Gun politics in Australia
Encyclopedia : G : GU : GUN : Gun politics in Australia
| Gun politics | ||||||||||||||||||
|
In Australia, gun politics are subject to rather different considerations and circumstances from gun politics in other countries. High levels of legitimate firearm use for hunting, the control of pests and feral animals, and target shooting, combined with relatively low levels of violent crime have kept levels of Government concern regarding civilian firearm ownership historically low. However, in the last two decades, following several notorious mass killings, both State and Federal Governments have enacted increasingly restrictive firearms legislation.
History
Settlement to 1980s
Australia has a long history of legitimate firearms use, in recent decades mostly for the purposes of agriculture, recreational hunting and pest control.However, in earlier times Australian colonists also used arms for protection from aborigines and bushrangers; in duels, the last in 1854; in armed rebellions, such as the Castle Hill Rebellion in 1804 and the 1854 Eureka rebellion. A strong volunteer military tradition was established, and Australians learned to value marksmanship both as a strategic military asset, and as a beneficial accomplishment for the ordinary citizen.
From the landing of the first fleet on January 26, 1788 there was conflict with aborigines over game, access to fenced land, spearing of livestock and ultimately the killing of settlers and retaliatory murder of aborigines.
Arms control measures were instituted from the first in the colonies. Arms issued by the authorities were occasionally misused against colonists and aborigines, resulting in further control measures. For example in January 1796, David Collins wrote that 'several attempts had been made to ascertain the number of arms in the possession of individuals, as many were feared to be in the hands of those who committed depredations; the crown recalled between two and three hundred stands of arms, but not 50 stands were accounted for'. Christopher Halls 1974, Guns In Australia,Paul Hamlyn Pty Ltd Dee Why NSW.
The Eureka Stockade in 1854 arose as a result of Government and police abuses against gold miners. American diggers were a significant part of the armed defense when a large force assaulted the miners stockade. Five soldiers and twenty-two miners were killed.
From the 1850s to the 1950s, Australians developed a strong volunteer tradition in preparing defense against possible invaders, and expeditionary forces in most British wars. From this arose an enthusiastic civil marksmanship movement, a form of military reserve supported under the Defense Act until as late as 1996. This movement exists to this day in the fullbore Rifle Clubs affiliated with the State and National Rifle Associations of Australia http://www.nraa.com.au/. The highest trophy shows the significance of this sport to the nation: the Queen's Prize.
During World War I, the Great Depression and World War II, game animals, in particular rabbits, provided an important food supply and source of income for rural Australians. From settlement into the 1970s Australian and immigrant families developed new land farms, and hunting provided security of food supply in sometimes desperate economic circumstances.
In 1920 Australia, Canada and Great Britain were concerned about the rise of Communism and imposed restrictions on handguns which have increased to very severe control over the succeeding decades. In NSW handguns were effectively banned from the time of World War II but the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games sparked a new interest in the sport of pistol shooting and laws were changed to allow the sport to develop.
Rifles and shotguns were considerably less restricted in Australia. Gun laws were always the responsibility of each Colony and later, of each State; the Commonwealth has no constitutional authority in this area, but has control of imports via Customs and Excise legislation. State gun laws varied widely; in Western Australia restrictions were severe even for sporting rifles and shotguns, while in Queensland and Tasmania longarms could be bought with no restriction.
Fully-automatic rifles have been banned in Australia since the 1930's (1991 in Tasmania). In the 1940s and 1950s, Cold War concerns about ex-military rifles falling into the hands of communist radicals led a number of states to place restrictions on the legal ownership of rifles of a military calibre while at the same time, allowed firearm owners who are members of rifle clubs and military rifle clubs to own ex-military rifles. The Australian state of New South Wales is a prime example of these laws that were introduced in Australia during the 1940's and 1950's. In the 1970s and 1980s these restrictions were relaxed and military style rifles (both bolt-action and semi-automatic) once again became widely available except in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. By the 1980s, the relative popularity of shooting and hence the prevalence of firearms in society began to drop slightly, perhaps due to ever-increasing urbanisation.
1987 mass killings
In 1987, the Hoddle Street massacre and the Queen Street massacre took place in Melbourne, Victoria. In response, several Australian states required the registration of all guns, and restricted the availability of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. However, firearm laws in several states, including Queensland and Tasmania, remained relatively relaxed.Port Arthur massacre
The gun control debate was significantly changed after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Thirty five people lost their lives in this spree killing, when Martin Bryant opened fire on tourists with two military-style semi-automatic rifles: an AR-15 and a L1A1 SLR which he illegally acquired. The event was deeply traumatic for the Australian population, both due to the manner in which the killings were carried out, the sheer number of dead, and the location — the small state of Tasmania, known as the 'Holiday Isle' and a peaceful rural area. For Prime Minister John Howard, who stated that he 'hated guns', it provided an ideal opportunity to introduce sweeping firearms legislation reform, which had already been drafted at a series of Police Minister's meetings from 1990 onwards. Due to the structure of the Australian Constitution, it was not possible for Federal gun legislation to be introduced, thereby requiring each Australian State and Territory to be convinced of the need for tougher laws. Against a background of public outrage and largely weak and ineffectual gun owners' organisations, sweeping laws were proposed for enactment in all states, which included mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms, and a near-complete ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and all pump-action shotguns. Some farmers and professional cullers would remain eligible for ownership of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns while the majority of licenced firearm owners would be banned from legally acquiring and owning these firearms for the purpose of recreational target shooting and hunting.This resulted in a heated public debate, with on one side, those who wished to avoid a repeat of the massacre at any costs, and on the other, those who felt the proposed laws were likely to be ineffective and overly burdensome for the large number of legitimate owners of firearms affected by the ban. While addressing a gathering of shooters in Sale, Victoria in June 1996, Howard raised considerable controversy by wearing a poorly-concealed bullet-resistant vest. The governments of two states, Tasmania and Queensland, objected to the changes, causing John Howard to threaten them with a constitutional referendum to transfer power over gun laws to the federal government. The Federal Government also threatened to cut off federal funding to the states and territories and retract its offer to help the states extinguish Native Title claims if they didn't support the proposed laws. The American gun rights group, the National Rifle Association, endeavoured to intervene in the issue by supporting gun advocates (and was roundly criticized by Australian Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams for doing so [link]). Faced with the force of strong national public opinion (which would have likely seen the mooted referendum pass), the two objecting states were forced to agree without any compromises or concessions to the new laws, which were duly enacted.
The Howard Government introduced a 1% levy on income tax for a period of one year to finance the "buy back" purchase and destruction of all previously legally-held semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. The high cost ($A500 million) of this exercise again raised controversy given claims from groups such as the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia that the "buy back" had failed to improve public safety.
Monash University shootings
Laws remained static until 2002, when a pistol-owning international student killed two fellow students at Monash University in Victoria, prompting a re-examination of existing handgun laws, although some confusion remained over how the non-citizen had legally obtained a license and so many firearms in the short period alleged. As in 1996, the federal government prompted state governments to review handgun laws, and, as a result, amended legislation was adopted in all states and territories. Key changes included a 10-round magazine capacity limit, a calibre limit of not more than .38 inches (9.65 mm), a firearm barrel length limit of not less than 120 mm for semi-automatic pistols and 100 mm for revolvers, and more strict sporting requirements for handgun purchases. Whilst handguns for sporting shooters are nominally restricted to .38 inches as a maximum calibre, it is possible to obtain an endorsement allowing calibres up to .45 inches to be used for Metallic Silhouette or Single Action Shooting matches. These new laws were opposed by sporting shooters groups, arguing that their members were already submitted to sufficiently rigorous controls and restrictions, were overwhelmingly law abiding, and that further restrictions would yield few improvements for law enforcement or public safety.
The new changes had only a small impact on gun ownership in Australia. Due to the universal registration of pistols and their owners, affected shooters were forced to comply, but were often able to change magazines and barrels to comply with the new legislation. The prices paid by the Government were generous, allowing owners to quickly replace their recently-illegal guns with similar, but compliant models, often with improved features over their old guns. One of the government policies was to compensate shooters for giving up the sport, causing some to doubt that criminals were the real target of the Government's actions. Approximately 25% of pistol shooters took this offer, and relinquished their licenses and their right to own pistols for sport. This compensated confiscation was criticised by sporting shooters groups - in the state of Victoria $A21 million was spent "buying back" 18,124 firearms, while in the same period Victorians imported 15,184 firearms to replace their confiscated target pistols.
Firearms and crime in Australia
Historically Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have remained relatively static for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. For example, between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia has declined 47% . The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia argues that there is no evidence that major advances in gun control in 1987, 1996 and 2002 had any impact on this already established trend[Trouble in Paradise], SSAA presentation at Goroka Gun Summit, 2005[The impact of gun-control laws called into question], SSAA media release, November 2004. A similar interpretation of the statistics has been made by the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburnin Wainwright, Robert. [Gun laws fall short in war on crime], Sydney Morning Herald, October 29 2005., who also notes that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales has increased in recent years.In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered.[Gun Prohibitionists Off Target], SSAA media release, April 2005 In 1997-1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia. Knives are used up to 3 times as often as firearms in robberies. The majority of firearm related deaths are committed with hunting rifles.
The number of unregistered or uncontrolled firearms continues to increase, with an average of over 4,000 firearms stolen per year, primarily from residences (although one gun-dealer had approximately 600 firearms stolen sometime between 1999 and 2000). Concern has been raised about the number of smuggled pistols reaching Australia, particularly in New South Wales.
Major players in gun politics in Australia
Howard Government
The Howard Government strongly favours gun control and under their influence, legislation has steadily become more restrictive. Despite his strong support for the USA on many other issues, Australian Prime Minister John Howard frequently refers to the USA to explain his opposition to legal, civilian firearms ownership and use in Australia. He has often said in interviews and prepared speeches that he does not want Australia to go "down the American path" [Los Angeles Times Special Report] Australia's Answer to Carnage: a Strict Law, Jeff Brazil and Steve Berry, August 27, 1997.[Radio 3AW] John Howard radio interview, 20 March 1998.[John Howard's address to the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia], Canberra, May 28, 2002.. In one interview on Sydney radio station 2GB he said "we will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns... ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia" [Interview with Philip Clark], Radio 2GB, 17 April 2002. In a television interview shortly before the tenth anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre, he reaffirmed his stance: "I did not want Australia to go down the American path. There are some things about America I admire and there are some things I don't. And one of the things I don't admire about America is their... slavish love of guns. They're evil" [National Nine News] John Howard interview, March 1, 2006.. During the same television interview, Prime Minister Howard also stated that he saw the outpouring of grief in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre as "an opportunity to grab the moment and think about a fundamental change to gun laws in this country". On the day before the anniversary, as media attention intensified, Howard publicly foreshadowed the possibility of further restrictions on legal handgun ownership .Gun control has been a source of friction between the National Party and the Liberal Party, who together form the coalition federal Government. The National Party has strong support from rural voters, many of whom are strongly opposed to the Howard government's moves towards gun control. The 1996 National Firearms Agreement has been attributed with causing the defeat of the National Party in the 1998 Queensland elections, leading to the rise of the One Nation Party [Interview with Lisa Millar], ABC Radio, 24 August 2005.
In 1997, the Prime Minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology the 'official umpire' of the effects of the gun buyback. Since then, a number of papers have been published reporting trends and statistics around legal gun ownership and gun crime, which they have found to be mostly related to illegally-held firearms . No benefit-cost analysis of the "buyback" has been published.
Gun control groups
Gun control groups in Australia are ephemeral, gaining membership in the aftermath of spree killings and shrinking to a few committed people shortly thereafter. While some argument is made to reduce the already small number of accidental deaths associated with shooting activities, the focus of these groups is predominantly aimed at reducing levels of gun ownership. Central to the argument for further gun control is the claim that many violent firearm crimes are committed by licensed firearm owners, prompting a push for bans on the legal ownership of certain types, makes, and models of firearms as well as claims that banning certain types, makes, and models of firearms from legal ownership among licensed firearm owners would prevent and reduce the chances of another mass-shooting and make the community safer.Gun control lobbying in Australia is conducted by a small number of individuals under the banner of two main groups: Gun Control Australia and the National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC). The most recent written material comes from Ms. Samantha Lee, until 2006 the chair and apparently sole member [The NGC Does it Again!], in 25 March 2005 Newsletter from the Office of John Tingle MLC. of the NCGC. Lee's main written contribution to gun control debate is the report from her time as a Churchill fellow, in which an argument was made that current handgun legislation is not sufficiently restrictive. In support of this argument, Lee cites statistics showing that handgun crime is on the rise, and that handguns of the types used in crime are available legally to suitably-licensed individuals. Lee has also argued that police officers who enjoy recreational shooting have a conflict of interest, and that licensed private firearm ownership per se presents a threat to women, and children in particular .
Ms Lee made was joined by Mr Roland Browne as the co-chair of the NCGC, apparently in late 2005 or early 2006. In April 2006, around the tenth annivesary of the Port Arthur Massacre, Browne appeared in the media advocating further restrictions on the legal ownership of handguns [Interview with Barney Porter], ABC radio, 27 April 2006. Previous chairs of the NCGC include Rebecca Peters and Tim Costello
The NCGC has no website or public contact details and does not solicit public membership. Gun Control Australia maintains a website and appears to be a membership organisation.
Firearms advocacy groups
While shooting clubs have always existed in Australia, activity in the political arena is generally only made in response to the threat of increasing restrictions on gun owners. In contrast to the United States, Australia does not have a constitutional clause protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and Australians have never had emphasis on the possession of firearms for self-defense. Rather, firearms advocacy is mainly concerned with protecting the viability of hunting and the shooting sports.In Australia, firearm advocacy organisations have never approached the strength of the National Rifle Association in the United States and political sympathisers generally are quite discreet in their support. It is argued that the distribution of the majority of seats in urban areas in Australia is responsible for politicians' support for gun control. It should be noted that while gun control is only periodically a political issue in Australia, each tightening of gun laws has received very considerable majority support in polls conducted on the issue (especially after a mass-shooting has occurred and the government is pushing the bans), the distribution of seats reflecting the fact that the vast majority of Australians live in urban areas and do not have historical ties to the shooting sports.
Shooters in Australia typically feel that their sport is under threat due to increasingly restrictive legislation. John Howard in particular is frequently seen as having a vendetta against shooters and legal gun ownership in general (see above), particularly in light of his repeated personal feelings of hatred towards guns. It is often argued that unfair advantage was taken in the situation of moral panic and mass hysteria that followed the major spree shootings at Port Arthur in 1996 and at Monash University in 2002, with licensed firearm owners being made the scapegoats by politicians, the media, and the anti-gun movement for the acts of typically unlicensed criminals, most often committed with illegal firearms. Firearms advocacy groups argue that there is no evidence that increasing restrictions have improved public safety, despite the high financial costs and levels of burden placed on nearly one million shooters. Some firearms ownership advocates have accused politicians and the media of complicity in the campaign for gun control.
Firearms advocacy groups are active in debating gun control policy in the public arena. In response to Samantha Lee's Churchill Report (above), Dr. Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia has pointed out that as well as containing numerous factual errors[Gun Prohibitionists Off Target], SSAA media release, April 2005, the report ignores Australian Institute of Criminology data indicating that the majority (85%) of firearms homicides are committed with illegally-held firearms[Churchill Report Briefing paper], SSAA web site. This and other similar statistics are central to the position of many shooting organisations which argue that efforts to reduce firearms crime that focus upon restrictions on the lawful possession of firearms are misdirected.
One of the major organisations for firearms owners is the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, with more than 120,000 members (out of an estimated 750,000 to 1 million licensed firearm owners in Australia today). The SSAA is not primarily a lobby group, however it is involved in research into gun control and firearms safety, and its representatives often appear in the media contradicting the claims of the National Coalition for Gun Control and opposing proposed changes to firearms legislation and regulations. The SSAA is also recognised as a Non-Government Organisation (NGO) by the United Nations and the SSAA (along with the National Rifle Association of the United States and other pro gun rights organisations from other countries) that have been involved in many UN summits involving the issue of firearms.
The Combined Firearms Council of Victoria was created a month prior to the 2002 Victorian State Election after a double murder at Monash University which saw a clampdown on handguns. The group ran full page advertisements targeting several Members of Parliament and has changed tack in recent years. It has been able to secure the establishment of the Firearms Consultative Committee in 2005 which oversaw several changes to firearms legislation that benefited handgun users and gun collectors.
Another major political voice for Australian shooters is the Shooters Party. Its founder, John Tingle, has been an elected member of the upper house of New South Wales parliament, the Legislative Council, since 1995. The Liberal Democratic Party of Australia also includes firearms law reform as a central policy.
See also
References
External links
- [Gun Control Australia]
- [Sporting Shooters Association of Australia]
- [1999 government report]
- [The Great Australian Gun Law Con], an Anti gun control website
- [Coalition of Law-Abiding Sporting Shooters]
- [CLASS article] highlighting alleged media and government bias in the gun debate
- [Gun Control in Australia], another anti gun control website
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.