One Nation adviser David Oldfield is a cunning opportunist. He picks a slow news day to reveal that his policy for the up-coming NSW election. And the policy itself is pitched to a slender market in the hope that he can catch enough votes to take a seat in the NSW Upper House.
He said he would give the voters the toughest possible stand on law and order. This follows the last NSW election which saw an unseemly auction between Bob Carr’s Labor Party and John Fahey’s Liberals Party on who would put up the toughest platform on law and order. Mr Carr attempted to disguise his policy as tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. The result in the past four years has been an increase in the jail population but little change in crime. The evidence suggests that tougher penalties provide little or no deterrent. Indeed, the evidence points the other way. Those societies that provide compassion, leniency, a sense of proportion and concentrate on rehabilitation seem to have lower crime rates.
Mr Oldfield promised a referendum to reintroduce mandatory death sentences. It may make Mr Oldfield feel good, but it will do nothing to reduce the murder rate. The murder rate is more closely correlated with the availability of guns, racism, poverty and inequality than severity of punishment. The United States, with the death penalty, has a far higher murder rate than any European country or Canada, where there is no death penalty.
Mr Oldfield also proposes the right to use lethal force against home invaders. This, of course, will necessitate weaponry in the house. Inevitably it will cause more accidental death and injury than it prevents. We will see similar tragic events as in America where armed home-owners shoot at family members or harmless visitors. Mr Oldfield is pandering to fear in the hope of attracting votes. Home invasion is a rare crime and Mr Oldfield’s “”solution” is an over-reaction.
Mr Oldfield has proposed sending immigrants convicted of serious crime back to the place of their birth, even if they have become Australian citizens. He says that upon conviction citizenship should be revoked. The is a very dangerous policy. It is the first step in the creation of two classes of citizen: those liable to be deported and those who are not. Australia must continue with its present policy that once a person becomes a citizen he or she joins the Australian community as an equal in every respect.
He also showed that he wants young people to be second-class citizens by proposing youth curfews. Australia should stand for equality before the law.
Mr Oldfield also accused “”foreigners” of abusing legal aid and pointed the finger at “”boatpeople”.
Mr Oldfield is appealing to base prejudice and ignorance in society. The fact that someone can be a serious candidate for elected office with such policies is of concern. It highlights even greater need for education and a need to show that these policies will not achieve their stated aim — a crimeless, harmonious society. To the contrary they will only aggravate, alienate and divide people in society. That can only lead to more crime and insecurity, not less.
Mr Oldfield seems to misunderstand the nature of civil society. He wants to revert to a tribal, vengeful Australia. Most Australians, of course, will utterly reject his view of the world. The trouble is that that might not be enough.
It would be nice to be able to ignore Mr Oldfield. However, the last election showed he was capable of polling between 10 and 15 per cent of the vote. It is therefore better to expose the folly and atavism of his position than ignore it.