In a strange turn of events, it may be John Howard who provides the defining moment of Anthony Albanese’s second term as prime minister.
As the country mourns the tragic loss of life in the antisemitic attack at Bondi, Albanese has responded with calm and sympathy, calling for love and unity to prevail in the face of division.
This is welcome. But, at the same time, many Australians are also looking for action, for strong words that resonate with the anger that is being felt across the community.
There is no shortage of discontent at the circumstances surrounding the Bondi massacre and how Sajid Akram was able to obtain a firearm licence and guns, which he and his son Naveed allegedly used to open fire on Jewish families celebrating Hanukah at the beach.
In times of crisis, people look to their leaders for action. They want to know that something is being done to prevent such horrors from happening again.
This was exactly the mood Howard tapped into 30 years ago after the Port Arthur massacre, acting swiftly to announce sweeping gun law reform that has since defined his legacy.
Not only did Howard deftly read the public mood, he made a political calculation that he could take the risk; he had the support of the then Labor leader, Kim Beazley, all state and territory leaders, and a comfortable parliamentary majority.
After the Bondi tragedy, the country’s leaders appear to understand the desire for leadership – agreeing on Monday at national cabinet that “strong, decisive and focused action was needed” on gun laws.
The New South Wales premier, Chris Minns, has seized the moment, conveniently forgetting his recent push to establish a new hunting authority, to announce on Wednesday new gun restrictions.
But the action agreed at a national level was far from what was advertised on the tin, with Albanese announcing that national cabinet had agreed to “renegotiate the National Firearms Agreement” and to “develop options” on a range of new restrictions.
Albanese said he was prepared for a fight with the gun lobby but it seems unlikely that a fight over “developing options” will capture the public imagination or the political narrative any time soon.
The announcement felt like any other bureaucratic communique issued by national cabinet, or Coag before it: hardly the type of bold response a grieving community is yearning for.
It is this absence of strong, swift national action in which a vacuum was created for Howard, an apparent octogenarian master of Australian retail politics, to step in.
Further gun reforms? Despite every gun safety advocate in the country arguing the current framework is deficient, Howard called a press conference to dismiss this as a “diversion” and hammered Albanese on his lack of “moral leadership” in the face of antisemitism.
As the treasurer, Jim Chalmers, emphasised on Wednesday, the government is “capable of dealing with both serious issues at once” and does not view action on antisemitism and gun laws as an “either-or”.
While reluctantly conceding there were “too many guns in the community” (along with a ramble about a battered German Luger gun he used to own), Howard derided Albanese’s gun law announcement as a “brief dot-point presentation”.
He was not wrong.
More concerning for Albanese is that the political frontrunning from Howard has dramatically shifted the debate and now gives conservative politicians permission to oppose further gun restrictions without damaging the Howard legacy. His intervention almost guarantees that any meaningful gun reform at a federal level will be politically impossible.
It dashes any chance of bipartisanship on gun reforms – an essential ingredient that allowed Howard to stare down the gun lobby after the Port Arthur massacre, with reforms further enabled by the often overlooked importance of the support of the then Nationals leader, Tim Fischer.
At first blush, Howard’s stance looks to be at odds with his legacy as the architect of the country’s strict gun laws, and substantially it is when there is clearly more work to be done.
But by denying Albanese the opportunity to further strengthen that framework, Howard also perversely protects his own legacy – by pretending guns are no longer the problem.
Shifting the political debate to a divisive culture war is exactly what Howard and his conservative fellow travellers are hoping for, and the success of this could yet define the next election.
It’s sad that Howard seems prepared to abandon the ideals of his gun reforms for the sake of a dog-whistle to help the Coalition’s short-term political prospects.
Albanese will be nervous about taking on the gun lobby after seeing the political brawl triggered by the Western Australian government’s new firearms laws, despite WA police suggesting this would have prevented the Bondi attack from occurring had it been in place in NSW.
And, as Albanese hesitates, the early positioning of the gun lobby and conservative MPs is clear and united: “this is about terrorism, this is not about guns”, said Graham Park, the head of the Shooters’ Union.
The Nationals leader, David Littleproud, said the same: “this isn’t a gun problem, it’s an ideology problem”, while Pauline Hanson said she would not support any further restrictions on gun owners, calling instead for a “real debate” on radical Islam.
There are some early signs that will be sending shivers down the spine of Albanese and his Labor MPs: the sheet unfurled out of a Bondi window saying “welcome to Albo’s Australia”; the applause that Hanson received when laying a wreath at Bondi; and the political rhetoric from conservative firebrand Andrew Hastie demanding to know “who are we letting into our country?”
The anti-immigration right is currently emboldened in a terrifying way and the Bondi massacre is already being hijacked by these groups to further push their cause.
There is a risk that, in entering into a debate over gun laws, Albanese finds himself embroiled in a debate over migration, which is exactly where his political opponents want him.
But this risk only amplifies if Albanese retreats, refusing to show courage and leadership at a time when the country so desperately needs it.
