Striking back from the Senate
by Paul Peake
Australian Shooters Journal
June 1998
When it comes to the notion of Australian politics and the treatment doled out to firearm owners, one of the most frequently asked questions is: what can be done about it? With the possibility of a Federal election before the end of the year, the answer is that given a chance, there is quite a bit that firearm owners can do to voice their displeasure. The most important place to start is with the realisation that electors have two votes.
Entrenched loyalties and a general dissatisfaction with both major parties mean that it is often difficult for some shooters to vote for one particular faction ahead of another, even if they are unhappy with the way a particular group has dealt with the issue of firearm regulation. At the Federal level, however, this is where the notion of a second vote for the Senate can provide a valuable avenue through which firearm owners can express their legitimate concerns.
It works like this. In order to win a seat in the House of Representatives a candidate must gain better than 50% of the vote. Available resources and dominant partisan sympathies within a community make it extremely difficult for any but the major parties to have a realistic chance of winning in a given electorate, bearing in mind the fact that the group which holds the majority of places in the House of Representatives usually forms the government. It is a different story in the Senate, however, where each state elects twelve senators on a collective basis - though usually only half that number at a time - while each territory is entitled to two.
Leaving the mechanics of the Senate 'quota' system to one side, in the normal course of events this means that instead of the better than 50% of votes required to win a seat in the House of Representatives, potential senators only require around 14% of the total vote in their state to get over the line. In a full Senate election, which occurs when there is a double dissolution in which both Houses of Parliament are dissolved, the quota drops even lower to roughly seven per cent.
The Senate was originally conceived as a states' house of review. However, this vital role is now largely redundant as a result of strict party discipline and practices such as appointing senators to ministerial posts so that their first concern becomes the party Executive rather than their home state. Nevertheless, the Upper House still offers a potentially powerful channel through which shooters could have a marked impact on Federal firearms policy into the future.
Apart from the much lower percentage required to elect a representative to the Senate, the Upper House has come to play an increasingly important role in the passing of legislation and the review of government administration. Policy trade-offs between government, the opposition and the smaller parties in the Senate have become commonplace - a feature likely to increase with time, considering that it is doubtful that either of the two major parties will ever dominate the chamber again in absolute terms.
Given the changing nature of the Senate and the fact that their support might well be required from time to time in order to pass or reject particular legislation, as is often the case with the minor parties currently in place, a few senators, truly sympathetic to the concerns of firearm owners, could have a significant impact on the way firearm-related issues are treated by the Federal Government. This could provide shooters with a powerful instrument with which to protect their interests, as dispensations for firearm owners could be weighed against the policy goals of both Government and Opposition.
With these points in mind, two states stand out as obvious starting places for shooters to work towards the election of firearm-sympathetic representatives: Tasmania and Queensland. While Tasmania has a relatively small population of around 400,000, it is nevertheless entitled to a full complement of twelve Senators. This fact has seen minor parties gravitate towards the Apple Isle as they have come to realise the potential for getting candidates elected on what in mainland terms would be considered a fractional number of votes. Several current Tasmanian Senators actually gained their seats with fewer than 30,000 primary votes - considerably less than the population of some major metropolitan suburbs. The situation holds great promise for concerned firearm owners and responsive candidates.
As the state with the consistently lowest polled percentage of support for the Federal Government's anti-firearm edicts, Queensland offers another potentially important setting for the election of pro-firearm senators. While the gross number of votes required to get a candidate elected is obviously higher than in Tasmania, given the population difference, many Queenslanders who do not even own firearms have come to see the government's treatment of gun regulation as a heavy-handed attempt by Canberra to impose its will on the states. This means that it could be that much easier to convince them to support senatorial candidates whose first concern is for the protection of their state's rights, of which the prerogative to set firearm laws forms an important facet.
Other states and territories offer similar potential in varying degrees. New South Wales, with a pro-firearm member already in the state's Upper House, has an obvious head start, and Victorian shooters could maximise on their resident, high profile firearm lobbyists. The important point, however, is that firearm owners can maintain their philosophical sympathies to a particular party or group in the House of Representatives while putting their second vote to very good use by giving it to a candidate, or group of candidates, prepared to safeguard the interests of firearm sports generally through the Senate. A handful of concerned, firearms-literate senators could do much to offset the current anti-shooting, pro-United Nations leanings of the present chamber.
The prospect of an election before the end of the year, especially one involving a double dissolution, means that firearm owners across the country may get a significant opportunity to voice their dissatisfaction with the Federal Government's handling of the gun issue. By giving serious thought to the question of where they place their all important second vote for the Senate, shooters could do much to ensure that any future government actions against the interests of responsible firearms ownership in Australia come with a considerable political price tag attached. Understanding the possibilities is the first step in any good campaign to win back what has been usurped.
The question of politics and just what can be done about the treatment of firearm owners invariably raises the question of just who to vote for in the Senate. The first place to begin is by considering the question of policy and asking which parties, groups or independent Senate candidates have the preservation of private firearms ownership as a definitive part of their platform. This does not mean the familiar sort of line we have come to know only too well - 'Oh yes, we support private firearms ownership, but....' Rather, shooters should be looking for policy statements which clearly spell out what a party, group or independent candidate stands for and just what they are prepared to support and, more importantly, work towards when it comes to the private ownership and use of firearms.
The second thing to look for is potential candidates who have well established credentials as far as support for shooters' interests is concerned. These might include notable lobbyists who have been at the forefront of the fight for firearm owners' legitimate freedoms, or perhaps sitting members, some of whom may be in state parliaments, but who may nevertheless be part of a larger group with senate ambitions, or perhaps members who have consistently spoken up for private firearms ownership, despite being shunned by their parliamentary colleagues and the media, or perhaps those who have themselves been involved with firearms in either a professional or sporting capacity and understand the real issues. No doubt several individuals come to mind and shooters might well consider giving them, or their respective organisations, a measure of support in any bid for the senate.
Coupled to this, firearm owners should be looking for a proven track record, especially amongst candidates who might already be holding a seat. Over the past couple of years we have all seen many instances where politicians have claimed to support shooters' concerns, some even threatening to cross the floor and vote against their own party if this or that was not forthcoming. Despite all the rhetoric, however, when it came right down to it how many eventually put their hand up and followed the party line? - almost all.
Nevertheless, in the Federal sphere there have been a few notable exceptions and firearm owners need to take the time to consider just which sitting Federal members have remained committed to the interests of shooters throughout the entire 'debate'. The main question to keep in mind is this: how many of those presently sitting in the Senate, or the House of Representatives for that matter, who have claimed to support shooters' interests, have been prepared to turn hyperbole into action when it came time to actually speak up or vote on particular issues?
The most important thing to remember is that in order to secure the future of private firearms ownership in Australia, shooters must increase their political influence. Bitter experience has taught us that when it comes to the subject of guns, politicians will by and large adopt whatever policy outlook they perceive to be the most salable and to their best electoral advantage. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in the recently mooted changes to firearm laws in a number of states.
Many of the political luminaries who moved with indecent haste to endorse and then implement the Australasian Police Ministers Council edicts in 1996 did so chiefly because they believed it to be in their electoral interest. Indeed, for many of them the notion of a supposed voter backlash was held up as justification enough for persecuting responsible firearm owners; many times we heard the cant, 'the Australian people demand' etc. etc. A number of these same people are now prepared to readily defy Canberra's dictates for precisely the same reason, as they face forthcoming state and Federal elections mindful of the notion that shooters have remained extremely determined and have become much better organised in the interim.
The way forward is clear. As far as responsible private firearms ownership is concerned, whatever guarantees there are to be had must be written up in a language that legislators can plainly understand. Rational debate and logical argument are of limited value if policy makers and the media are not prepared to make room for them and for the most part politicians will always look to serve their own ends on the issue of firearms regulation, well ahead of rationality and a fair assessment of the situation.
If the freedom to own a firearm and enjoy firearm sports without prejudicial government interference is to be assured into the future, then the only effective recourse is through the ballot box. The possibility of a Federal election before the end of the year brings with it an important opportunity for shooters to make a significant start on securing that future. Beyond a simple appreciation of the potential power of their second Upper House vote, there must be a willingness on the part of firearm owners to actually seize the chance to strike back and turn it to their advantage. With all that has befallen law-abiding shooters in Australia over the past two years, the question of just who to support in the Senate is perhaps best answered with the old adage: 'by their works ye shall know them'.
Home > Research archive > 1998 > Striking back from the Senate