Letter from SSAA member on the dangers of international UN conventions
29 August 1997
The Editor
Australian Shooters Journal
PO Box 2066
KENT TOWN SA 5071
Dear Sir,
I have just started to digest the contents of your Special Edition Insert and feel sick to my stomach. The platitudinous responses of so many of our pollies are especially worrying; are they really so dumb, or are they just telling lies?
The facts of the matter are this. If Australia is a party to an international "declaration" on firearms regulation (not even a formally signed treaty), and despite it not having been formally adopted into Australian domestic law, it is highly likely that the High Court will adopt the view that the terms of the declaration apply to decisions taken by administrative bodies within Australia.
As an example, take the hypothetical case of you applying for a permit to purchase a fiream. You already hold a firearms licence and just want to replace one of those little .22 semi-autos you lost in the confiscation scheme. Apparently, according to the new laws and our politicians you are entitled to the permit as you have a good reason to justify the purchase which you now put to your local member of police. You, and we all have been assured that genuine sporting, agricultural or professional reasons will be acceptable. Bad luck! Your application is refused. Something about a new guidelines coming through form the Commissioner's Office to "clear up some of the ambiguities the legislation has created".
"I'll appeal" you say. "I'll appeal to the new tribunal they established." After talking to your solicitor about this, you are a sadder and much wiser peson. It has been explained to you that, as a consequence of Teoh's case, which involved an appeal against a deportation order in an immigration matter in 1995, in the event of any ambiguities, the courts will favour a construction of domestic law which accords with Australia's intenational obligations. This follows the prima facie intention of the Federal Parliament, even though the subject of the declaration has not been incorporated into our domestic Commonwealth or State law.
It gets worse! If, say, the federal Attorney-General on his own, not necessarily the Parliament or even just the Cabinet of the Government, decides to enter into a new treaty, let's call it the International Convention for the Disarmament of Civilians, the Commonwealth then has an obligation to adhere to it and reflect it in all its domestic law. "But firearms legislation is a State matter", you say. Well, my friends, this was the three card trick that John (I'm a zealot) Howard pulled on us all. He kept jurisdiction with the States to avoid claims for compensation on just terms under the Commonwealth Constitution. Now, as a consequence of its new international obligations under the convention, the Commonwealth has jurisdiction and any legislation it enacts will "cover the field". State legislation, as much as it conflicts with the new Commonwealth laws, no longer applies.
"Nothing personal", the pollies say as one (the very few left who still possess their personal integrity being totally drowned out by now), "but we do have to keep the faith with the international community. They really expect us to do that."
God save us from all zeaots and their ilk.
Yours sincerely
"A former believer"
Copy held SSAA National
Home > Research archive > 1997 > Letter from SSAA member on the dangers of international UN conventions