Australia’s federal and state politicians are facing a critical test at present. The test is whether they can avoid a double dissolution and a referendum on the guns issue. Both would be costly and disruptive and both should be avoidable. Prime Minister John Howard clearly left the referendum possibility open last week. And yesterday his deputy, the National Party leader Tim Fischer, said his party was ready to go to the polls in the event of a double dissolution after next month’s budget. “”We have obviously got to be alert to the possibility,” he said.
We have here a battle of wills. On the referendum question, the Western Australian, Queensland and Northern Territory Governments are pitched against the Federal Government. The states want gun laws that permit the possession of crimped semi-automatics. Mr Howard is determined against it. If those states do not give way, the only way to achieve uniform gun laws would be for a referendum to give the Federal Parliament the power to make a national gun law. Such a referendum, which would inevitably pass (barring foolish wording), would cost $50 million. It would be an expensive, distractive exercise. The leaders of those government should carefully weigh up their stand. If Mr Howard’s hand is forced, they must take the full blame for the waste.
Even if they refuse to change their minds on the grounds of national good, they might at least change their minds on the ground of electoral backlash. They might lose more votes than they gain by pursuing the pro-gun stand.
The same might be said of the other great test of wills on the Australian political scene at the moment: the tussle between the Government and the Senate over the fate of the privatisation of part of Telstra; industrial-relations reform; ATSIC and some other pieces of legislation. The Democrats, Labor and the Greens should think very carefully before rejecting the central tenets of the Government’s legislation.
Like the action of a few state premiers on guns, the action of the Democrats on Telstra and industrial relations would be futile. The likely result of a double dissolution would be a strong enough win in the House for the Government that it would command a majority in the event of a joint sitting, so the Bills would go through. Moreover, it might well be that the Democrats would lose some ground in a double dissolution.
Indeed, Labor should see it the same way. In the long term, there is more in it for Labor to allow through the main elements of Government legislation that were put to the electorate before the election. Then, when it is in a similar position as the present government, it will get the main elements of its legislation through.
The Senate has long since ceased to be a states’ house; if it ever was one. It should be a house of review; but not of obstruction. It should question and amend matters of detail in matters that have been before the electorate, but reserve blocking only for major legislation that has unnecessarily come out of the blue. No-one can say that of Telstra or industrial relations.
If Australia is forced into a double dissolution or a referendum on guns, our politicians can regard themselves collectively as having failed the people who elected them.
If Australia is forced to the trouble and expense of a referendum on what is not a hugely significant matter of governance, it might be worth adding a question of greater moment: a change to the Constitution to allow for a less cumbersome and expensive method of resolving differences between the Houses than a double dissolution.