The Western Australian Premier was out of court arguing that the Prime Minister was “”childish” to use the threat of a referendum in order to get uniform laws in Australia to ban semi-automatic firearms and that the threat was a very poor political move. Western Australia was one of three states and territories that put up resistance against putting into law the sentiment of an overwhelming majority of Australians for tighter firearms control. In the face of that childish and politically poorly judged resistance, John Howard signalled that he was prepared to use the provision of the Constitution that provide for resolution of tussles of power between the federal and state levels of government … a referendum for constitutional change that would give the Commonwealth the legislative power to fulfil the people’s wishes if the states and territories are not prepared to.
Richard Court may well protest that his Cabinet in Western Australia had not been affected by Mr Howard’s determination … or to use Mr Court’s word “”threat”. He said that in the interest of co-operative federalism his state was prepared to do more giving than taking to achieve uniformity. If so, his co-operative federalism was not done with the good grace that is normally associated with the word “co-operative”. Indeed, it was done with petulance verging on the childish. Mr Court asserted that the Howard way of dealing with firearms control would result in fewer people turning in their arms and a higher number of illegal weapons being held in the community. He argued that the tighter law would result in greater civil disobedience. Surely, if he sincerely believed this he would have insisted on Western Australia allowing crimped weapons. That he did not showed that either he yielded to the referendum threat, or that he did not sincerely believe his own argument about people disobeying the tighter law.
It add up to Mr Court mouthing a lot of inconsistent drivel to satisfy pro-gun and pro-states rights people in his own constituency. Maybe that is good politics in Western Australia.
Federally, Mr Howard played the better politics. The reason is that Mr Howard was responding the national picture and the legitimate demand by the broad Australian electorate to be free of semi-automatic weapons.
The only two legitimate concerns about greater gun control have been those of sporting shooters and farmers. These two demands have been properly met by Mr Howard’s proposal. This week we have witnessed a young man getting a gold medal at the Olympics using a gun that would be allowed under Mr Howard’s proposals. Mr Howard has also received the support of farmers’ representatives. High-powered rifles for mass vermin extermination will be permitted under stringent conditions. Otherwise, farmers do not need semi-automatics for either vermin control or humane stock shootings. And they will certainly be helped by tighter gun control to ease the problem of shooting vandals who trespass on their land, target shooting signs and killing stock. Responsible farmers will support Mr Howard.
Mr Court’s begrudging acquiescence to Mr Howard’s stand in face falls in line with that of Northern Territory Chief Minister Shane Stone: that a referendum might result in an even tighter Federal gun laws than those on the table now, especially given that the Democrats Cheryl Kernot might demand that as a price for easy passage in the Senate. At least Mr Stone agreed with realism and good grace.