The 1998 Federal Election saw high profile One Nation National President and party founder, Pauline Hanson, as the party's primary focal point in the election campaign. Hanson travelled all over Australia in support of the party's candidates in various states. However, the 2001 election required an alternate strategy given that the party's principal objective was to ensure her election as a Queensland Senator. Therefore, unlike the 1998 Federal Election, the party's 2001 campaign saw each state branch internally focus on their candidates while Pauline Hanson remained in Queensland and worked to convince the Queensland electorate that she was their best representative for the federal upper house.

The Pauline Hanson campaign

Pauline Hanson is a great campaigner. Her grassroots attributes determine her strength in personal appearances, which were supported with billboards, television and radio interviews and the One Nation web site. However, it became apparent that the publicity deserved of all candidates contesting a seat was somewhat monopolised by the Labor and Liberal parties, as the question arose whether Labor's Kim Beazley would purloin a third term for the Howard Coalition Government.

The high profile nature of Hanson did not provide her the usual opportunity to present party policy or comment on relevant issues. Rather, she was coerced to defend judicial allegations and party misrepresentations. Her publicity was pointedly negative and derogatory. Although not foreign to these obstacles, the forum to express political topics was muted in favour of a personal focus. Candidates in other states found it almost impossible to achieve a fair hearing in various media forums promoting the election. Hanson's campaign publicity was limited to identifying gaffes and supporting accusations from other "media friendly" parties. The state branches focused on One Nation policies, personal appearances and characteristics, web site links and rallies accompanied by limited TV, radio and newspaper appeals. Direct mailouts to constituents by candidates expressed their individual views accompanied by party policies pertinent to electorate requirements.

Party funding

As with most minor parties, funding for the election campaign was limited. This has direct consequences on the budget available for handouts, advertising and media campaigns, with the most effective mediums of radio and television quickly devouring allocated funds and consequently the ability to compete with more affluent parties. "Free" advertising via television and radio was dominated by the two major parties. Furthermore, identification or advocacy of party policy was hindered by a lack of reception from media forums. This contributes to — even determines — any misrepresentations the public has of a political party, particularly one as publicly controversial as One Nation.

Bicameral politics, the media and minor parties

Hanson and One Nation are seen as a very real threat to the status quo of political power in Australia. The very real danger of Hansonism would see the alignment of the two major political parties in an attempt to keep sacred the two party system. It is well known and widely agreed that the Liberal and Labor parties have and will continue to annihilate any political party that can survive independently of their preferences. The Liberal/National Coalition and Labor have continually persecuted and slandered Hanson and her supporters since the launch of One Nation in 1997. Using the media, they conjured a perception that One Nation is a refuge for the narrow minded, racists and the simple. Every opportunity to spread fanciful tales and seed malicious rumours was maximised, leaving little recourse for the party. In an effort to better target their fears, the major parties labelled the misconceptions as Hansonism.

Hanson and Hansonism have been feared because the principle that another conservative party could survive in the political arena, independent of Coalition and Labor preferences, is anathema to the major parties. These parties have consistently preferenced One Nation last but it survives in its own right. There is no imperative for One Nation to gratify a major party as part of its survival. Out of disillusionment and failed promises the voting public seek alternatives. The Liberal and Labor parties have been recycling each other's policies for over a decade and they have failed to offer anything new to the electorate. This is political suicide in a decaying world and national climate. In an ironic twist the Liberal Party seem happy enough to hijack whatever Hansonite policies will suit them electorally. One Nation's immigration policy is a glaring example. When One Nation advised the Government to deport foreign detainees the party was maligned as racist and lacking empathy. If this is true then it seems fair to say that we have the most racist Prime Minister in Australia's history. It may be further argued that Australia houses the most racist population, not forgetting that Australians gladly reinstated Howard for a third term based on the immigration policies his Liberals pilfered from One Nation.

Immigration

The hard line the Governmentment endorsed on illegals saw a rise in their primary vote as Australians supported their right to protect our country's sovereignty. Notably, the swing toward the Government was almost equivalent to the swing away from One Nation. The Australian voting public was fearful of voting for a minor party when a party sympathetic towards illegals appeared capable of victory. The increase in primary votes is an indication that pertinent national issues were dominating the election. This is a sure sign the major parties have finally recognised the staleness and inertia of their own polices. Policy formulations are not meeting the demands of today's pressing realities.

Conclusions

Voters need to be aware of the power the major parties have in manipulating how things appear. Major political parties define their success as a percentage of the two party preferred system. Their primary votes have dwindled over the years, which is insignificant in a two party system. As a result Liberal or Labor will win elections unless the primary votes of a minor party are larger than either the Liberal or Labor parties. Consequently the eradication of other threatening parties is essential to their own survival.

The election results indicate that One Nation policies are akin to the priorities of mainstream Australia but, unfortunately, the Liberal Party capitalised on the fear of terrorism as a tool for success rather than a reality in the thoughts of many Australians. The devastation of 11 September and the much publicised boat people are not fleeting concerns but ongoing issues for voting Australians. It is One Nation's belief that a large proportion of voters opted to preference the Liberal Party first because of their stance on these issues. Unfortunately, if you do not finish first you do not benefit by being anyone's second choice.

While One Nation's primary vote has dropped since 1998, party membership has increased, which indicates the party's strong base but its weakness in attracting swinging voters. The party feels that it can recoup the swinging voter as its stand on Australian issues and its policies remain committed. If the votes received by One Nation, and the One Nation members elected at both federal and state elections, force governments of either persuasion to address the matters that One Nation draws attention to, we feel we are making a significant contribution to the wellbeing of those we represent and the future of all Australians.

Frank Hough, MLC One Nation Member for the Agricultural Region in the Western Australian Upper House

Originally published in John Warhurst and Marian Simms (eds), 2001: The Centenary Election, St Lucia, UQP, 2002.