On current form, the legacy of Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership will consist primarily of the establishment of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation as a long-term part of the Australian politics.
Given her personal vote in Queensland, Hanson was always a strong candidate to be elected to the Senate whenever the 2016 election was held. But Turnbull’s decision to call a double dissolution election, which cost his government seats in the House of Representatives, elected not just Hanson but also three other One Nation senators — and One Nation almost won a fifth Senate seat. The return of Hanson, a professional political candidate and wealthy celebrity, to politics was bad enough, but the election ushered in a far-right conspiracy theorist obsessed with the Rothschilds in Malcolm Roberts and a flaky serial litigant from Western Australia who lost his spot in record time.
[Pauline Hanson definitely not campaigning in Qld while talking up One Nation]
The return of One Nation mean the return of a question that dogged the Liberals 20 years ago: would they preference her and her party above Labor? Or, to be accurate, it dogged John Howard — Howard was virtually alone in holding out against the wave of disgust that Hanson produced within his own party, until at length he caved and joined senior figures like Peter Costello in calling for Liberal Party branches to put Hanson and her foul ilk last on how-to-vote cards.
Now Turnbull faces the same question — one he has been avoiding. The West Australian’s Shane Wright asked him about it at the Press Club nearly two weeks ago and he ducked it, saying it was “a matter for party divisions” and that he was “not a commentator on the political evolution of One Nation” (not being a commentator is one of Turnbull’s favourite reasons for avoiding sensitive topics). The WA Liberals’ decision to do a preference deal with One Nation, however, makes his refusal to comment increasingly difficult. Just how difficult was shown by Minister for Forgetting Things Arthur Sinodinos on Sunday when in response to the WA deal he declared that One Nation was “a very different beast to what it was 20 years ago” and “more sophisticated.”
[Charity really does begin at home, Pauline]
The primary policy difference between the current version of One Nation and the original venture is that it has now embraced economic nationalism and protectionism, switched the focus of bigotry from Asian Australians to Muslim Australians, and elevated the anti-family law agenda of men’s rights groups. Its peddling of race hatred remains as unashamed as in the late 1990s. It’s hard to understand why Sinodinos believes that One Nation remaining every bit as bigoted as it was previously, while embracing highly economically damaging protectionism that will harm jobs, economic growth and investor confidence, makes Hanson more “sophisticated” in the eyes of a party notionally committed to free trade.
Turnbull’s willingness to greenlight his WA colleagues’ dealing with Hanson, which is a significant departure from the tradition established by Howard, is likely to encourage the LNP in Queensland to negotiate a similar deal. It almost certainly means the establishment of One Nation as a powerful minority party in both WA and Queensland. And it invites another question: will the Liberals negotiate a preference deal with One Nation for the next federal election?
With discussion underway about who might replace Turnbull as his beleaguered government struggles in the polls, his one lasting achievement as prime minister could end up being that he enabled the foul tumour of Pauline Hanson to metastasise across the body politic, with long-term and significant damage for Australia.
A very good analogy, BK. To extend the analogy a little, it is probably a cancer of the nether regions.
Seriously, did you really expect Turnbull to show some backbone?
We are observing an interesting experiment: is there not a previous position or principle which Turnbull isn’t willing to break?
Trumble is murdering the Libs. Moderate Liberals will flee from the likes of one Nation. The real question is where?
The Greens?
If there was ever empirical evidence of spineless sycophancy, this is it.
‘Howard was virtually alone in holding out against the wave of disgust that Hanson produced within his own party’?? My recollection is that he was quick to use the ‘dog whistle’: ‘I don’t agree with what she says, but I can understand why she says it’. Total hypocrite that he is.
It’s what may give rise to Trump here – people will get sick of politics as usual. Can’t the big parties realise that they need to regain their moral centre – even if it means a few years in the wilderness.
John Howard was the beginning of the end for the Liberal Party. He took Hanson’s racist tripe, passed it into Liberal Party hands, then knackered Hanson. Which she richly deserved.
People wishing to see a circus of cavorting apes, are advised to look at the ABC’s Question Time. Led by Ringmaster Malcolm Turnbull, he has dragged Australian political standards down to an all time low. He gives us a suntan where we need substance, and a bright tie in place of an ideology. He hurls insults at the hapless leader of the opposition, and gives tax breaks to the rich. If all that isn’t enough he whips his glasses on and off with the speed of a tap dancing drum majorette.
Then there’s our Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce……………………………….