much fuss about Aboriginal deaths in custody, domestic violence or dreadful health as they have about the Dumb Redheaded Person.
Finally, what about the socially deprived who have been treated to harsh penalties over the years under laws like mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory? Why should Pauline be treated any differently to them just because she has worn a few glamorous frocks over the years and managed to become notorious because of her innate stupidity?
Please explain?!!
***
Peter Kennedy
I was on a jury about 4 years ago where we tried a man for murder (eventually reducing it to manslaughter) for killing his mother in law. He got 3 years inside for that. How can they justify Pauline Hanson’s sentence against for electoral fraud (or what’s worse – getting caught)?
***
Geoffrey Moule
I have never written to the SMH before but I must register my outrage at the treatment given to Pauline Hanson by the Queensland judical system. She may have committed an offence but the sentence does not in anyway reflect the nature of the crime. Consider for the moment the crimes being committed in this country by all types of deviates, and the light – if any – punishment given to them. Pauline should be released and at the most given some community activity for her crime.
***
Geoff Ward in Carlinford, NSW
It is not often that I feel such a sense of outrage that I am moved from my usual apathy to comment on a matter that does not impact me.
The sentence handed down to Pauline Hanson is one such event. This simple-minded woman, caught up in the euphoria of her short-lived political success, made some mistakes, which are now considered an electoral fraud, and has been sentenced to 3 years in gaol. She has been convicted of the victimless crime of defrauding the Queensland Electoral Commission of some half a million dollars, which she has now, apparently, fully repaid.
Alan Bond got a lesser sentence for defrauding the Bell Group shareholders of more than one billion dollars. Convicted armed robbers have been known to receive lesser sentences than 3 years. The perpetrators of the vicious father and daughter Nunes bashing have been released on bail.
I don’t support Pauline Hanson’s racial, red-necked policies. However, I do feel sorry for her and feel that her sentence is a travesty of justice. Three months, and even one month, in gaol is a severe punishment for a person who has not injured anyone and has not deliberately set out to break the law in a serious way. I think, as a civilised and decent society, we have lost the plot.
***
Jack Robertson, in poetic mode
An ode to the invisible gentleman who (temporarily?) sold Australia to the bigots in us all, with apologies to the Geebung Polo Club and the Cuff and Collar Team, who at least had the guts to wear their true colours on their sleeves and slug it out in public.
It was somewhere up in Oxley, in some working Ippy pub,
That they formed an institution called the Anti-Every Club.
They were mean and angry battlers from the outer sprawling belt,
And the gripe was never floated that the Antis hadn’t felt.
But their style of playing politics was rough and riled and raw,
They had f**k-all Big End dollars, but a mighty lot of poor.
And their Anti-Every leader led the Anti-Every song,
For her coat was surface-pleasing (though her Anti-Ideas wrong).
And they aimed their hottest anger at the globalised hubbub,
They were narky, were the Antis of the Anti-Every Club.
*
It was somewhere down in Toffsville in a city’s smoke and steam,
That a blueblood club existed, called the Oik Exploiters Team.
As a Privatising Greed-Gang ’twas a marvellous success,
For the Members were distinguished by unseen, unscreened largesse.
They had ‘economic policies’ so nice and smooth and sleek,
(‘Cos their opportunist owners changed the bastards once a week.)
And they started up for Oxley in pursuit of Anti-votes,
For they meant to (quietly) help these angries hit their angry notes.
Despatched their useful ‘Leader’ (social-climbing Sydney grub),
‘Ere they started operations on the Anti-Every Club.
*
Now readers will remember all the tricks they used to win,
How their useful-idiot Leader drove the useful wedges in.
The plan was pretty simple, ’twas to hide their greedy game,
By setting up some decoys for the Anti-Club to blame.
Abos, Asians, Greenies, Jews, they didn’t really mind,
So long as all these City Oiks could hide behind a blind.
Lost your job? It’s all them Arabs, coming in their boats!
Lost the farm? The Black Man, with his High Court wanker-votes!
Phone line’s crap? The bank’s shut down? There’s no more local planes?
Elitists! Damned elitists! Since that Keating took the reins!
*
Now the Anti-Every boys weren’t smart, but neither were they thick,
The Oik Exploiters’ grubby game was never going to stick.
Especially when their Biggest Pigs got obvious (and lax),
One-Tel, HIH, the AMP, dear Max the Axe.
Corporate payouts, bail-outs, cons, exposed their ‘market’ guff,
Milton Friedman – bullshit-artist – shivering in the buff!
The Oikish gig was nearly up, the buck was on the stop,
They’d have to raise the dirty stakes, to stay on dirty top.
And then – a double miracle! The Oikish scams will run!
For it’s TERROR!!! And the TAMPA!!!
And they’ve got the Antis skun.
* * *
I loved a sunburnt country…
It was somewhere out the country, in the town I learned to fend,
In a place that had no Melbourne Club or ASX Big End.
Thatcher didn’t visit, Hayek never took a squizz,
And ‘privatising zeal’ meant minding other peoples’ biz.
We never really bothered what these Oiks did up the smoke,
Didn’t give a shit if they got rich or went dirt broke.
Tho’ glad that Reggie thought the scrub should join the flying caper,
Glad that Frank (or Keith?) produced our profitless local paper.
We thanked the urban ‘User-Pays’ for sending stuff our way.
And blessed the PUBLIC POLITY for giving us a say.
*
Born in PUBLIC wards and caught in PUBLIC doctor’s hands,
Tonsils out in PUBLIC; PUBLIC pills for swollen glands.
Taught to read and write and count by PUBLIC school ‘elite’,
PUBLIC music lessons (as a PUBLIC-funding treat).
Played on PUBLIC ovals, swam in PUBLIC swimming pools,
Yet now we flog Oz off – we selfish, greedy, ‘private’ fools.
This ‘inner-City wanker’ trod an elitist PUBLIC track,
And now he craves a chance to PAY TOMORROW’S PUBLIC BACK.
***
I bet that not one of us, not from Kerry Packer or John W. Howard down, really, really likes what is happening to the Australian Ideal: this short-sighted and largely-by-stealth flogging off, to the highest Bloodless Stock-Market Telescreen bidder – in our globalised Free & Automated Number-Crunching Market Game – of the genuine fair go for all. Bush or Town. City or Suburb. Black or White, or in-between. Straight or gay. Man or woman. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or anything else, or nothing. Billionaire or bum. Reffo or toff. We’re supposed to be governed by flesh-and-blood Human Beings, not economic ideologies. And we all have Free Democratic Will. We can make Australia whatever the hell we choose tomorrow.
Our politicians, and especially the PM, have been played for mugs by this destructive, non-existent beast – Market Theory – for too long. Surely WE will decide what sort of country we make for our kids, the opportunity ‘circumstances’ that will greet the Jack Robertsons and John Howards and Pauline Hansons of tomorrow?
She herself may be gone from the Australian political stage, and I’ll shed no tears, because she helped do a whole lot of nasty damage in her time, and it seems she turned out to be just another cynical self-server, anyway. But her many admirers, enthusiastic and absolute or grudging and qualified, mean and nasty or big-hearted and misrepresented and used and misled, are still here. And the better angels of all their – our – decent and gentle Australian natures, and the burning impulse to bellow what they – we – were trying to bellow, remain. Our mainstream politicians should start listening. Our very best and brightest Corporate leaders, too.
Yep, especially the smooth, invisible gentlemen up the Big End of Town, who are now pretty much alone in holding the purse strings of this nation’s tomorrows. Don’t flog Australia’s National Soul, gents, because sold souls usually die, and dead ones can’t easily be brought, much less bought, back to life. That’s the lesson we should learn from the One Nation epoch, in my view. We’re all in this together. If one single Australian kid living in a town 100 miles east of bloody Paraburdoo hasn’t got a decent phone or water or power service, or decent access to a hospital and a school and vaguely-regular transport to the exciting Big Smoke, bursting with its infinite possibilities, then none of our kids have.
If the Australian ‘Private Polity’ – that ‘Threatening Peril’ which, beneath all the easily-manipulated and wedgy, politically-convenient scapegoating, was what truly fired the Hanson movement in the first place – can’t or just won’t ensure a true ‘fair go’ for all Australians on a sustainable basis into the future, then I’m afraid the ‘Private Polity’ is just no bloody good to us Australians. We’re all this together. We have to be. We must be.
***