by Bruce Whiteside, 26th October 2000
He (David Oldfield) alleged Pauline had no future in politics because soon she would be jailed and would be facing many legal matters." (Extract from letter from Jim Millar, NSW President)
The words above are reputed to have been spoken by David Oldfield at a New South Wales Executive meeting held on September 30th 2000. So says Shondra Briton, a young lady who apparently was the driving force behind Young Nation, in New South Wales. I have no doubt that Shondra is young and enthusiastic, but like so many she speaks for the moment and in kilter with events of the day. That is not hard to do.
There was a time no so long ago when people like Shondra Briton thought that Ettridge and Oldfield were the men of vision, the engine room of One Nation and by no means least the fortress around Pauline Hanson. How wrong they were. It was far easier to lash out at the founder of the original PHSM, because he was drawing attention to problems they could not and did not envisage.
David Ettridge said in 1997: "I wanted (Whiteside) to be one of us. We wanted him as the elder statesman, the person with the vision."
Readers will note that they, ('I and we') wanted me. Of course they did, but because I had the vision to see what lay ahead I was ostracized, denigrated and howled down by the blinked masses.
What I am going to say next will anger many people. Perhaps after I have said it people will perhaps begin to realise, too late that I was and essentially still remain Pauline Hanson's greatest advocate.
What David Oldfield has said above I find no fault with. His predictions formulated on personal feeling rather than logic are on track to eventuate.
When I formed the PHSM, I was 63 years old. I had no political ambition, no agenda to form a political party, or desire to be a Hanson lackey. I saw in Hanson the spark of an idea to break the nexus of the two party domination that has 'strait-jacketed' this nation. I admired Hanson's 'raw political speak'. This was not courage, but a woman who was speaking in the only manner she knew how. I remember having a row with Pasquarelli when he told me that he wanted to send her to a speech clinic, "leave her alone, the people identify with that', I said.
At the time of her maiden speech very, very few people were prepared to identify with Hanson, because she had been branded a 'racist'. As we were drugged by the 'politically correct fog' that instilled fear into us, people spoke in hushed tones, for fear of being embroiled in controversy. What was needed was somebody to put his or her hand up and say 'Look I believe in this woman.' This is where I get cranky and very angry.
With the exception of Hanson and John Pasquarelli, I have nothing but contempt for those who came after; carpetbaggers, the lot. The Ettridge's, the Oldfield's, the Feldman's, the Hill's and yes the Kay's and Briton's of this world.
The PHSM rose out of my penchant for taking similar issues into the public arena years before. The issues were there when Professor Geoffrey Blainey and I were talking about them in the eighties. They were not unearthed by Hanson, but they were given prominence simply because she had a national platform. Blainey and I took a hammering, being branded 'racists'. Hanson was not alone, although to hear her you could be forgiven for believing she was.
So this Kiwi waited for a full blooded Aussie to get up and defend Hanson. The nation of bronze Anzacs cowered, whilst they allowed 'a slip of a girl' to take-on the issues that mattered.
A lot of water has gone under the bridge since that time and I have every reason to hate the guts of Pauline Hanson! The indisputable fact is that the PHSM that I created for the people was stolen, from the people. On it was built a sham organisation that has raised millions of dollars that have gone unaccounted for. Hanson gave her consent to that theft. What followed was totally dishonest and fraudulent. If Hanson disputes this then let her take me to court. She is implicated to the hilt!
The 'vision' that Ettridge gratuitously referred to was the idea to build a separate non-political movement to support Hanson and her general thrust. It was envisaged that the movement would attract in the order of 100,000 supporters AND IN TIME from this pool candidates could be gleaned to run as Independents. This is why the movement was seized. It was a 'made to order' infrastructure that was used by a defecting Liberal to seize control of the Senate. But greed begat greed. Oldfield controlled Hanson, but the Liberal Party could not control Oldfield. The rest is history. No conspiracies, just the plain unvarnished truth.
So why is Oldfield right about Hanson.
Since day one, the established political parties have gunned for Hanson and One Nation. She DID threaten their ivory towers. Today through the efforts of those who jumped aboard the Hanson bandwagon, the organisation has slowly eaten itself away. Largely this was driven by massive egos, by people who while the going was smooth fed on the Hanson aura. People like the 'ten' Queensland parliamentarians, who were catapulted into the limelight on the Hanson star and who today have disowned her. People like Scott Balson, who like countless others followed the star out of Ipswich and then exposed the organisation after a brief discussion with myself. This opportunism, this tendency to want to say 'look here I alone unearthed this corruption, I alone got to the bottom of this business underscores the real cancer that destroyed the 'vision'.
Even as I write Hill is angling for a Senate position. Pasquarelli is working behind the scenes with a view to doing the same. The tragedy is that the only candidate who has a snowballs chance in hell is the beleaguered Hanson.
Hanson is surrounded by men who want to 'protect her'; not politically, but emotionally. THIS is wrong, wrong, wrong! She is now surrounded not by scheming opportunists, but by 'dead-cod' advisers. Hanson does not belong to a pining Marsden or a limp Senator who winged his way into a Senate position on a political nicety!
Hanson remains as I have always maintained as the icon to change. There IS no other politician or national figure that enjoys the 'deep in the gut raw respect' that this woman does. Hanson should accept that she no longer belongs to Hanson but rather to her people, 'those out there'. When she first came upon the political field she told the people what they wanted to hear. Like it or not she cemented a compact with the people, by her words of hope. SHE CANNOT BACK AWAY FROM THAT. She should not exist for Hanson, but for her people. If she sticks by them, they will stick by her.
Recently Hanson's nemesis Terry Sharples came to me to locate a video that he wanted to use as evidence in a forthcoming court-case. As a result of this I viewed many hours of tapes that featured Hanson. I came to the conclusion that whatever we think of her personally or politically WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LET HER DISAPPEAR!
Hanson may well scream and yell that that is not going to happen but the fact remains that she cannot stand alone. She must have support.
Oldfield is not whistling Dixie. Hanson IS in trouble. She has forged ahead like a Sherman tank believing that she is untouchable, but the truth is that she has had a deep hole dug for her and now she is alone within it. That hole is getting bigger and as the next federal election draws nearer the forces will move against her. These forces will not be seen as the instruments of the major parties but as the criminal law of the country. Fraud, misrepresentation and unaccountability will surface in the courts. Hanson will be implicated and her political career will be jeopardised. Both political parties will 'lament the unfortunate circumstances that brought about her demise', but neither will be seen to have One Nation/Hanson blood on their hands. Politics is a very dirty business.
Pauline Hanson holds the key to success or failure. If she continues to ignore those of us who warned her and advised her in the early days, then she will ultimately self-destruct.
It was John Pasquarelli who advised her, in fact implored her to run, not for Blair, but the Senate. SHE IGNORED HIM! Oldfield advised her to run for Blair, whilst he secured the number one spot on the New South Wales Senate ticket. HAD HANSON NOT ALLOWED ONE NATION TO CONTEST THE QUEENSLAND ELECTIONS THE SITUATION TODAY WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH DIFFERENT. OLDFIELD WOULD HAVE CONTROLLED THE SENATE AND HANSON WOULD HAVE BEEN DEFEATED IN BLAIR. She was used.
Today Hanson is going to try for the Senate. John Pasquarelli's advice has finally registered, but only because it is the last throw of the dice.
When Hanson was lured into a liaison with Ettridge and Oldfield I told her many times over a four-year period to DUMP ETTRIDGE, OLDFIELD and One Nation. Hanson who falsely tells the world that she is a great communicator has chosen to not only ignore my letters of advise but 'rabbited' on until she has finally dumped, and been dumped, by her 'two trusted lieutenants'. Since my advise like John Pasquarelli's was given early in 1997, it must be seen in the light of the disastrous events since that time, that our reading of the climate was not only accurate, but honourable. Hanson has yet to learn and in the words of Sydney Morning Herald senior journalist Margo Kingston 'is this woman slow or something?'
As I write this I have been contacted by a Sun-Herald journalist. "What can you tell me about Hanson making a bid for a New South Wales Senate seat.' Apparently Hanson is the laughing stock among journo's these days. She has just sent a memo to all NSW branches; "I am in control!'
This is sad. Confronted with Heather Hill running for the Senate in Queensland and the possibility of a new party being put together with the help of John Pasquarelli, also running on a Hanson like 'philosophy', this will split the One Nation vote. But there is a more personal reason for Hanson's defection to NSW. It has nothing to do with political maneuvering, but everything to do with sheer bloody vindictiveness. Hanson wants to get back at the man who rejected her womanly charms. Remember this line "He' all I ever wanted in a man,' according to her then closest confidant, Barbara Hazelton. Hanson wants to turn the knife and what better way to do it than to put herself as number one on the NSW Senate ticket. AND HANSON COULD WIN IT. What a sweet irony. 'Take that David!'
Hanson is spinning out of control and unless somebody can knock some sense into her very quickly, then the cause that she set out to address and the people she promised to fight for are going to be abandoned.
The writing is on the wall. The Kamikaze kid is about to keep her promise.
"If anybody is going to destroy what I started I will do it myself." …Hanson November 1996.
My response to Alan Mayle (Funny, Mayle has an almost identical writing style to Whiteside's) has a link provided at the end titled, "Whiteside responds to Shondra Briton." Wrong. He hogs air space at best. (Comment by Scott Balson: Mayle is not Bruce Whiteside).
The only question directed at Whiteside was, "PS How exactly is Whiteside going to 'see justice done.'...?" Did he answer it? No.
Firstly, I've never claimed to be the "driving force behind Young Nation." It's a failure to the actual driver/s... Young Nation never got off the ground. I never saw the 'evil' side of Ettridge and Oldfield, they always maintained polite tones, expressed disappointment when I resigned... basically, I have no personal axe to grind with either of them (despite the reasons which Scott supplied for my resignation - which were incorrect.) That being said, I never thought the sun lived in their arses either.
"With the exception of Hanson and John Pasquarelli, I have nothing but contempt for those who came after; carpetbaggers, the lot. The Ettridge's, the Oldfield's, the Feldman's, the Hill's and yes the Kay's and Briton's of this world." Now isn't that lovely. You've managed to slag off at me two fold Bruce. My name, Geoff's name and my intended name. How can you have nothing but contempt for someone you don't even know?! I think you're a bloody fool, but I don't hate you as all I know of you is you're ramblings that you manage to get published on the net.
"She is now surrounded not by scheming opportunists, but by 'dead-cod' advisers." Don't be vague Bruce. Which advisers?
You say that Hanson no longer exists for herself, but for her people etc, etc.. Sounds awfully like the 'mother of the nation' statement.
As everything you write is plagued with tragic tautology, I'll just cut most of what you wrote, down to a simple concept. You started a fan club and someone stole your brilliant idea. Which happened years ago, yet we are still being haunted by the story.
When you figure out how you're going to "see justice done", be sure to let us know.
Shondra Briton, 29th October 2000
Mr Whiteside... I see you mentioned me in your latest little diatribe. (Though I have no idea why.) Not to mention your shot at Shondra too. But I won't bother to speak for her, as she is more than capable of doing that for herself and she makes a hell of a lot more sense in doing it than you do.
I was probably a supporter of Pauline Hanson before you... at the best you could only claim we decided to support her at the same time. I was watching her maiden speech live from Parliament when I decided. What about you?
"There was a time no so long ago when people like Shondra Briton thought that Ettridge and Oldfield were the men of vision, the engine room of One Nation and by no means least the fortress around Pauline Hanson. How wrong they were. It was far easier to lash out at the founder of the original PHSM, because he was drawing attention to problems they could not and did not envisage."
I'm going to figure you're including me here, when you say "people like"... but I've never been an Ettridge or Oldfield fan, so figure that one out for yourself. If you bothered to listen to anyone else or read what I've said in the past you'd know that already. But then... you'd have to give others credit for having a brain too, wouldn't you. I've noticed before how the word "I" fills your letters... I, I, I, I, I... perhaps one suffers from some sort of EGO problem.
"Of course they did, but because I had the vision to see what lay ahead I was ostracized, denigrated and howled down by the blinked masses."
That's right Mr Whiteside, you're the only one with an ounce of common sense... I, I, I, I, I.
Strange that now you are back to being; "Pauline Hanson's greatest advocate." (I could have sworn you had dumped her for good the last time. Weren't you in search of a "new Champion"?) Honestly Mr Whiteside, can't you make up you're mind. Personally, I have never wavered in my support for One Nation or in my criticism of the wrong decisions made by the Executive. I joined a political party... something capable of making a difference. Not a "fan" club.
"At the time of her maiden speech very, very few people were prepared to identify with Hanson, because she had been branded a 'racist'. As we were drugged by the 'politically correct fog' that instilled fear into us, people spoke in hushed tones, for fear of being embroiled in controversy. What was needed was somebody to put his or her hand up and say 'Look I believe in this woman.' This is where I get cranky and very angry."
You get cranky? I've told you before, where I live... there was no such fear and we all discussed it openly. As for the PC fog, speak for yourself.
"With the exception of Hanson and John Pasquarelli, I have nothing but contempt for those who came after; carpetbaggers, the lot. The Ettridge's, the Oldfield's, the Feldman's, the Hill's and yes the Kay's and Briton's of this world."
Here we are then at the reason for my reply. What would you know of the Kay's and Briton's of this world Mr Whiteside. You who are retired. You, who have the time to go about and set up "Fan" clubs and the like. I work in the IT industry, trying to earn a living so that someday I may be able to support a family. For years I've been working 12 hour shifts, night and day, with plenty of compulsory overtime. I sleep when most Australians are awake, I work when others have weekends... What chance or time do I have Mr Whiteside to start something like the PHSM, which I will refer to hereafter as "Whiteside's Folly." The answer sir, is next to none. Perhaps if I went on the dole or some other form of welfare, I'd have the time. But no... some of us have a work ethic and our taxes go to support others. Maybe I and the Britons should earmark our taxes, specifically for the Bruce Whiteside Support Movement.
"Professor Geoffrey Blainey"... Mr Whiteside! I never thought you'd be a name dropper. Well add mine in there too, and my Father's and John Howard's and Paul Briton's and any number of people I can think of.
"So this Kiwi waited for a full blooded Aussie to get up and defend Hanson. The nation of bronze Anzacs cowered, whilst they allowed 'a slip of a girl' to take-on the issues that mattered."
Excuse me.... "Cowered"??? A whole Nation? WRONG! But then most of us leave the politics to politicians and reserve "fan" clubs for celebrities. You're probably right about this one Mr Whiteside in as much as no one but you would have thought of starting a "fan" club for a politician. Most of them are supported by their political parties.
"The 'vision' that Ettridge gratuitously referred to was the idea to build a separate non-political movement to support Hanson and her general thrust. It was envisaged that the movement would attract in the order of 100,000 supporters AND IN TIME from this pool candidates could be gleaned to run as Independents. This is why the movement was seized. It was a 'made to order' infrastructure that was used by a defecting Liberal to seize control of the Senate. But greed begat greed. Oldfield controlled Hanson, but the Liberal Party could not control Oldfield. The rest is history. No conspiracies, just the plain unvarnished truth."
Tell me the old, old stor-y..... oops. Thought I was back in church there for a moment. Almost started to nod off.
As for "Hanson" as you so often refer to her... Well, Pauline is not One Nation... it is the members and the organisation's decision makers that will decide the party's fate. Pauline Hanson's One Nation may very well disappear. But for the good of the country, I hope One Nation and what it stands for doesn't.
Geoff Kay, 30th October 2000
(See Kay's satirical "Ten commandments according to David")
My article 'Senator Hanson' …at the crossroads was a comment piece
To some extent it was tongue in cheek, but it did bring a stinging rebuke from Hanson's adviser. What surprised me was that it came so soon after having been posted.
On the subject of Shondra Briton … and Geoff Kay, let me say that when I cast the net it produced the desired effect. I was trawling for bigger fish, not minnows.
Bruce Whiteside, 31st October 2000
Shondra Briton, 31st October 2000
Who asked for your 'comment'? It certainly didn't answer the question I raised... and seeing as the link reads, "Whiteside's response to Shondra Briton" one would think you were addressing my letter. In typical Whiteside fashion, you deviate from the subject matter at hand, and launch forth into self promotion and talk of your beloved leader.
Tongue in cheek hey? Is that code for a 'Bruce backdown'? So what are you intimating... Hanson's adviser (you never name names do you*... possibly so we're never quite sure who you are referring to, and can't check with the source ourselves) hangs on your every word?
If we are such 'minnows'... why then would you bother referring to us in your original piece? Look closer Bruce... see those fangs... Piranha's.
*(Whiteside advises that Maurie Marsden responded to his article at the top of this page within hours of it being posted).
and from Whiteside, 1st November 2000... here is an extract, full article at link:
I have been taken to task for having 'abandoned' and roundly criticised this maverick and then continuing to uphold her. Yes I am guilty of that. But it is the great frustration of not seeing anyone on the horizon that comes within a bull's roar of Hanson that allows me the escape mechanism to continue to 'bat for her.' Too many of her 'trusted people' have deserted her and whether I like her or not is not the point. Hanson remains the only barrier to retaining the 'two party', cosy arrangement. The two party system is becoming dangerously oppressive and openly arrogant. Hanson is, inspite of her shortcomings, the only weapon we have to strike back with.