Donald Trump shot: PETER VAN ONSELEN on how Anthony Albanese compared an Aussie example with the shooting of the US President... so was it a bit of a long bow, Albo?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has compared the assassination attempt on former US President Donald Trump’s life to ongoing pro-Palestinian protests outside Australian MP’s offices, including his own, declaring that ‘these things can escalate’.

Is that a long bow to draw? If not, does the rhetoric need to be backed up by actions to reduce the risk of Australian protests escalating?  

The PM was speaking yesterday at Parliament House in Canberra, responding to the news that a gunman on a rooftop had attempted to assassinate Donald Trump. A bullet grazed the former President’s ear.

One rallygoer was killed and two others are in a critical condition. The gunman was shot dead by the Secret Service, and the former President was rushed away from the venue while being shielded from the threat of further attacks.

‘I've expressed my concern that people who just dismiss actions outside electorate offices, these things can escalate’, the PM told reporters yesterday.

‘Which is why [the protests] need to be called out unequivocally, and opposed. The sort of incidents that we've seen outside some electorate offices are inappropriate.’

Victorian Labor MPs Josh Burns and Peter Khalil have been targeted with aggressive actions by protestors, including dumping fake dead bodies out the front of the offices. 

Yet these protests remain ongoing, disrupting the activities of the constituent offices.

While there is a world of difference between someone firing eight shots with a long range rife into a political rally from a nearby rooftop - in a country with easy access to guns that has a history of assassinating presidents and prominent politicos - and protestors camping outside of Australian electorate offices, Albo wanted to make the point that such situations can and do escalate.

Which is why ‘they need to be called out and opposed, unequivocally’, he said. But what does that mean exactly?

In the case of eight-month-old protests outside of his own taxpayer funded electorate office - which have closed it down since January, and continue to do so - Albo is still refusing to move the protestors on. Even though they are camped on the premises with their signs affixed to it.

Just last week his spokeswoman and former Guardian Australia political editor Katharine Murphy described protests outside the PM’s constituency office as peaceful and appropriate in a democracy: ‘Citizens in a democracy have a right to peaceful protest’, the PM’s spokeswoman told Daily Mail Australia.

The PM echoed those sentiments in his remarks yesterday: ‘People can express their views democratically, whether that be in favour of issues or against issues…peaceful demonstrations are fine’.

So it remains clear and unequivocal that Albo won’t be demanding protestors outside his own office be disbanded - even though the AFP says that they pose a security threat that prevent the office reopening.

So what does he mean when he says these protests need to be called out and opposed ‘unequivocally’?

How can a prime minister warn of the risk of escalation yet do nothing tangible to prevent it? Merely using words rather than actions.

Perhaps all Albo is really trying to achieve is a delicate political balancing act: he’ll continue to rhetorically condemn pro-Palestinian protests when addressing the national media.

That allows him to also take aim at the Greens who support them, at the same time as quietly defending their right to protest, so as not to upset pro-Palestinian voters in his own electoral backyard.

And Albo will hope these protests just don’t escalate, despite pointing out the risk that they might. If they do, he’ll refer all and sundry to his rhetoric, not his actions.

Walking both sides of the street can be tricky, but it becomes that little bit harder to navigate when comparing Australian protests you’ve described as peaceful to an assassination attempt on a former US President.

Nonetheless Albo is giving it a red hot go.

If he wants to draw a parallel between such events, and be taken more seriously when doing so, he should disperse the Australian protests he claims risk escalating.

If, however, he prefers to let them continue to sit on the proverbial grassy knoll in front of electorate offices such as his own, perhaps Albo shouldn’t compare the threat they pose to what transpired in the US over the weekend.

Lest his false equivalence be called out, unequivocally.

The PM seemed to recognise the false equivalence of his remarks yesterday. This morning on Melbourne radio is was walking his remarks from yesterday back. Quizzed whether comparisons between what has happened in the US and outside Australian electorates is valid, Albo shifted ground:

'Oh, no. Look, I think we need to be very, very careful to draw a distinction...I don't think we should draw a straight line between [pro-Palestinian protests in Australia] and what we saw in the United States yesterday', the PM said. 

Perhaps Albo was simply using the royal 'we'?