John Howard’s Paliamentary Secretary Senator Nick Minchin
Just what do people in this country have to do to have their case heard? How do senior politicians and bureacrats escape having to justify their actions in a public forum?
When Labor's Duncan Kerr was the Federal Justice Minister, he made the statement on radio: "More guns will mean more crime and more violent crime." This statement is demonstrably incorrect, so a SSAA member felt he should challenge it.
Having written to Minister Kerr, the member was answered with only a form letter signed by Mr Daryl Smeaton. Subsequently, the member addressed his queries twice to Mr Smeaton, once by certified mail, and still received no answer.
After the election of the Howard Government, the member took his concerns to John Howard's Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Nick Minchin. A correspondence developed.
It said in part:
That the SSAA member was concerned by the lack of meaningful response to previous correspondence and the issues which had been raised;
That the ability of Mr Smeaton to maintain an objective stance in the firearm dispute must be called into question following Mr Smeaton's appearance as a witness on behalf of noted anti-gun campaigner John Crook at a defamation trial in Melbourne;
That following an earlier letter of complaint from the member, Mr Minchin's Electoral Officer advised that the Office of the Attorney-General was pleased to have received the information that had been supplied and that Mr Smeaton was no longer employed in a position which would give rise to any further concerns;
That the member had been told Mr Smeaton's work for the Government as an adviser on firearms was ended and that steps had been taken to ensure that "he would not bob up somewhere else";
That three weeks later an article appeared in the Herald Sun (June 6th, 1996) which suggested the statements regarding Mr Smeaton's position had been incorrect;
That a further letter had been sent by the member to Mr Minchin requesting an explanation for what had happened. Mr Minchin had declined to provide that explanation.
The member concluded his correspondence by expressing doubt that the case for private firearm ownership had been put at Government level, and that he could not see any evidence that the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Secretary had tried to correct this, despite being urged to do so.
In response to this, the best that Mr Nick Minchin could manage was:
It appears that you now want to blame me personally for what you believe is the Federal Government's inappropriate response to the Port Arthur massacre.
In these circumstances I see little point in continuing correspondence, and suggest that you direct your inquiries directly (sic) to the office of the responsible Minister, the Hon Daryl Williams QC MP.
Must one conclude that under the Howard Liberal Government there is no way for a constituent to be heard when that constituent wishes to raise facts which support a position at variance with the Government's policy? Should not a Federal Senator who is presented with facts relating to an alternative policy position thoroughly investigate those facts?
As if this was not enough, there later came to the SSAA member a letter from Mr Minchin, still in his capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to John Howard, saying this:
The Attorney-General, Hon Daryl Williams, has advised me that he has conducted a considerable examination of the issues raised.
As a result of these inquiries, Mr Williams is satisfied that no inappropriate actions were carried out by Mr Smeaton.
Was the impact of Mr Smeaton's possible anti-firearm opinion upon policy formulation ever addressed? How? By whom? If it has been, was the person who supervised that investigation the self-confessed anti-firearm Attorney-General himself?
Perhaps most distasteful of all is the way Mr Minchin appears to have adopted the attitude that it is not possible that someone could walk in off the street and be correct about an important matter. It is as though the only responsibility of Mr Howard's Parliamentary Secretary is to ensure that whatever system the government has put in place, right or wrong, is allowed to continue without debate or criticism. Constituents who are annoying should, presumably, simply go away.
Home > Research archive > 1997 > Who's Driving the Gun Grab? > John Howard’s Paliamentary Secretary Senator Nick Minchin