One of the prices to pay for democracy and liberty is that the voice of prejudice and ill-reason has to be heard. With the price tag comes the price that extremists, the ignorant and the prejudiced are entitled to stand for election. Those voices should not be silenced by force of law or any other force. Tolerance and freedom also means tolerating those whose views we detest. Thus Pauline Hanson and her One Nation acolytes have every right to speak and stand for federal and state parliaments.
But there is a corollary to this. There is a moral duty on true democrats to try dispel ignorance and prejudice and to fight extremism. There is a duty not to give aid nor succour to these views.
The Liberal and National Parties in Queensland have failed in this duty by giving the One Nation Party preferences over the Labor Party for 88 of the 89 seats in next month’s Queensland election. One Nation espouses a view that Aboriginal Australians get too much from the state and are therefore privileged when it is quite apparent that Aboriginal Australians are on average worse off than other Australians on virtually every social, health or economic indicator known to statistics. One Nation grossly exaggerates the extent of Asian immigration and portrays a view that Australia is being “”swamped” by Asians. These views are of their nature racist and should be rejected.
Ordinarily the expression of these views would not matter much. Similar views have been expressed by representatives of extremist and fringe groups throughout Australia’s history. But on this occasion it is different. It is different because by an accident of events, the views are being espoused by a Member of Federal Parliament. Mrs Hanson was an endorsed Liberal candidate for the Queensland seat of Oxley at the last federal election. It was a very safe Labor seat, so few in the Liberal Party, quite reasonably, took the pre-selection with any seriousness. When she started espousing her anti-Aboriginal, anti-Asian views, the Liberal Party, quite commendably, disendorsed her, but it was too late to get off the ticket and she appeared on the ballot paper marked Liberal.
It seems, however, that the disendorsement had much more to do with a fear of losing some middle-ground voters nation-wide, rather than a statement of principle. Since then, the Liberal Party and its leader have failed to live up to the legacy of Menzies and others in the party who believe in the “”broad church”, as distinct from mouthing it as a platitude.
Mrs Hanson had the floor of the national Parliament to espouse her bigotry in her maiden speech and Mr Howard failed to make a forceful rebuttal. Now the Liberal Party has gone one further in giving the One Nation Party preferences over Labor in its how-to-vote card. This could result in one or more One Nation candidates being elected, especially in hitherto strong Labor seats where a One Nation candidate might come ahead of the National or Liberal candidate and win the seat on their preferences.
Labor, on the other hand, has put One Nation last. It means that if One Nation beats a Labor candidate in a hitherto safe National or Liberal seat, the One Nation candidate could not win on Labor preferences. That was a principled stand and one the Coalition should follow in the federal poll.
The danger is that One Nation might hold the balance of power and, despite the words of Premier Rob Borbidge now, he might prefer coalition with them than losing power.
Mr Howard made a weak appeal to Queenslanders not to vote for One Nation. The reasons he gave were not the party’s racism and divisiveness. There was no stand on principle. Rather he said One Nation hand no magic-wand answers or easy solutions to difficult problems. Gosh.
Mr Howard said One Nation voters they might inadvertently be voting for some policies that were not in Australia’s interest. Once again there is no appeal to morality or principle, just self-interest. It is not leadership.