THE RISE OF ONE NATION
One Nation under One Flag
This article follows on from my previous posts The Fall of the Two Party System and The Rise of Antisemitism.
The Rise of One
Nation
Enter One Nation. A party formed by once fish and chip shop
owner, Pauline Hanson. This down to Earth, outspoken and at times controversial
Queensland senator was first elected to the house of representatives in 1996 as
a dis-endorsed Liberal candidate and served her term as an independent, forming
her party in 1997. She was defeated at the end of that term and spent the next 18 years outside parliament,
but was never politically inactive. She ran unsuccessfully for the lower house and the senate during her
wilderness years, finally winning her role in the senate in 2016. Pauline
Hanson Was re-elected in 2022, and her current term terminates in 2028.
Pauline and One Nation’s history have been chequered, a
rollercoaster ride that would discourage even the most committed. Many of her
earlier woes were due to a poor choice in the leadership team and advisors
around her. It is fair to say, Pauline learnt more from her failures than successes
which revealed her strength and determination. She never lost faith in her
beliefs and her love of nation. Wearing her heart on her sleeve, and her forthright
approach, was often considered abrasive. Her consistent Australia first and
foremost approach to immigration in an increasingly woke society, made her an
easy target from all quarters, branding her racist and divisive. In fairness,
Hansen has been known to make unfiltered comments but she has the grit to own
them. And yet, in hindsight, they resonate because they formed the basis on why
she has found the support she has today.
As a mother of 4, small business operator, employee,
bookkeeper, and procurer with an education in the university of life, she is
well grounded in understanding the challengers of what we the people face in an
increasing challenging environment. This is far from the career path of most
politicians have travelled today. Especially those of the left.
Pauline Hanson
The Bondi massacre dramatically changed how Pauline Hanson
and One Nation were viewed. Already gradually rising in the polls because she
had been openly talking since the late 90’s about the elephant in the room,
immigration, on how many, and who, should come here and why. This resonated
with the public. Now there was a tragedy that underpinned her years of warnings.
Something all other political parties had ridiculed and punished her for as
they avoided the immigration issues she had warned about at all costs. Pauline and her party were now
being seen as consistent, genuine, beyond petty smoke and mirror politics. She
was transparent, clearly committed to what she says and believes in and
somewhere the public could turn to.
The question the media asked was, would her meteoric rise in
the polls translate into votes. This was answered in the South Australian state
election. They did. And convincingly. The media narrative changed in that One Nation
was taking votes from the conservatives where a more accurate statement would
have been that the conservatives had lost those votes to One Nation.
A protest party? An establishment wish. They have evolved much further than
that.
Those conservatives and even Labour supporters who respected
Hawke are feeling disenfranchised, abandoned in the values that bound them, are
looking for the security, social cohesion, national pride and character, we
once enjoyed. And while the coalition offers some and Labour’s modern Australia
none, it is not enough. And if Labour and the coalition remain in denial of
this, those abandoned will continue to flock to One Nation.
The next test for One Nation would come in the seat of Farrer,
the former seat of retired opposition leader Sussan Ley. With One Nation, the
Liberals, Nationals, Greens and a number of independents running, one of whom
was endorsed and funded by the Teals but insisted she was an independent, and
with no Labour candidate, it would be an interesting contest with preferences
playing a major role.
One Nation won convincingly, strengthening its prime vote
beyond predictions while the Liberal Party was decimated with a massive loss of
support.
It was not a clean election with regard to One Nation. The
timing of the information that Pauline Hanson had employed a convicted, but
released sex offender in her Brisbane office. That her Farrer candidate, David
Farley had dealings with the Labour Party, including a donation. And a physical
but minor scuffle between a pensioner One Nation booth worker and Liberal
senator James Paterson which received national coverage and question over who
was the protagonist failed to hurt the party’s standing with voters.
What becomes apparent in One Nation’s upward trend is that
personal attack on Hanson and her followers are counterproductive. Hanson
presents a clear, consistent, down to earth position without the embellishment
or equivocation of a career politician. She looks, presents and represents
exactly what she is and believes in. Hanson’s position on immigration have been
consistent since she first came to parliament. That of this government and the
conservatives are not. Where they equivocate in mentioning the core of the
issues before us, radical Islam, thus also avoiding open and necessary debate
on it for fear of either political backlash or not having real conviction in
the first place.
The electorate knows this. They also know this issue is a
core element of the breakdown in our social cohesion and a major catalyst in
the Bondi massacre which continues to be pushed into a political darkness by Labour and a lesser extent the conservatives in their reluctance to openly and
consistently call it out by name, a reluctance stemming from perceived political
consequences.
What the Farrer election has shown is that there are more One
Nation voters out there that have not declared. That the polls are not
identifying them and that they will, in increasing numbers, reveal themselves as
this people movement grows. Attacking them only reinforces their conviction,
and unlike them, that the major parties lack clear and decisive conviction in
what they say.
Labour has done itself no favours either. Its boasted centre
rule is about half way to the left of Hawke’s centre, a Labour PM who enjoyed
votes and support from even hard core conservatives, in recognition of what he promised
and achieved. Hawke’s larrikin personality, that reflects the Australian culture,
helped, where today on either side there is little or none. And as for the Liberals
and Nationals, they remain unquantifiable at this time because they had
abandoned their values and betrayed their base supporters where words do not
necessarily mean future action in consideration of their performance of late
and the mixed messages that the politically aware are hearing.
Both Liberal and National parties claim their goal is to
remove this socialist Labour government. But their actions are in conflict with
that statement. If the Liberals, Nationals, Labour, Teals or Greens cannot see
that the two party system is in its death throes, then they are poor
representatives for we, the electorate. Labour has some understanding of it,
knowing and needing the support of preferences it has shored up its success
with the Greens, Teals and the odd independent.
Preferences will win the next federal election, not going it
alone. And with three conservative
forces, each with different core values,
but not that far removed from one another, they must find an accord between
them to remove this government.
Where to from here
19.5.26
Treasurer Jim Chalmer’s
Intergenerational Budget hit the ground like a cow patty with Labour
being accused of lying about not changing negative gearing, accusations to
which they responded with, “We have changed our position”. In response to this
in his opposition parliamentary budget address, Angus Taylor did more than
address the budget by announcing a raft of new policies covering immigration, and
those elements that destabilized social cohesion with a caveat of his coalition
winning the next election due before May 20th 2028.
While these policies hit the right tone, the delivery was
dispassionate, a notable observation shared by many commentators. The policies
were also noted to be similar to those in the One Nation playbook and not mentioned
on the Liberal/conservative website, but easily identifiable on One Nation’s.
These points are a problem for Taylor. Firstly by not acknowledging One Nation’s
influence on his policy and secondly by delivering a policy speech that lacked
a sense of conviction that presented a bland contrast to Pauline Hanson.
While Taylor is of the centre right, his broad church of
members still contains a strong and influential faction of centre left that are
also represented in his national coalition partners. Rumours that this faction
is considering forming its own party is also unhelpful. Challenged from within
and without, can he hold the party together for the next two years? And should
he win that election, can he enact those policies?
Labour’s much vaunted campaign/propaganda machine will put
both the coalition and One Nation under considerable attack recognizing that
any preference deal between them presents the greatest danger. Both member
parties in the coalition must recognize this as the two party system continues
to unravel. The electorates aim is simple, It want’s change in direction, it is
rejecting socialist ideology, woke culture, failed economic policies, Net Zero,
unfettered immigration, and all they represent which are clearly defined,
opposed, and prosecuted by One Nation.
By the coalition attacking One Nation, it is setting itself
apart from the aims of the electorate, a point of view supported by borrowing
their policies without so much as an acknowledgment and thereby declaring it is
business as usual. Even John Howard borrowed One Nation policies in the past,
going on to win. That, taken in the context of the coalition’s significant
drift to the left over the years since Turnbull, does not instill what they need
most, trust. And it is also hard to trust a party leader who, under pressure,
suddenly makes a 180 degree turn and angelically preaches party founder Bob Menzies’ policies along with
borrowing those of One Nation while at the same time not acknowledging both.
The message Taylor is sending is the wrong one. That only
his conservative party can change the Status Quo. The electorate views it as
arrogance. He should instead focus on those things in common with One Nation,
like the policies he has borrowed, not what divides them. The enemy of my enemy
is my friend. Either party will need a preference swap to win the next
election. To ignore that will deliver another Labour government. The electorate
knows this. And frankly, according to the polls, they don’t really care which
of the two takes the senior position as long as they get the result they want.
And if they don’t, it’s not hard to calculate who they will hold to account.
Taylor as leader must decide which is most important, the
pride and ambitions of his party or delivering what this nation needs.
14.6.26
The prediction that more One Nation supporters would reveal
themselves has proven accurate with 3 separate polls having them as the most
popular party in the nation as they cut into the Labour primary vote.
Barnaby Joyce’s error in defining One Nation’s home
ownership policy on the Bolt Report in saying that non-citizens could lose
their homes, and then going off air, making a call, and returning, retracting
and correcting his statement did them no harm either. I haven’t seen anything like this since former
Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie said, “I’ve stuffed up, but I’ll fix it. Politicians
don’t usually admit their mistakes, or lies for that matter and Barnaby’s
honesty actually gained One Nation a couple of percentage points.
Tony Abbot has taken over the Liberal Party leadership and
called for a preference swap with One Nation but moderate elements within the
parliamentary party are reluctant to concede this which underpins Pauline
Hansen’s earlier comment that Abbot has no power while outside parliament and
the Liberal parliamentarians are still factionally divided.
A comment by Sky news Presenter Peter Credlin while dissecting
the Albanese tax lie was taken up by guest and One Nation backroom political guru,
James Ashby who on signing off put those 3 words into action. “Fire the Liar” became
a fund raising juggernauts which within
3 days has raised over $3.7m and rising. This money is all set aside to bring
down Albanese and his close cohorts. When questioned about the size of the
donations reported to have come from over 60 thousand donators, Albanese
replied in a questioning and
condescending tone, “Did she really”? I wonder how many more primary votes that
will cost him in the next poll.
A little over 70 minutes later, opposition leader Angus
Taylor in an interview with Sharri Markson did no better when asked similar
questions. He did not answer the questions, again not acknowledging One Nation.
He banged on, ad infinitum, about what his focus was, telling Markson what we
were concerned with and wanted. The problem here is that in the first place he
told us what we want, and in the second, he was a part of the problem that
brought us here and now recants using many of One Nation’s policies in his
delivery. Angus also implied that Pauline was now a 30 year career politician,
and that he was relatively new to the game of only 10 years. Perhaps he forgot
or skipped over that those 10 years of his were those when the coalition lost
direction, its values, betrayed its base, and public trust as it raced
pell-mell to the left and socialism.
And then highlighting the divide within Taylor’s opposition,
Deputy Opposition leader Jane Hume spoke strongly against any accord with One
Nation and alluded to some caveats on announced opposition policy. Taylor has
his own demons in his party to deal with before he can convincingly guarantee
the policies he is preaching the public.
What we are seeing here dispels the put down that One Nation
is only a protest party. One indication, other than the polls, is that over 60
thousand people have invested their hard earned money to have it win. We are witnessing
is a dramatic shift of the political landscape. A political and cultural
revolution without the guns. but as Pauline Hanson puts it, a movement “built
on hope”. Hanson has opened debate on
those conversations we have to have, the very ones that both sides of the house
were too cowardly to even whisper about.
19.6.26
It took thirty years in politics and a cultural revolution
reshaping the political landscape to get Pauline Hanson an invitation to
address the Australian National Press Club. Expectations were high from
supporters and detractors alike. Could this raw and controversial party leader
and senator stand strong under the pressure of the journalism elite?
Pauline Hanson at the National Press Club of Australia
Hanson began her speech and the nerves showed. But as she
moved through familiar territory she settled. While no Churchill or Disraeli,
nor employing the expected point pause to solicit accolade, her words ripped
into forbidden territory. She tore off the band aids over festering wounds
rotting our social cohesion, economic security and political complacency. No
quarter asked for or given. It was the same unrelenting, unequivocal, and
steadfast Pauline Hansen we have watched for the past 30 years. A constant
anchor in a decaying political system.
Question time proved no different. If the gallery expected
the usual political deflection, equivocation or
“take under advisement”, there would be none. Who could forget The
Guardian reporter, Sarah Martin who asked Hanson if she had interfered in the
appointment in her daughter, Lee Hanson getting a $15000.00 taxpayer job as
senior advisor to One Nation Senator Sean Bell.
Sarah Martin was left standing with a frozen smile on her
face as Hanson tore apart her professional ethics and standards, totally and
effectively reversing this personal attack. And then Hansen slammed the door
shut by answering this poisoned question by explaining the substantial merits
under which her daughter Lee won the job in her own right.
The swift condemnation from the journalists union regarding
Hanson’s combative response
goes to the falling standards in journalism today. A question that could be
damaging to a person’s reputation can become subject to defamation law, but it
is difficult and costly to prosecute due to interpretation of context and
potential level of harm, so few pursue it for those reasons. If Martin had undisputable
proof that Hansen had clearly interfered in her daughter’s appointment, why not
write the story? But that would leave Martin and her paper open to a clear case of defamation while asking a
question would still have a similar effect on Hanson with less exposure. Hanson’s
response to Martin was a wise and effective way to deal with a personal attach
on her, her daughter, and her reputation.
Now, 2 days after the rumble in Canberra, the aftermath is
dominating the headlines. Hansen pretty much covered it all and as expected
sections of the media with deceitful editing or omission have fiddled with the
context of her words, especially with regard to immigration.
And it is here where the greatest erosion of the Australian character and
values reside.
“We cannot be a multicultural society. We are a multiracial
society. We must be monocultural. Australia must live under the one culture umbrella”.
These words by Pauline Hanson sent shockwaves through the left, and along with
her insistence that migrants should learn and be competent with English raised
the usual call of racist. But what does monoculture mean? And why should
migrants be forced to learn English?
Monoculture has conflicting interpretations. But Hanson has clearly articulated her position over the past
30 years as a core policy. Monoculture manifests as the active preservation of
a country’s national culture. As simple as that. And learning English has
practical, social and economic implications. Being able to travel extensively
and communicate with the broader population. Gaining knowledge of our nation
and the people who live within it. Getting a job. All of which is necessary to
become and commit to being a productive Australian citizen.
The alternative is, in not speaking the common language
forces an individual to seek and continue to live within the comfort of a
community and culture they known, which some call tribalism. The result of
which creates enclaves of likeminded individuals adhering to the cultures and
practices familiar to them. Not unlike a country within a country where the
cultures may be at opposites which creates social disruption and as the
pressure increases through growing immigration and cultures, or elements thereof
that are significantly dissimilar, the collapse of social cohesion.
What Hanson is saying is the equivalent of, “When in Rome,
do as the Romans do”. “If you don’t like it here, you are free to leave”. “If you are not a citizen and break our laws,
you will be deported”. “And if you are a citizen, break our laws, you will face
the full force of the Law”. None of those are racist, an excuse used simply
because they are applied to an immigrant. And a tactic of the left to negate
debate on a critical issue. Everyone from anywhere is equally subject to our
laws. If someone came invited into your home, then became disruptive,
belligerent or radically challenged your values, would you invite them to an
overnight stay and breakfast in the morning or ask them to leave? This is Hanson’s
point.
In contrast we have PM Albanese’s ideological policy on
immigration. “Diversity is our strength” And his response to criticism thereof, “There
are some, including some in political life, who want to turn back the clock to
an Australia that is no longer who we are and we need to call out these
people”.
Given that Australia has never been so divided, even more so
since his watch and considering the discernible success of immigration during
the 50’s through to the early 70’s until the Whitlam government changed the
immigration parameters, Albanese’s comment has no justification. In fact, it
casts aspersions on those immigrants who have given so much to the success in
building our great nation in trying to justify what has become an abject policy
failure rightfully criticized for the damage it has caused.
We face a bottomless abyss in the direction we are heading. Moving
back would be wise. And if we are here, no longer what we were as Albanese puts
it, why would we not learn the lessons from our successful past and choose to
replicate it? Perhaps a case of flawed ideology meeting common sense and
reality?
Love her or loathe her, Hanson did many things at the Australian
Press Club. She opened festering wounds so that we could air and expunge them
and have the conversations we should always have had. She has come under far
more scrutiny than Labour’s Albanese, Chalmers, Wong, Bowen, and Burke, or the
coalition’s Taylor, or Canavan ever have, and demonstrated she is up to it. And
she did it without the evasion or obfuscation of her rivals by clearly
answering every question. Is she a potential prime Minister? She certainly
presented many qualities of one. And has she the policy detail and the team to
put her in that position? It’s a long way to the next election and time will
allow her to round off her challenge provided the media allows her that
courtesy.
But it should be remembered that Pauline Hanson does not
stand alone. She is a catalyst and rally point for the people who have had
enough. Those who are dismayed about our cost of living, rising national debt,
hatred of our history, destruction of our culture, race towards socialism and
the betrayal of our conservative parties. They trust her. And this could not be
said for our remaining political system.
This story is not over. It is the beginning and last throw
of the dice as to where our future lies. There is one question we must all
consider. Can we trust those who have consistently failed us or choose a new
direction? Somewhere between now and May 2008 we better have the answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment