Some very important questions
by Ted Drane
Australian Shooters Journal
December 1996
In the time following the introduction of John Howard's gun laws, the Sporting Shooters' Association began making representations to those it thought ought to listen.
The reality is that nobody was prepared to negotiate. All Australians were told that the government knew what was good for the people, and the laws would make for 'a safer Australia'.
During the course of the
inquiries, the Association wrote to the office of the Speaker in the Federal
House of Representatives, in Canberra. The following points were made:
1. Passing gun laws
does not bring down homicide rates.
2. Independent researchers who show this have been ignored in published Parliamentary research material.
3. The research methods used in the United States of America have resulted in over 20,000 gun laws which have not slowed gun crime there, and as a result of this a changed approach has begun in that country, which is beginning to bring down murder rates.
4. Equivalent research groups exist in Australia and the USA, and both use the same small group of health-advocacy proponents exhaustively, to the exclusion of the many independent researchers whose conclusions clearly demonstrate the ineffectiveness of their approach.
5. When the SSAA addressed
a letter to the Parliamentary Research Service asking whether any of the independent
research work was available in the Parliamentary Research Library, Dr June
Verrier, who is styled as the Head of the Parliamentary Research Service,
sent back a two-sentence letter saying:
Thank you for your letter
of 4 July 1996 regarding the Parliamentary Research Service publication After
Port Arthur - Issues in Gun Control. The information you have provided has
been noted and passed to the relevant specialists for consideration in any
further work on this subject.
This letter had no recognizable connection with the questions asked. It was plain that the Research Service was not going to answer the question of what authorities were available in its library.
The SSAA letter to the speaker then went on to say that while firearm owners would willingly make any reasonable sacrifice in the name of public safety, the SSAA and the Institute of Legislative Action have ample evidence to show that the proposed measures will not achieve their stated aims, and this is being ignored.
The letter made the point that John Howard claims by passing gun legislation to be preventing Australia from suffering America's problems, when in fact, by ignoring the evidence and being quite unable to show one country where gun legislation helped lower crime rates, he and the Attorney General are sending Australia straight down that road. We are now doing what America has tried and found not to work.
It ended by asking the Speaker to make disclosure of the information path, to show which group of bureaucrats or advisers within Parliament has caused the independent research to be withheld from the process of deciding Australia's gun laws.
The Response ------------ The Parliamentary Speaker, The Hon Bob Halverson MP, replied with the letter reproduced below. It is a most extraordinary document.
In the first place, the individual document, After Port Arthur - Issues in Gun Control in Australia, was not the focus of the SSAA inquiry; the information blockage issue is clearly more important than the individual means by which it has been achieved.
What was called for was - and is - a dispassionate look at the problem of achieving an improvement in public safety. We are no closer to the objective.
The letter tells us that the Parliamentary Research Service is careful; this may be true.
It tells us that the Service exists to provide papers helping "Members and Senators to contribute to debate on issues should they so wish". One would presume that what would be offered to aid this process would be facts, and not inaccuracies or half-truths - unless our politicians are expected to confront their constituents while armed with other than the full details.
The core of the Speaker's response to the SSAA is contained in the sentence: "It was only after the Prime Minister had publicly announced the Government's intention to secure uniform national gun laws (ie after the policy formulation was completed), that the Parliamentary Research Service began to prepare its paper."
Given that the policy had been determined prior to the preparation of the Parliamentary Research Service publication, a number of questions need to be asked.
1. Does it make sense to have a commitment to a particular policy direction before completion of research as to whether that policy direction is appropriate or justified?
2. Is a research paper like the Parliamentary Research Service publication able to be prepared independently from the Government's pronouncements on the topic, particularly when the issue is as controversial as matters of gun law, and when the Government has already wedded itself to policies that supposedly address the issue?
3. What are the terms of reference issued for the preparation of a Parliamentary Research Service paper? Is the Service expected to provide "evidence" to support the government's position (that is, in this case, the already established anti-firearm view)?
4. If a Parliamentary Research Service publication is intended to deal with all of the issues being debated, why was there not in that publication a proper selection of sources of information including widely available statistical data which contradict the purported gun effect of the proposed gun legislation? If the Government relies on the Parliamentary Research Service publication to support its policy when that policy has been determined before the publication is prepared, then we as a community group are entitled to answers to these questions. If you by any chance are struck by the idea that what has been done here is unfair, unreasonable, undemocratic, high-handed or inefficient, then try to remember your feelings about it at the next election.
Footnote: it has just been revealed in a study by four independent researchers that the English Home Office did not release statistical information to Lord Cullen for the Dunblane Enquiry. This data that was withheld had been gathered by the Home Office itself and showed up as incorrect the official Home Office assertion that crime is higher in areas where there is greater access to legal firearms in the hands of licensed shooters.
Dear Mr Tidswell
Thank you for your letter of 22 August 1996 concerning the Parliamentary Research Service publication After Port Arthur - Issues of Gun Control in Australia.
The Parliamentary Research Service takes considerable care to ensure accuracy and balance in its publications and has a range of quality control arrangements including internal review workshops, the use of external readers where time permits and clearance of papers through research directors and the Head of the Research Service.
In relation to the specific issues raised in your letter, I am advised that the Government's position on gun control was widely known well before the PRS paper was published. Govemments use many sources of advice and research in the process of developing public policy and these contributions extend well beyond the Parliament. It was only after the Prime Minister had publicly announced the Government's intention to secure uniform national gun laws, (ie after the policy formulation process was completed), that the Parliamentary Research Service began to prepare its paper.
The primary purpose of the Research Service's general distribution papers is to brief Members and Senators on current issues. As such, the papers are intended to help Members and Senators to contribute to debate on issues should they so wish. The Parliamentary Research Service is not a participant in the public policy process nor in the debate over specific policy issues.
Yours sincerely
BOB HALVERSON 31-10-96
Copy held SSAA National
Home > Research archive > 1996 > Some very important questions