Gun laws show we can always have a shot at reform

When the federal government’s three-month gun amnesty — part of the essential housekeeping on gun laws — ended last Friday, more than 25,000 weapons had been handed in. It wasn’t only run- of-the-mill farm guns that were surrendered but assault rifles, too.

Then, on Monday afternoon, news broke of a mass shooting in Las Vegas, sparking yet again a debate about US gun laws, a debate that will never be resolved with tougher laws unless Americans of all colours, of all political persuasions, from north to south, east to west, in their millions, take to the streets every day to demand that politicians take action, and not stop until they do.

With American society so polarised, its political system so dysfunctional that it could not mobilise even after 20 children and six teachers were murdered at the Sandy Hook primary school, there is no reason to believe it will happen now. US presidents launch wars across the globe to strip dictators of weapons of mass destruction but can’t stop a “sick and demented” (according to Don­ald Trump) retired accountant stockpiling, then employing, his own arsenal against fellow Americans.

Trump, like Malcolm Turnbull a businessman and a dealmaker, can’t even have a civil exchange with his own party’s leaders. Unlike the Prime Minister, and af­ter almost a year in office, he has failed to land a single significant policy, so his promise yesterday that gun laws would be dis­cus­sed “as time goes by” deserves to be taken as seriously as his other pledges.

As bystanders, we experience the full gamut of emotions after each attack: horror, sadness, revulsion. And anger, particularly at the hand-wringing by politicians that follows every atrocity. Not shock, certainly not disbelief in view of the frequency of the attacks, each one worse than the previous.

Relief is definitely in there. So is exasperation. Perhaps a bit of smugness, too. Thanks to the courage of our politicians — mainly John Howard and Tim Fischer — driven by the will of the Australian people in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre (which followed two other mass shootings in Melbourne’s Queen and Hoddle streets in 1987), we have laws that mitigate against a recurrence.

But it does raise the question, if 21 years later the same courage, cohesion and will existed, and if it had to be done now, would it?

There seems to be so much more aggro around, on every conceivable issue — nowhere more evident than in the same-sex marriage debate, where it has split friends, families and political parties. There are bullies on both sides, liars on both sides, people out to confuse or intimidate. Yet in the middle the great bulk of Australians, who probably made up their minds years ago, posted their ballots, then got on with other things.

The turnout proves that. On Tuesday afternoon, the Australian Bureau of Statistics announced that as of Friday, September 29, more than 9.2 million Australians, or 57.5 per cent — numbers too big to ignore — had posted their survey forms. This is on a par, already, with the US presidential election in which 59.7 per cent of eligible Americans voted. And that was considered respectable for a voluntary vote.

Despite the grumbling and the patronising lectures from Labor that young people wouldn’t know how to post a letter, it seems obvious that, unless complacency sets in, there will be a thumping turnout, possibly as high as 80 per cent.

The mechanism may be messy. It has caused some pain. It is expensive, but the government found a way to deal with a highly divisive issue. Gruelling as it has been for some, the turnout will validate the process, while the result — an emphatic yes, according to every single public poll — will ensure, despite the best efforts of the diehard cultural warriors, its resolution by Christmas, with jingle bells and wedding bells chiming.

As Turnbull has pointed out repeatedly in the many interviews he has done — mainly on FM radio in an effort to hit the target market, urging people to vote and to vote yes — abuse is a permanent feature of every democratic campaign. Also, Turnbull has not run dead on this. Any higher and he would be accused of ignoring his day job or hijacking what should be solid grassroots efforts.

Other mechanisms exist — part of a system that, despite everything, is still functioning — to deal with complicated issues. Success in certain areas remains elusive, but often where it matters, when it really matters, results are delivered.

On Wednesday night, Turnbull dined with state and territory leaders at The Lodge — no staff, no officials invited — in preparation for the first special Council of Australian Governments meeting on Thursday to toughen counter-terrorism laws. In June, Turnbull dined ahead of the normal COAG meeting with state and territory leaders at the Landscape Restaurant in Hobart, just after it emerged that Brighton killer Yacqub Khayre had been out on parole when he shot dead a man and took a woman hostage.

The informal discussion between the leaders that night led to an agreement on stricter requirements. But it didn’t come without some argy-bargy. Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews initially was happy to hand over full responsibility to the feds, apparently so the next time a mistake was made it would land in the federal government’s lap, not his. Turnbull argued this would be an abdication of responsibility by the states. The West’s newbie Labor Premier Mark McGowan, in office for only a few months but who understood what was required, stepped up, joining Liberal premiers Will Hodgman and Gladys Berejiklian to help forge agreement that in all jurisdictions there would be a presumption against bail and parole for those who have shown support or have links to terrorist activity.

Not all states have legislated the necessary back-up, (including Victoria) but on this and other issues to be discussed today, like the use of biometrics at airports and uniform pre-charge detention laws that will further impinge on traditional freedoms, there is general agreement about what should happen. On Tuesday, Turnbull signed away the idea of a traditional free-market Coalition government when he clinched the deal with gas producers to free up supplies for the domestic market.

Australians generally have also shown a preparedness to give up something, or even say yes to something, if they are convinced of a national or personal benefit in return — whether it’s a stronger economy, or a safer, fairer, more cohesive society.