Tony Abbott's slush fund helped put Pauline Hanson in jail

Pauline Hanson is back on the scene ... yawn. But she has the right to make ridiculous decisions. I continue to believe that Tony Abbott's involvement in persecuting her and making her a martyr was inappropriate.
end
 
Michelle Grattan Political editor of The Age - and cheerleader for Labor and the PM on the ABC with Fran Kelly Sunday 2 December 2012  

MANY readers will recall Margo Kingston, a deft hand at investigative reporting and a pioneer of interactive journalism through her Webdiary. Margo left the trade a while ago and is studying nursing, interested in specialising in palliative care. But watching from afar the AWU affair unfolding, she leapt back into the fray with an online article. 
She remembered what many of us, in the heat of this slush fund battle, had forgotten. 
Tony Abbott has had his own slush fund experience, not all of it happy.
Not that Abbott was keen on the term ''slush fund''. 
In 1998, he was collecting financial backing for his crusade to encourage legal action against Pauline Hanson. She was later jailed over a technical breach of the electoral law, something even many of her political enemies deplored.
Kingston - author of a book on Hanson, with whom she had a love-hate relationship - pursued Abbott like a terrier about the fund; she details the saga in Still Not Happy, John! (Penguin 2007). 
It's worth a read, as the debate drags on about Julia Gillard's role in helping set up the AWU Workplace Reform Association, which two corrupt union officials, one of them her then boyfriend, used to steal large amounts of money.
In 1998 Abbott gave a signed personal guarantee to Terry Sharples, who'd fallen out with One Nation, that he would not be out of pocket for legal action to stop One Nation receiving $500,000 in public funding.
Soon after, Abbott denied to the ABC that funds had been offered to Sharples.
Abbott, about to become a minister set up the Australians for Honest Politics Trust.  
He responded to the Australian Electoral Commission's request for disclosure by writing: ''I spoke with one of Australia's leading electoral lawyers who assured me that the trust would not be covered by disclosure provisions''. 
The commission accepted that. Abbott told Kingston he had only sought the legal advice after being queried by the AEC. When the discrepancy was put to him, he said he had had more than one conversation with the lawyer.
Despite claiming he'd be happy to disclose donors if the AEC wanted him to do so, after the AEC took a new position in 2004, seeking the information, Abbott maintained he should not have to provide it after so long and did not give it over.
In a 2003 interview with Kerry O'Brien, Abbott was confronted with a 1998 untruth, when he had told Tony Jones that he had not promised Sharples any money. 
His rationalisation was Jesuit-ical. 
''There is a difference between telling someone he won't be out of pocket and telling someone that you're going to have to pay him money''. 
In an earlier newspaper interview, Abbott had said: ''Misleading the ABC is not quite the same as misleading the Parliament.''.
Should we be surprised that Abbott calls on the PM to tell all, but was reticent himself? 
Not really. It's that old story of the boot being on the other foot.
Obviously, there were clear differences between Abbott's slush fund, which was aimed at a broad political purpose (the destruction of Hanson and One Nation) and the limited self-serving objectives of the AWA body, let alone the vehicle for illegal behaviour that it became. But the point is, Abbott does not bring an unblemished record to the argument.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbott-has-his-own-slushy-history-20121201-2anjy.html#ixzz2DsvmzxcN
ends
One of the strongest publicists responsible for dramatic support Pauline Hanson received was journalist, Margot Kingston from the SMH. Each of her shrieking phone calls and hysterical reports  in a Sydney paper increased voter support for One Nation. 
I had no interest in One Nation and knew it would implode quickly.
I could never understand why Fairfax Media, the ABC and Liberal Party were so determined to keep giving Ms Hanson  the oxygen of publicity when they ignored dozens of other candidates. They could have found any number of kooky plans and beliefs had they chosen to show some initiative, but they had to follow the pack.

I was concerned about the actions of Tony Abbott, funding a nasty and ultimately flawed slush fund that helped ensure Mrs Hanson went to jail but released on appeal. 
I hope that scrutiny of Mr Abbott's slush fund was not a reason Liberals were so slow to require the Prime Minister to respond to mounting evidence about the AWU.
Update : Ross Vasta, nice guy and local member for Bonner has defended Tony Abbott.
I wrote to Ross on 3/12/12 :

Dear Ross,
While I appreciated seeing Tony Abbott in person at the function you organised, I have always had a concern about the mean spirited and sneaky way he went about persecuting Pauline Hanson, manipulating and funding Mr Sharples. 
I never heard an apology when Mrs Hanson was released from jail.
http://phillipyoungmansfield.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/tony-abbotts-slush-fund-helped-put.html
For the first time ..., I actually liked something that Michelle Grattan wrote as she helped Margot Kingston remind people about Tony Abbott's efforts using Terry Sharples to get at Pauline Hanson.
I don't believe the Coalition should be involved in sneaky funds to damage competitors.
Are you aware if Mr Abbott has ever commented on his continuing involvement to undermine and persecute competitors? (ie via his "Honest Australians Trust fund.)
The Liberals, and Margot Kingston, in my opinion were the whole reason why Pauline Hanson became such a celebrity so to turn around and hound her to jail, then not apologise when she was released remains a stain on the record that they should determine not to repeat.
For what it's worth I want to hear Tony Abbott's side of the story on his slush fund. 
ends

And a reply from Ross on 11/12/12... explains that the fund Tony Abbott set up to enable Terry Sharples legal pursuit of Ms Hanson was a law enforcement organisation and not a slush fund ... similar to those operated by the AWU, HSU and possibly many other unions. 
 
Dear Phil      

Thank you for your email.

I appreciate your concerns but Mr Abbott has been absolutely upfront about the role he played in trying to ensure that the Hanson movement did not destroy good, conservative governments in this country.

The key difference between Mr Abbott and the Prime Minister is that he set up an organisation to enforce the law, the organisation the Prime Minister helped to set up facilitated breaking the law. That's a big difference.

Thank you again for staying in touch and I hope you have a very Merry Christmas and a safe and happy New Year.

Yours sincerely 

Ross