Australian Penthouse, November 1980, pp. 137-42.
When you meet Lang Hancock it is obvious that in spite of his outrage when his always extreme views are contradicted and his visionary projects frustrated, he thrives on opposition.
Like his chief opponent over the years, WA Premier Sir Charles Court, Hancock has an extrovert, almost aggressive, self-confidence which revels in taking on all comers. Onlookers have always been tickled by the fact that, in different political and economic circumstances, the two might have been blood-brothers. Both show the same contradictions — far-sighted yet tunnel-visioned; intelligent yet devoid of tact; advocates of individual freedom, yet intolerant of any other viewpoint than their own.
Stripped of its formidable hyperbole and technical expertise, Hancock’s message is a simple one; an updated, economic version of the postwar political slogan “Populate or Perish”.
If Australia’s potential and in particular its mineral resources are not exploited as soon as possible, he says, yellow, red or white hordes will move in to wrest them from us. The fact that a great deal of money could be made in this gallant defence of our liberty he sees as an added incentive.
He brushes aside allegations of fascism, and claims with an irritating degree of accuracy that as a northerner and a mining veteran, he knows a good deal more about his Promised Land above the 26th Parallel than most or all of his detractors.
Langley George Hancock was born on a million-acre pastoral property north of the Parallel. His sudden rise to prominence through his tremendous iron ore discoveries in the 1950s and 1960s, combined with the appearance and blunt manners of an old-style union boss, gave a wide impression that he was a johnny-come-lately in the classic rags-to-riches tradition.
In fact, he comes from one of Western Australia’s oldest pastoral families — one that has rarely been short of cash and has always played a notable part in the state’s development.
His great-grandfather, George Hancock, arrived from England in the early 1830s and settled in the infant Swan River Colony’s first successful agricultural region — the Avon Valley, 100km inland from Perth.
His great-aunt Emma was the first white woman in the North West — bearing her husband John Withnell eight children in that arid wilderness with no neighbour within 1000 kilometres.
One of her sons, James Withnell, started one of WA’s earliest gold rushes in 1888 east of Roebourne, when he picked up a stone to throw at a crow and found he was holding a lump of high-grade ore. It proved a fluke rather than a bonanza, and WA’s classic Gold Rush did not begin until the dramatic discoveries four years later by Bayley and Ford at what became Coolgardie.
By then Lang Hancock’s grandfather had joined his Withnell relatives in the North West. Lang’s father, George, was a partner on the Mulga Downs spread near Wittenoom when his son was born in June 1909 — when brushes with local aborigines were still common and “civilisation” was weeks away by horse or camel.
The boy grew up with his uncle James’ interest in prospecting. His first mineral find, in the early 1920s, was blue asbestos in Wittenoom Gorge, but the contemporary price of $36 per tonne made its extraction hopelessly uneconomic.
Ten years later a visiting geologist spotted a lump of blue asbestos propping open the verandah door on the station homestead — and told young Lang it was now worth $150 a tonne.
He and his schoolmate-turned-partner, E.A. (“Peter”) Wright, laid the foundations of a sizeable fortune by opening the Wittenoom asbestos mine. But Lang Hancock’s fame — some say notoriety — did not flower until his first iron ore discovery in November 1952.
The story has passed into the folklore of Australian private enterprise. Flying south from Wittenoom in his tiny Auster, Hancock and his wife Hope were forced low by storm clouds and flew dangerously through Pilbara gorges whose towering cliffs were rust-red. Hancock trekked through the gorges when the wet season ended and confirmed his stupendous find. But it was not until 1960 that the Menzies government lifted the pre-war ban on iron ore exports; another two years elapsed before the Hamersley agreement was drawn up between the American Kaiser Steel company and the British-Australian Rio Tinto group which got the Pilbara iron ore industry under way. Its development has expanded Pilbara’s population from 5000 to 55,000 and resulted in annual exports worth more than $800 million — more than 20 percent of world production with enough reserves to supply the world for a century ahead.
This was Lang Hancock’s peak of glory — and the beginning of his longest period of frustration. Annual royalties of 2.5 percent from the Hamersley operation at Tom Price made him a millionaire almost overnight. His income is still believed to be the highest in Australia — but few of his schemes and ambitions have materialised since.
His own pet Pilbara project — a combined rail and port system to link all big iron ore producers in the region — has remained stalled for years. So has his plan to assemble enough partners to develop what he claims would be by far the biggest iron ore operation of all — near Wittenoom, his family territory.
As part of his campaign against government controls, he financed and organised a resurgence of the 1930s secession movement in WA, only to see it fizzle in little more than a year.
He founded a Sunday tabloid in Perth to expound his policy of unfettered capitalism, but soon relinquished personal control with the disgusted comment, “All journalists are socialists.”
Tolerance of his nuggety stance was stretched to its limits in his home State in 1978 when he reacted to news that many of his former asbestos miners at Wittenoom had developed potentially fatal lung diseases with the apparently unfeeling comment that he had been at the mine for long periods but felt all right.
Coincidentally, his health has not been good for the past year. For months, he had to give up his strenuous brand of tennis, and in January he was officially forbidden to fly his Falcon jet. (Typically, he drops dark hints about interference by the Pilots Federation and threatens to sell the plane rather than be forced into employing an extra pilot.)
His dream of a 2000km railway to link Pilbara iron ore with Queensland coal has had another airing recently with the announcement of a feasibility study by the Federal Government.
He is far from subdued — either by his unpopularity with officialdom, or the widespread execration of such issues as nuclear power on a huge scale and the pre-eminence of unfettered capitalism.
In an era when most issues confidently regarded by our forefathers as simple black or white have merged into depressing shades of grey, Lang Hancock marches to the sound of a different drum. And as Perth-based Penthouse contributor Dennis Hancock found in this interview, Lang Hancock is still quite certain he is the only one in step.
Penthouse: Quite a few years ago now, you gave as your personal creed: “I believe, bad and all as it is, the greed of capitalism is the only driving force there is.” Do you still believe that is true?
Hancock: Yes. There has to be some motivation if people’s standard of living is to be maintained or even rise. Every civilisation on this earth has been developed because of the application of capital and the drive that comes from that application. Basically, everything comes from the earth — you either mine it or you grow it, and you can’t even grow it until you mine the iron to make the ploughshares. This all flows from the application of capital and the drive behind it. If there is no drive behind it, people aren’t going to invest their capital.
Penthouse: What should happen to people who are not lucky, or brave, or clever enough to make their own fortune — from finding iron ore mountains or from some other source — or who don’t feel that a fortune is really their aim in life?
Hancock: Well, I presume that their aim in life is to exist. Now they cannot possible exist without the application of capital. This is something that should be drummed into every four-year-old child, every journalist, every politician and every university professor — that there are 4000 million people on this earth, at least a thousand million of them below the breadline. Of those 4000 million people, at least eight out of 10 owe their very existence to energy applied to minerals. So every one of them should think what will happen to them if they interfere in any shape or form with the production of energy or the production of minerals. Any disruption of this is going to affect the underprivileged far more than it’s going to affect the so-called privileged people.
Penthouse: Who, if anybody, do you think is entitled to welfare support — on what basis should it be judged and what form should it take?
Hancock: Well, this is something that has grown up and the best way to cure welfare is to have unbridled private or free enterprise to create jobs. Jobs and wealth don’t come from governments — governments consume wealth, not create it. Therefore you’ve got to stimulate and encourage people who can create wealth and jobs. These are the people who count as far as looking after the underprivileged are concerned.
Penthouse: What do you think of the Fraser Government? Is it laying the right course back to national prosperity?
Hancock: No. No government could do that because all they are doing is expanding themselves. In Australia, the system has got bogged down by too much government. It makes no difference really whether Malcolm Fraser is Prime Minister or whether Mr Hayden is Prime Minister. We have two socialist parties — the Liberals profess to be free enterprise but they are both socialist in their actions. Australia is not a democracy, it is just an idle dream which doesn’t work. Whatever government you have in power has one objective — to increase bureaucracy, to increase its own power by creating more departmental jobs. So they have to increase taxes, and as you can’t get blood out of a stone you can only get taxes out of people who produce goods.
Inflation, as you know, is too much money chasing too few goods. Why not reverse the process — take less money from the producer in terms of tax and increase the supply of goods? You would flood the market with cheap goods and the cost of living would go down.
Penthouse: That would be your formula for a return to prosperity?
Hancock: Yes. Less government by a long, long way, and instead of too much money chasing too few goods I would have too many goods — chasing too little money [chuckle].
Penthouse: And less taxation?
Hancock: Less taxation by all sorts of means, including tax-free incentives for production areas such as north of the 26th Parallel where the basic wealth of Australia must lie. I would make those income-tax free with a reinvestment clause of 40 percent, so that you had to put 40 percent of your profits back. Under that system the place would snowball — you would be creating a deliberate anomaly, so that people south of the line would say northerners were getting privileged treatment; but they could share in those privileges by putting their money up there themselves.
Here applies my theory of the greed of capitalism. They wouldn’t put their money up there otherwise — Australians won’t develop Australia because they think they ought to. They’ll only do it if the impulse of greed drives them to think they will get something out of it that their fellow Australians are not going to get.
Penthouse: What has been at the root of the disagreements between yourself and Sir Charles Court?
Hancock: Well, that goes back to the very early days of Pilbara development in 1962 when he tried to stop the formation of Hamersley Iron by asking Japanese iron and steel manufacturers to give first priority to our competitors.
Having lost out there and seen the world’s largest mine being established virtually over his dead body, and obviously being branded as wrong — that would rankle in anybody’s mind. That I think was the foundation of the trouble and resentment to any scheme that I put up to generate further projects up in the Pilbara. Basically he did not understand the value and importance of what the iron ore industry could be to Australia. You must remember the official attitude, Commonwealth and State, indicated that Australia would be importing iron ore by the year 1965. When a man publicly makes such a faux pas, it is obviously going to rankle and I think that was the beginning of it. But it doesn’t really matter what I think of Sir Charles Court, or what Sir Charles Court thinks of me.
Penthouse: How would you compare his approach to government with that of Joh Bjelke-Petersen?
Hancock: I think it is a great tragedy that Joh Bjelke-Petersen is not Prime Minister of Australia. He is the only politician in Australia who is far-reaching in his attitude, is prepared to get something done.
He’ll get behind anything that has any chance of going. He is very forthright and he stands up for what he thinks is right. He has come up through hard work and he understands that you get nothing for doing nothing — that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. He is right on the ball in quite a number of things and you can see this by the resentment the Press bears to him. I’m all in favour of more Joh Bjelke-Petersen.
Penthouse: He is a supporter of your scheme for a railway between the Pilbara and Queensland, to exchange Pilbara iron ore for Queensland coal and thereby enable a steel manufacturing industry to be set up at either end?
Hancock: Yes, he is the most positive supporter of the railway, and he is the first to come out and support my idea that it should be financed by private risk capital and not the poor unfortunate taxpayer.
My idea is to give a grant of land either side of the railway to the people who put up the money. I’m not proposing to give away part of Australia even though it’s desert, but I did propose that anybody who put up risk capital should be given mineral rights, or first go at them, for 50 miles either side of the railway. Mr Bjelke-Petersen has announced he would do that as far as Queensland is concerned. If you give these sorts of rights, there may not be anything there, but you will get the west and centre of Australia opened up and searched for all kinds of minerals.
You will get the railway built at no cost to the taxpayer, and as an added incentive I have suggested this scheme too be made income tax-free with a re-investment clause of 40 percent. That would cost the Treasury nothing because that area’s not yielding anything at the moment. If it did bloom, and they found gas and oil and all sorts of minerals out there, the indirect taxes flowing from that would far outweigh income tax from that area.
The Treasury would gain, Australia would gain, development would be enormous and the railway would help defence-wise.
The Prime Minister promised last year he would arrange a feasibility study of the railway. It appears this is one of the few promises the Liberal Government is going to keep because he has now announced a feasibility study. How far it will get, I don’t know.
Penthouse: Quite a few of your schemes over the years have not been taken up. Is this because of cowardice and bloody-mindedness by governments or is it also a refusal by the public to support you?
Hancock: Well, the Australian public don’t know, and they are not allowed to know, the extent of the wealth in their country and just what needs to be done to develop that wealth. In communist countries, in dictatorships and in Australia the minerals belong absolutely to the Crown. As such they’re quite useless because nobody in government understands them, nobody there has the ability. Nobody in departments and no ministers for mines have ever in their lives discovered a mineral, managed a major mine, built a major railway or a major port, raised millions on the international market to develop such projects.
At some stage you have to make a transition from government ownership to private risk capital. You’ve got to make the climate right for risk capital, whether it’s Australian or overseas doesn’t matter. Governments have to define rights, to set rules and not change those rules once the ball has bounced. People who risk their money must know that their titles are not going to be robbed from them; that if they make a success of it they aren’t going to be faced with a resources tax and all other forms of robbery with which the government is so happy, and that the government will not repudiate such things as an export licence, which should exist anyhow. The standard case was the beach sands over at Fraser Island, where they repudiated overseas contracts and they repudiated an export licence, which gave Australia a bad name right throughout the world.
Penthouse: Fraser Island was a conservation issue, and you are always pretty hard on conservationists. You coined the term “econuts”, and you hint that they’re part of a conspiracy to hinder Australia’s economic growth. Whom do you think the conspiracy originates with?
Hancock: I blame the econuts for not realising they are being led absolutely, and financed by overseas money. A fairly classic case is this fellow in Libya, Colonel Gaddaffi, who claims quite openly that he spent 75 million pounds sterling to subvert Great Britain. We know it was Gaddafi’s money, probably $230 million of it, that went in and helped to subvert Iran along with the Russians. He has openly stated that wherever terrorists and that arise, he will support them.
Penthouse: But what have conservationists got to do with terrorism?
Hancock: What they do is use well-meaning conservationists as a front and they haven’t got enough sense to see it. If they carry their argument to the logical conclusion there is only one thing they can do, and that’s freeze in the dark.
The perfect ecologist was the Australian blackfellow. He didn’t till, he didn’t mine, he didn’t manufacture, he just lived on what nature provided. A million years ago, when the population got too great at the waterhole, the elders of the tribe got together and hit the piccaninnies on the head. That was perfect birth-control, and perfect ecology — they could only have a population equal to what nature itself would provide. On that basis Australia could support 400,000 people instead of 14 million.
As long as I’m not one of the blokes who got hit on the head that’s not so bad, but I don’t know how the ecologists feel about it — whether they would like to be hit on the head.
Penthouse: You really feel we are in danger from conservationists? Most opponents seem to regard them only as irritating cranks.
Hancock: I believe the greatest threat this country faces is the internal threat from subversive elements who control the environmental movement.
You have seen what happened in America. America has gone from an exporter of oil to an importer, and when an economy of that size become a buyer the price of oil just has to go up. The OPEC countries have taken advantage of this and you can’t blame them for it. The price of oil has gone up fourfold.
There is no justification for this whatsoever. If you reverse the environmental laws and controls they have managed to exert in the United States, particularly in Alaska, the United States would be self-sufficient in oil for 200 years. But the conservationist lobby has delayed the Alaska pipeline for five years, they stopped drilling on the North Atlantic seaboard, they put all sorts of restrictions on coal mines, they spread objections to nuclear power which is the cheapest and safest and cleanest power of the lot.
Penthouse: Back to your word “conspiracy”; do you claim a Communist conspiracy is behind all this?
Hancock: Yes — well, whether you call them communists or not doesn’t matter. The people in control are subversives of various types. They believe that if they can destroy our system, the capitalist system, and replace it with some form of socialism they would then have the power. They don’t seem to see that they’re getting it now, with two or three people controlling the trade unions. There wants to be a very firm line of demarcation drawn between the two or three agitators, professionals, that are running some of these key unions and the poor worker who is quite happy to work but is forced out on strike simply to disrupt our present set-up — a set-up which allows everybody to have a rising standard of living and all the goodies that capital has been able to invent.
Penthouse: All in all, you sound pretty pessimistic about our prospects. Do you think Australians will be able to — or deserve to — carry on controlling their own economic and political destinies?
Hancock: No, I don’t think they will be able to, in any shape or form and if they won’t work they don’t deserve to. I think a more virile nation will, by force of circumstances, come in here. All these latent minerals that we’ve got; if we deny them to the world, the world won’t be denied because they will come and take them.
Penthouse: Which nation do you think will be likely to move in?
Hancock: Well, that doesn’t matter. I’ve advocated, that if we develop the region north of the 26th Parallel, we would make nations dependent upon for very survival. Instead of being dependent now upon one nation, Japan, we should make ourselves indispensable to several of the great nuclear powers — then each one would make certain the other didn’t come and grab us for itself. The free world is already losing the great mineral fields of Africa to communism, which is a far bigger loss than Iran or Afghanisatan. Rhodesia is the latest example of that. The Free World powers should be brought to realise that when Africa goes out, their very civilisation would depend on Australia and its minerals.
We have got more than America ever had, and we could eventually because the number-one nation — the wealthiest nation in the world. We would have to import foreign risk-capital to get started, but once we snowballed to the growth rate which I think is possible, it wouldn’t be very long before we became an exporter of capital. Then Australians would spread their wings all over the world, and control or own half the world, just the same as Americans do now.
Penthouse: But only, in your view, if Australians develop more energy and more guts?
Hancock: Oh yes, they’ve got to have energy, guts and leadership — and we haven’t got any at the moment.
Penthouse: Talking of personal rather than national wealth: you have always regarded your own income, which is quoted at between three and five million dollars a year, as being a private matter. Do you still feel that way, and why?
Hancock: I don’t think I can gain anything for the nation by talking about my private income. It’s a fleabite compared with what the nation really needs and there’s nothing gained by it. It might make people envious about it, but I would say to them the world’s your oyster — there’s no earthly reason why you can’t do the same if you can get rid of government controls.
Go out and help yourself — there is every opportunity in Australia to develop these raw materials. But I do say this — if you find one it should be on the basis of full rights to the discoverer — first go to the discoverer, whether he might sell it for a bottle of beer, a loaf of bread or millions and millions of dollars.
He should be given that absolutely divine right. If he can bring in capital, he should be protected right through to the production stage, with no government power to confiscate it from him.
Penthouse: You’re nearly 71 now, and have all the money you or your family could need. What drives you to carry on working so hard? What more do you want to achieve before you retire, or die?
Hancock: First of all, I think it is essential to protect my family’s interests, and my grandchildren’s interests, and the best way to protect them is to protect Australia. I would hate to see them hounded out of Australia to go live somewhere else, and that is always on the cards. One or two of the more militant trade union leaders don’t disguise from me or anybody else that their aim is not to better conditions of the rank and file — they’re not concerned with them at all, they are concerned with the power to destroy.
So one of my aims would be to point out on any occasion I can these things that should be obvious to everybody. Also, I carry on because nobody else is preaching or acting Free Enterprise, and this doesn’t matter which government is in. Without detracting from Malcolm Fraser or from Charlie Court or anybody else, they’re talking it but they’re not doing it. I want to carry on as a spokesman for Free Enterprise — I think somebody should, and every little bit helps.
Penthouse: Do you expect to retire, or do you reckon you will die in harness?
Hancock: I don’t expect to retire, because there are so many things left to be done. I might as well keep on and keep trying to do them, or some of them — keep battling as long as I can.
Penthouse: You’ve nominated your only daughter, Gina, to take over your empire when you die. She’ll have to combine it with being a mother to her two children. Do you think she’s capable of both jobs, and will she carry on with your policies?
Hancock: Well, so far she’s of an independent turn of mind. She went to Sydney University with my blessing, but of her own volition she threw that in because she could see the Communist influence in it, and she could see the only way of getting through that university successfully was to endorse Galbraith and all the socialist beliefs.
One day I found her back in the office. She sat down here and put her nose to the grindstone without any pressure or asking from me. When you get a willing horse like that I naturally don’t stop her. I’m hoping she can more than carry on with what I’ve been doing, but if her inclination clashes with loyalty to her family I would expect her to look after her family first.
Penthouse: As good a man as you are, really — a chip off the old block?
Hancock: I think at her age she is better than I was.
Penthouse: A lot of your critics would say you were hopelessly out of date in your thinking — 25 years out of date plugging unlimited industrial expansion. 50 years out of date urging secession for Western Australia and 100 years out of date in opposing social welfare. How would you reply to that?
Hancock: Quite often in my career I’ve been criticised for being too far in the future. I was when I advocated making the Pilbara the Ruhr of South East Asia. I was told, “You can’t build railways and mines in that country — it’s blackfellow country.” From those critics, who were adamant there was no iron ore in the North West, we have come to supply Japan with half her ore requirements, to major railways and to three harbours there each of which is exporting a greater tonnage than Sydney. From that point of view, I think I was 25 or 30 years ahead of people instead of years behind.
The same thing with nuclear power. I am basing my conviction that this is the safest form of power for our grandchildren on 25 years of safe performance in other countries. So I think I am looking forward, not back — that I am in front rather than behind with my thinking, and that it is Australia which needs to catch up with the rest of the world.
- Ron Manners’ Heroic Misadventures
- Hancock's Australia
- Hancock on Government Help
- Wake Up Australia: Excerpts Part 1
- Wake Up Australia: Excerpts Part 2
- Lang Hancock's Five Point Plan to Cripple Australia
- Governments Consume Wealth — They Don't Create It
- Up the Workers! Bob Howard's 1979 Workers Party Reflection in Playboy
- Jump on the Joh bandwagon
- John Singleton and Bob Howard 1975 Monday Conference TV Interview on the Workers Party
- Governments — like a red rag to a Rogue Bull
- Lang Hancock's Pilbara-Queensland Railway Proposal
- Singo, Howard and Hancock Want to Secede
- Lang Hancock's Foreword to Rip Van Australia
- New party will not tolerate bludgers: Radical party against welfare state
- Small and Big Business Should Oppose Government, says Lang Hancock
- A Condensed Case for Secession
- Hancock gets tough over uranium mining
- Hancock's threat to secede and faith in Whitlam
- PM's sky-high promise to Lang
- Govt "villain" in eyes of new party
- The spread of Canberra-ism
- Govt should sell the ABC, says Lang Hancock
- 1971 Monday Conference transcript featuring Lang Hancock
- Aborigines, Bjelke and the freedom of the press
- The code of Lang Hancock
- Why not starve the taxation monster?
- Lang Hancock 1978 George Negus Interview
- Party Promises to Abolish Tax
- Right-wing plot
- "The best way to help the poor is not to become one of them." - Lang Hancock
- WA's NCP commits suicide
- "You can't live off a sacred site"
- Hancock: King of the Pilbara
- Bludgers need not apply
- New party formed "to slash controls"
- Workers Party Reunion Intro
- Workers Party is born as foe of government
- Government seen by new party as evil
- Ron Manners on Lang Hancock
- Does Canberra leave us any alternative to secession?
- Bury Hancock Week
- Ron Manners on the Workers Party
- Lang Hancock on Australia Today
- Hancock and Wright
- Lang Hancock on Environmentalists
- Friends of free enterprise treated to financial tete-a-tete: Lang does the talking but Gina pulls the strings
- Lang Hancock, Stump Jumper
- Lang Hancock: giant of the western iron age
- The Treasury needs a hatchet man
- We Mine to Live
- Get the "econuts" off our backs
- 1971 Lang Hancock-Jonathan Aitken interview for Land of Fortune (short)
- Gina Rinehart, Secessionist
- 1982 NYT Lang Hancock profile
- Enter Rio Tinto
- Hamersley and Tom Price
- News in the West
- Positive review of Hancock speech
- Lang Hancock International Press Institute General Assembly speech, Canberra, 1978
- Australia's slide to socialism
- The Great Claim Robbery
- Why WA must go it alone
- Lang Hancock in 1976 on Public Picnics and Human Blights
- MILLIONAIRE PUTS MONEY BEHIND SECESSIONISTS
- Resource Management in Australia: Is it possible?
- The gospel of WA secession according to Lang Hancock
- Crystal Balls Need Polishing
- Minerals - politicians' playthings?
- John Singleton-Ita Buttrose interview (1977)
- Boston Tea Party 1986 style, hosted by Lang Hancock and Bob Ansett
- Singo says Lang Hancock violated Australia's 11th commandment: Thou Shalt Not Succeed
- Singleton: the White Knight of Ockerdom
- Tactics change by Hancock
- Lang Hancock complains to Margaret Thatcher about Malcolm Fraser
- 'Phony crisis' seen as 'child of politics'
- Lang Hancock on nuclear energy
- Lang Hancock beats the left at their own game on civil liberties
- Lang Hancock's Favourite Books
- 1977 Lang Hancock Canberoo poem
- Hancock's playing very hard to get
- Hancock proposes a free-trade zone
- An Open Letter to Sir Charles Court
- John Singleton 1976 ocker Monday Conference Max Harris debate
- Lang Hancock in 1984 solves Australian politics
- Lang Hancock on the Workers Party, secession and States Rights
- Lang Hancock asks what happened to Australia's rugged individualism?
- Precis of Ludwig Plan for North-West
- Announcement that Lang Hancock will be guest of honour at the Workers Party launch
- Lang Hancock's March 1983 attempt to enlist "former presidents of nations and heads of giant companies" to save Australia
- Lang Hancock asks us to think how easily environmentalists are manipulated for political purposes
- Invest in free enterprise
- Democracy is dead in Australia and Lang Hancock's education
- Lang Hancock Incites Civil Disobedience
- Hancock sounds call to battle Canberra
- Mining policy a threat
- Over Whitlam's head
- Lang Hancock suggests that newspapers don't give space to politicians unconditionally
- Lang Hancock on saving Australia from socialism
- Secede or sink
- Australia can learn from Thatcher
- John Singleton. Horseracing. Why?
- How Lang Hancock would fix the economy
- Lang Hancock: victim of retrospective legislation
- Lang Hancock supports Joh for PM
- Hancock seeks miners' tax haven in the north
- The Ord River Dam
- Why Lang Hancock invested in Australia's film industry
- Lang Hancock's 1983 letters to The Australian: Lang's precedent for Steve Jobs, renaming the Lucky Country to the Constipated Country, and more
- Australia's biggest newspaper insider on manipulating the media
- 1980 Lang Hancock-Australian Penthouse Interview
- Canberra: bastion of bureaucracy
- Pilbara can be the Ruhr for South-East Asia
- 1982 Lang Hancock-John Harper Nelson Interview
- Australian elections are one of the greatest con games in history
- Our leaders are powerless