The Public Health Association of Australia
by Paul Peake
Australian Shooters Journal
February 1999
In July 1998, the Australian Shooters Journal published an article entitled 'Public Health Stealth' which focused on some of the people involved with the PHA, such as Sydney University academics Stephen Leeder and Simon Chapman, and their close connection to the anti-gun lobby. The piece also highlighted a number of the organisation's debatable "health" policies including "International Trade" (1) and "Media Ownership", (2) together with the fact that it receives a very substantial amount of public funding with which to press its various agendas. The Public Health Association's narrow position on firearms includes a total ban on all private handgun ownership, compulsory community armouries, a national database of shooters (which sounds remarkably like the Howard government's Crim Trac proposal) and an extra impost on firearm licence fees in order to pay for a new National Firearm Authority to oversee the confiscation and destruction of privately held guns. (3)
At the time the original article went to press, the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia had recently taken out membership of the PHA in an attempt to bring some balance to the organisation's anti-firearm platform. Shortly after the feature was published, however, the SSAA received a letter from the PHA's Executive Director, Lynne Flemming, demanding an explanation as to why the SSAA would "publish such unpleasant material" (4) about the group. The SSAA replied, pointing out that it was anxious to ensure that moneys allocated to the PHA were not used to further the activities of private anti-gun groups. This was an important factor, given that the Public Health Association is widely recognised as a sponsor of the anti-gun lobby (the Coalition for Gun Control's website boasts the Public Health Association of Australia and New Zealand as one of its supporters) (5) and several of the organisation's more prominent members such as Associate Professor Simon Chapman are closely connected to anti-gun organisations.
The Sporting Shooters Association was contacted a month later and informed that it had been expelled from the Public Health Association on the grounds that it was "guilty of conduct detrimental to the interests of the Association." (6) The SSAA requested a detailed explanation for the expulsion and the opportunity to appeal the decision before a General Meeting of the PHA.
The Public Health Association's rationale for removing the SSAA centred on six main points. At no time, however, did the organisation deny any of the facts presented in the original Australian Shooters Journal article and the SSAA maintains that it did not publish anything about the PHA or particular members of the organisation which cannot be substantiated via the public record.
So is the Public Health Association an integral part of the anti-gun lobby in Australia? Are taxpayers' funds, including those of law-abiding shooters, used by organisations rooted in the health industry to work against the interests of private firearm owners? You be the judge. Compare the PHA's position on the issue of secure storage and bans on particular types of firearms to that of the Australian Democrats and the Coalition for Gun Control. The following are direct quotations taken from the official literature of the various groups concerned.
Public Health Association of Australia, Policy Statements 1998: Firearm Injuries:
The Executive Committee....further advocates:
8.8 Development, encouragement and requirement of secure storage of exempt firearms or their firing mechanisms away from domestic premises between uses. In urban and suburban areas establishment of "community armouries" may be appropriate. (7)
Australian Democrats - Election policy releases 1998: 'Gun Control or Gun Culture':
The Democrats support:
3 Taking the national uniform gun laws agreed to in 1996 one step further by introducing a ban on all firearms in urban areas. This would mean that all guns - both longarms and handguns - would be required to be stored in a secure gun repository and only removed for limited periods where a genuine reason for their use could be proven. (8)
Simon Chapman - 'Ignore the gun nuts, the ban is working', The Australian, November 13th, 1998:
...."Moreover, such a principle could be used to pay for the storage of guns in high security community armouries. Guns could be checked out for hunting or target shooting and later returned." (9)
And on the question of prohibiting certain types of firearms -
Public Health Association of Australia, Policy Statements 1998:
Firearm Injuries
The Public Health Association of Australia believes that:
1. ....There are no acceptable reasons for members of the public to possess military style firearms and handguns. (10)
Australian Democrats - Election policy releases 1998: 'Gun Control or Gun Culture':
The Democrats support:
2. Bringing the laws and treatment of handguns into line with those in relation to longarm firearms agreed to at the Police Ministers' Council Meeting in 1996. (11)
National Coalition for Gun Control - Media Release October 28th, 1996:
....Regarding the continued availability of large-calibre and semi-automatic pistols, including those used in the Dunblane massacre in Scotland....the Coalition will be pushing for Australia to follow the UK in banning these weapons. (12)
When it comes to questions of policy, the degree of uniformity between groups like the Public Health Association, the Australian Democrats and the Coalition for Gun Control is extraordinary; bear in mind that what has been outlined represents only a small fraction of the various organisations' total anti-gun agenda, most of which is alike. The PHA has what in the SSAA's view are draconian policies which cover practically every aspect of firearms ownership and regulation, including the ongoing "monitoring" of individual owners as part of a "national register". (13)
Even more troubling is the amount of public funding which flows to the Public Health Association of Australia each year. According to the office of the Minister for Health and Family Services, the PHA has received over $890,000 since 1996. Shooters would be justified in asking just how much of their tax money has been used to undermine their sport.
Judging by its reaction to the Australian Shooters Journal article of July, 1998, it appears that the Public Health Association would like to be left alone to run with the fox while at the same time being allowed to hunt with the hounds. The organisation seems to wish to support Australia's burgeoning anti-firearms fraternity, and presumably, by extension, its highly selective use of data and its emotional sleight-of-hand - all without close scrutiny, while at the same time passing itself off as a studious group largely above the glaring one-sidedness which accompanies most of the anti-gun lobby's efforts. The fact is the PHA cannot have it both ways.
One of the six points put forward by the PHA in its attempt to justify expelling the Sporting Shooters Association centred on the closing passage of the July, 1998 article. The original paragraph is well worth reiterating:
Concerned shooters need to be both informed and watchful. The Public Health Association of Australia's demands clearly demonstrate that the real struggle is not with organisations like the Coalition for Gun Control or Gun Control Australia. By and large, they are little more than stalking horses for the well funded and highly organised anti-gun elements within the public health industry, academia and various state and Federal bureaucracies. The real battle is with the anti-firearm advocates ensconced in positions of influence and power within obscure government administrations and university departments, many of whom have been steadily working, in some cases for years, against the interests of private firearms owners in Australia.
1. Public Health Association of Australia, Policy Statements 1998, p67.
2. Ibid. p70.
3. Ibid. p34.
4. Flemming, L (1998, October 2nd), personal Communication.
5. http://www.health.su.oz.au/cgc/cgcinfo. HTM
6. Flemming, L (1998, October 2nd). personal Communication.
7. Public Health Association of Australia, Policy Statements 1998, p34.
8. Gun Control or Gun Culture, http://www.democrats.org.au/election98/policies/guncon.html
9. Chapman, S (1998, Nov 13th), "Ignore the gun nuts, the ban is working", The
Australian.
10. Public Health Association of Australia, Policy Statements 1998, p33.
11. Gun Control or Gun Culture, http://www.democrats.org.au/election98/policies/guncon.html
12. National Coalition for Gun Control - "6-month report card on the new gun laws
- Could do better", Media Release, October 28th, 1996.
13. Public Health Association of Australia, Policy Statements 1998, p33.
Home > Research archive > 1999 > The Public Health Association of Australia