The revelations by Al Jazeera about the extent to which One Nation was willing to seek foreign money from the extremist National Rifle Association to help it weaken Australian gun laws is a potential solution to one of Scott Morrison’s biggest problems.
Morrison will be hounded by the One Nation preference issue all the way to the election, with LNP MPs making clear over and over that not only do they not want One Nation preferenced last in Queensland but in some cases — like that of Ken O’Dowd — they want the racist party preferenced well above Labor and the Greens. Every day will be Groundhog Day for Morrison, forced to walk away from media conferences when journalists start asking about preferences.
Now, One Nation puppeteer James Ashby and Queensland Gauleiter Steve Dickson have given Morrison an out that a bold, clever prime minister would seize. In their pandering to the National Riffle Association — a violent, extremist US group with proven ties to the Putin regime — for support in using the balance of power to water down gun laws, One Nation has demonstrated its determination to do anything to wreck John Howard’s gun control laws that have prevented dozens of massacres and thousands of deaths over the last 20 years.
If One Nation’s racebaiting, Islamophobia and hate speech aren’t sufficient for the Coalition — and evidently it is not — then surely an assault on the legacy of John Howard will be. No Coalition MP could surely stand by a group committed to using money from foreign extremist groups to water down the greatest achievement of the Howard-Fischer coalition government.
If Morrison moved quickly, he would outflank both the LNP and Barnaby Joyce, who has been complaining about gun laws since the NSW state election saw the Shooters Party pick up two seats and hold a third. They’d be stuck with having to defend One Nation and its NRA mates and their efforts to destroy the legacy of John Howard.
It would solve the problem of One Nation preferences for Morrison and showcase him as exactly the anti-extremist he now claims to be post-Christchurch, despite his long history of “addressing” Islamophobia (including his newly revealed 2014 proposal for arbitrary mass internment of asylum seekers on valid visas). It would also be hailed, correctly, as a bold and brave move to overrule the out-of-touch reactionaries within his own ranks — something Malcolm Turnbull was never able to do.
Except, there’s the rub — Morrison has even less authority than Turnbull did. There’s a real risk such a bold move would prompt defiance from LNP MPs and from pro-Joyce Nats, many of whom have given up on the government and just want to save their own seats. The ensuing blow-up could do more damage to Morrison than the steady bleeding the One Nation preferences issue will do to him over the course of the next eight weeks.
What’s different now, however, is that the preferences issue is going to be even more in the spotlight than it was before. Morrison must surely condemn One Nation and insist John Howard’s gun laws legacy will never be watered. But to do so immediately invites the question of why, if they’re so awful, are his own colleagues planning to preference One Nation? There’s no escape from the dilemma except through boldness.
If Morrison did want to take action elsewhere, one option he could pursue would be the addition of the National Rifle Association to Australia’s formal list of terrorist organisations, all but one of which are Islamist terrorists.
Under existing laws, the government can list an organisation as a terrorist group if it is “directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting or fostering the doing of a terrorist act.” The NRA’s widespread support for enabling ready access to firearms and watering down gun control laws to make it easier for terrorists to access powerful weapons easily easily fits indirect assistance. Given the tens of thousands of Americans killed by firearms every year, the NRA is the greatest friend jihadists have ever had.
What do you think the PM should do? Send your thoughts to boss@crikey.com.au
You are assuming that Morrison has the capacity to act/shout rapidly at the moment. After seeing the footage of the Al-Jazeera sting following on from last night’s Q&A, he may well be in the foetal position for most of the day. We should all be stunned that Australian political operatives have acted in this way. But we are not stunned and that says buckets about the state of play in politics at the moment.
I am not stunned by anything Ashby gets up to. He is a different bucket of flounder from any political operatives anywhere else in this country. And don’t we know there are some doozies amongst them, of all political stripes and hue.
Wasn’t it amazing at the time that the govt went after Slipper and not Ashby? Slipper was pretty innocent really, not so Ashby and he has been up to plenty since without getting into trouble.
And we, the taxpayers, are covering his salary
Yes, it would be a cynical and smart move for Morrison.
Mostly because the media would sit back and applaud his “principled” stance and wipe the slate clean of all the times he has been happy for his party to preference One Nation, been happy to work with them, echoed their white supremacist lines etc.
If Morrison seize this chance, an honest media would proclaim it for the cynical move it would be, but we don’t have one of those.
Luckily, I don’t think Morrison is either smart enough to do this OR brave enough to annoy the far-right parts of his own party who would see it as treason to shit on One Nation.
“Yes, it would be a cynical and smart move for Morrison.
Mostly because the media would sit back and applaud his “principled” stance and wipe the slate clean of all the times he has been happy for his party to preference One Nation, been happy to work with them, echoed their white supremacist lines etc.”
Surely that ship has sailed. He has had numerous opportunities to say that the LNP will preference One Nation last, but has avoided the question completely.
“one option he could pursue would be the addition of the National Rifle Association to Australia’s formal list of terrorist organisations”
Hilarious, but come on. You can’t be criminalizing an organization for expressing political views you don’t agree with even one as irresponsible as the NRA. You might as well declare the Republican Party of America and their lapdog the Liberal Party, as terrorist organisations for their role in starting the war in Iraq and indirectly creating ISIS.
Can’t agree Arky – declaring the NRA as terrorists would be a stunning move with world-wide implications,
Even Shorten would not have the balls to do it I reckon, you would need another Whitlam, or perhaps an Ardern, to do that.
Or a mad as Latham in truth
That isn’t balls, it is stupidity. No reasonable leader would do it, including Whitlam or Ardern.
Totally agree Arky…..it would be a howling at the moon type of gesture. Bernard’s been drinking the acid-spiked water supply again.
Context: Guns rights are enshrined in US constitution.
Assertion: Organisation protecting existing rights, and frequently victorious in the courts, is extremist.
Implication: Organisations seeking to undermine existing right is not extremist.
Verdict: Lazy bias.
Whilst I’m no fan of the NRA and it’s distorted view of the US constitution, I agree that calling them extremist is itself extreme. Calling them flawed / morally compromised, for sure.
I personally don’t care how others characterise the NRA so long as they never set up shop on these shores. Suffice to say that any organisation that is unmoved by the multiple deaths of schoolchildren and other innocents due to lax gun laws is not morally compromised – they are amoral, pure and simple. To even engage with these people for political donations demonstrates the depths of Ashby’s and One Nation’s own craven narcissism, dishonesty and amorality.
Except that they’re not content with trying to merely retain-& extend-gun ownership & carry laws in the US (no matter how many people are brutally murdered by their product each year), they actively seeking to undermine gun laws in other parts of the world, & have been trying it on for years-via the likes of Barnyard & Lyinghelm. How is that any different to China’s attempts to gain influence in Australia?
It’s not going to happen but there is an argument for it, especially if the NRA is trying to extend a “right” that the constitution of one country espouses in order to undermine much more basic rights to life and safety held dear in many other countries. Australia doesn’t hesitate to condemn as extreme aspects of constitution and law that exist in countries with which we disagree. We would count as extreme anyone seeking to introduce in Australia some of the laws current in North Korea, China or Saudi Arabia or the laws formerly in place in South Africa. The constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of Americans to bear arms was never meant to be applied as it now is in that country to the detriment of its people’s safety and right to life. The original intent wasn’t extreme; the present reality is.
Personally I’m longing for the day when only criminals and the militarised and politcised police forces of Australia have any access to guns, knives or knuckle dusters.
Remember knife nuts are bad too.
Wait no longer it’s here and the world did not implode. The state monopoly on legal violence is a necessary evil. Just ask the CCP.
Or the classical definition of the state:
A state is a political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly by use of force within a certain geographical territory. (Wikipedia)
China’s influence on Australia? By China buying all that dirt (minerals) ,although that is somewhat unfair given the Chinese also buy a lot of services from Australia and ensuring unbelievable prosperity for Australians Which can all be wiped out if our politicians continue to blindly follow the US which applies tremendous pressure on all vassal states to conform