Guns
The first citizen-initiated referendum was held in July, a few days away from the anniversary of Hanson’s ascension to office. It proposed extensive reforms to state gun laws, formulated in cooperation with the federal government in 1996. Restrictions on personal gun ownership would be lifted; registration requirements would be relaxed; and farmers would be given greater rights to regulate hunting on their properties.
Despite One Nation’s nominally pro-gun stance, Hanson had shied away from directly addressing the issue in office. Initial inquiries had shown widespread community support for retention of present gun laws. Instead, the issue was left to the pro-gun lobby within the community, who quickly gathered the requisite signatures to organise a plebiscite on the issue (with non-compulsory voting).
The ALP, under new leader Terry Mackenroth [1], campaigned vigorously against the referendum, seeing it as an opportunity to show their renewed standing in the electorate. Beazley, unpopular in Queensland, was warned in no uncertain terms not to even comment on the referendum, for fear of provoking a ‘yes’ vote based on anti-federal sentiments. One Nation, by contrast, offered only lukewarm support, with the ‘yes’ case largely supported by extraparliamentary organisations. The remnants of the Coalition were not asked for their opinion one way or the other.
The result was a decisive ‘no’ vote, with 71.08% voting against the proposal. The sheer scale of its defeat was pinned on increasing community concern about Hanson’s radicalism – so soon after the initiation of the ‘One Land’ policy and the reintroduction of capital punishment, it was taken as a sign that the pace of change should be slowed.
Shortly after the defeat of the gun referendum, Hanson’s close advisers decided that One Nation’s popularity would be boosted immeasurably if it took a strong and decisive stance on the third scheduled referendum of 1999...
[1] Jim Elder resigned from Parliament at the 1998 election, due to revelations of electoral rorts – a major factor in Hanson’s gains at that election.
Day 365...
They went to see King Lear at the Roundhouse Theatre. A disgraceful indulgence, Samantha said half-seriously, but one entirely justified by the occasion. One year of One Nation. They bought up box seats and whispered critiques of the actors. It was a ‘modernised’ production, shot through with political allegories and subtle commentary. Mark couldn’t help noticing that the Fool, with red hair and garish white makeup, was a caricature of Pauline. The audience roared when he bumbled on stage, and applauded as he disappeared into the wings at the end of the third act. This was not their crowd.
At intermission, they talked of politics, as always. ‘Mister bloody Mann’s raising all hell over the budget,’ Mark despaired. ‘Here I am, pushing for regional Queensland – the Mount Isa to Brisbane rail link, urban renewal schemes in Toowoomba, all the rest – and he’s going through my budgets with a razor and a hacksaw! He’s just a spiv, Samantha. He’s in it for himself.’
Samantha listened with her head tilted to one side, yawning slightly. She wasn’t particularly interested in the economics agenda. ‘Well, Pauline’s torn. She likes you – you’ve been just marvellous on Aboriginal policy, even if it isn’t your thing, and she wants a better deal for rural Queensland, just like we all do. But she owes Steven everything – literally, really, because he might still call in the debts we owe him. He’s got the party by the short and curlies.’
‘We can’t let him take over the agenda,’ said Mark grimly. ‘He’s big business. He’s corporate. People voted for us – I voted for us – because every other party is shackled to big money and international finance. We can’t simply surrender our greatest advantage now.’
‘Yes, well, I think we’re a little more distinct than that,’ said Samantha. ‘There’s the republic, for one thing. We’re the only party that supports our proud traditions of British democracy, and the only party who’ll fight for a constitutional monarchy. People respect that.’
The campaign for the republic was accelerating, consuming all the political oxygen, prior to the November referendum. The Prime Minister was constantly on the hustings for it; the Opposition Leader, although a direct-electionist, had given the model his qualified support. It was a truism of Australian politics that a referendum can only pass with bipartisan support. In a three-party system, though, matters became more complicated.
‘A republic isn’t exactly opposed to British democracy,’ said Mark, mildly. ‘Not as such. It’s just Westminster in different garb.’
‘Don’t tell me you support that awful idea!’ wailed Samantha. ‘Don’t tell me you’re going to vote for it?’
‘Well, I’m undecided, actually. It doesn’t matter that much to how the country is actually run. A republic doesn’t put food on people’s tables. A republic doesn’t create jobs, except for journalists and political hacks. But I don’t think it’ll be the end of the world, either.’
‘It will destroy democracy and allow for an appointed dictatorship of politicians,’ snapped Samantha, lapsing into rote recitation. ‘It will be the Asianisation of Australia, the introduction of Suharto’s regime into our politics. It spits in the face of Britain and mocks the flag. Better Queensland be a separate nation than part of a nation that doesn’t honour its heritage.’
The bells began to ring out for the end of intermission. ‘Oh, I’m sure it might be,’ said Mark, in a conciliatory tone. ‘But then again: it doesn’t really make sense for the Queen to be head of state. Not anymore. I mean, we’re Australians, not British, right?’
Samantha looked deeply shocked at this.
After the play, they walked along the foreshore of the Brisbane River, hand in hand. Mark was so overcome by this that he could barely hear what Samantha was saying. She didn’t mind.
‘...but, in any case, it’s a win-win for us. There’s a whole constituency in Australia, the monarchists, who aren’t represented in Parliament. We pick up their votes – and they’re a majority, after all – and the party becomes stuck on the landscape. We’ll get the Prime Ministership by ten years away, that way, and won’t that be fantastic? Mark?’
‘Hmm?’ He wasn’t listening. She spun him around, to face her.
‘You know, we forget how extraordinary this is,’ she whispered. ‘Eighteen months ago I was an unemployed, depressed, disillusioned poet, and you were in the Labor Party! And now multiculturalism’s gone, land rights are going, you’ve got all your economic schemes and I’m changing Queensland society. I didn’t even know these things were possible. It’s...’
A tear rolled down her cheek. He decided to seize the initiative and kiss her. After some hesitation, she reciprocated.
The Republic and Queensland Separatism
Until July, One Nation’s position on the republican referendum was inconsistent. Most of the party opposed the republic, particularly amongst the party’s elderly base, but the more fervent nationalists in its ranks were strongly in support. It was thought that to focus on the issue too strongly would merely divide the party.
The party’s decision to abandon this ‘small-target’ strategy and become the tribune of the monarchists came after the July budget. Three months after re-election, One Nation was at the peak of its popularity. A July 22 Newspoll put ON at 40% of the primary vote, as against 30% for Labor, and at 55% in the 2PP – a landslide by any measure. Where the 1998 budget had focused on budget cuts (to Aborigines, culture and welfare services), the 1999 budget was profligate in its support for services, particularly in the regions. New hospitals, schools and train stations were funded; a plan for universal dental care under the age of 18 was introduced; and an ambitious plan to introduce school vouchers was trialled. In a sign of things to come, however, the budget appropriation for the Queensland Trust had ballooned outwards to $200 million. The chief architect of the budget, policy adviser Mark Vass, used his influence over Hanson to have Wayne Robinson, a prominent backbencher, appointed Treasurer after the 1999 election; working in concert, the two produced the most interventionist,
Polling cross-tabs showed that One Nation dominated amongst voters:
· over 55
· living outside Brisbane and the Gold Coast
· without tertiary qualifications
· in lower-income bands
· working in primary or secondary industry
In light of the government’s popularity, Hanson decided to turn the republic debate into a referendum on the government’s performance. On August 1, 1999, she announced her intention to Parliament to campaign personally for the ‘no’ case in the last three months before the referendum; One Nation finances would be used for a televised advertising campaign.
The results of this were mixed. The move consolidated Hanson’s popularity amongst her base, and moved many Liberal voters into One Nation’s column. She emerged, once more, as a national figure, openly debating issues of national importance and emerging as a ‘de facto’ opposition leader. It has been speculated that the campaign was a prelude to a move into federal politics at the next election. Certainly, polling at the time indicated that One Nation stood to pick up House of Representatives seats, and probably the balance of power. Her intentions may have extended further than that, however; polling showed that she was the third-most popular choice to become leader of the Coalition with 18% support, after Reith (25%) and re-elected Victorian premier Jeff Kennett (22%). [1]
However, the campaign further served to damage Queensland-Canberra relations. In her attacks on ‘a politicians’ republic’, run from Canberra and insensitive to British traditions, Hanson sought to distance herself from the federal political consensus. Federal politicians further sought to tie the monarchist case to One Nation extremism, tarring the ‘no’ vote with ‘guilt by association’. Hanson openly stated that ‘we will not have a republic imposed on Queensland, we will not be silenced’. The One Nation campaign appealed to ‘Queensland difference’; the sense that Queensland was more morally upright, more in touch with ‘the land’, more prosperous and more ‘Australian’ than any other state. It was this ‘Queensland difference’ that became associated with the ‘no’ case, and played upon the minds of swing voters in other states.
It was in this political environment that talk of secession began to grow in the national media. Hanson famously, in an interview with Kerry O’Brien on 22 September 1999, refused to rule out a future vote on Queensland independence; it was often remarked at the time that if Hanson did not choose to go, the rest of Australia would make her. Singapore’s announcement earlier that month that they would boycott the 2000 Olympics in protest against Hanson’s racist policies further prompted concern over the damage being caused by One Nation to Australia’s international standing.
This sentiment was, if not prompted, then at least encouraged by One Nation itself. Hanson’s staffers wrote letters (under assumed names) to the Courier-Mail declaring that if Australia wished to reject the Crown, they could not count on Queensland’s support; Hanson openly mulled a ‘more independent foreign policy’ for Queensland; and former premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a prominent supporter of One Nation, endorsed the idea.
It was hence that on October 8 1999 former Police Minister Bill Feldman introduced the Sovereignty Bill as a private members’ bill into the Queensland Parliament. Feldman’s proposal did not allow for ‘independence’, per se; however, Queensland would retain the monarchy, have independent membership in the Commonwealth of Nations, would regain full powers over income taxation, and be allowed to impose tariffs on external imports (although not from the rest of Australia). For a week, Hanson prevaricated over the bill, which gained national (and limited international) attention; finally, she decided that support would have been too much of a political risk, and the bill did not progress to a second reading. However, Feldman’s proposal over income taxation was eventually adopted by Hanson.
The high point of the clash of federation and state came on October 31, one week before polling day, when Beazley and Hanson held a national debate for the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ case. Hanson (as was her wont) was inarticulate and often resorted to the repetition of talking points where analysis might have proved more effective, but her populist style proved effective against Beazley’s professorial, often convoluted manner. The debate became heated in the second half, with Hanson stating to Beazley ‘you’re a lying, double-talking politician, a politician who just wants more power for himself and his Canberra cronies,’ with Beazley snapping back that ‘anyone who knows how you run Queensland would think twice before levelling allegations of cronyism.’
The referendum, held on November 7, ended in a monarchist victory, with 52% of the popular vote [2]. The ‘yes’ case carried the ACT, NT, NSW and Victoria, but failed dramatically in Queensland, with only 32% support [3]. As it turned out, the debate resolved nothing, but merely increased Hanson’s stature and deepened the growing conflict between the federal and state governments.
This conflict resulted in Hanson’s call, in December 1999, for taxation powers to be returned to the states, and Queensland in particular. This would require federal cooperation, given the vast volume of federal laws on taxation; Beazley flatly refused. Undeterred, Hanson announced her intention to challenge the two Uniform Tax cases in the High Court; this would be added to the growing volume of litigation between federal and state governments, over racial discrimination, Aboriginal policy, the external affairs power, ‘absolute freedom’ of interstate trade, and inconsistency of federal and state laws. Justice Michael Kirby, in a quip that nearly led to his resignation, remarked at the time that Hanson’s litigation ‘combined the best aspects of vilification and vexation’; in response, Angus Lockey privately called him a ‘bloody queer,’ a remark unfortunately leaked to the national press.
[1] Many regional voters, who otherwise would have gone for Bracks, issued a ‘protest vote’ for One Nation (largely a negligible force in Victoria, with only 4.5% support in the state election), and gave their preferences back to the Liberals. Kennett was narrowly re-elected, and began to eye a federal career.
[2] Down from 55% in OTL, a result of bipartisan support, a strong case by Beazley, and the association of ‘no’ with Hanson.
[3] As opposed to 37% in OTL, evidence of Hanson’s popularity.
The first citizen-initiated referendum was held in July, a few days away from the anniversary of Hanson’s ascension to office. It proposed extensive reforms to state gun laws, formulated in cooperation with the federal government in 1996. Restrictions on personal gun ownership would be lifted; registration requirements would be relaxed; and farmers would be given greater rights to regulate hunting on their properties.
Despite One Nation’s nominally pro-gun stance, Hanson had shied away from directly addressing the issue in office. Initial inquiries had shown widespread community support for retention of present gun laws. Instead, the issue was left to the pro-gun lobby within the community, who quickly gathered the requisite signatures to organise a plebiscite on the issue (with non-compulsory voting).
The ALP, under new leader Terry Mackenroth [1], campaigned vigorously against the referendum, seeing it as an opportunity to show their renewed standing in the electorate. Beazley, unpopular in Queensland, was warned in no uncertain terms not to even comment on the referendum, for fear of provoking a ‘yes’ vote based on anti-federal sentiments. One Nation, by contrast, offered only lukewarm support, with the ‘yes’ case largely supported by extraparliamentary organisations. The remnants of the Coalition were not asked for their opinion one way or the other.
The result was a decisive ‘no’ vote, with 71.08% voting against the proposal. The sheer scale of its defeat was pinned on increasing community concern about Hanson’s radicalism – so soon after the initiation of the ‘One Land’ policy and the reintroduction of capital punishment, it was taken as a sign that the pace of change should be slowed.
Shortly after the defeat of the gun referendum, Hanson’s close advisers decided that One Nation’s popularity would be boosted immeasurably if it took a strong and decisive stance on the third scheduled referendum of 1999...
[1] Jim Elder resigned from Parliament at the 1998 election, due to revelations of electoral rorts – a major factor in Hanson’s gains at that election.
Day 365...
They went to see King Lear at the Roundhouse Theatre. A disgraceful indulgence, Samantha said half-seriously, but one entirely justified by the occasion. One year of One Nation. They bought up box seats and whispered critiques of the actors. It was a ‘modernised’ production, shot through with political allegories and subtle commentary. Mark couldn’t help noticing that the Fool, with red hair and garish white makeup, was a caricature of Pauline. The audience roared when he bumbled on stage, and applauded as he disappeared into the wings at the end of the third act. This was not their crowd.
At intermission, they talked of politics, as always. ‘Mister bloody Mann’s raising all hell over the budget,’ Mark despaired. ‘Here I am, pushing for regional Queensland – the Mount Isa to Brisbane rail link, urban renewal schemes in Toowoomba, all the rest – and he’s going through my budgets with a razor and a hacksaw! He’s just a spiv, Samantha. He’s in it for himself.’
Samantha listened with her head tilted to one side, yawning slightly. She wasn’t particularly interested in the economics agenda. ‘Well, Pauline’s torn. She likes you – you’ve been just marvellous on Aboriginal policy, even if it isn’t your thing, and she wants a better deal for rural Queensland, just like we all do. But she owes Steven everything – literally, really, because he might still call in the debts we owe him. He’s got the party by the short and curlies.’
‘We can’t let him take over the agenda,’ said Mark grimly. ‘He’s big business. He’s corporate. People voted for us – I voted for us – because every other party is shackled to big money and international finance. We can’t simply surrender our greatest advantage now.’
‘Yes, well, I think we’re a little more distinct than that,’ said Samantha. ‘There’s the republic, for one thing. We’re the only party that supports our proud traditions of British democracy, and the only party who’ll fight for a constitutional monarchy. People respect that.’
The campaign for the republic was accelerating, consuming all the political oxygen, prior to the November referendum. The Prime Minister was constantly on the hustings for it; the Opposition Leader, although a direct-electionist, had given the model his qualified support. It was a truism of Australian politics that a referendum can only pass with bipartisan support. In a three-party system, though, matters became more complicated.
‘A republic isn’t exactly opposed to British democracy,’ said Mark, mildly. ‘Not as such. It’s just Westminster in different garb.’
‘Don’t tell me you support that awful idea!’ wailed Samantha. ‘Don’t tell me you’re going to vote for it?’
‘Well, I’m undecided, actually. It doesn’t matter that much to how the country is actually run. A republic doesn’t put food on people’s tables. A republic doesn’t create jobs, except for journalists and political hacks. But I don’t think it’ll be the end of the world, either.’
‘It will destroy democracy and allow for an appointed dictatorship of politicians,’ snapped Samantha, lapsing into rote recitation. ‘It will be the Asianisation of Australia, the introduction of Suharto’s regime into our politics. It spits in the face of Britain and mocks the flag. Better Queensland be a separate nation than part of a nation that doesn’t honour its heritage.’
The bells began to ring out for the end of intermission. ‘Oh, I’m sure it might be,’ said Mark, in a conciliatory tone. ‘But then again: it doesn’t really make sense for the Queen to be head of state. Not anymore. I mean, we’re Australians, not British, right?’
Samantha looked deeply shocked at this.
After the play, they walked along the foreshore of the Brisbane River, hand in hand. Mark was so overcome by this that he could barely hear what Samantha was saying. She didn’t mind.
‘...but, in any case, it’s a win-win for us. There’s a whole constituency in Australia, the monarchists, who aren’t represented in Parliament. We pick up their votes – and they’re a majority, after all – and the party becomes stuck on the landscape. We’ll get the Prime Ministership by ten years away, that way, and won’t that be fantastic? Mark?’
‘Hmm?’ He wasn’t listening. She spun him around, to face her.
‘You know, we forget how extraordinary this is,’ she whispered. ‘Eighteen months ago I was an unemployed, depressed, disillusioned poet, and you were in the Labor Party! And now multiculturalism’s gone, land rights are going, you’ve got all your economic schemes and I’m changing Queensland society. I didn’t even know these things were possible. It’s...’
A tear rolled down her cheek. He decided to seize the initiative and kiss her. After some hesitation, she reciprocated.
The Republic and Queensland Separatism
Until July, One Nation’s position on the republican referendum was inconsistent. Most of the party opposed the republic, particularly amongst the party’s elderly base, but the more fervent nationalists in its ranks were strongly in support. It was thought that to focus on the issue too strongly would merely divide the party.
The party’s decision to abandon this ‘small-target’ strategy and become the tribune of the monarchists came after the July budget. Three months after re-election, One Nation was at the peak of its popularity. A July 22 Newspoll put ON at 40% of the primary vote, as against 30% for Labor, and at 55% in the 2PP – a landslide by any measure. Where the 1998 budget had focused on budget cuts (to Aborigines, culture and welfare services), the 1999 budget was profligate in its support for services, particularly in the regions. New hospitals, schools and train stations were funded; a plan for universal dental care under the age of 18 was introduced; and an ambitious plan to introduce school vouchers was trialled. In a sign of things to come, however, the budget appropriation for the Queensland Trust had ballooned outwards to $200 million. The chief architect of the budget, policy adviser Mark Vass, used his influence over Hanson to have Wayne Robinson, a prominent backbencher, appointed Treasurer after the 1999 election; working in concert, the two produced the most interventionist,
Polling cross-tabs showed that One Nation dominated amongst voters:
· over 55
· living outside Brisbane and the Gold Coast
· without tertiary qualifications
· in lower-income bands
· working in primary or secondary industry
In light of the government’s popularity, Hanson decided to turn the republic debate into a referendum on the government’s performance. On August 1, 1999, she announced her intention to Parliament to campaign personally for the ‘no’ case in the last three months before the referendum; One Nation finances would be used for a televised advertising campaign.
The results of this were mixed. The move consolidated Hanson’s popularity amongst her base, and moved many Liberal voters into One Nation’s column. She emerged, once more, as a national figure, openly debating issues of national importance and emerging as a ‘de facto’ opposition leader. It has been speculated that the campaign was a prelude to a move into federal politics at the next election. Certainly, polling at the time indicated that One Nation stood to pick up House of Representatives seats, and probably the balance of power. Her intentions may have extended further than that, however; polling showed that she was the third-most popular choice to become leader of the Coalition with 18% support, after Reith (25%) and re-elected Victorian premier Jeff Kennett (22%). [1]
However, the campaign further served to damage Queensland-Canberra relations. In her attacks on ‘a politicians’ republic’, run from Canberra and insensitive to British traditions, Hanson sought to distance herself from the federal political consensus. Federal politicians further sought to tie the monarchist case to One Nation extremism, tarring the ‘no’ vote with ‘guilt by association’. Hanson openly stated that ‘we will not have a republic imposed on Queensland, we will not be silenced’. The One Nation campaign appealed to ‘Queensland difference’; the sense that Queensland was more morally upright, more in touch with ‘the land’, more prosperous and more ‘Australian’ than any other state. It was this ‘Queensland difference’ that became associated with the ‘no’ case, and played upon the minds of swing voters in other states.
It was in this political environment that talk of secession began to grow in the national media. Hanson famously, in an interview with Kerry O’Brien on 22 September 1999, refused to rule out a future vote on Queensland independence; it was often remarked at the time that if Hanson did not choose to go, the rest of Australia would make her. Singapore’s announcement earlier that month that they would boycott the 2000 Olympics in protest against Hanson’s racist policies further prompted concern over the damage being caused by One Nation to Australia’s international standing.
This sentiment was, if not prompted, then at least encouraged by One Nation itself. Hanson’s staffers wrote letters (under assumed names) to the Courier-Mail declaring that if Australia wished to reject the Crown, they could not count on Queensland’s support; Hanson openly mulled a ‘more independent foreign policy’ for Queensland; and former premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a prominent supporter of One Nation, endorsed the idea.
It was hence that on October 8 1999 former Police Minister Bill Feldman introduced the Sovereignty Bill as a private members’ bill into the Queensland Parliament. Feldman’s proposal did not allow for ‘independence’, per se; however, Queensland would retain the monarchy, have independent membership in the Commonwealth of Nations, would regain full powers over income taxation, and be allowed to impose tariffs on external imports (although not from the rest of Australia). For a week, Hanson prevaricated over the bill, which gained national (and limited international) attention; finally, she decided that support would have been too much of a political risk, and the bill did not progress to a second reading. However, Feldman’s proposal over income taxation was eventually adopted by Hanson.
The high point of the clash of federation and state came on October 31, one week before polling day, when Beazley and Hanson held a national debate for the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ case. Hanson (as was her wont) was inarticulate and often resorted to the repetition of talking points where analysis might have proved more effective, but her populist style proved effective against Beazley’s professorial, often convoluted manner. The debate became heated in the second half, with Hanson stating to Beazley ‘you’re a lying, double-talking politician, a politician who just wants more power for himself and his Canberra cronies,’ with Beazley snapping back that ‘anyone who knows how you run Queensland would think twice before levelling allegations of cronyism.’
The referendum, held on November 7, ended in a monarchist victory, with 52% of the popular vote [2]. The ‘yes’ case carried the ACT, NT, NSW and Victoria, but failed dramatically in Queensland, with only 32% support [3]. As it turned out, the debate resolved nothing, but merely increased Hanson’s stature and deepened the growing conflict between the federal and state governments.
This conflict resulted in Hanson’s call, in December 1999, for taxation powers to be returned to the states, and Queensland in particular. This would require federal cooperation, given the vast volume of federal laws on taxation; Beazley flatly refused. Undeterred, Hanson announced her intention to challenge the two Uniform Tax cases in the High Court; this would be added to the growing volume of litigation between federal and state governments, over racial discrimination, Aboriginal policy, the external affairs power, ‘absolute freedom’ of interstate trade, and inconsistency of federal and state laws. Justice Michael Kirby, in a quip that nearly led to his resignation, remarked at the time that Hanson’s litigation ‘combined the best aspects of vilification and vexation’; in response, Angus Lockey privately called him a ‘bloody queer,’ a remark unfortunately leaked to the national press.
[1] Many regional voters, who otherwise would have gone for Bracks, issued a ‘protest vote’ for One Nation (largely a negligible force in Victoria, with only 4.5% support in the state election), and gave their preferences back to the Liberals. Kennett was narrowly re-elected, and began to eye a federal career.
[2] Down from 55% in OTL, a result of bipartisan support, a strong case by Beazley, and the association of ‘no’ with Hanson.
[3] As opposed to 37% in OTL, evidence of Hanson’s popularity.
