Dodgy tactics, dirty tricks, and coincidences in Australian politics

It was no surprise that the Liberal Party elected a new leader who supposedly has a strong stance on immigration. This is the old “bait and switch” technique that has long been used by mainstream political parties.

The same trick was pulled with John Howard as Prime Minister; he made some noises about the pace of Asian immigration – and then, when in office, Asian immigration promptly went up, and John Howard oversaw the greatest influx of Third Worlders into our country that had ever occurred in Australian history (at least, up to that time — because Sleazy Albanese has been doing a lot more work in the Great Replacement stakes than Howard the Coward ever did).

However, the changing of one leader for another, as a political con job, isn’t the only trick that will be pulled. People shouldn’t be surprised to see some dirty tricks happening in the lead-up to the next federal election.

A variety of dirty tricks against Pauline Hanson and One Nation have been carried out by the Establishment in the past, and no doubt will again. Indeed, various dodgy tactics have not only been used against a variety of minor parties in Australia.

Remember when the Liberal Party conspired to have One Nation candidates placed last in voting arrangements? And the Labor Party also conspired to have One Nation candidates placed last. Was that just a coincidence?

Remember when the Australian Electoral Commission, which is supposed to be politically neutral, changed the boundaries of the Electorate of Oxley after Pauline Hanson won that seat? The city of Ipswich, which was Hanson’s main base of support, was divided up between the Electorate of Oxley and the Electorate of Blair, making it practically impossible for Hanson to win that seat again. Was that just a coincidence?

Remember when Tony Abbott, a minister in John Howard’s Liberal Party government, went about raising funds to have a legal case mounted against Pauline Hanson? Obviously, attacking Hanson with legal troubles would hinder her, and therefore help the Liberal Party. Was that just a coincidence?

Remember when some Australian newspapers ran a fake story with fake nude photos of Pauline Hanson? The photos looked nothing like Hanson; they were so obviously not her that even Blind Freddie could tell the difference. Of course, the newspapers ran the story anyway, and then later claimed that they had been “conned” (yeah, right). The fake photos were a big lie peddled by the Sunday Telegraph (Sydney) and the Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne). The situation was extremely embarrassing for Hanson. However, there was more to it than that — the fake photos were published in the lead-up to the 2009 Queensland state election, in which Hanson was running for the state seat of Beaudesert; the fake nude photos of Hanson undoubtedly had a negative impact upon Hanson’s electoral chances. Was that just a coincidence?

Remember when the Australian Establishment had Pauline Hanson jailed over supposed electoral fraud? Of course, she hadn’t committed electoral fraud at all, and her conviction was overturned on appeal — but only after she spent almost three months in jail. Patsy Wolfe (née Josephson), the judge who jailed Pauline Hanson, was a former journalist with The Courier-Mail and a feminist. Considering that Pauline Hanson’s One Nation had been politically targeted by Jewish groups, was it really appropriate for a judge of Jewish background to rule over Hanson’s case? Wolfe sentenced Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge to three years in jail — without a recommendation for parole. No recommendation for parole? Seriously? Was that just a coincidence?

Remember when the High Court ruled that Heather Hill (a One Nation candidate elected to the Senate) was not eligible to be a senator? Heather Hill held citizenship with both Australia and the United Kingdom, and the judges of the High Court ruled that, for the purposes of section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution, the UK is a foreign power to Australia. However, the Schedule of the Australian Constitution (the final part of the Constitution) provides for Oaths and Affirmations of Australians to swear allegiance to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom, which means that the Australian Constitution does not consider the United Kingdom to be a foreign power. The wider import of the High Court’s ruling meant that, in effect, all Australians who pledge allegiance to the King or Queen are pledging allegiance to a foreign power — but that is not what the Australian Constitution says. The High Court’s ruling was very dodgy. Was that just a coincidence?

Remember when the Liberal Party and the Labor Party joined together to change the Electoral Act? The changes primarily gave preferred status to the major parties, and made it difficult for minor parties to obtain political registration and electoral funding. Was that just a coincidence?

Remember when the Australian Electoral Commission made all sorts of demands for minor political parties to register for federal elections, making it too difficult for various parties to register in time for the elections? Bear in mind that many of these demands were not mandated by the Electoral Act, but by the AEC. Was that just a coincidence?

Remember when the Liberal Party and the Labor Party once again joined together to change the Electoral Act? This occurred after Ricky Muir, of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, was elected to the Senate. All of a sudden, the electoral rules we had for decades weren’t good enough — all because someone who wasn’t part of the Uniparty got elected. The changes made it easier for the major parties to win elections. Was that just a coincidence?

Politics in Australia is far from being pure. Australians shouldn’t be surprised to see odd voting preference arrangements being made to hinder One Nation from gaining traction. The Liberal-Labor Uniparty have a two-party system to defend, and are willing to undermine and jail political dissidents.

The only way forward for Australia is for Australians to destroy the two major parties. We need a new broom in Australian politics, and the Big Two are just getting in our way, and need to be removed.

Australians don’t need a Uniparty; we need a nationalist party.