The Australian Democrats
by Paul Peake
Australian Shooters Journal
January 1999
In both rhetoric and operation it is clear that the anti-gun lobby's objective is the prohibition of firearms. The strategy is to promote incremental regulatory changes which appear modest when viewed in isolation, but nevertheless accrue over time to gradually undermine private gun ownership. The type of measures which the lobby advocates - unreasonable training requisites and waiting periods, expensive storage requirements, exorbitant licence fees, reduced access to land, restrictions on hunting, complex procedures for obtaining additional firearms and irrational restrictions on particular types of guns - are all intended to make lawfully acquiring and using firearms as convoluted and costly as possible, thereby discouraging prospective new shooters and weakening the resolve of existing ones.
The anti-gun lobby's propaganda is cleverly directed and very cunning. It draws heavily upon a range of emotional appeals and the selective presentation of data. The lobby readily employs the most base of marketing techniques while presenting itself as socially responsible. It plays upon the community's general ignorance of and lack of interest in firearms, cloaking its philosophy in a number of ostensibly reasonable guises - guns as a 'health issue', guns as a 'youth issue', and so on. It subtly advances its agenda through a network of supporters in the media, academia, bureaucracy and community organisations, who actively promote its platform and shield its arguments from close scrutiny. Until recently, however, the anti-gun lobby in Australia lacked the explicit support of a political organisation. During the run-up to the last Federal election this changed dramatically when the Australian Democrats become the movement's new patrons.
Founded by disaffected Liberal Party MHR Don Chipp in 1977, (1) on a philosophy of supposedly keeping the major parties honest, the Democrats have steadily moved from being centralist in their outlook to being generally thought of as on the far left of Australian politics. The party now has a long history of support for feel-good postmodern causes, including dark green environmentalism, the immigration and ethnic industries, the homosexual lobby and now, gun prohibition. Those in the party are no strangers to the cause. During the 'gun debate' which followed the Federal government's 1996 "buyback" confiscation scheme, the Democrats, under then leader Cheryl Kernot (who subsequently threw in her lot with the Labor Party), lobbied for a referendum to hand over to Canberra responsibility for firearm regulation. (2) Among the party's anti-gun policies established prior to the Federal election is Peace and Disarmament Policy No. 41, calling for a total ban on all firearm-related publications; taken to its logical conclusion it would effectively outlaw even the local gun club newsletter.
Their previous position on firearms notwithstanding, the Democrats' new "Gun Control or Gun Culture" (3) statement contains some of the most dogmatic and draconian proposals ever put forward by a political party in Australia. These include surrendering command of firearm regulation to the Federal government, and the old gun control chestnut of a complete ban on all firearms in urban areas. We are given to understand that the party's new platform was drafted with the help of the Coalition for Gun Control and the organisation's Internet site is given as a reference source for some highly questionable figures contained in the body of the statement.
So how realistic are the Democrats' policies, or is it simply a case of cheap rhetoric for the sake of political mileage? Under Australia's constitutional arrangements, responsibility for firearm regulation resides with the various states and territories. Any change to the system would require the support of both houses of parliament and a referendum in which a majority of electors in a majority of states voted in favour of the proposal. (4) Given that only eight out of 42 referenda have passed the double majority requirements in almost 100 years, most concerning administrative questions which have enjoyed the general support of both major parties, a successful outcome on the issue of firearms is by no means assured.
That is not to say that under the right political circumstances it would not be possible, but if a referendum were conducted on the issue of gun regulation it would be hard to deny a vote on a range of other contentious topics. For instance, surveys consistently show that Australia's current immigration program is unpopular; why not a plebiscite on that, or United Nations treaties, or any one of a dozen other public policy questions equally as weighty as firearm control?
It is interesting how groups such as the Australian Democrats make much of the apparent popular support for stringent gun laws when trying to justify their narrow agenda, but fail to show the same zeal for the vox populi when it comes to other controversial issues.
Moreover, given that the Australian Federal Police number in the hundreds as opposed to the thousands, who would be responsible for administration if firearm control were ever ceded to Canberra? Obviously, the various states and territories would have to continue to oversee the day to day management and regulatory demands, such as the issuing of licences and the inspection of firearms. But with the Commonwealth ultimately controlling the program the states would be unlikely to see any of the fees while nevertheless sporting all of the difficulties. So apart from the vital question of state powers, why would a state or territory government want to support a referendum outcome where the result might well be an expensive, inconvenient waste of their individual police resources for no gain either financial or political?
The second plank of the Democrats' statement, a ban on firearms in urban areas, raises some pertinent questions. The party proposes what amounts to community armouries as an alternative to firearms being kept in private residences, the obvious premise being that ordinary Australians cannot be trusted with guns in their homes. With an official figure of around 2,600,000 firearms registered across the country, any community-based storage program would require a massive outlay of resources to build and maintain appropriate facilities.
According to the recently released Annual Report of the South Australian Police 1996-97, there are almost 92,500 licensed firearms in the central Adelaide police division alone. (5) Apart from the physical space required to store 92,500 guns, what of the administrative burden? Imagine tens of thousands of shooters arriving at Flinders Street headquarters in downtown Adelaide at 5pm on a Friday, all wanting to sign their firearms out for the weekend. What of the implications for organised crime? Thousands of guns all conveniently stockpiled in one place could bring a new dimension to the concept of one-stop-shopping from the criminal perceptive. In a recent article in The Australian, the anti-gun lobby's Simon Chapman even suggested that local gun shops should form the nucleus of community armouries. (6) Perhaps Chapman hasn't visited too many gun shops.
So have the Democrats really done their homework on the ethics, costs and practicalities of their new policies? Or is it simply a case of antigun-lobby hyperbole designed to make more insidious compromises appear reasonable to policy makers and an unwitting public? Firearm owners should not sit around waiting to find out. It would be a mistake to wait until the next federal or local state election before considering the various firearm policies on offer and their implications.
The time for complacency is long past. Shooters have to be constantly alert to moves intended to undermine their rights and be prepared to lobby ceaselessly. Contact your local Australian Democrats' parliamentarian and ask for justification of their party's position. Ask them to explain why their policies are designed to disadvantage responsible shooters. Ask them to explain just how their ill-conceived program will work, what it will cost and how persecuting thousands of law-abiding firearm owners will have any meaningful effect on crime. Ask them why they reject the Constitution and the principle that duly elected state and territory governments are the appropriate bodies to regulate firearms. Ask them why their policy statement presents only selective data and ask them why they believe average Australians cannot be trusted.
Firearm owners need to keep in mind that electoral support for the Australian Democrats is factional. The organisation survives on the preferences from both major parties, without which they would be little more than a political footnote.
Alert your local Labor and Coalition representatives to the Democrats' flawed policies, pointing out that you will not support them if they assist the party to disarm hundreds of thousands of responsible Australians.
At best, the anti-gun lobby represents a well-meaning but nevertheless grossly misguided element. At worst, it characterises a small, conceited and authoritarian segment of the community who are convinced they possess superior insight and believe their mission is to save the bewildered herd from itself. Firearm owners can no longer afford to allow them to go unchallenged.
| Federal Members | |
| Senator Meg Lees (SA) 722 Anzac Highway, Glenelg, SA 5045 Fax: 08 8295 8986 |
Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja
(SA) 212 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Fax: 08 8232 7601 |
| Senator Vicki Bourne (NSW) 56-70 Phillip Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 Fax: 02 9247 9681 |
Senator Lyn Allison (Vic) 62 Wellington Parade, East Melbourne, Vic 3002 Fax: 03 9417 1690 |
| Senator Andrew Bartlett
(Qld) Suite 14B-7/421 Brunswick Street, Fortitude Valley, Qld 4006 Fax: 07 3252 8957 |
Senator John Woodley (Qld) Suite 14B2-7/421 Brunswick Street, Fortitude Valley, Qld 4006 Fax: 07 3252 9851 |
| Senator Andrew Murray
(WA) 111 Colin Street, West Perth, WA 6005 Fax: 08 9481 1679 |
|
| State Members | |
| The Hon.
Arthur Chesterfield-Evans MLC (NSW) Fax: 02 9230 2866 |
The Hon. Mike Elliott
MLC (SA) Fax: 08 8410 4171 |
| The Hon. Sandra Kanck
(SA) Fax: 08 8410 4171 |
The Hon. Ian Gilfillan
MLC (SA) Fax: 08 8410 4171 |
| Helen Hodgson MLC (WA) Fax: 08 9486 4086 |
Norm Kelly MLC (WA) Fax: 08 9486 4085 |
1. Jaensch, D. The Politics of Australia, South Melbourne, Macmillan, (1994) p306.
2. Armstrong, G. "Guns poll hint by Coalition", (1996, July 15th), The West Australian.
3. "Gun Control or Gun Culture", http://www.democrats.org.au/election98/policies/guncon.html
4. The Australian Constitution, Section 128.
5. Annual Report of the South Australian Police, (1998) p87.
6. Chapman, S. "Ignore the gun nuts, the ban is working", (1998, Nov 13th), The
Australian.
Home > Research archive > 1999 > The Australian Democrats