James Campbell: Time for the Liberals to lance the One Nation boil
The Al Jazeera sting on One Nation is a gift for Prime Minister Scott Morrison and he must use it to put distance between the two parties before it’s too late, writes James Campbell.
James Campbell
Don't miss out on the headlines from James Campbell. Followed categories will be added to My News.
In 1987, NSW premier Barry Unsworth walked out of a meeting of state leaders convened by Bob Hawke, declaring: “It will take a massacre in Tasmania before we get gun reform in Australia.”
His words were dreadfully prophetic: nine years later, Martin Bryant murdered 35 people at Port Arthur, prompting John Howard to introduce the gun-control laws under which we live today, laws that few Australians aside from political fringe-dwellers are keen to unwind.
With hindsight, most of us would regard Unsworth’s prescience in observing the danger posed by the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons as no more than a tragic example of a warning ignored.
ONE NATION MEMBERS FILMED ASKING NRA FOR CASH
ONE NATION FOOLS HOUNDED BY HYPOCRITES
But not, apparently, Pauline Hanson. For among the conversations covertly recorded by Al Jazeera of the One Nation brains trust at work and play is this gem between the senator and her sidekick, James Ashby.
Hanson: “An MP said: ‘It would actually take a massacre in Tasmania to change the gun laws in Australia.’ Have you heard that? Have a look at it. It was said on the floor of parliament.”
Ashby: “Also that whole September 11 thing, too.”
Hanson: “Those shots, they were precision shots. Check the number out. I’ve read a lot and I’ve read the book on it, Port Arthur. I read a book on it, on Port Arthur. A lot of questions there.”
From the exchange, it would appear Hanson is something of a Port Arthur buff.
If we take her at her word, she’s read deeply on the subject and she’s not satisfied with the official explanation that the murders were the work of a deranged simpleton. No, it was something darker.
Nor is she alone in her party in holding strange views about Port Arthur. In 2017, a Queensland state election candidate for One Nation called Peter Rogers was disendorsed after a post from his Facebook page came to light in which it was claimed the massacre didn’t happen. He later claimed the story had been posted without his knowledge by a friend minding the page while he was overseas.
At the time, it was widely assumed — naively in retrospect — that Rogers had been purged because his views on Port Arthur were so obviously bat-s--- crazy. But perhaps that was not so.
Thanks to Al Jazeera, we now have to consider the possibility that Rogers’ sin was not that he — or whoever he left in charge of his Facebook page — subscribed to an obviously deranged and deeply offensive theory about what happened that day 23 years ago, but that he subscribed to a different deranged and deeply offensive theory from his leader.
To translate the argument into 9/11 terms — “that whole September 11 thing” — Rogers, or the Facebook-enabled mate, would appear to be operating at the extreme end of the spectrum, made up of those who deny the World Trade Center was destroyed by hijacked airliners — “no planers” — whereas Hanson is one of the regular folks who just think it was an inside job.
Either way, the question has to be asked: is this someone a serious political outfit like the Liberal Party should be giving their preferences to?
If I were the prime minister, I would be grabbing the gift Al Jazeera had given me with both hands and announcing with a solemn face that, leaving aside the offensiveness of Hanson’s views on Asian migrants, the stupidity of her economic views and the ethical questions hanging over her outfit, having reviewed the tape it was my considered opinion that the Liberal Party could not in good conscience risk putting someone like that into parliament.
And despite all the whining you hear from the backblocks of Queensland, the reality is that putting as much distance between himself and Pauline Hanson is not only the right thing for Scott Morrison to do, it is also the smart thing.
As has been pointed out on more than one occasion, this federal election is going to be decided in Victoria, where, as party officials keep reminding us, there are no safe Liberal seats.
And how do Victorians feel about Pauline Hanson? Well, according to one very well-placed party source in recent polling, her net favourability rating in the battleground seats of Deakin and Chisholm was -62 and -63 respectively.
To put that in perspective, according to my source, the worst Peter Dutton has managed to achieve down here is -50.
In other words, she’s political kryptonite, which isn’t exactly a shock.
What is so astonishing is that 20 years after John Howard was dragged kicking and screaming to the position where Hanson had to go last on the how-to-vote cards, there is still some debate about how the Coalition deals with her. That is one of the great mysteries of Australian political life because the evidence from Queensland and West Australian state elections over two decades now is absolutely clear: while being at war with Hanson costs the Coalition parties votes, playing footsie with her costs them elections as she drives urban voters into the arms of the ALP.
In the past few weeks, Scott Morrison has spent so much time in Victoria, the AEC could almost enrol him here. But it will all count for nothing if he doesn’t lance this boil and quickly. That whole Port Arthur thing gives him the excuse.
James Campbell is national politics editor
Why Andrews could be preempting own political demise
By reiterating that the buck stops with him, is Premier Daniel Andrews giving himself a reason to go? That may be the case if the hotel quarantine inquiry ends up slamming the government, writes James Campbell.
Victoria’s maddening armchair ride under Dan
The Andrews’ government keeps making decisions everyday Victorians know are madness. Coronavirus positive patients allowed to exercise, guests leaving quarantine without testing. How long can this go on, asks James Campbell.