12th November 1999

Scott Balson going "feral" or is he just a "white ant"?

There has been the suggestion made by David Oldfield , yesterday, to people that I know well that I have "gone feral against the party" and earlier suggestions by David Ettridge that I have suddenly transformed from being Ms Hanson's number one supporter to being a "white ant" overnight. I was going to drop the issue of the impending appeal entirely but I will not allow my integrity to continue to be questioned by senior party officials without responding.

First, let me assure @notd readers that nothing could be further from the truth. I am neither a white ant nor have I gone feral.

The fact is that certain key party executives seem to walk around with teflon suits and are apparently above reproach. Are we that blinkered - should we not be asking questions so that we can, as members, be in an informed position to decide what action we can democratically take after the appeal on November 23rd? Should we not be allowed to know some of the ramifications of the court case now just ten days away so that we can be part of the decision on what the party should do? Should we let the executive determine that for us? Is this what a democratically run party does?

I have been told that we should not air our dirty linen in public - if the action of expressing concerns on this page cannot draw out direct answers then what chance will quiet inquiries to Manly office have?

Apparently we cannot be trusted with the facts. So here are some facts for you to consider.

Extract from the on-line records of the proceedings in the Supreme Court which followed the decision (on appeal) to de-register One Nation in Queensland:

On 15 October 1997 Pauline Lee Hanson personally lodged with the first defendant an application to register a political party "Pauline Hanson's One Nation" and its proposed abbreviation "One Nation". Accompanying that application was what purported to be the constitution of that political party together with a list of members and their addresses.

The point being that if the appeal is lost and IF allegations of fraud pursued you can see who will be the person in the firing line. As Pauline Hanson was an MP at the time of the alleged "fraud" she will forever be excluded from once again representing the people in a political capacity IF she is found to be guilty. So who will we turn to to be the new political leader of our party - will it be David Oldfield?

Another extract from that Court document:

There is an assertion in Mr Sharples letter that Mr Briggs compiled the names and addresses of 530 members of the Pauline Hanson Support Movement Inc. but that these persons were not members of "a political party" known as "Pauline Hanson's One Nation".

I have been looking for the truth about this by speaking to Bruce Whiteside. Is there anything wrong with that?

It was Whiteside (a recent letter writer) who established Pauline Hanson's Support Movement Inc.) Whiteside claims that the PHSM was "stolen" from under him and the membership used to establish One Nation under questionable circumstances. Now surely we should be open minded enough to find out for ourselves if this allegation is true or not? The speed and manner in which the PHSM executive was replaced just days before the launch of One Nation in April 1997 cannot be disputed - as can be seen from this PHSM minute. Whiteside claims his wife was invited to the launch while he was not (Image right Iris Whiteside at the launch). Whiteside's labelling as a "white ant" by Ettridge had been accepted unquestioningly by the membership (including myself) in the past. I now know better - and that is probably one of my "sins".

I would also like to know if David Oldfield denies making the comments as asserted by Whiteside in this document (see PHSM Inc link), "You were never going to be allowed to stay in the movement. YOU would have stood in the way of our agenda. We have to destroy you."

Why did he allegedly say that to the man who started it all? If Whiteside was disposable who in this party is not?

Here is a copy of a letter by Bruce Whiteside which appeared in The Gold Coast Bulletin yesterday. Is what he says without foundation? Maybe so - should we know about it - OF COURSE! Is he just a "nutter"? I, for one, do not think so.

The Supreme Court ruling:

Now whatever you might think of the Judge or her ruling the point is that it has happened and there is nothing we can do about it - our appeal is proof of that.

Here is an extract from the actual judgement by Justice Atkinson:

Conclusion

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

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

Interestingly, the document referred to above is one of the most sought after legal documents on the Internet - and we know why. While the lawyers, Internet surfers and the media know implicitly what the case means to the future of Pauline Hanson's One Nation most of the membership have been kept in the dark...WHY?... is this not what we were screaming from the rooftops about when it came to the government and the secrecy over international treaties we have signed?

Remember One Nation's executive were given the opportunity to table affidavits during the case so that they could enter evidence which could have then been used in the appeal. They did not... why? There are so many unanswered questions.

TIAF:

The motive behind the establishment of TIAF is quite simple. If the worst comes to the worst post November 23, those who want to, will be able to participate in an apolitical issue-based forum as One Nation members. When I met with Pauline Hanson a week ago I asked her if she would like to participate in TIAF. She decided against it.

The issue-based forum is open to anybody from any political party - I want no official role in this forum once it is running. I have no political ambitions I am just thinking forward rather than waiting until a judgement is made - how much harder will it be then to re-focus and pick ourselves up from the mat just one more time - especially in Queensland?

Summary:

Let us let history judge my concerns and actions on the @notd after the appeal to this decision on November 23rd. Unfortunately, I feel that the action of the national executive in attacking the messenger rather than responding to the issue reflects the belief that One Nation members cannot think for themselves but will follow them blindly, like lemmings, over the cliff.

Why can't the national executive make a clear statement on the ramifications of this case? What have they got to hide? Do we not, as members, have a right to know? Do we have to wait until we read about it in the newspapers?

No Mr Ettridge, Mr Oldfield, I have neither gone feral nor am I a white ant... I am just expressing concerns - concerns which it would be so simple for you both to answer. An increasing number of members are waiting for that to happen before they read about it in papers.

Then all this confusion, deception or misinformation, according to Ettridge, would go away.

Last word to The Courier-Mail which appear to have got it right for a change:

Internet Battlefield (pg 18 - The bottom line)

More mayhem at One Nation. NSW Upper House Member and party guru David Oldfield is out of favour with web warrior Scott Balson.

Balson published a piece on his net site saying although he admired Oldfield, he had an "abrasive, condascending and bulldozing attitude".

Oldfield's running mate David Ettridge has denied much of what Balson has said. After dedicating years of his life to the party, Balson has had enough and resigned as One Nation webmaster.