Comment: When you view Pauline Hanson's One Nation stated law and order policy and view the stated gun policy referred to below you will see how unethical the editorial reporting in News Limited's Courier Mail is - just before a key state election.
Editorial,
The Courier Mail, Tuesday 19th May 1998
Pauline Hanson has less to fear from a proliferation of guns than most people. The controversial Independent Queensland politicians enjoys full time, tax-payer-funded security from the Australian Federal Police that is at least the equal of that provided to Prime Minister John Howard. she acknowledged her vulnerability to attack in a bizarre “video from the grave” screened last year. Therefore, her advocacy of virtually unregulated gun laws is made from a position of unique privilege.
As the first salvo in what is likely to be an opportunistic push for disaffected National Party voters in the looming state election, it is a policy certain to attract support in rural and regional Queensland. At the same time, many conservative voters in south east Queensland will find the prospect of unravelling the national consensus of gun control reached in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre a frightening thought.
Ms Hanson’s first detailed One Nation policy is morally repugnant and a danger to public order. The idea that gun owners be allowed licence for life cannot be tolerated. It is imperative that gun owners face regular checks to ensure they remain fit to own deadly weapons. As well, the proposition that guns banned after Port Arthur - such as self-loading rifles, pump-action shotguns and military style weapons - be put back on the market with minimum control is an invitation to turn Australia into the kind of gun-obsessed society that has evolved in the United States.
The politics of Ms Hanson’s opening election pitch point to a poll which will be difficult for the National Party to control. National Party director Ken Crooke’s warning that a Labor government might introduce an even stricter regime of gun controls might strike a chord outside Brisbane but could backfire against incumbent Liberals in south-east Queensland. The National Party’s dilemma in the coming election is balancing the competing interests of two distinct constituencies: its own rural heartland where support is shifting across to One Nation in alarming proportions and a more progressive audience in and around Brisbane.
Whether the issue is guns, native title, tariffs or economic rationalism, the National Party and its Liberal Coalition partner cannot have it both ways. As the Liberal Party found with its foolish, premature pronouncement on preferences for One Nation, there is a heavy price in Brisbane and surrounding areas for direct appeals to Ms Hanson’s supporters. Saving National Party votes in safe conservative electorates could spur a loss of vital Liberal backers in key Brisbane marginal seats.
Many Liberals believe that the principled is also the pragmatic - as was discovered in the debate over One Nation preferences. People tend to see through cynical, opportunistic politicking and reject those who espouse blatant vote buying. Given that a parliament in which One Nation hold the balance of power is a possible outcome in the state poll, the Coalition and Labor should declare their position on gun control. Would they support any watering down of the national consensus and if so, what changes would they back?