John Armstrong's opinion: Ardern's handling of crisis impressive, but she musn't back away from gun ban

March 19, 2019

Jacinda Ardern would not announce the changes however, as "some detail" needs to be worked through.

Why has the Prime Minister chosen to keep the country waiting for a few more days - possibly another week - before revealing whether the Cabinet has formally agreed that military-style semi-automatic firearms are to be banned forthwith?

Have Jacinda Ardern and her Labour colleagues suddenly lost their bottle? Have they chickened out of doing the one thing that must be done above everything else in the aftermath of the slaughter of the innocents at two Christchurch mosques last Friday afternoon?

Are they frightened of finding themselves copping a backlash from rural New Zealand? That is irrational. Labour does not win enough votes in rural areas to be perturbed about losing them.

Given National is the party whose core constituency is farmer-based, Simon Bridges would seem to be the one who has reason to worry about a rural revolt considering he has pretty much flagged his party’s backing of such a ban.

Or is New Zealand First, the party which has traditionally made the biggest pitch for the votes of the near 250,000 New Zealanders who hold a gun licence, haggling with Labour in order to get something in return for publicly backing a ban on weapons which ought be confined strictly to the battlefield. 

Surely not. Winston Peters has acknowledged acceptance on his part that the gun laws will change.

So far, however, he has not indicated how they will change. And neither has the Prime Minister.

She has made mention of the Cabinet having subsequently made “in principle” decisions about changes to the gun laws.

But she has stopped short of confirming that the banning of military-style semi-automatics was one of those “in principle” decisions made by the Cabinet.

What is so difficult about revealing the areas where the focus is on the adequacy of existing policy? The detail can come later.

It is understandable that Ardern wishes to present a united front — one reason why the Deputy Prime Minister was in evidence at the Prime Minister’s press conference on Monday.

If Ardern was willing to play hardball, she could simply ignore Peters. She will not need New Zealand First’s votes to get legislation tightening up the Arms Act through Parliament.

Peters is powerless to block such a measure. National’s votes will be sufficient for a ban on military-style semi-automatics to take effect. But Ardern does not seem keen to play hardball.

It is pure conjecture to suggest it, but Ardern’s reticence may be motivated by concern that the gun lobby will do its utmost to stymie change, including quite conceivably seeking a court-imposed injunction to block any any law or regulation making illegal the possession, purchase, sale or even the advertising of the firearms in question.

In that context, it would make no sense to tip the gun lobby off in advance as to the timing and subjects of shootings-related announcements. 

There is also considerable political advantage to be gained by drip-feeding the Cabinet’s decisions.

It serves as an additional means for Ardern to dictate and dominate the political agenda.

As the major party in the governing triumvirate, Labour must be careful not to be clever for clever’s sake, however.

The price of saying hardly anything of substance on Monday beyond confirming that there will - surprise, surprise - be a formal inquiry into the shootings along with - surprise, surprise - a memorial service for the killers’ victims was to foster a profound sense of anti-climax. 

So far, Ardern’s handling of the tragedy cannot really be faulted. That is no surprise either even if she has consciously or unconsciously followed the script for responding to national calamities pioneered by John Key following the two Christchurch earthquakes.

Like Key, she understands that the prime role of the prime minister is to unite the country in times of adversity - another reason for avoiding visible differences becoming apparent in the fabric of the governing coalition.

Ardern, however, has taken things a step further. She has made “they are us” her signature phrase. 

That epithet could hardly be simpler.

When uttered by the country’s leader, those three words - when used in such conjunction - carry both the power and potency necessary to be able to puncture holes in the thick walls built of fear and prejudice and which until now have been impenetrable barriers to any two-way communication between those who subscribe to the faith of Islam and the rest of New  Zealand.

Likewise her donning of a black scarf to cover her head out of respect for the Muslim community.

That said, Ardern’s performance will more likely be judged by her rewriting of the country’s gun laws.

The yardstick will be the radical reforms of John Howard who was Australia’s premier at the time of the Port Arthur massacre in the 1990s.

Matching Howard’s efforts will require the banning of imports and sales of military-style semi-automatics.

It will require the outlawing of the possession of such weapons.

On the evening of March 15 the Prime Minister also says at least 20 others were seriously injured.

There needs to be heavy penalties for those who fail to comply.

Along with such stick, there should  be some carrot.

There needs to be a mandatory buy-back scheme which financially compensates owners who turn in their weapons to authorities to render them unusable. There will need to be an amnesty for anyone handing in a gun which is already classified as illegal.

Along with the Attorney-General David Parker, Ardern has hiked public expectations such that many people clearly now assume that banning military-style semi-automatics is a fait accompli.

Dashing those expectations would go far beyond a failure of delivery. It would amount to a failure of leadership.

It is inconceivable that Ardern has buckled, especially given the weight of public opinion is overwhelmingly backing a ban.

The, so far, vague talk a possible compromise to keep Peters happy would see these instruments of evil granted exemptions which would enable them to be used in a very limited number of circumstances.

That cannot be allowed to happen. There must be a comprehensive and watertight ban of these weapons which serve no useful purpose.

Sadly, there will never be a better opportunity to cleanse the country of this blight.

To borrow Ardern’s election slogan, let’s do this. The victims of last Friday’s bloodbath deserve nothing less.

SHARE ME

More Stories