You are here

Hating Abbott vs hating Pauline Hanson

"Isn't it great. Isn't it grand. After years of getting our "Hate Abbot" caffeine shot every morning from Age Letters. Now we can look forward to a new superior blend of "Hate Hanson" every morning. (No need to explain)," writes David (ZPG) Hughes in a letter to the Age editor, which he cc'd to Mr Hughes, who once manned the website 'Crowded Planet," which aimed to supply contraceptives in response to global need, is a keen observer of mass media hypocrisy. But there is a lot more to be said about the relationship between Abbott and Hanson and the Liberal Party and One Nation.

When you consider that the Age's promotion of 'hate Hanson' militancy was preceded by 'hate Abbott' militancy, it is ironic that it was Mr Abbott who established a Liberal-backed fund that supported the false imprisonment of Hanson for political reasons. Yet that false imprisonment (she was let out, cleared of all charges of electoral fraud) probably lent new sympathy to her cause because there is nothing so inspiring to the underdog as a politician who is imprisoned because of the threat that the popularity of their views poses to the political establishment. Similarly, Derryn Hinch, another new senator, probably gained support because he also went to prison for actions related to his political views,[1] but his imprisonment was actually upheld. In my eyes, there is no contest between a person falsely imprisoned and the agent of their jailing. Tony Abbott led a despicable action. That he was then elected as leader of the Liberal Party and became a Prime Minister is far more shocking than anything that Hanson has been accused of.

Below is a rundown, using other sources, of what happened to Hanson:

Abbott's confession

'Abbott says sorry in Hanson fund row,' By Annabel Crabb, The Age, August 27, 2003:
"Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott last night apologised for not fully disclosing his involvement in a $100,000 "slush fund" devised in 1998 to bring down One Nation leader Pauline Hanson.

Mr Abbott strongly denied, in an ABC Four Corners interview on August 10, 1998, that he or any Liberal Party figures had been involved in funding the legal campaign by disaffected One Nation members to have the minor party declared invalid under electoral laws.

But last night's statement confirms that only two weeks after making that denial, he established a formal trust, Australians for Honest Politics, which collected $100,000 to funnel into anti-One Nation legal actions.

Mr Abbott confirmed that at the time of making the statements to Four Corners, he had already promised to underwrite the legal costs of disaffected One Nation litigant Terry Sharples.

"Strictly speaking, no money at all had been offered," Mr Abbott said last night.

"The lawyers I organised were acting without charge and the support for costs which I had promised would only become an issue in the event of a costs order being made against Sharples."

Hanson's release

In 2003, a Brisbane District Court jury found Hanson guilty of electoral fraud. The convictions were later overturned by three judges on the Queensland Court of Appeal. As a result of the convictions, Hanson spent 11 weeks in jail prior to the appeal being heard.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Late night news & current affairs

LOCATION: > Lateline > Archives


Broadcast: 07/11/2003
Hanson release causes upheaval in Qld
Pauline Hanson is enjoying her first night at her home since being released from jail by Queensland's Court of Appeal yesterday. Ms Hanson and fellow One Nation founder David Ettridge walked free after their convictions for electoral fraud were quashed. The decision has caused legal upheaval in Queensland while in Canberra, John Howard has rejected accusations by the appelate judges that he attempted to influence the case.

Compere: Maxine McKew

Reporter: Dea Clark

MAXINE MCKEW: Pauline Hanson is enjoying her first night at her home since being released from jail by Queensland's Court of Appeal yesterday.

Ms Hanson and fellow One Nation founder David Ettridge walked free after their convictions for electoral fraud were quashed.

The decision has caused legal upheaval in Queensland while in Canberra, John Howard has rejected accusations by the appelate judges that he attempted to influence the case.

Dea Clark reports.

DEA CLARK: After celebrating into the small hours, Pauline Hanson was back home on her property at Ipswich, enjoying her first day of freedom in 11 weeks.

Her priority, raising the flag and catching up on some chores around the farm.

PAULINE HANSON, ONE NATION FOUNDER: Yeah, the cobwebs, the pool needs cleaning, the mowing.

You can't leave it up to your sons, you really can't.

DEA CLARK: While it was business as usual today, last night was a time to catch up with family and friends, celebrating her freedom at an Italian restaurant on the Gold Coast.

While Pauline Hanson was out on the town, David Ettridge was boarding a plane home to Sydney, convinced yesterday's decision will spark a political resurgence for One Nation.

DAVID ETTRIDGE, ONE NATION FOUNDER: It will rise like a phoenix.

People who didn't vote for One Nation are going to say, "Well, we'll protest against what was done," and the attack on their democratic rights.

DEA CLARK: While it seemed she was enjoying being back in the media spotlight, Ms Hanson was tight-lipped about a possible return to the political stage.

PAULINE HANSON: I tell you what, I'd need rocks in my bloody head if I thought about that again.

MARK SIMKIN: In yesterday's Court of Appeal judgment, Justice Margaret McMurdo criticised several politicians, including the PM, for their public comments about the case.

She described them as: " -- An attempt to interfere with the independence of the judiciary for cynical, political motives."

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: My comments were not in any way calculated to influence the outcome.

I don't believe for a moment they did.

BRONWYN BISHOP, LIBERAL BACKBENCHER: Freedom of speech is our paramount right, and I will always speak out when there's a need to.

DEA CLARK: Back in Queensland, the political impact of yesterday's decision is already making waves.

In the wake of criticism over the handling of the case, the Queensland Government today announced an immediate review of the State's justice department, focusing on the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

But the Premier says compensation for wrongful imprisonment is out of the question.

PETER BEATTIE, QLD PREMIER: The Queensland Government, if it paid compensation here, would inevitably expose taxpayers to millions and millions and millions of dollars over a period of time, because appeals do succeed.

TERRY GORMAN, COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES: How unfair is it, whether it's Pauline Hanson or Mr and Mrs Anonymous from the suburbs, that they sit in jail for 4-6 months, they have their appeal overturned and they're supposed to grin and wear it.

DEA CLARK: But, for the moment, the political debate surrounding the former party leader is a world away.

Dea Clark, Lateline.


[1] Hinch was imprisoned for contempt charges related to his political conviction of the need to publicly name pedophiles.


I have noticed with some people that they perceive Hanson as guilty because she actually went to gaol. The fact that she was exonerated seems secondary to them. A parallel here is the case of Lindy Chamberlain. People I have spoken to seem to have hardly registered that she was also exonerated after spending a few years in gaol. They are surprised when I tell them she was innocent and wrongly convicted.

PM's open-border policy

Changes quietly made to student visa arrangements will allow almost unfettered access to primary schools and established houses by all overseas applicants and their families. This will place even more pressure on social infrastructure, which is already bursting at the seams.

As of this month, foreign students aged as young as six are now able to apply for student visas. Previously, students from China and some other countries had to be much older to apply. Mr Turnbull announced the changes while in China in April.

Cash-strapped schools will be tempted to promote themselves to overseas full-fee paying students, which could displace local families who have already contributed through their taxes to state education. Chinese nationals are already the largest recipients of student visas, accounting for 24 per cent of the 143,886 granted in the six months to December. Holders of student visas and their guardians are temporary residents, meaning they can purchase new and established homes. These changes are not in the national interest as they will almost certainly see local families locked out of education and housing. This issue has not been publicised, so most people remain oblivious to this irresponsible policy change. I, and I'm sure many others, want answers from our politicians. Specifically, "what was the motivation for the change?"; "which electorates asked for it?" and "Given that resources are already at breaking point without this open border policy, how do you plan to resolve these issues?".

David Bone, Glen Iris

[Editor: Apologies for not having published this earlier, but our site has had problems.]

I see that this site has some sympathy for Pauline Hanson, so I would like to discuss her performance. She made me feel very uncomfortable on Q & A yesterday [July 18]. Larissa Waters looked as though she was going to burst with embarrassment. I don’t think PH gets across her concerns very articulately and she sounds ignorant. I though Nick Xenaphon came across in a mature way when he talked of how he would work with 1 nation in the senate.

I’m afraid ph goes against the conduct guidelines i was brought up with- and the other members of the panel were obviously brought up as i was. Things have changed but I don’t see that she is helpful and she is incoherent to me.

Hi Despairing Commuter.

We are interested in all the new senators and their possibility of affecting ingrained bipartisan policies that ignore public wishes. Hanson's policies are relevant to the population and democracy concerns of this site, especially her zero net migration policy. Since we are also concerned (to day the least) about our country's role in supporting intervention to destroy Syria (and previously Libya etc) we are hoping that she might make some links between the destruction of landscape and economy through the wars we support and the flood of refugees to various countries.

With regard to her performance on Q and A, just for science, what were examples of where Pauline went against the conduct guidelines you were brought up with?

Also, where you saw Waters as being embarassed, I saw her as being manipulative. Don't forget, she's a lawyer and a seasoned politician. I don't think she was ever embarassed - nor any of the others - except, possibly, Xenophon, who didn't attack Hanson and gave me the impression that he didn't think too much of the personalising of focus against her.

I thought that Larissa attacked Hanson right at the beginning. I found Larissa surpisingly snide and cliche mongering, which surprised me, since I would have expected her to be a little more sophisticated. In fact, most on the panel, except for Hanson began with cliche mongering. Hanson is inarticulate - to a point - but she does get across what she wants to say most of the time - and in the face of intense hostility. I think we have to bear in mind that she is usually under heavy attack and that causes people to jump whole phrases etc.

But she made some very good points - for example, when Sam Dastyari personalised a question (not my conduct guidelines) about would he have been welcome aged 7 - she ultimately said that, at that time, Muslim immigrants were unlikely to be vehicles of terrorism but the situation has now changed. That is a fact that requires rational discussion, not playful argumentativeness.

I feel that one should also recognise that half the program was devoted to using Hanson as a target.

I also felt that, with Hanson's lesser articulatedness, she was representing so many people who find it very difficult to express what they want when in the presence of people with 'polish'.

If you consider that we have governments and media constantly carrying on about how dangerous Islamic terrorism is and how present, then Hanson (and now Lambie) so far are the only ones to call the bluff and say, "Well, heck, if that is so, why aren't we stopping muslim immigration for security reasons?"

I would myself, tend to say, "Why are we encouraging destabilising mass immigration of any peoples when it weakens our democracy and cohesion by sheer numbers?" I mean, in a settled, stable society, a few immigrants with problems would be relatively easy to manage. However, a society where no-one knows their neighbours, where they commute from dormitory suburbs or hop from flat to flat, lacks the ability to monitor its own problems.

On conduct guidelines: I was brought up not to highlight someone’s religion or to make bigoted remarks about any religious group and to avoid generalisations about any group. I must admit though that my father was a bit of a snob about European peasants but did not labour the point . (My mother would never have used such an expression.)

(My father would’ve experienced discrimination as a Catholic- they were rather excluded from the business world and the Masonic Lodges - this made him dislike institutions like the Masons - so he became unaffiliated, except for his involvement in conservation.)

I do think that some on the panel (or was it the audience? ) made a valid point that Ms Hanson used to home in on Asians, then it was some other group and now it is the Muslims -

I think you interpret her very well - and that is a brilliant point that she represents the masses who are ALSO inarticulate in the face of what is being done to us. Extending it over my breakfast cereal- it is a bit like when you are a child and certain rules or condition might be placed on you which you do not understand and you just cry and put on a tantrum.

I was also brought up not to not to highlight someone’s religion or to make bigoted remarks about any religious group and to avoid generalisations about any group. My mother was an ardent multiculturalist and her father had also suffered as a catholic and had joined a secret catholic society. Both my parents, however, were atheists and my father held religion in contempt. I grew up to develop a more tolerant attitude towards religion, which I see as a tribal flag that morphes into state religions when tribes are thrown together and rearranged. If they cannot come to some equitable accommodation about land-tenure and citizens' rights, then you get repression.

However, I can see that the educated tolerance in multiculturalism has been exploited by elites who have invested in war and land-theft and want open-borders and mass immigration instead of secure citizens' rights. These elites finance racist wars in countries in the Middle East and on the European fringes on the pretext of liberating multi-sectarian groups in populations disorganised by chronically changing borders (due to foreign rearranging of tribes and land) and mass immigration (due to constant wars and colonisations) who are very intolerant of each other. When these wars ruin economies, produce lawlessness and cause refugee flight and economic flight, the globalists refuse to cease financing wars. Instead, in the name of multiculturalism, they insist that the people in their own countries open their borders to mass immigration and submit to the same demographically disorganising process that has been accomplished by war and colonisation in the sending countries.

Hanson seems to be among very few forces in Australia that is standing up for citizens' rights and national sovereignty. I think she has a number of contradictory attitudes about welfarism that go with her Liberal, rural, and small business background. Whilst I don't hold these attitudes, I think they are defensible to a point. We need to deal with the pros and cons better than the current lib-lab sloganeering way.

It was also significant that Q and A focused on Hanson's distrust of Islam rather than on her zero net immigration policies or any of the other ones. The effect was to polemicize any attempt to stand up for non-Islamic Australia against changes to women's rights, secularism and peace inside this country.

I think that Hanson's criticisms of Aboriginal welfare, Asian takeover of land etc en mass, and Islam all have some bases in fact and deserve serious consideration. To demonise them is to demonise the baby along with the bathwater. A functioning political discourse should be able to talk about the baby and the bathwater, but our political discourse still attempts to drive wedges between anyone who would talk babies or bathwater and the 'rest'. To call Hanson a racist - as Larissa Waters did, gratuitously, right from the get-go - makes it very hard for anyone who does not know much about the surrounding issues (war, overpopulation) to investigate both sides.

Australians should not be afraid to investigate both sides.

With regard to racism and aboriginal economies, I find Libs, Labs, Greens and socialist alliance types totally racist because they all think it is quite okay to replace Aboriginal Australia with 'modern progress' and mass immigration from other cultures. They behave as if it is quite okay to destroy hunter gathering cultures and turn their members into industrial state citizens. This is the same mentality that excuses the destruction of viable tribal ways in the Middle East since the 19th century. This is the same mentality that drives Africans off their land in order to put it to more 'modern' uses.

I thought it ironic, when Larissa Waters said something that questioned our support for wars against Islamic countries, and Hanson responded in agreement, that Jones immediately changed the subject. In fact, there is nothing more important than stopping these wars that are displacing millions of people (of all faiths) and if Hanson and Waters could have explored commonality there, then the whole program would have risen far above most political debates in this country.

The most important point that is coming through is that society has been rendered inarticulate through the prevailing discourse which is so practiced and appraised but the " intelligentsia”. No wonder many of us feel we are eternally at the Mad Hatters tea party.

I thought the panel was very condescending to PH on Q & A especially when she expressed surprise that the Iranian guy was a Muslim- I think someone even said something like "and he doesn’t have 2 heads” .

You do realise that Hanson was joking about not knowing Sam was a muslim?

I do find Hansons argumentative style weak and lacking, but I would like to chime and point out there is a difference between and eloquent, "posh" or well worded argument, and an effective one. It is rare to see an effective argument.

One example of an effective argument was Bill Shorten saying that tax payers were making it so it was easier for someone to buy their tenth home, than for someone to buy their first. He made a few effective, damaging arguments like this, and we never heard them again. I'm not sure whether he knew they were effective ones or not. The election could have been quite different if he kept hammering that spike home, but alas, very few politicians make effective or damaging arguments. They fumble their way around, fail to make damaging points, fail to hit the core of the problem, leaving many people wondering why they can't state the obvious point that is begging to be made. They don't see it.

So Hanson isn't that different. She doesn't see the arguments she could be making. Usually when arguments revolve around whether one is a racist or not, or someone defending their non-racism, no good point will be made.

Hanson has never really quite been able to get to the core of the issue. She has been able to echo Australians concerns, but her justifications seem just like that, justifications.

The one point that no one has made, is the government has a RESPONSIBILITY to protect us. We pay them to protect us, and if immigration policy is going to increase the risk of violence against us, then the state is failing its responsibility to us. Arguments that we should not have discriminatory policy, and that limiting immigration in this sense is wrong, is essentially a justification for the state knowingly engaging in policy which increases risk against us. The state therefore has to answer as to how it can justify this risk, and what the risk/benefit analysis is which allows them to come to this conclusion.

Filtering out potential migrants for those who would be best for keeping our communities safe is not "discrimination"! It's common sense, and part of national security. We know the Islamic terror being raged in Europe, and we know that those who adhere strongly to the Theocracy of Islam find it hard to accept democracy, and liberal Western values. Islam is not just a religion, and if it were merely about worship, it wouldn't be a problem. The religion is a front for the social, legal, political, and military agendas of Islam. Of course, not all Muslims are a threat, and many are only nominal. But, there are dangerous elements that would be foolish to ignore- at our peril!
It's easy to dismiss Hanson as ignorant, and "racist", but she has the support of many voters! She's touched a nerve of what many people feel, and how long can police keep terror threats in Australia at bay?
There's a place for tolerance, but tolerance must be met with tolerance, not hardline fanatics who will use our humanitarian and political-correctness to pry open our borders for their own ends!
As for "racism" (Islam is not a race), healthy levels are part of patriotism and bring cohesion to our nation! We should endorse positive racism as part of our solidarity as a nation.

Its the job of politicians to give us what we want. If we don't want to have to compete with the entire world for jobs, or have to continously "grow" the population, or go through demographic transformations for some ideal, its the job of those WE PAY to work out how to provide what we want.

If we aren't having children, because we don't want big families, its the role of the government to adapt. If we don't want open borders, its the role of the government to comply.

Yet people seem reticent to simply demand they do what we want. They feel it necessary to justify, to answer accusations or "sell" their wishes, as if somehow our wishes could be ignored if the wished if a few vested individuals don't coincide.

That's the issue with Hanson and other "populists". Thats why "populist" is used as a pejorative. Heaven forbid people get to thinking that their job is to conform to our wishes!

Green Left Weekly, the weekly newspaper of the purported "Socialist Alliance" has, together with the rest of the supposed 'left-liberal' intelligentsia, continued the decades long demonisation of Pauline Hanson and anyone else opposed to high immigration.

In A movement led by First Nations militants can defeat Hanson , Peter Boyle wrote on 20 July:

"Pauline Hanson came across a racist and incoherent cartoon character on the ABC's Q&A program on July 18, 2016

"... in the richest, whitest countries, people are looking for easy solutions and looking to blame people. It's easy for the Pauline Hanson's of the world to blame the newest migrants to this country, whether they are Asians or Muslims.

The full discussion, none of which is cited by Peter Boyle, can be found in the transcript of the Q&A episode of 18 July is published here.

Claimed opposition to racism, whether by Angela Merkel in Germany, Donald Trump's opponents in the United States' presidential elections or by Australia's ruling elites, is a smokescreen for the elites' plans to use massive uncontrolled immigration to destroy democracy and the living standards of those countries' native inhabitants.

Peter Boyle only briefly mentions, and dismisses, Pauline Hanson's stance against the buyout of Australia's wealth by foreign corporations:

"... notice how she ... takes a sideswipe at nameless 'multinationals' and 'foreigners' of all kinds.

The "Socialist Alliance" of Australia has been in existence since the Vietnam Moratorium campaign of the early 1970's. Back then it was known as the "Socialist Workers Party". It claimed to be working to transform capitalist Australia into a socialist society, based on the model of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

However, since then Australia has, paradoxically, moved further and further away from socialism:

  1. Gough Whitlam's Labor government forced to hold a mid-term election in 1974 and then overthrown in the 1975 coup;
  2. Australia's national mineral wealth sold to overseas corporations by the Fraser government;
  3. The implementation of laws against Trade Union rights starting with Malcolm Fraser's sections 45D and 45E of the Trades Practices Act;
  4. The corruption of The Australian Labor movement by the CIA since 1975 as described by 'the Falcon', Christopher Boyce, on the 18 February 2014 episode of SBS Dateline;
  5. Federal 'Labor' Treasurer Paul Keating's commencement of the implementation of economic neo-liberalism in 1983;
  6. Massive reduction of white collar employment, on-the-job training and career structure in the public service and private sector;
  7. The privatisation of Australia's tertiary introduction, and rising indebtedness of university graduates, beginning with the introduction of the so-called Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) by the Hawke Labor government in 1986;
  8. Further destruction of Trade Union rights under John Howard;
  9. etc., etc.

These days, one has to search hard in Green Left to find mention of socialism, particularly in regard to Australia. Some token reference to socialism in reference to some far off lands such as Venezuela is to be found, but little is to be found about bringing about bringing socialism to Australia.

Little of any worth is to be found in Green Left Weekly of the other massive geopolitical struggles of recent years in which tens of thousand to hundreds of thousands have died - Libya, Syria, Palestine, Ukraine, Iraq and Yemen and Ukraine. To the extent that anything is written about these conflicts in Green Left much of it mirrors the mainstream media narrative.

The Green Left article about Pauline Hanson, referred to above, has unfortunately been re-published on 20 July 2016 by Asia Pacific Research, a web news service. Asia-Pacific Research seems to be a regional version of the otherwise informative Global Research.

Regarding workers' conditions, it is amazing how easily people accept changes for the worse. A friend's son has landed a job with a prestigious finance company, having recently graduated with a law / commerce degree. Apparently this is the fulfilment of a dream in this field of endeavour. He has been treated to dinners and weekends away with the company in preparation for commencement of work for real. It all sounds good except that apparently he has to work both day and night! There will be no leaving at 5.00pm. Parents are happy for him and he is excited about his future but what can be so important in an accounting company that it requires staff to work maybe 14 hours per day? What happened to the 8 hour day? Why are we not trying to regain this as an acceptable norm?