It has come to our attention that the New South Wales Firearms Registry has decided of their own volition to attempt to revoke the NSW Club approvals of all interstate shooting clubs. In years past because of the nature of border communities many people live near shooting clubs that happen to be interstate, and without any nearby clubs in NSW, NSW FAR has approved interstate clubs as NSW clubs for the purposes of the NSW Firearms Act. This has allowed those in border communities to engage in the shooting sports in a practical manner. Sadly however it seems that FAR has decided that in this increasingly geographically divided Australia that this is no longer acceptable. FAR has expressed their new position that there are now enough clubs within NSW to provide facilities for NSW license holders, and that there is no reason for interstate clubs to hold approval.
Citing a concern over some clubs non-compliance with administrative requirements, they are using that as a tenuous justification to issue a show cause notice to ALL interstate clubs. Whilst they seem to leave open the possibility of clubs that have complied with their requirements maintaining that approval, as relayed to us FAR is proceeding with the intent of revoking all of these approvals.
The major flaw with FAR’s policy however is that it ignores geographical realities. An affected club member informed us that as they reside in Michelago, their nearest interstate approved club is 50km away, but the nearest NSW range is over 180km requiring a four hour 360km round trip.
If you are a member of an impacted club we strongly suggest you make a phone call and send an email to your local State parliament member. You can find the contact details for your local member here: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/members/pages/all-members.aspx?house=la&tab=browse
We have recently had some extremely concerning news reach our ears from senior Liberal sources, that the Liberal party in Victoria at present is seriously considering adopting an ‘amend but not oppose’ approach to the Duck Hunting Ban Bill that has been introduced from Andy Meddick of the Animal Justice Party. This could mean that whilst they might amend the legislation in some meaningless way, they would abstain from voting against it. This would only leave the (presumably) Nationals as well as the SFFP and LDP to oppose such a bill.
However we need to keep in mind the recent news that the Labor party is seriously contemplating adopting a position to ban the time honoured cultural tradition. With the Victorian Labor conference over the weekend passing a motion calling for a ‘hunt review’. Of course we all know a ‘hunt review’ is just code for a ban on recreational duck hunting, something one of the backbenchers (MP Lizzie Blandthorn) has made exceedingly clear in her comment that “On the eve of 2020, it’s time to end this practice once and for all”.
This all might combine to mean the 2019 duck season is the last time Victorian shooters had the opportunity to enjoy some delicious freshly harvested waterfowl.
Now is the time to call, write to or email your local member in Victoria and strongly but politely let them know that if they do not oppose this outright that you will not be able to support them or their party in the next election. You can easily find your electorate and representative here.
Some photos generously provided for this article by Blair Findlay, you can see his instagram here.
Yesterday the major parties both united to reject the proposed inquiry into self-defence that was being proposed by SFFP MP Jeff Bourman. Why was this inquiry rejected? After all it’s just about having a discussion on self-defence. Much like the recent banking inquiry, one must consider that when politicians screech loudly about how much a public inquiry isn’t necessary, the opposite is more likely the case.
Recent incidents in Victoria and more broadly in Australia have highlighted the often uncertain legal situations relating to self defence. Regretfully these situations can result in a loss of life or serious injury, both to those attacked and to those who have initiated the attack. These incidents often result in people facing serious criminal charges over the appropriateness of their response to a sudden and violent attack. 1234
We believe that the safety of all parties could be improved through allowing members of the public to possess non lethal items for the purpose of self defence. Specifically, items like pepper spray would allow situations to be effectively defused by members of the community and also present no lasting harm to those they are used against. We believe that allowing possession of these items would go a long way to preventing more lethal items being used in an improvised fashion, as is currently the case.
We now see many cases where intruders have been killed with knives or bare hands, when the homeowner left facing serious criminal charges in situation where the use of pepper spray would likely have resolved the attack without long lasting injury to either party. However, these less than lethal tools are not lawfully available to the public in any State or Territory bar Western Australia. 5678
Tragically though we also see far too many incidents where people are horrifically murdered in public, without any lawful means to defend themselves. A maniac intent on killing has no qualms about illicitly carrying a knife in public, but those whom these laws are meant to protect instead find themselves stripped of any protection.91011
We are simply asking the major parties, how could they possibly reject the concept of having a discussion about self defence? We suspect we already know the answer: they are afraid of the outcome.
The ongoing saga in Tasmania has taken another twist with another appeal coming for Cat C firearms to be rightfully opened up for sports shooting:
“Tasmanian sporting shooters say they are confident the State Government will deliver its election promise to consider allowing them to use semi-automatic .22 calibre rifles for competition shooting events,firearms banned under laws introduced after the Port Arthur massacre.
But it would only be legal for the shooters to use rifles if the National Firearms Agreement is changed, or if Tasmania walks away from fully honouring the deal, which was reached following the mass shooting event in 1996 in which 35 people were murdered.
The shooters say without the rifles, they stand no chance of winning a world championship.
South Australian David McCarthy is the best in Australia and just won a national championship held at Copping near Hobart.
He competed internationally last year and was coming sixth in the world, but has not been able to win at the International Gallery Rifle Federation world cup because he can only shoot in half of the matches as he requires a semi-automatic .22 calibre rifle to compete in all events.
Following public outrage over the election promise, which came to light on the day before the state poll in March, the Liberals scrapped the changes, with Premier Will Hodgman saying the Government, “understood there are deeply held concerns about public safety, and in an area as important to Tasmanians as gun laws, public confidence in our laws is essential”.
But changes to the laws are still a chance, with the Government holding an inquiry into the laws, building shooters’ hopes the promises will be kept. The Tasmanian Government has also promised the possibility of expanding the “reason to own” a category C firearm to include competition shooting, as occurs for clay target shooters, for recognised competition shooting events in Australia.
Tasmanian president of the Sporting Shooters Association Andrew Judd said he was confident the Tasmanian Government would keep the promises it made to shooters.
“I still believe that we have a good chance to be able to put forward some commonsense arguments,” Mr Judd said, adding his members were not calling for “military-style” guns.
“What’s not been addressed is if we are allowed category C firearms, it will actually enhance most people’s storage facilities, which will also improve public safety.”
I would like to know what Andrew Judd means by military-style, because no such thing exists and is just a meaningless buzzword invented by the anti-gun crowd. Further, the current storage laws are a joke and need to be scrapped. Why should people be forced to upgrade storage to a certain level, especially considering the disaster that was passed in Tasmania last year?
Whether those are Judd’s own words or the usual creative licence we’ve come to expect from the ABC remains unclear.
Aside that from those sticking points, we agree. It’s a ridiculous state of affairs that just over the Tasman, Kiwi shooters can participate in 3-gun, Airsoft and Paintball without the overarching nanny state garbage Australia is famous for:
All Cat C and D firearms should both be opened up to sports shooters.
There’s no reason, other than perpetual, baseless fear mongering that they should not be. You can’t breach the National Firearms Agreement if it’s not legally binding in the first place, so again the ABC perpetuate this myth. Of course, the unworkable, arbitrary mess that is the category system should go completely, but this is positive step in the right direction.
Will Hodgman copping out because Green-in-Liberals-clothing Sue Hickey held him over a barrel was disappointing but not unexpected. If Hodgman still has any cajones he would follow through with the changes and sack Sue Hickey, but we won’t hold our breath.
However, that doesn’t mean you can’t hold their feet to the fire and we will continue to do so.
The LNP’s favourite apologist rag, The Australian, joined in the anti-gun two minutes hate this week with this drivel from Rachel Blaxland:
“Malcolm Turnbull has responded to the shooting of 17 people at a Florida High School last week by saying that “nothing speaks more eloquently” on gun control than former prime minister John Howard’s leadership after Australia’s Port Arthur massacre.
The Prime Minister’s carefully-worded comments come as he prepares to meet with US President Donald Trump next week.
In a White House speech on Wednesday, hours after the Florida massacre, Mr Trump emphasised school safety and mental health while avoiding any mention of gun policy. The shooting was the 19th school shooting in the United States in 2018, and the 30th mass shooting (defined as involving five or more fatalities) over the same period
Asked whether he had a message on gun control for Mr Trump, Mr Turnbull said it was a “good question”. “We don’t tell other countries how to manage their firearms policies, but obviously Australia’s is one of the strictest in the world,” Mr Turnbull said.
“We have a great deal to thank John Howard, and indeed Tim Fischer who supported him as leader of the Nationals at the time, for taking up the leadership challenge after the shocking Port Arthur massacre and introducing our tough firearms laws, which as you know dramatically restricted the range of firearms that are available.
“The United States has a very different culture in respect of guns. It’s a very, very intense political debate there. But in terms of policy, nothing speaks more eloquently than the leadership of John Howard and the effectiveness of the laws he put in place more than 20 years ago.”
In 1996, gunman Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded 23 when he opened fire on shop owners and tourists in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur using two semiautomatic rifles.
The massacre prompted Mr Howard to ban all semiautomatic weapons and destroy more than a million illegal firearms acquired through a gun buyback.”
No-one speaks more eloquent mistruths about Australian firearm laws and John Howard than the LNP.
“We don’t tell other countries how to manage their firearms policies” but you spend every opportunity saying “Why can’t you do what John Howard did?” This is also after Malcolm was beating his chest about Australia’s aspirations on becoming the 10th largest arms exporter in the world. Got it.
Not much analysis is spent on John Howard’s financial blackmail of Australian states into accepting the non-legally binding National Firearms Agreement, nor is it spent on anything illegal firearm crime related or any of Howard’s other Australia wrecking policies.
There were not over a million firearms destroyed, Miss Blaxland. The official number of firearms confiscated was 643,726 guns at a cost to the tax payer of $319,833,727 via a Medicare levy increase. Much economic “eloquence” of taxpayer money for no benefit. We’ve also got crooks importing them illegally at will and gun stores being knocked off.
As for guns in Australia, they’ve all been replaced now with annual import numbers putting us well over our historical totals:
And semi-automatics aren’t banned, but obviously Miss Blaxland was too lazy to jump on Google or intentionally dishonest. Meanwhile, here’s what you can get in New Zealand on the lowest category of firearms licence, with no mass shootings there in 21 years either:
Again, Americans generally don’t care about non-Americans’ opinions on their domestic affairs. The arrogance of some in the Australian community, to assume that we are bigger than what we think, is a meme that needs to go away. In reality, we’re an island in the South Pacific that hosts a couple of US military bases, a tourist destination and that’s about it.
We all remember how you’re last conversation with Trump went, Malcolm.
The latest chapter in unqualified opinions from public figures trying to remain relevant, comes from none other than Joe Hockey in an interview he did recently for lefty rag Pacific Standard:
OK, Joe. Following the Vegas massacre, you tweeted that, essentially, guns are more cultural and pervasive in the U.S. than in Australia. What do you mean by that?
Australia and the United States are completely different situations, and it goes back to each of our foundings. America was born from a culture of self-defense. Australia was born from a culture of “the government will protect me.” Australia wasn’t born as a result of a brutal war. We weren’t invaded. We weren’t attacked. We weren’t occupied. That makes an incredible difference, even today.
So could the United States replicate Australia’s success?
It’s too arrogant for me to express an opinion about another country.
Fair enough. But you seem to think it couldn’t be easily replicated.
Well, like I said, our histories are completely different. The U.S. had a horrendous civil war, with more casualties than every other war combined. We didn’t have that history. It really went to the core of what it means to defend your people. And so you have a second amendment based on an antiquated view of what it means to be occupied. But the gun culture is so ingrained in America. I can’t wrap my brain around impulsive buys, no cooling off period, no mental-health checks. I’m stunned there’s not more road rage here given the number of guns.
Was it something you were worried about when you came to the States?
The biggest fear my kids had about coming to the U.S. was guns. It’s just a different culture. We saw police with AK-47s at the airport on layover in Los Angeles. But, you know, my kids have Nerf guns. You can’t stop them.
What were some of the biggest challenges in implementing the National Firearms Act?
I was a fierce critic of existing gun laws in 1996, but I represented an urban district that’s 32 square miles, and I couldn’t understand why anyone would have guns in their homes. To this day I don’t know why anyone would have semi-automatic or automatic weapons in the middle of the city. My colleagues in rural areas had a different perspective. Being center-right, we had to stand against our base. But there was such collective grief after Tasmania that we were able to put aside our differences.
Was the bulk of the opposition from your own party?
The right wing had previously lobbied fairly hard against changes to the gun laws. The National Rifle Association sent people and money to campaign in Australia.
The National Rifle Association sent people from the U.S.?
Yes. There’s really no NRA equivalent in Australia, not like you have here. And it backfired. People saw it as American intervention in our elections. They haven’t tried it again.
What were some of the more significant changes following the implementation of the National Firearms Act?
Gun and ammunition must be locked separately. Cooling off periods, not pick up right away, gun lockers at gun clubs, spot checks for enforcement. The amnesty buyback program was the most controversial. Fifteen years before the laws, we had 13 mass shootings. In two decades since, none. Gun homicides decreased by 60 percent. Where it hurts the most are unreported suicides, and threats against women.
One of the challenges that’s often been cited in the U.S. for a failure to curb gun violence is the length of time that passing legislation takes. Australia didn’t seem to have that problem. Looking ahead five or 10 years, where do you see gun violence in America?
AI is changing everything. In five to 10 years, there will be dishes on top of every building, fully equipped with AI technology, fully armed, with cameras. And that will be the way people defend themselves.
It’s “too arrogant for me to express an opinion about another country” yet he goes and does it anyway.
The usual fallacious rhetorical claims of “muh no mass shootings”, “muh semi-autos”, “muh why do you need it” and “muh NRA” are becoming boring, but that’s all clueless twonks like Hockey have.
Also note how Hockey is against firearms for self-defence but is apparently ok with people using Armed AI to defend themselves with. Machines good, humans bad.
The kicker about “the government will protect you” from a supposed small government and liberal values party that is supposed to defend the individual’s rights over collective responsibility says it all. Liberal are just as much Big Government Socialists as the ALP and Greens are.
However, he does make a good point on this about the cultural and historical differences, which are also often left out of the debate. In the US, the culture is a healthy distrust of government and in Australia government is your mother, father and your bank – and this is where many of Australia’s problems begin.
Some also call it “Convict Mentality” and they would be right.
Americans don’t care what you think about their laws, Joe. Much we like we don’t care what they think about how we run our domestic affairs. You know, like how your economic policies have completely destroyed Australia’s economy while you’re on perhaps the most coveted, tax payer funded junket in the Australian Public Service?
Australia’s culture of self-important ultracrepidarians lecturing Americans about firearms is incredibly tiresome and continues to be embarrassing.
It’s obvious to many that the Australian media and politicians have been at the forefront of shaping Australians’ perception on firearms, particularly to those who are indifferent or against firearms in general.
The level of astounding mistruths and misinformation that are promulgated on this topic in Australia is of epic proportions, but like any issue, unless you’re a firearm owner or clued on about guns in some way you aren’t going to know that. Frankly, most Australian journalists and politicians are rubbish when it comes to the issue of firearms.
It’s important to understand how they have been able to achieve this and it’s very simple: through language. In reality, they nearly always employ a barrage of emotive buzzwords in place of any sane debate or discussion on this topic in Australia. It is exactly the same trick as yelling “racist” or “bigot” when you want to shut down a debate on immigration or any other issue.
There many terms used by the Australian media and politicians to stifle debate on firearms and we’ve identified the five worst phrases.
Google just about any article on firearms in Australia and it’s a safe bet that the Port Arthur Massacre is in some way mentioned.
This is, in reality, a form of trauma-based neurolinguistic programming. When Port Arthur is uttered, the average Australians’ thought process goes something like this: “Port Arthur Massacre – man killed lots of people – semi autos are bad – John Howard changed gun laws – no mass shootings since.”
All of these points are demonstrably false when explored with an open, objective mindset and a hint of critical thinking. There’s little to no discussion by the media of where the AR15 used allegedly came from, the Police response time, the active role John Howard and Tim Fischer took in ensuring there was no Coronial Inquiry or Royal Commission or any discussion about how the National Firearms Agreement was formulated as far back as 1991 by Labor. There’s no exploration of the relationship between NFA architect Rebecca Peters and her personal financier, George Soros.
It was infamously said that the reason for no Royal Commission into the events at Port Arthur was because of ‘trauma to the victims’, but it seems that goes out the window whenever there is some issue regarding firearms in this country and it’s ok to keep bringing it up and put the victims’ through it every time.
It is the go-to weapon of the media but fortunately, the knife has really started to become blunt. Continually relying on Port Arthur as your primary argument for gun control is in fact, a weak one.
“American style gun culture!”
Another buzzword deemed fail safe and arguably the 2nd worst used. If in doubt, just bring up some vague comparison to the USA and the debate is, apparently, over.
There’s never any discussion about the complete disparity between the two nations which add validity to any discussion: levels of income disparity, population size, gang activity, health services, demographic crime trends, etc. It’s just a straight up, superficial black and white reference.
Comparing Australia to the United States is an intellectually dishonest, false binary argument. There’s never any mention of the daily examples of firearm self-defence by US citizens which far outweigh the total number of homicides ever year. There’s no discussion about disproportionately higher African-American crime rates or the scourge of Mexican cartel violence spilling onto US soil. Those who cite this argument also almost always don’t know what the laws actually are or the wide variance of laws at the federal, state and county level.
There’s also no comparison to other western countries such as Canada, Switzerland, Czech Republic, etc which have far more liberal gun laws and comparable crime rates to Australia.
The reality is the per capita murder rate in the US has declined 49% over the last 25 years while firearm sales and concealed carry permit holders have nearly trebled. Meanwhile, south of the border, Mexico just posted a record number of homicides for 2017 in a country with gun laws stricter than the UK. Don’t worry though, their lives don’t count.
It’s also amazing that Australians’ are so open to sledging the US on this issue, yet we complain about not being able to defend ourselves in our own homes and are 100% reliant on the ANZUS treaty for military protection against foreign threats.
The amount of lies told about self-loading, semi-automatic rifles in Australia is astounding.
The biggest one being is that they’re banned completely in Australia. Well no, they’re still legal. Semi-auto handguns are also still available. However, the restrictions on both of them are absolutely ridiculous and make very little common or legislative sense that they are virtually banned.
The doublespeak around semi-automatic rifles is even more blatant when Police are praised for having them yet citizens are demonized for the same. When the Police have them they are deemed “proper and necessary tools to protect the public” but when the public have them they are “killing machines designed purely to commit the next Port Arthur”. Seems fair and reasonable.
Semi-autophobia is one of the leading causes of ignorance in Australia in the firearm debate. Meanwhile, over the ditch in New Zealand (and a slew of other countries), one of these can be hand on the lowest category of licence and remains the most popular rifle in NZ. No “mass shootings” there in 21 years either.
First of all, you cannot buy back something you did not own in the first place – this is sleight of hand. The use of this term is deliberate and invokes a sense of mutual agreement. “Don’t worry mate, we’ll be a good government and give you some cash for that gun and she’ll be right”. The reality, as we have seen, was far more sinister than that.
Call it for what it was: compensated confiscation with the threat of imprisonment. Seriously, does this look like a passive buy back to you?
Further, the number of number of firearms that were confiscated by the government seems to inflate year on year and depends on who is doing the reporting. There’s also no mention of several of those firearms re-entering circulation due to negligence and corruption in 1998 either. Or you could ask Michael Keenan about how many were recently handed in.
“No mass shootings since 1996!”
Patently false and one of the more annoying catch cries. If we want to get technical, then the last mass shooting in Australia honour goes to NSW Police, who shot an escaped mental patient with a pair of scissors and three old ladies out for morning tea at Westfield Hornsby in 2016. But that’s ok, because the government did it.
There is no international consensus on what constitutes a mass shooting. The FBI uses mass killing as 4 or more. Interpol use 4 or more, some countries use 3 or more. Should it be people shot or people shot and killed? Who is right?
Australia has changed the definition of mass murder multiple times since 1996 and the latest research by the notoriously anti-firearm University of Sydney used “5 or more killed by one or more perpetrators” to get around the Logan shootings in 2014. They also were forced to concede they couldn’t attribute any decline to the 1996 laws.
They also discount the massive decline in firearm homicide, as shown by the ABS no less, between 1980 and 1995.
Mass shootings are a poor metric of firearm law effectiveness. We now have daily gun crime in our cities, home invasions and car jackings are now a regular occurrence and the public is unable to protect themselves against it with so much as a pepper spray.
Declaring that victims of mass shootings are somehow more dead than those that are killed by other means is also a facile argument. Do victims care how they’re killed or injured? No, they care about why it happened and how it could have been avoided. We have had many sickening mass casualty attacks since Port Arthur, some with and some without firearms, with vehicles now seemingly the latest trend.
There’s absolutely nothing to stop another mass shooting – as Man Monis, Rick Maddison and a slew of other incidents have shown. And the second another major one happens in Australia, the apologists won’t know what to do with themselves.
There’s also been no mass shootings in New Zealand for the last 21 years either despite not changing the laws, but that doesn’t count for some reason.
Obviously, the above is not an exhaustive list. There are several other terms that they employ like “assault rifle”, “high powered”, etc, which are equally as dishonest and have the same objective.
Again, education and experience are key in the firearm debate. The media and political class know this, hence why they invest so much time and energy in emotive linguistics to keep the debate in a juvenile context.
However, you can only cry wolf so many times before the magic wears off and the fake news MSM seem not to have learnt their lesson.
It’s not all bad though, in 2017 during the firearm amnesty Channel 9’s Brett MacLeod interviewed Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MLC Jeff Bourman in a very balanced and noteworthy interview. This is the standard the debate should be at in the media and kudos to Brett MacLeod for providing some much needed balance.
Queensland Police Minister Mark Ryan has attacked Deputy Opposition Leader Tim Mander after a video surfaced of the then LNP police spokesman saying he was “open” to weaker gun laws.
Mr Ryan on Tuesday took a swipe at Mr Mander over the March 2017 video, which shows Mr Mander discussing weaker gun laws with the Shooters Union of Australia.
In the video Mr Mander is asked whether he would support licensed owners having access to semi-automatic rifles for sports or hunting. The guns were banned by the Howard government following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded.
Mr Mander replied he would like to see “less regulation” as long as there is no risk to safety.
“If a case can be given to me that shows that there’s a good rationale for that, and there’s no increase in safety risks or some other risk to the community, I’m very open-minded about those type of things,” he said.
Mr Mander added that he was not fully across the issue, which could help ensure an unbiased debate. “Probably one of the advantages of me not having a lot of background in this is I’m an open canvas,” he said. Mr Ryan called on the opposition to clarify its policies on gun ownership.
“Queensland families and Queensland police would be very worried that the LNP are ready to weaken Queensland’s gun laws,” Mr Ryan said. However, Mr Mander dismissed Mr Ryan’s concerns as “absolute rubbish”, saying the LNP “do not support any weakening of John Howard’s tough gun laws”.
“We don’t support US style gun laws full stop… community safety must always come first,” he said in a statement to AAP. “We support farmers having access to firearms as an important tool of trade, we support stronger penalties for gun crime and more resources for police.”
The Labor government and LNP agreed late last year to strengthen regulations that would limit access to the Adler lever-action shotgun.
So, in other words Judas, Police Minister Mark Ryan, used a nearly year old video in a feeble attempt to point score. Queensland’s favourite communist, Jackie Trad, also chimed in on her Facebook page. It’s really not worth the calories looking at it, so we did it for you.
All being said – why? Have Labor really got nothing else to do since barely holding on to power at the election in December?
We’d like Mark Ryan to clarify his position on gun ownership, being a patron of a pistol club but continually selling out his fellow LAFO’s at every turn.
This notion of “US style gun laws” is another throwaway line often inserted in any discussion by those wishing to restrict freedoms and derail debate. As usual, there is no definition about what laws they are pertaining to at the federal, state and county level in the US and the incredible variance thereof. Comparing Australia’s laws to Arizona’s laws or California’s laws are completely different ball games, but that’s expecting far too much from the LNP.
If it wasn’t clear from the article, the video was pure lip service from the LNP. We all remember their treachery over the Adler and their acquiescence over Labor’s continued gun grab of Queensland farmers.
We also remember the LNP’s comments in the Gold Coast Bulletin just over a week ago, when they claimed that there was a correlative relationship between legal firearm ownership and an increase in crime on the Gold Coast. Pity there was an entire federal Senate inquiry devoted to refuting that.
This pathetic stunt by Labor just goes to show how the majors are increasingly irrelevant – which saw the Queensland election record the lowest ever primary vote ever for the two major parties since 1907. It’s also because they are really feeling the heat and the backlash from the Queensland’s LAFO community, particularly from the agricultural sector, Robbie Katter and the ongoing Category H debacle.
SA, Vic and TAS are all up for their turn this year – it’s best we continue the trend of #putthemajorslast
And if you’re a firearm owner and still voting for Labor, the LNP or Greens then you might want to consider putting yourself off the electoral roll.
“Former prime minister John Howard has lent his star power to the Queensland election campaign, but was not on the campaign trail with LNP party leader Tim Nicholls. Mr Howard met voters in the Brisbane seat of Mt Ommaney with sitting MP Tarnya Smith, saying Mr Nicholls was too far away.
That was despite Mr Nicholls visiting a fruit market in the Brisbane suburb of Rocklea earlier in the day — less than 15km away. Mr Howard laughed it was too hard to campaign with Mr Nicholls.
“He’s 1,000km away,” Mr Howard said. “If I’m asked back I’ll come and if he happens to be here in town. I’ll walk down the street with him. I’ll promise you.”
Mr Nicholls also visited Charleville in western Queensland, promising $25 million for cluster fencing to protect agricultural land from pests. The funding forms part of the LNP’s agriculture policy, released on Friday.
Mr Howard praised Mr Nicholls’ approach to the campaign.
“You might think I’m slightly biased because I’m a Liberal,” he said. “But he has got off to a very positive start in the campaign. He sounds very upbeat but he’s not taking anything for granted.”
The former PM also criticised Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk for her position on the Adani mine in Central Queensland, claiming the Premier was sending mixed messages. “The first requirement of effective leadership in politics … is to know what you believe in and where you stand,” he said.
“In one part of the state she’s for it, in another she’s sort of against it and another part of the state right against it. That is unimpressive, irrespective of where your politics are.”
Yeh, whatever. Guess that six figure public pension does little to wash away the Relevance Deprivation Syndrome.
We all know the real reason Howard is here – the backlash from firearm owners and the backlash against the Nationals. It’s exactly the same reason the LNP wheeled Howard and Tim Fischer out recently at the Cootamundra and Murray by-elections, where the Nationals suffered huge swings against them despite retaining seats.
Nicholls’ feral pest initiative is nothing but hollow words, and has done little to mention his party throwing Queensland farmers under the bus by voting for the new NFA and doing nothing to oppose Cat H licences for farmers being revoked by QPOL WLB.
We’re sure the 1998 federal election also remains deep in the memory of the QLD LNP, where the Nationals were wiped out in Queensland in response to the National Firearms Agreement and Queensland was held to ransom by Howard to pass it when he withheld federal funding.
One week out from the Queensland election, a faceless group has attempted to subvert the grassroots Flick’Em campaign by creating an alternative website by essentially ripping off the original content.
It’s laughable. Not only is there not a shade of originality in the counter campaign, the fact that they literally stole an idea and went to this level of effort demonstrates their anxiety.
Perhaps there are also potentially copyright and IP infringements at play? That is something we would have to explore further.
The subversion is a pretty cynical co-opt attempt by trying to divert traffic away from the original page. Should the original campaign have registered both domains to prevent this? Maybe, but there’s also .org, .net and several others making it potentially a costly exercise.
It would also not be surprising if there is a Gun Control Australia/Soros link to this as well. Given there is a real chance to throw a spanner in the works of the National Firearms Agreement and the revolt coming from rural Queensland and firearm owners, Sam Lee, Piers Grove and the rest are likely wearing brown pants for the next week.
Given the fact that the spoof site appears to be targeting Labor and One Nation, it’s fair to say that either the Greens or the LNP (or potentially people connected to both, who knows) are behind this. Either way, it’s someone with deep pockets and manpower available to them at short notice to get this underway.
This just goes to show how scared the majors are of a threat to their monopolies and the ongoing change in the political tide in Australia. Particularly given the recent results in NSW against the Nationals and the upcoming by-elections as a result of the citizenship saga.
And those of us old enough to remember what happened in Queensland in 1998 to the Nationals, when they were wiped out for supporting John Howard’s National Firearms Agreement.
Bring on November 25 and remember to #putthemajorslast