Howard’s actions after Port Arthur mass shooting a lesson in leadership

John Howard’s bulletproof vest bulges beneath his suit jacket during his ‘courageous’ speech at a gun rally in Sale, Victoria, in 1996.

In the afternoon of April 28, 1996 — 25 years ago — Martin Bryant arrived at the historic convict settlement at Port Arthur, entered the Broad Arrow Cafe and began shooting patrons with a semi-automatic rifle. His murderous rampage ultimately would claim the lives of 35 people. It remains Australia’s worst mass shooting.

This horrific event, seared into our national memory, led to landmark gun law reforms initiated by John Howard’s government. Howard had been prime minister for only six weeks. The last thing he imagined expending political capital on was working with the states to put in place new national gun laws.

Gun laws had been a third rail in Australian politics. They had been resisted by state and federal governments for decades. In March 1988, Barrie Unsworth’s NSW Labor government was heavily defeated, with its crackdown on guns playing a big part. The Liberal Party, led by Nick Greiner, campaigned to roll back Labor’s gun laws.

Howard knew gun laws had to change. He had a large majority of 45 seats and he was prepared to lose some to achieve it. He understood there would be opposition within the Liberal and National parties. Most voters wanted action, and so did the opposition, but this issue threatened to split the government.

“It was one of those instinctive things,” Howard told me a few years ago. “When I learnt what had happened, and I had absorbed the magnitude of the slaughter, I thought well heavens above, you’ve got this huge majority, if you don’t use it to do something to bring about a change, well you’ve failed the first test.”

The extent of opposition to national gun laws is often overlooked. Not only was there deep concern in Queensland and Western Australia about any suggestion automatic and semi-automatic guns be banned but Howard recalled there were some public servants, advisers and party colleagues who urged caution.

As he weighed up the political cost of making national gun laws the first major initiative of his new government, Howard decided to risk the electoral backlash. “I had a view about big majorities — they never last — and it’s better to dissipate them on a good cause than just through neglect and indifference,” he said.

Social security minister Jocelyn Newman verbally briefed the cabinet after visiting Port Arthur. There was a lengthy discussion among ministers about how to respond. The Tasmanian government had immediately called for a national ban on “military style” semi-automatic guns and a registration system. This was noted by ministers.

On May 6 — just over a week after the mass shooting — cabinet met and agreed on the core elements of new national gun laws.

The sale, transfer, possession, manufacture and importation of automatic and semi-automatic guns were to be banned. A national firearm registration system would be set up.

There would be an amnesty period in which unregistered guns could be handed in and a compensation fund established.

These proposals essentially were adopted by state governments at a meeting of state and territory policy ministers on May 10. The Howard government held firm to its core proposals but made changes concerning sporting and under-age shooters, and collectors, on June 11. Labor leader Kim Beazley and Democrats leader Cheryl Kernot supported the government.

There was strong support in the cities and suburbs for national gun laws but opposition intensified in parts of rural and regional Australia. Queensland premier Rob Borbidge’s support for national gun laws contributed to the demise of his Coalition government in June 1998. The issue also hastened One Nation’s rise as a far-right populist party. This would cause the Coalition grief when it sought re-election later that year.

Tim Fischer, the National Party leader, told me it was “very hard” for his party. He recalled being hung in effigy when he spoke to farmers at Gympie. John Anderson, his deputy, thought if gun laws were on the table a year later, when the government’s honeymoon was over, it would have been much harder for the Nationals. Howard’s calm, methodical and co-operative approach was essential in keeping the Coalition parties united.

One of Howard’s most memorable, and indeed courageous, speeches was to a gun rally in Sale in June 1996. Howard was advised to wear a bulletproof vest that could be seen bulging beneath his suit jacket. It was an error of judgment, Howard later thought, but his message was clear: the government was not going to be intimidated, nor would it back down.

It is an extraordinary speech. Howard explained that he did not regard farmers who were opposed to surrendering their guns as “criminal” or “un-Australian”. But there was “a clear and irrefutable link” between the number of powerful weapons in the community and their use in an indiscriminate manner.

He explained he had a duty to “the national interest” and “the greater good” that transcended the Coalition’s constituency.

Howard spoke directly to those who felt betrayed by his government. He even took their questions. He did not promise that reducing guns would eliminate mass murders but he did say it would “significantly reduce” the likelihood of them happening. He was right about that. While some governments have tried to weaken the laws, they remain a model for the rest of the world.

The national gun laws were Howard’s finest hour as prime minister. Many prime ministers have been tested by events they could not foresee. Not all have been successful in turning challenges into opportunities. But the critical test for prime ministers is to understand and respond to the times in which they lead. Howard did just that. It is a lesson in leadership worth remembering today.