Tim Fischer on the NRA and funding for Australian firearm owners
15 February 2000
In an interview with Margo Kingston, published in the Sydney Morning Herald on January 28, 2000, former leader of the National Party and ex-Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, claimed the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) had provided millions of dollars in funding for use against the Coalition Government:
"It got John Howard to realise how bloody much we'd been carrying in the bush on Wik and guns. I only put a padlocked cabinet in my house after Port Arthur. I'd been meaning to do it for years and I stand by what we did on guns. . . . The bloody NRA [National Rifle Association] ... some millions of dollars from them which came into Australia against us."1
On the following Tuesday (1/2/00), the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc. issued a press release inviting Mr Fischer to furnish the details of the alleged NRA funding. On February 8, we sent an e-mail to Mr Fischer's office asking for information about the NRA's contributions. What we eventually got was the following paper trail and no real answers:
- 8/2/200
Dear Mr Fischer,
We write concerning your recent claims in the Sydney Morning Herald on January 28, 2000, regarding National Rifle Association of America funds being directed against the Coalition Government following the adoption of the Australasian Police Ministers Council resolutions in 1996.
Could you please supply us with the full details of the funding in question? How much money did the NRA channel into Australia? To which groups were the funds directed and what exactly were they used for?
We have spoken to the article's author, Margo Kingston, who assures us you did make the comment and in the context reported.
We look forward to hearing from you on the matter.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Peake
Research Section
Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc.
- 9/2/2000
Dear Mr Peake,
This is to acknowledge your e-mail of February 8.
The quote is not exactly correct but I did refer to NRA assistance coming to Australia. At no time did I malign legitimate Aussie firearm owners going about their lawful business, which I will always support.
The NRA USA has a right to pursue its policies but no automatic right to promote automatics worldwide.
Yours sincerely,
TIM FISCHER MP
(Note: This response was almost exactly the same as one sent to a member who asked a completely different set of questions on 31/1/00 - Does Mr Fischer actually read his mail?)
- 9/2/2000
Dear Mr Fischer,
Thank you for your swift reply. Unfortunately, you failed to answer any of our questions. In line with your reported comments in the Sydney Morning Herald, could you please supply us with the full details of the National Rifle Association of America funding supposedly directed against the Coalition Government?
How much money did the NRA channel into Australia? To which groups were the funds directed and what exactly were they used for?
Given your claims in the Sydney Morning Herald, surely you would acknowledge that our queries are straightforward enough. We would expect that you would be able to provide answers without too much difficulty.
We look forward to hearing from you on the matter.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Peake
Research Section
Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc.
- 11/2/2000
Dear Mr Fischer,
We note that you have not replied to our request for information on National Rifle Association funding supposedly channeled into Australia, as per your recent comments in the Sydney Morning Herald, 28/1/00.
Given your very definite assertions in Margo Kingston's article, we find your lack of response both curious and disappointing.
We will of course pass the facts along to the 120,000 readers of our monthly "magazine.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Peake
Research Section
Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc.
- 11/2/2000
Mr Peake,
Mr Fischer will not be in Canberra until next Monday.
Perhaps you could re-mail your original request, which I will pass on to Mr Fischer.
Sue Cox
Personal Assistant
- 11/2/2000
Dear Ms Cox,
Thank you for your swift reply.
Rather than us re-mailing our original request to Mr Fischer when he returns to Canberra - a request we have now put forward three times - perhaps you could telephone Mr Fischer and advise him to respond post-haste, before we put the article we are currently preparing on his apparent inability to back up his claims to print.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Peake
Research Section
Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc.
- 11/2/2000
Unfortunately I am unable to contact Mr Fischer by phone today as he is travelling. I would need to fax your request to him.
Sue Cox
- 11/2/2000
Ms Cox,
Then we suggest you fax him.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Peake
Research Section
Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc.
- 14/2/2000
As I mentioned three e-mails ago, I no longer have the original question and that is what I have been asking you to e-mail me, but no doubt your publication has already gone to print.
Sue Cox
(Note: Ms Cox never said anything to us about no longer having the original questions.)
- 14/2/2000
Ms Cox,
Thank you for your reply.
The following is our original question to Mr Fischer:
In line with your comments in the Sydney Morning Herald 28/1/00, could you please supply us with the full details of the National Rifle Association of America funding supposedly directed against the Coalition Government. How much money did the NRA channel into Australia? To which groups were the funds directed and what exactly were they used for?
We are a little confused. The answer to our original request for information carried Mr Fischer's name at the bottom. With this in mind, we naturally assumed that the answer had come from Mr Fischer himself. Would we be right in assuming that this was not the case and in fact it was you signing on Mr Fischer's behalf?
The article has not gone to print yet and we would be happy to discuss Mr Fischer's SMH comments with him before it does.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Peake
Research Section
Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc.
(Note: We never received an answer about Ms Cox passing herself off as Mr Fischer.)
- 15/2/2000
Further to your additional e-mails, I reiterate the following: I do not believe I said millions of dollars but I stand by my claim funding flowed from elements of the NRA and elements within the USA to elements in Australia including Queensland and South Australia in respect of gun policy and the national debate on same. This is no big deal in one sense as it has been previously acknowledged publicly.
I remain in support of the legitimate shooter going about their law-abiding business. I regard this correspondence as closed, as I have nothing to add.
Tim Fischer
(Note: We are not aware of any previous public acknowledgement that the NRA has provided funds to undermine the Coalition - or anyone else for that matter.)
- 15/2/2000
Mr Fisher,
With all due respect, you have not answered any of the specifics we put to you. Which elements of the NRA gave how much to whom in Queensland and South Australia in respect of guns policy and the national debate on same?
To be blunt, it looks as if you will not answer our questions with specifics because your claims in the SMH (28/1/00) were unfounded. We will put all the facts before our members and let them make up their own minds.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Peake
Research Section
Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc.
Home > Research archive > 2000 > Tim Fischer on the NRA and funding for Australian firearm owners