Editorial
prepared by the SSAA research team
When the new gun laws were enacted, we law-abiding firearm-owning Australians were not accorded our right to be heard. The Howard-Beazley bipartisan government brought in wasteful, ineffective and misguided legislation.
This special issue of the ASJ has been prepared after many thousands of hours of research by the SSAA. There is good evidence that flawed information is being used to misrepresent facts relating to firearms not only in Australia but overseas, and our country is one of the leaders in the distribution.
Large numbers of academics and career bureaucrats have been working behind the scenes, feeding each other in a closed information circuit, ultimately persuading an Australian Prime Minister with a ready-made package of "research" conclusions that it would be a good idea to squash legitimate firearm ownership.
As an Australian voter, are you happy about this?
These questions need to be asked:
What right has the Federal Government to make decisions affecting the states when the "research" information used is demonstrably imperfect?
What are state politicians doing to hold the Federal Government responsible for its poor use of resources?
How has it come about that the firearm owners of Australia, up to three million of us, could be ignored in the consultation process?
How have officials like Chris Miles, MP, acting as spokesperson for John Howard, been allowed to quote the work of the discredited, such as Kellermann and Killias, as though they are the only authorities?
Why have federal bureaucrats been allowed to get away with ignoring the massive body of widely available independent firearm research?
Why was there no independent inquiry into the best way of instituting new laws - or into the events that led up to the Port Arthur shootings?
And perhaps most important of all, how much is the Federal Government bypassing this country's democratic processes to subjugate us all to the dictates of the United Nations? How many agreements are being enforced about issues central to all Australians when they have never been through Parliament?
What Politicians and Bureaucrats Tell Us
"The United Nations has
played no role in Australia's new gun laws."
Lisa Gates, Policy Adviser to the Deputy Prime Minister, April 4th, 1997
"The specific answer
to your question (of whether the UN influenced Australia's gun laws) is no.
"
John Olsen, Liberal Premier of SA, April 4th, 1997
"Unfortunately there
is not a definitive before-and-after study on the effect of firearm control
on firearm-related crime. Statistics compiled in Australia over the next five
or ten years will be of great interest to people around the world in this regard"
[another way of saying they don't mind turning this country into a goldfish
bowl so they can calmly observe the results of their experiment - Ed.].
Chris Miles, MHR, Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the PM, Dec 18th, 1996
With regard to Australia's obligations to the United Nations on gun laws....it comes in the preamble to the 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, which came into force in Australia in 1983....
It is clearly a reference
to the reduction of armed forces maintained by nations, not firearms by individuals."
Terry Ryan, Senior Policy Adviser to National Party Leader Tim Fischer, March
12th, 1997
"I am sure that Australia
is not under any sort of external pressure. The Prime Minister was caught in
a dreadful situation. He had to respond in a very short period of time.... This
is not an external matter, it is a matter for Australians only. I must assure
you of that."
Alan Cadman, Federal Member for Mitchell, Chief Government Whip, March 3rd,
1997
"The story about UN agreements
is just not true but it does help to keep tempers frayed."
Lou Lieberman,
Federal Member for Indi, April 17th,1997
"The United Nations,
notoriously, has no teeth and is unable to enforce any resolutions unless individual
governments decide to take action in their own territories... The UN resolution
(to implement 'national measures in order to check the illicit circulation of
small arms') is not aimed at you."
Barry Jones, Member for Lalor, Vic, Feb 26th, 1996
What United Nations Bureaucrats and Officials Really Say:
"Australia would
support the preparation of an appropriate declaration of principles as a means
of reducing the number of firearms in the community".
Economic and Social Council, Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice,
Vienna, 21-31 May, 1996
"(There is a need to
ensure) the control and monitoring of arms allowed to civilians by means of
a computerized national register listing all persons holding a permit to own
or carry arms, as well as all relevant information on the individual, the arm
permitted and the use the individual intends to make of it."
General Assembly, Disarmament Commission Working Paper, 18 April - 9 May, 1994,
submitted by Luis Jamamillo, Colombia
"Creative ways of approaching the proliferation of light weapons, such as gun buy-back programs, could reduce the overall supply.... Unless there is a global norm which decries the consequences of light weapons, it will be difficult to control this class of weapons....Focusing on particularly harmful or indiscriminate weapons can also help mobilize public outcry....
"Domestic gun control
efforts....(would likely be improved by) the active role of media in increasing
public awareness, especially through photographs....(and by) the ability and
resources to compile essential information and make it available rapidly to
activists."
British American Security Information Council, Project on Light Weapons, Controlling
Global Light Weapons Transfers: Working Toward Policy Options, Susannah Dyer
and Dr Natalie Goldring, San Diego, 16-20 April, 1996
Attorney-General Statement
On June 6th, 1997, the Office of the Attorney-General issued a letter saying this:
"In relation to your statement (about firearms control) that Australian politicians are following a 'higher agenda', please accept my assurance that no such agenda exists."
On the same day, in correspondence with a firearm owner in a different state, the same office sent another letter:
"Finally I advise that Australia in fact co-sponsored the United Nations resolution at the Ninth Congress of the Prevention of Crime in Cairo in 1995 in relation to the international study of firearms regulation conducted by the United Nations...."
Which of these obviously contradictory statements is incorrect? How can statements such as these originate from the same person in the same office on the same day?
Home > Research archive > 1997 > Who's Driving the Gun Grab? > Editorial