It's not MY party arjay.
I just think people should know the truth and ON deserves a better epitath than the one they have.

part 1.
In 2001 the Democrats ran a campaign directly against One Nation.

Well of course they did you say... one is evil, one is good. Really? Let’s look at some of the policies and issues they shared.

Did you know, in Transport for example on the "Major Airports in New South Wales” issue. The Democrats did not support the development of a new airport within the Sydney basin. They believed, that integration with fast rail and rail freight transport along with other planned infrastructure development was also necessary. As did One Nation.

In regards to the Environment and Water, the Democrats called for immediate action to halt the continuing degradation of our river systems. Actions must ensure adequate environmental flows and maintain (where it is now adequate) or improve water quality.

One Nation has always linked the problem of Water with infrastructure development, or to be more precise the lack of it. It has "endorsed" the Watering Australia Foundation and infrastructure development ideas in line with it. One Nation realises that increased population is dependent on the management and development of this precious resource.

In regards to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders the Democrats stated they will act to address disadvantage faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people in the areas of health, housing, education and the legal system.

One Nation has always stated that all Australians should be treated fairly and equally on a needs basis

part 2.
The Democrats opposed the privatisation of Australia Post. As the provider of essential mail services - particularly services for rural and regional Australia - it is vital that Australia Post's direction and decisions remain in government hands and that profits continue to be returned to all Australians. It also has a similar stance on Telstra - putting important public assets into select private hands is not in Australia's long term interest. For that reason, they opposed the partial sale of Telstra.

Sounds exactly like One Nation policy. One Nation has always opposed selling off assets and parts of Australia. If a company or utility is; essential, profitable, providing a proper service. It sees no reason to sell it off.

In regards to the Constitution and Citizens' Initiated Referenda (CIR), the Democrats state. There is a widespread feeling in the community that politicians do not genuinely listen to their concerns and ideas. This has led to an unacceptable level of disenchantment with the political process. Instead of being proud of a political system that is one of the most stable and least restrictive in the world, Australians are angry at what they see as the powerlessness of ordinary citizens. CIR is one way of giving people at the grassroots access to real political power.

More One Nation rhetoric? CIR is and always has been a One Nation policy. The above states the primary reason that One Nation came about. Ordinary people, having a say, (a direct say) in Government.

In regards to Finance and Taxation, the Democrats support economic independence for Australia, but with so much of our economy either owned or mortgaged to foreigners, our economic independence is under threat.

This is something One Nation has always fought for. The Democrats also state; "For unless we regain our economic independence, our independence as a nation will soon slip away." Something else One Nation has been saying all along

As for Fairer Banking, the Democrats supposedly defended the rights of consumers to safe and inexpensive banking. They stated that the interests of bank customers must not be traded off in the interest of bank profitability.

Something else One Nation has been saying. It’s policy was to create a new people’s bank as has recently been done in NZ.

The Democrats believed in reform of the income tax system. They said too much of the tax burden falls on the shoulders of low and middle income earners. At the same time, tax has become virtually optional for high income earners by use of trust or corporate structures, income splitting, and poorly designed tax breaks on their savings and investments.

These issues are all One Nation issues. Making tax fairer and simpler and making business pay their fair share has always been One Nation policy.

In regards to, Infrastructure and National Development, the Democrats believed that increasing public investment in infrastructure is crucial to our nation's future development, job security and wealth creation.

One Nation has always stood for developing Australia - rebuilding manufacturing industries, infrastructure development and increasing development of regional Australia (like the Parkes Air Freight Proposal for example.)

As for the Public Sector, Privatisation and Competition Policy the Democrats said they will oppose privatisation unless it is shown in a public inquiry that there is a clear public benefit.

One Nation has always said this.

The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) was a policy exposed to the public by Pauline Hanson. The Democrats said that the MAI was unfair and unbalanced because it puts the interests of multinational companies ahead of that of sovereign nations - it threatens Australian Democracy.

Exactly what Pauline and One Nation were saying all along

part 4

Health. The Democrats support the development of an equitable, efficient and high quality health care system that is accessible to all Australians. In Rural Health the Democrats believe that the Government should provide health funding to rural areas in a way which can be used by rural communities to meet their specific needs, rather than the needs of Governments.

This too is common to One Nation, note that services are to be provided on a needs basis. Something else One Nation has always said.

The Democrats believe in an immigration level which will enable the population of Australia to be stabilised at a level which is consistent with a sustainable environment.

This is also common ground between the parties, even if they differ in areas such as multiculturalism. A policy which One Nation believes allows cultural migration at the expense of Australian culture. Some parties don’t believe there is an Australian culture

One Nation was the best thing that happened to Australia. Even though it was hounded to death by vested interests and the media it
captured the ethos of Australians. Pauline was hapless in the onslaught on her personally. yet she stood up ,very bravely, to the cowardly attacks on her by the lend lease ferals.
One Nation drove a wedge between the two parties who played political football with our country, One nation gave us hope that we would be listened to----and made sure we were.
We will be forever in its debt.

Australia has been well ahead of its trading partners in the speed and depth of cuts to its tariffs, quotas and bounties. This systematic cutting of protection has been instigated and supported by Labor and the Coalition. As a result, Australia has been flooded by cheap imports, which have decimated Australian industries and cost many thousands of jobs. Australian manufacturers and workers have been placed at a disadvantage to overseas competitors who receive assistance from their governments, and who operate under much lower labour, environmental and occupational health and safety standards.

Why has Australia so drastically cut its Tariffs?
- Strong reductions in tariffs have been a key theme of economic rationalism.
- There is a belief amongst the major parties and senior bureaucrats in the myth of the "level playing field".
- The myth is that industries in all countries can compete with each other on an equal footing without any Government assistance.
- This is fine in theory, but the reality is that most countries support their industries to varying degrees. It is poor social and economic policy for Australia to expose its industries to unfair competition.

Trade liberalisation should be reciprocal not unilateral. We should only reduce our levels of protection at the same rate as our trading partners and competitors.

Sound a lot like One Nation right? Yes, it does. But it was also what the Democrats believed at the time.

What did the Democrats say they would do?
- Tariff cuts must cease immediately and any further reductions must only occur when our trading partners agree to cut their real level of protection to the same as ours;
- Australia's tariff and non-tariff regime must be reviewed to ensure maximum Australian advantage in international trade. That advantage must be measured in social as well as economic terms - in jobs as well as costs and prices.

Sounds an awful lot like One Nation policy and rhetoric. There is no doubt that bipartisan support would be forthcoming on the issues brought up here. Imagine... bipartisan support from One Nation