Category Archives: Tasmanian election

Speaker Sue Hickey allegedly behind Liberal Party betrayal on firearm law reform

As sure as night follows day, the Liberal Party sells firearm owners out again:

“The state Liberal government’s controversial proposal would have doubled the duration of some gun licences and made weapons such as pump-action shotguns more readily available. The policy was designed in the lead-up to the March state election but only became public on election eve.

 On Friday, it was abandoned by Premier Will Hodgman.

“This is an area of some public interest to Tasmanians given our history, given the fact that many people are concerned about public safety issues,” he said. ”We will not pursue the policy proposals that we have previously put forward.”

Naturally, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association were upset:

“Tasmanian farmers have urged people in Sandy Bay to witness the impact of browsing animals on agricultural land in light of the State Government’s decision to scrap plans to provide farm workers with greater access to guns.

President of the Tasmanian Farmers and Grazier’s Association Wayne Johnston said profits were being eroded every night as native animals like wallabies grazed on pastures.

“It would probably be good if we had an industry where we could actually use our browsing animals, but again being native animals, that’s probably not something that the people in Sandy Bay like to hear,” he said.

“But it would be good for some of those people to come out and see what’s happening on the farm and see what pressure we’re under.”

Spot on. This is the same Liberal Party that are feigning outrage over the farming disaster taking place in NSW, but are now telling farmers in Tasmania to get stuffed.

Let’s be honest, they were never going to deliver. This is the Liberal Party after all, the ones that were responsible for the treachery of 1996, 2002, the Adler and the rest. They are no friend of firearm owners: the only difference between themselves and Labor/Greens is they pretend to be your friend while they are sticking the knife into your back.

That doesn’t mean that we should not have tried. FOU and many others submitted to the firearm inquiry and will continue to push for the changes that were proposed.

However, all is not what it seems.

FOU has since learned that the main culprit allegedly responsible for this latest LNP betrayal, is none other than Speaker Sue Hickey.

Two sources inside the government have told FOU that Labor and Greens’ MP’s approached Hickey several weeks ago, asking her to oppose and block the proposals by the Hodgman government.

Hickey has since withdrawn her support for the Inquiry and threatened the LNP that she will not support the government on future legislation as Speaker, if Hodgman follows through with the proposed changes. Therefore, Hodgman wussed out and the latest withdrawal is what we have now.

If you’re in doubt as to Hickey’s political leanings then read on:

“Ms Hickey, however, has said she will “mostly” vote with the Government, assessing bills “on their merit”.

She has also said she will not attend Liberal Party meetings. With the Liberals holding a one-seat majority in the House, Ms Hickey’s vote is the decider on any legislation if Labor and the Greens take the same side.

All of this and the 49th Tasmanian Parliament is only a week old, with Ms Hickey’s Liberal colleagues left in no doubt she is unafraid of a stoush — something amply reinforced this week after she accepted a nomination from Labor and the Greens to stand for the role of Speaker, winning the vote and infuriating her fellow Liberals, none more so that veteran Rene Hidding, who was the party’s pick. Ms Hickey once called the police following an altercation with Elise Archer at public food festival.

And then:

“Ms Hickey, 60, is known to be socially progressive and sometimes left-wing by Liberal standards. She has a business background and appears to support many Liberal policies.

She vigorously backed the Liberals’ election policy on gaming, telling the ABC last year that she believed gambling was a choice. However, she does seem out of step with her Liberal colleagues on some issues. As lord mayor she advocated for Australia Day to move to a different date, something Premier Will Hodgman does not support.

As mayor of Hobart, Ms Hickey refused to lower the rainbow flag until marriage equality passed into law, enraging Tasmanian Liberal Party heavyweight Eric Abetz who wrote directly to Ms Hickey.

In 2016, Ms Hickey struck trouble after weighing in on the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA) proposal to transform an industrial site at Macquarie Point into a cultural precinct highlighting Tasmania’s troubled Aboriginal history”.

Essentially, she’s a Green in LNP clothing. It also looks like she’s just another high-maintenance political narcissist in it for herself, but that’s just par for the course.

Labor, the Greens and the LNP have again colluded to shut down firearm reform in Australia. While this is not surprising it just further shows that being pro-civilian disarmament is tri-partisan.

Knifings seem to be the order of the day in the LNP at the moment, and if Will Hodgman has any cajones, he’d promptly show the exit door to Sue Hickey.

We’ll keep saying it: if you are a gun owner and are still voting Labor, Coalition or Greens then hand your firearms in now. LAFO’s don’t let LAFO’s vote Liberal.

Sue Hickey might want to do some “speaking” right about now.

Ex-Tasmanian MLC Tony Mulder supports gun law changes

Former Tasmanian MLC Tony Mulder has come out in support of the proposed changes to the firearms act by Will Hodgman in the Advocate:

“Mr Mulder said he supported the National Firearms Agreement but there needed to be changes to Tasmanian gun laws so that farmers could control browsing animals.

Mr Mulder’s views come amid a backlash from Tasmanians about the Government’s planned changes to gun laws — the opposition coming from Port Arthur victims to former premier Tony Rundle and former prime minister John Howard. All are pushing for no change.

“As the police logistics commander during Port Arthur, I know what military- style guns can do,” Mr Mulder told the Mercury. He said he had faced a criminal pointing a weapon at his head and witnessed many murder scenes during his police career.

However, he said, Police Minister Rene Hidding had negotiated proposed gun law changes with farmers and needed to go ahead with them rather than backdown because of public pressure. “I believe in a need to bear arms, not a right to bear arms, and we need to look at who needs them as tools of trade,” he said.

Mr Mulder said he had not seen the full changes proposed by Mr Hidding including the extension of licences from five years to 10 years. But he said that high-power, high-calibre reasonably rapid fire weapons were needed for animal control purposes.

“At the moment there are Category C five-shot shotguns and that may go to seven-shot, but I’m not sure that after two shots you need a shotgun because if you haven’t hit it in two it is going to run away,” he said. Mr Mulder said that people would need a bigger weapon than a .22 to control feral deer.

“The Liberals have negotiated these changes with the farming community and now they are showing all the signs of weakening and pandering to the public pressure,” he said.

Mr Mulder said that as the member for Rumney he had amended several bills to lessen penalties for breach of storage regulations. “Some of those penalties were three times what was happening in Victoria,” he said.

The Legislative Council is likely to conduct an inquiry into the gun law changes which were low profile until the day before the March 3 election.”

For the most part, a lot more reasonable and nuanced than we have seen from some in this debate so far. However, a few points.

As we’ve pointed out before, need is an authoritarian strawman argument. While we don’t have a clear bill of rights akin to the United States in this country, why someone ‘needs’ something is not an argument to impose restrictions, and it really is no one else’s business what one needs or wants.

The AR15 used at Port Arthur is not ‘military style’ and that kind of statement from an ex-Policeman quietly confirms why Police don’t do themselves any favours being involved in the formation of firearm laws. If they can’t identify them correctly, then how can you administer the act? Particularly as one of the proposals by Rene Hidding is to take steps to remove the ridiculous ‘military appearance’ laws.

Mulder’s experience having a criminal pointing a weapon at his head is also interesting to note – Police have the capacity to respond to said situations while ordinary citizens, much like those at Port Arthur, do not. That is rarely put up for discussion.

Further, what is a “reasonable rapid fire weapon” as opposed to an unreasonable one?

Other than these sticking points, which are likely the media’s words, Mulder’s support for these laws is a good thing. However, the language being used around the debate needs to be adjusted.

The national firearms agreement is a non-legally binding agreement and as Mulder states, Tasmania should go ahead, ignore it and make the changes as it is entitled to do.

Sam Lee has brain explosion over Tasmanian Government Firearm proposals

It seems only 10 people turning up to your Friday afternoon protest has really got to Sam Lee who has had a meltdown in the Guardian, calling for the Federal Government to “seize control” over the states on firearms:

Gun control advocates have called for federal intervention – and even a referendum – after commissioning a damning report that shows states and territories have trashed the historic 1996 national firearms agreement.

The agreement, which led to the surrender and destruction of more than 1.1m firearms, was signed by all states and territories after the Port Arthur massacre, and after threats by then-prime minister John Howard to hold a constitutional referendum on the issue. The report by Gun Control Australia (GCA) found more than 50 breaches of the code by states and territories. Each jurisdiction had walked away in some way, the report found.

GCA is now calling for a referendum to make gun control laws a federal responsibility and to prevent the “wreckage” of the 1996 agreement. The organisation’s chair, Sam Lee, said the referendum was needed after “years of political pressure” by the gun lobby.

“The national firearms agreement is haemorrhaging because the states and territories are legislating it away in return for gun lobby votes and funding,” Lee said.

Last week, former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer told Guardian Australia he was “deeply concerned” about the emergence of an NRA-style gun lobby in Australia. His comments came after it was revealed the home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, was considering establishing a committee to allow gun importers to review proposed changes to firearms regulations for “appropriateness and intent”.

Lee said the election-eve revelations in Tasmania that the Liberal government had plans to further water down gun laws in the state where the Port Arthur massacre occurred, were “a further nail in the coffin” of the 1996 agreement.

Sam needs a straitjacket – there really is no other way to describe this unhinged rant.

Again the lie about the Tasmanian proposals being made public on the eve of the election is pushed by the Guardian. We know this is incorrect:

Based Leyonhjelm also made his thoughts known about the issue on ABC News yesterday:

Sam wanting the federal government to override the constitution is rhetoric right out of the Communist Manifesto, or more recently right out of the African National Congress.

It’s a non-legally binding agreement and the states do not have to comply with it. Get over it.

This was even brought up at the 2015 Senate Inquiry which Gun Control Australia gave evidence at:


A nation that just spent $120 million and months of political back and forth on a plebiscite is not going to have a national referendum on firearms, particularly when more pressing issues such as immigration, the banking royal commission and energy prices are at the forefront of the national conscience.

No doubt there will be more of this hyperbolic rubbish form the anti-gun crowd in the lead up to the proposed inquiry but one thing is for certain: desperation has sunk in at Gun Control Australia.

I’ll drink to that.

 

Tasmanian Firearm “Inquiry” is a waste of time and taxpayer money

The Tasmanian Government looks like it has caved to the anti-gun loonies and is announcing an Inquiry into the proposed changes:

“The Tasmanian Government has agreed to open up controversial gun law reform to scrutiny by the state’s Upper House, as pressure is applied to the Prime Minister to stop the proposed changes.

Tasmania’s Police Minister Michael Ferguson has confirmed the State Government will support a Legislative Council inquiry into gun reform, called for this week by the Independent MLC Ivan Dean.

The Liberal policy, revealed earlier this month on the eve of the state election, would allow greater access to category C firearms such as self-loading rifles and pump-action shotguns for farm workers and sporting shooters. Licence holders in category C would also be allowed gun silencers.

“We have made it very clear we will not do anything that puts Tasmanians at risk or is inconsistent with the National Firearms Agreement, and the inquiry will be a chance for everyone concerned to have their say on these proposals,” Mr Ferguson said.

“It will also allow Labor to explain how they managed to both oppose the proposals, while at the same time promising many of the exact same measures.”

Mr Ferguson also hit back at Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten over proposed changes to the state’s gun laws, saying he did not know what he was talking about.”

Rabid Roland also chimed in:

“Roland Browne from Gun Control Australia said the State Government appeared increasingly confused about its own policy.

“The Premier says his advice is it doesn’t breach the National Firearms Agreement, now the Upper House wants to have an inquiry into whether it does breach the National Firearms Agreement or not, and then the current Minister says he wants to clarify whether it breaches it,” he said.

“What needs to happen is less an inquiry and more the Government being straight with the community and saying ‘This is what we were intending to do but we are abandoning those plans’, if that is what they are actually doing — it’s impossible to know.”

Roland was previously whingeing about lack of consultation and now consultation is being offered, he turns around and complains that there shouldn’t be any and a decision should be made.

The guy’s a joke but nothing new there.

Ferguson is 100% correct about Labor. They supported the changes and had virtually the same policy Liberal did coming into the election, only for their federal counterparts to put their foot in their mouths.

Again, the ABC perpetuates the lie that the policy was released on the eve of the election when it clearly wasn’t:

 

The changes are completely miniscule and are welcomed. As for the ABC calling them silencers, well this is basically all that firearm suppressors do:

 

Yeh, run for the hills Ma Parker.

A lot of money in public health and pest control could be saved with the deployment of suppressors for professional and recreational use, but it seems hysteria is still the order of the day. Meanwhile, suppressors are in use over in New Zealand and the sky has not fallen in.

The only benefit this inquiry would have if public submissions are advertised and invited, including the larger shooting community.

That being said, it’s still a waste of time and money. The changes were made after already extensive consultation and the voting public had the chance to send the message to the government at the election if they didn’t want it, but went and voted the Hodgman government back in anyway.

If you’re actually going to do it Will Hodgman, just do it and get it over with. There are more important issues facing the state of Tasmania and the hysterical cries of blood in the street from a small minority of anti-gun loonies, are just that.

Shambolic Shorten wants Turnbull to illegally enforce non-binding National Firearms Agreement on Tasmania

In a cynical move designed deliberately to tie in with the #MarchForOurLives hysteria, Bill Shorten has written to Malcolm Turnbull over the Will Hodgman government’s proposals in Tasmania. This from the ALPBC:

“Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has called on the Prime Minister to review proposed changes to Tasmania’s gun laws and consider intervening to stop them going ahead.

“I ask you to order an immediate review into the compliance of the Tasmanian Government’s proposal with the National Firearms Agreement,” Mr Shorten wrote to Malcolm Turnbull ahead of the return of Federal Parliament. “If, as appears to be the case, that proposal would breach the agreement, I ask you to publicly demand that your Liberal Party colleagues in the Tasmanian Government abandon it.”

“Simply put, the weakening of gun laws threatens the safety of our community.”

Tasmanian Premier Will Hodgman did not release plans for the changes in the lead-up to the March 3 state election. They were made public on the eve of the poll, leading gun control groups to mount accusations of an attempted cover-up.”

The usual greasy opportunism from the most unelectable Labor leader and indeed, party, in history. Bill doesn’t know what the gun laws are either, so his opinion means nothing. And of course, the ABC went softball on Bill.

The proposals were made public and to relevant stakeholders by then Police Minister Rene Hidding on February 9, 2018:

For the ABC to suggest that it was not public knowledge is a complete lie, and the fact that they could not be bothered trying to investigate this and save their “outrage” until the night before the election in the hope of swaying it, smells of a certain group committing a cover-up. At best, it’s completely lazy journalism.

If Bill indeed knew anything, it’s that the National Firearms Agreement is non-legally binding and the states do not have to comply with it, nor can the federal government compel the states to comply. As we’ve seen so many times, the only way to do this is to wave the federal funding stick at them. Whether or not Turnbull will pull a Howard remains to be seen, however, Hodgman is more within his rights to tell Malcolm where to go.

As we’ve stated before, the proposed changes are very reasonable, evidence based and quite frankly, nothing major. No-one is removing background checks or licencing, so the false “watering down” scare argument is completely moot.

Bill might want to think about keeping Chinese spies out of his party and why he is even more unpopular than Malcolm Turnbull – no mean feat by any means.

Once again reminding LAFO’s that the Labor Party are not and never will be your friends.

Labor: representing workers by disarming them.

Relevance Deprivation Syndrome: More anti-firearm drivel from Tony Rundle

The conga line of ultracrepidarians spouting unqualified opinions over Will Hodgman’s proposals grew longer this week. This time with another Howard-era fossil, Tony Rundle, on the ABC:

“Tasmania’s former Liberal premier, Tony Rundle, who was in government when the Port Arthur massacre occurred, is urging the current State Government to rethink its controversial gun control policy.

The proposed changes include extending some licences, allowing greater access to category C weapons — such as pump action shotguns — and allowing farmers to use silencers on such weapons.

“I’m not in favour at all of watering down the gun laws of 1996 in any shape or form,” Mr Rundle told 7.30.

“I hope [the Government] will have a rethink and look at the proposal they’ve put up.”

Mr Rundle, who with then-prime minister John Howard led the push to tighten gun laws following the massacre, predicted community consultation on the policy would highlight how controversial it was.

“The main thing that governments have to do is look after the safety of the population at large, and the fewer guns that are in the community, the safer the population are likely to be,” he said.”

Yeh, the usual talking point rubbish. Key word there being former Premier.

And as we called it, the ABC decided to wheel out another Port Arthur survivor, this time Carolyn Loughton:

“Ms Loughton, who was injured during the massacre, said she was “appalled” by the proposed changes.

“I am absolutely horrified. I’m just — I can’t believe it.”

She is already penning a letter to members of the Tasmanian Government, who she said should feel ashamed.

“I have a voice and I intend to use it,” she said.

“[The Port Arthur victims] must be remembered and there was 35 of them, and their lives were cut short and as we know there were two very young, little girls and in this picture about people’s rights to own guns, that mustn’t be forgotten.”

Loughton is the same woman who infamously shouted down Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP Robert Brown on SBS Insight in 2016 at the height of the Adler debacle.

No-one is denying the tragedy that happened to your daughter or denying that you have a right to voice your opinion, Carolyn. It’s just that victimhood should not be your first and only argument in the debate and it shouldn’t automatically carry more weight than anyone else’s.

As for Tony Rundle, no-one really cares what you think. You would know 100% Tony that the National Firearms Agreement is a non-legally binding agreement. You were initially opposed to it but like other state Premiers, were held to ransom by the Howard Government to enact it by the threat of Federal funding for health and education being withheld. Tasmania and every other state is free to ignore it and aside from some federally controlled import laws, firearms are a state issue and that is that.

The changes proposed by Hodgman are relatively minor. 10-year licences are already in place in the NT, suppressors (which are 100% legal in New Zealand) are a much needed engineering control and public health money-saving initiative and Category C changes are just common sense.

This talk of watering down is a complete lie – no-one is talking about getting rid of licencing or vetting, so it’s a waste of time trying to argue otherwise. 

A more important question for Tony Rundle – why did you not support a Royal Commission into the largest, most politicised spree killing in modern Australian history? Ms Loughton and the other victims of that day deserve some answers and closure.

Answer that, or forever hold your peace.

Anti-firearm soft lobbying over Tasmanian Liberals’ proposals begins

As expected, the media machine has already started soft lobbying to try and pressure the Tasmanian Liberals to cave in over their sensible changes to the Firearms Act. Apart from the liars over at the Guardian still trying to claim the changes were released on the night before the election and not on February 9th 2018, there was this from the Advocate:

“Proposed changes to Tasmania’s gun laws may be amended through the parliamentary process, Premier Will Hodgman has acknowledged. In his first media conference since polling day, which saw the Liberals retain a comfortable majority in the lower house, Mr Hodgman said his government would not rush its plan to reform gun laws.

On Friday, one day before Tasmanians went to the polls, Fairfax Media reported that the Liberals intended to change state gun laws that have been in place since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. The changes would take gun licence testing and training responsibilities from sole provider, TasTAFE, and allow farmers to carry pump-action shotguns and self-reloading weapons unlocked in their vehicles.

The Liberals would also establish a nine-member Tasmanian Firearms Owners Council to review and develop protocol around firearms being carried in public places. It will also look at the circumstances around banning guns that have a “military appearance”, and the creation of a new gun category – Category E – to encompass all prohibited firearms.

Mr Hodgman said that if any aspects of the new laws were found to conflict with the National Firearms Agreement, the Liberals would not pursue any such changes. “We will not rush on any area of policy reform, particularly when it’s a matter as serious as this,” he said.

“We do … as the architects of the National Firearms Agreement, greatly respect the need for Tasmania to have strong laws, regulations that assist lawful gun-owners to go about their business or their recreation. We will take and continue to take advice on these matters. We will not, and this is my firm guarantee, do anything to compromise the National Firearms Agreement.”

But Mr Hodgman said the advice he had received so far was that the changes would not be in breach of the NFA.

“[The laws] require legislative change so it will be subject to the most robust scrutiny through parliamentary processes. That’s how that particular policy will be advanced,” he said. The Liberals’ proposed changes provoked outcry last week from survivors of the Port Arthur massacre and gun control advocates.

Gun Control Australia chairwoman Sam Lee said the gun lobby was on the rise in Australia and that gun laws were “slipping away” due to pressure being applied on law-makers. She said Australia was bearing witness to lobbying tactics “straight from the NRA textbook”. 

​“You get one state to weaken its laws and the other states will follow, which is exactly what we are seeing,” Ms Lee said.”

The usual whinge from Sam Lee in among her rank stupidity like using a movie to justify banning suppressed shotguns. Bit rich of her to complain about “gradual changes” when her organisation has done that for 30 years. You can give it but you can’t take it Sam? Whatever, that’s called politics.

While the PA survivors (note it was only Walter Mikac as usual and Peter Crosswell who were in the media and I’m sure they’re racing around to get soundbites from others) have the right to voice their opinion, being a victim should not be one’s sole and only platform for entering the debate. In fact, that’s really all Mikac usually has and while it is an opinion, it is only one and it is not evidence based. To be dismissive of the nearly 40,000 firearm owners in Tasmania because of something 20 years ago they had nothing to do with, is not an argument.

These changes were developed in consultation with the Tasmanian Graziers Association and the SSAA Tasmania. Interesting to also note that Labour had almost exactly the same policy, but the media skipped over that.

The whole premise of this scare mongering is based around an assumption that changing unworkable and overly bureaucratic laws are “watering down”. No-one is getting rid of background checks, so it can’t be called watering down and that’s the long and short of it. These are people who are already vetted to own a firearm and it matters not what type of firearm they own. To suggest otherwise is frankly disingenuous and implies that everyone who wants a gun is getting one – pure tripe.

It also assumes that the National Firearms Agreement is a legally binding agreement – it is not, it never has been and the states are free to ignore it. Even the Attorney-General himself stated at the 2015 Senate Inquiry that Firearms are a state matter. The NFA is purely enforced as it was incarnated – through financial (and emotional) blackmail from the federal government.

The changes proposed by Hodgman are excellent. 10 year licences are already in place in the NT, suppressors are a much needed engineering control and public health money-saving initiative and Category C changes are just common sense.

The statement “allow farmers to carry pump-action shotguns and self-reloading weapons unlocked in their vehicles” is quite deliberately misleading and the Advocate should be retracting that statement and actually looking into what is being proposed.

Reminder to Will Hodgman – you’ll get far greater respect for delivering on what was promised in consultation. Bowing to emotional blackmail from a small minority of bullies not only makes you look weak, it completely undermines the so-called democratic values we uphold. Not that we would be surprised.

The debate needs to move past this simple black and white perspective. Don’t just take it from me, Dr Samara McPhedran also agrees.

Simon Breheny: “Gun debate in Australia is quite amateur”

A rare moment of clarity on the firearm debate in Australia from Simon Breheny on Paul Murray Live on Friday:

Spot on.

The current debate in Australia is dominated by a biased, agenda driven media machine that is overwhelmingly anti-firearm, ranging from subtle bias to outright slander. Sure, they throw a bone every now and then with a somewhat balanced article but it is skewed toward anti-firearm as the default setting.

However as Breheny points out, they really aren’t very good at it. Continuing to use fake Professor Philip Alpers, paid liars such as Sam Lee and Roland Browne who don’t even know what end of a firearm the bullet comes out of and usually having no pro-firearm counter balance in the argument, is the general modus operandi. This also usually involves an obligatory mention of Port Arthur and a false binary comparison to the United States and voila, argument over.

They are, however, good at hoodwinking the uninformed and emotionally malleable section of Australia and that is exactly why the debate is always deliberately slanted towards the emotive side, at least as far as the media and government is concerned.

The non-stop articles we have seen from Newscorp and the loonies at the ABC and SBS this week over the NRA being a case in point – completely bias, relying on emotion and verging on outright defamatory. In other words, the usual standard we are used to.

We’ve also seen that in the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the same outlets over the Tasmanian Liberals proposals to sensibly alter the Firearms Act, and make minor changes to a non-legally binding agreement that does not make sense at all.

David Leyonhjelm, Bob Katter and Fraser Anning have been the lone voices of reason on the firearms debate in federal government. They’re unfortunately surrounded by a tri-partisan machine of status quo, pro-civilian disarmament robots who aren’t up for anything more than paying lip service to firearm owners in exchange for votes while standing on the graves of Port Arthur. This is also true at the state level however the balance is a little bit more in favour of firearm owners, and when I say little I mean being marginally better.

The mainstream firearm debate in Australia draws parallels to the current immigration debate from those on the pro Big Australia side – name calling, victimhood, emotional blackmail and false binary arguments being the order of the day.

A proper debate on firearms is needed and it needs to come back to the sensible centre without the sensationalist drivel we have seen in the past two weeks and indeed, the last 21 years.

 

ABC have fake whinge about month-old LNP firearm proposals before Tasmanian election

On the eve of the Tasmanian election, the ABC have thrown a fake hissy-fit over Tasmanian Police Minister Rene Hidding’s proposal to make very reasonable changes to Tasmania’s Firearms Act.

This press release was done by Rene Hidding all the way back on 9 February 2018, nearly a month ago:

For anyone who knows anything about firearms laws, the proposals are actually pretty reasonable and nothing out of left field. The point is they are proposals only.

So why all the whingeing now?

Simple – there’s no doubt the ABC were using this as a last-minute strategy to try and sway voters towards the Labor/Greens side of the Tasmanian election equation. All the calls of “sneaky” and “no public debate” are completely absurd as it’s been in the public domain for nearly a month.

“Received a copy” of month old correspondence the night before the election. Sure you did. The ABC may as well wheel out David Hogg for an interview on what he thinks of the changes – he’d be just as credible.

To be fair, it wasn’t just the ABC but also The Australian getting in on the act. They also decided to bring out Walter Mikac for another dose of victimhood completely sans facts or rational argument, and as usual he brought up Port Arthur without bringing up why he’s never asked for a Coronial Inquiry.

However, The Australian then chickened out and pulled the article completely from it’s Facebook feed after too much backlash from the public and being caught censoring comments. So much for “public debate” as they so proclaimed.

Roland Brown was also among it, doing his usual ultracrepidarian thing as was the Tasmanian Greens’ resident Helen Lovejoy, Rosalie Woodruff. There was very little talk about the fudging of firearm seizures by Michael Keenan in the media but, water is wet.

10 year licences are already in place in the Northern Territory. The proposals regarding Category C are very minor and are for people who are already licenced. Suppressors are legal across the Tasman in New Zealand and the sky hasn’t fallen in and will also save a ton on hearing related public health costs, as well as aiding pest control numbers.

And the military appearance law, as we all know, is patently ridiculous.

As to whether the Liberal Party will follow through on these actual changes if they’re elected? Snowball’s chance. This is lip service to get elected. Remember, Hidding was the guy who forced through the storage law changes earlier in the year, including the ridiculous alarm systems for safes requirement.

Sure, if they win the election and do implement them then we’ll toast to that. But to be honest, it’s an incredibly safe bet they won’t and is really just more vote buying.

SFFP is your choice in Tasmania. Labor and the Greens last.

And the case for defunding this poor excuse for a national broadcaster just grows stronger by the minute.