A private members bill to prohibit the declaration of any marine parks for five years, or sooner pending the outcome of a scientific review of their effectiveness. (Now enacted)

A private members bill to amend the Firearms Act, including removal of air rifles from the registration process. (Still before parliament and will not pass unamended.)

Challenged government funding of the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Environmental Defenders Office.

Convinced the government to re-gazette 142 state forests for hunting, for a period of 10 years.

Asked questions of the government relating to:

Reinstatement of a bounty on foxes

Encouraging tourism development in national parks

The effect of vegetation and biodiversity regulation on rural development

The impact on rural communities of the ban on logging red gum forests

Whether NSW Police has audited its firearms for losses

Commonwealth plans to limit bullbars

A few less commendable achievements:

It forced the government to retain the right of unions to sue employers for breaches of occupational health and safety rules.

It forced the government to exempt police and local government employees from the government’s cap on public servant salary increases.

It forced the government to abandon its plan to reduce the 60 cent/kwh feed-in tariff on solar schemes.

1. To repeal the amendments made by the Adoption Amendment (Same Sex Couples) Act 2010 that enable couples of the same sex to adopt children.
2. To prohibit the advertising of alcoholic beverages and related trade marks, brand names and logos.
3. To amend the Crimes Act 1900 to make it an offence to publish material that incites or promotes terrorism or other violence.
4. To amend the Crimes Act 1900 to prohibit a person soliciting another for sexual gratification for payment.
5. To amend the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Act 2007 to further provide for the involuntary rehabilitative care of persons with severe substance dependence.
6. To amend the Education Act 1990 to repeal the provision inserted by the Education Amendment (Ethics) Act 2010 allowing special education in ethics as a secular alternative to special religious education at government schools.
7. To provide for the establishment of the Family Impact Commission to study the moral, social and economic effects on the family unit of certain laws and proposed laws and Government expenditure.
8. To prohibit the advertising of gambling and related trade marks, brand names and logos.
9. To amend the Liquor Act 2007 to raise the minimum drinking age from 18 years to 21 years.
10. To amend the Liquor Act 2007 to require packaged liquor to contain a health warning about the danger of drinking when pregnant.
11. To prohibit the advertising of sex services.
12. To authorise the use of the term State Senate as a reference to the Legislative Council and to authorise the use of the term State Senator as a reference to a member of the Legislative Council.
13. To amend the Summary Offences Act 1988 to prohibit people wearing full-face coverings in public places.

In the NSW State election, the Shooters and Fishers Party nominated the Christian Democratic Party to receive its preferences in the event that it failed to maintain 15 candidates.

In the 2010 Federal election, the Shooters and Fishers Party gave its preferences first to the Christian Democrats and then to the Liberals/Nationals. Other minor parties were ignored.

The Shooters and Fishers Party and the Christian Democratic Party are united in their opposition to the Greens. As crossbenchers they need to cooperate with each other to some extent. But do shooters really want their party closely aligned to a party that proposes legislation like this?  No wonder they are called far right.

The Christian Democrats vote was reduced by Family First, but not enough to prevent it winning a seat. Subject to Fred Nile’s future, the CDP can continue to win a seat each election. The total Christian vote, comprising CDP plus FF, rose by 8%.

With 148,000 votes (up 39% on 2007), the Shooters and Fishers Party is now also assured of a seat each election subject to performance and personnel.

The Outdoor Recreation Party, the vehicle through which the Liberal Democratic Party contested a state election for the first time, increased its vote by 42% but fell well short of the number needed to gain a seat.

Efforts by the ORP to win the votes of shooters were only marginally successful, unlike among other groups such as 4WD owners, fishers, etc where it did well. Support for the S&FP among these groups, by contrast, was only detected when they were also shooters.

The source of the additional S&FP’s votes is an interesting question. Some may have come from non-shooters due to the party’s change of name and involvement in the marine parks inquiry and river red gum issue in southern NSW.  I doubt if it was many.  In my view most came from shooters who valued Roy Smith’s private members bill. Unlike any of John Tingle’s or Robert Brown’s bills, it delivered clear benefits that were also communicated to every licensee in NSW at taxpayers expense by the Firearms Registry.

Prior to the election the S&FP was telling supporters it expected to have two members elected, giving it a total of three. Considering this would require at least 285,000 votes, two and a half times its previous vote, it was total fantasy. Nonetheless some people, including SSAA (NSW) and the NSW APA, naively repeated it.

Since the election the party has been telling supporters that the involvement of ORP, the Fishing Party and Pauline Hanson prevented it from occurring. This is also complete fantasy as it would have required at least 75% of the combined votes of these three.  Almost three-quarters of voters did not allocate preferences but assuming those who did were representative (not necessarily valid), while 75% of Fishing Party preferences went to the S&FP, only 17% of ORP preferences went to it. Hanson’s preferences weren’t distributed in the count but it’s unlikely so many of them would have gone to the S&FP either.

In 2015, when Robert Borsak will be seeking to win in his own right (he occupies the seat won by Roy Smith and has never faced an election), the S&FP vote may struggle to match the performance of this election irrespective of which other parties or candidates participate. Robert Brown’s agenda, promoting the Game Council and gaining hunting rights in national parks, has limited appeal. Indeed, the Game Council is controversial in some shooting circles. And many doubt Robert Borsak has sufficient skills as a politician to achieve anything at all.

Of course, if they could convince the NSW government to depart from the 1996 APMC agreement and revisit issues such as longarm registration, semi-automatics and large calibre pistols, that would change things considerably.  It would certainly guarantee one seat, and perhaps getting two people elected would not be impossible.

“After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the new prime minister John Howard fronted our Liberal Party meeting. More than a few were opposed to gun control. Howard said this: “What I am about to do is contrary to everything I’ve ever believed. We are going to have to pass laws to control the lives of people who have never done anything wrong and never will. Many are our supporters. The Commonwealth is going to tell the States what to do -legislatively if necessary. But never in my 23 years in public life have I been more convinced that this is the right thing to do.”

The legacy of the unpopular Howard gun laws is more than a billion dollars wasted on crushing the guns of “people who have never done anything wrong and never will”, while leaving the criminals with theirs.  A thriving black market in stolen guns. No change in violent crime.

A million Liberal votes were lost in the following Federal election (1998) and Howard almost became a one-term PM.

Every State and Territory in 1996 had a Liberal or (in Queensland) National Party government, except NSW (Labor). At each subsequent State election the Liberals (and Nationals in Qld) were voted out. (“Many are our supporters”).

In NSW the Labor government increased its majority.

Numerous Liberal party branches closed and in NSW (and several other States) the Liberal Party switched leaders so many times and became so factionalised that they may never again win the confidence of voters.

As an ex-Liberal party supporter I recommend all shooters maintain the rage and not elect a Liberal government unless they publicly denounce Howard’s monumental mistake.

Several of the changes in the bill are worthwhile including the potential to open National Parks to shooters, allow game parks, and facilitate the resumption of duck hunting. But these are already found in other States. What NSW also has, that the other States don’t, is an oppressive apparatus to enforce hunting legislation. Brown’s bill expands the scope of the Game Council and takes it further down the path of controlling all hunting within NSW.   Hunters, the core of Shooters Party support and no fans of regulation, will not be pleased.

One of the bill’s provisions is to expand the list of game animals subject to the Act, including some native animals, and allow the list to be amended by Ministerial Order. Proposed additions to the list include just about every pest animal known including cane toads, starlings, pigeons, sparrows and Indian Mynahs.

This is significant because it is illegal to hunt game animals on private or public land without a game hunting licence. There are exceptions, including hunting pest animals on private land (currently pigs, dogs (other than dingos), cats, goats, rabbits, hares and foxes living in the wild), property owners and occupiers hunting deer and game birds on their own land, and employees of government authorities. But that still broadens the scope of the Act enormously. Shooting pests such as pigeons or Indian Mynahs, even with an air rifle, will be illegal on any public land unless the hunter is an employee of the public owner or has a R-category game hunting licence and the land is a gazetted hunting area.  Clearly, the aim is to drag councils and catchment authorities into the Game Council net so they can no longer use local hunters who do not have game hunting licences.

The powers of Game Council inspectors will be increased. The bill will give inspectors the right to require a vehicle to stop so that it can be searched without the inspector being accompanied by a police officer. The Game Council can appoint a wide range of people as inspectors including a member of staff of the Game Council, a statutory officer, public servant or person employed by a public or local authority, plus people prescribed by the regulations. Search powers include the right to break open containers in the vehicle.

This is a gross invasion of privacy and property rights. Confrontations between inspectors and innocent hunters are inevitable.

The bill extends the existing offence of obstructing, hindering or impeding an inspector to include assaulting, threatening or intimidating an inspector. Intimidation is a highly subjective term and not defined in the Act, which means an inspector who wishes to stitch up a hunter will simply be able to claim he was intimidated.

In an obvious attempt to go after the vehicles of hunters who offend the Game Council, courts will no longer be limited to $10,000 when ordering the forfeiture of hunting property.

In an appalling example of interference in legitimate commerce, taxidermists will be unable to preserve or prepare game animals such as deer or ducks unless the taxidermist is satisfied the animal has been legally hunted and keeps a record of names and dates, which must be made available to a Game Council inspector on request. This will extend the scope of the Act to yet another occupational group.

In command and control societies the government supervises the masses by throwing a web of regulation over individuals and organisations that is slowly but inexorably tightened. These changes to the Game and Feral Animal Control Act are a good example. While being promoted as advantageous to hunters and their critics derided as Green fanatics, there is another side to the story – NSW does not need the Game Council and its brown-shirted inspectors to regulate hunting.

The government had claimed the legislation was too complex to introduce before June. Then it introduced it at such short notice that most MPs  had just a few hours to review it before voting. Yet the only ones to vote against it were the socialist Greens.  The Liberals, Nationals, Christian Democrats and both Shooters Party MLCs voted in favour.

The legislation introduces a mechanism for declaring organisations  to be criminal so that restrictions can be placed on the activities of their members.

Organisations are declared by a Supreme Court judge on application from the police. The grounds may be secret “criminal intelligence” and evidence by “victims”, and can occur without notifying the organisation. There is no right of appeal or review.  The police then apply for control orders on designated members of the organisation and the cancellation of their licences (as bookies or bouncers, handling cash at casinos, driving tow trucks, and firearms). Again, this can occur without their knowledge.  The affected individuals are then served with notice of the control orders, advising them they may not associate with each other. There is  an opportunity to appear in court after the orders have been served, with limited grounds for appeal. However, the consequences of the control order have immediate effect.

Those consequences are horrendous. As the Police Minister said: Old friends will no longer be able to meet or even talk on the phone. Some people will have to quit their jobs in a time of increasing economic pressure. There is a presumption against the granting of bail and the penalty for breach of an order is two years jail in the first instance and five years subsequently.  The New South Wales Crime Commission can move to seize their assets.

Speaking in the Legislative Council, the Police Minister said: The legislation avoids “the need to include a list of the types of organisations that cannot be declared, such as political parties. After all, who wants to see a future government trying to declare an opposing party or a troublesome lobby group unlawful?”

He then added: “Members should examine what has happened in South Australia. The bikie gangs have formed a political party, ostensibly to oppose the repressive legislation. However, it is obvious that it is really a device to get around the law by using a political party exemption.”

The New South Wales Law Society said the bill is unnecessary as police already have wide powers to fight organised crime. There is no objective evidence to support the need for the proposed new offences. The proposed legislation will criminalise a person’s associations and interactions rather than their conduct. The Bill constitutes a denial of the fundamental right of freedom of association.

The Bar Association said that police resources would be better used fighting actual crime rather than people’s associations. The legislation will not achieve anything other than to drive these organisations underground and make it more difficult to detect their existence and any associated criminal activitie. It said it was concerning that control orders can be made based on confidential police “intelligence” rather than any publicly proven criminality. How could a person adequately challenge the making of such an order without access to the information on which it is based?

There is a tendency in NSW for a major event to send the superficial media into a frenzy and for the Government to hysterically overreact, beat the law and order drum and rush through a new law that either replicates an old law or has great potential for misuse.

The government regularly says the police need special powers to respond to special circumstances.  Yet bikie violence is not new. The 1984 Milperra bikie massacre occurred in broad daylight at a suburban tavern and led to the deaths of seven people including a 14-year-old bystander.  Despite all of these laws, criminal activities expand—drug importation and manufacture grow and police corruption spreads. These laws do not offer a path to a safer and more law-abiding society; they are a path to an oppressive state and an oppressed society.

Let’s imagine that a future Labor government survives with the Greens holding the balance of power. Let’s also suppose a couple of  vicious criminals join a well known hunting club and engage in some high profile violence involving guns. The media goes into a frenzy about gun nuts sneaking off in to the bush in groups and demands action.  Under pressure from both the media and Greens, the government tells the Police Commissioner to do something.  As a result, based on “criminal intelligence” (in reality simply a disgruntled member)  the club is declared a criminal organisation.  Relying on the same source, control orders are issued against many of the club’s committee plus Robert Brown MLC, who is an honorary member.  Speaking to each other is now a criminal office, their firearms licences have been cancelled and their firearms seized. Coincidentally (or not), all are members of the Shooters Party.

Those who would deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves.

The CDP shares with the Shooters Party a dislike of Greens extremism. The Shooters Party and CDP often work together in the NSW Legislative Council to oppose Green extremism. However, the CDP is fundamentally an anti-shooter, authoritarian party. Both the two CDP MPs, Fred Nile and Gordon Moyes, are on the record as such.

On 19 June 2008, speaking about a bill to introduce some modest amendments to the Firearms Act and Regulations, Gordon Moyes said this:

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.58 p.m.]: I wish to speak on behalf of many Christian people who do not approve of this bill. I would like to state personally that I do not approve of shooting as a sport, and I wonder why it is an Olympic Games event. I do not like the concept of the spread of firearms. I do not like the concept of children being trained to shoot. I do not advocate banning guns from the community, but I will not support an extension of their availability, or encourage shooting in any form except within the armed forces. I do support, and have always supported, John Howard’s limitations on firearms, and I will not do anything to roll back those limitations. And I will not support the Government’s amendment to the bill because I believe that in any form the bill is repugnant.

On 3 July 2003 Fred Nile spoke to the Firearms Amendment (Prohibited Pistols) Bill, which introduced new impositions on target pistol shooters including calibre and barrel length restrictions and limits on magazine capacity. He said:

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.33 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic party supports this bill, which, as honourable members know, is based on an agreement reached at the Council of Australian Governments on 2 December 2002. The bill fully implements the national agreement, which places a range of restrictions on handguns used by target shooters. They include restricting handguns that can be used for target shooting to a maximum of.38 calibre, restricting semiautomatic handguns with a barrel length of 120 millimetres or more, and restricting revolvers or single shot handguns with a barrel length of 100 millimetres or more. This is uniform legislation, so the amendments proposed by the Greens and the Australian Shooters Party—probably coming from two opposing points of view—cannot be accepted if we are to have uniform legislation based on the national agreement.

There has been some controversy about a new competition, which I have only just become aware of, called the International Practical Shooting competition, in which the competitors use.45 calibre handguns. It is a bit like what we see on television with the training of squads to combat terrorism. Apparently some people engage in this as a sport, using a handgun to shoot at moving targets while passing through a constructed range in the form of a building. I am not too sure whether that is a desirable sport; I have some reservations about it.

I understand that the police, the army, and particularly the SAS have to be expert in handling guns, but it seems dangerous to allow people, who may be unstable, to learn handgun skills that they could use in an antisocial way. Nevertheless, I understand that requests were made to the Premier and that the Premier wrote to the Prime Minister requesting that he consider including this activity as an accredited sport. There is even some talk that it may become a recognised sport at future Olympic Games. That would seem to be a strange development.

The national agreement includes a provision for a prohibited pistols buyback. This is one of the strangest parts of the legislation because there have been a lot of reports in the media that because the value of some pistols has increased—the Glock was mentioned—and because the Government pays the current price, some people will make a profit out of the buyback.

….

Pistol holders must ensure that their pistols are not stolen and used for criminal activity. The bill prescribes a 12-month probationary period for first-time handgun sport or target licence holders; that no handguns can be owned in the first six months of the probationary period, and that only two handguns of certain types may be owned in the second six months; and that handgun target shooters meet nationally agreed minimum participation rates in club competitions and events. It is also essential that people who own handguns must be mentally stable. In previous debates I have promoted the notion that all licensed pistol holders should be required to be a member of a recognised club that has strict membership requirements. Any member who displays strange or Rambo-like conduct will be kicked out of the club and lose his or her licence. That would be a sensible form of self-regulation.

The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill, or, rather, we do not oppose it, because some controls are necessary. However, we feel that the bill focuses on the wrong people: it should focus on criminals.

…

The scheme should be carefully monitored to ensure that no person makes a profit from it. We support the bill.

The people who run the Shooters Party aren’t geniuses, but they should have got it by now – shared opposition to the Greens is not the same as support for their own point of view.

In the 1999 NSW state election, Shooters Party preferences were responsible for the election of the anti-shooter Unity Party. If the anti-shooter CDP had won a Senate seat in the 2007 federal election, it would have been with the help of Shooters Party preferences.

It’s about time the Shooters Party learned something about politics.

In May the Game Council issued a press release commending the police for prosecuting someone for hunting deer without a licence.

In an attempt to sell more game licences, the Game Council tries to appear shooter friendly. It takes stands at gun shows, advertises in shooting magazines and employs shooters as field officers. It would have you believe it is on the side of shooters.

Obviously only certain shooters.

The use of silencers is considered thoughtful in most parts of the world and trespass is the business of the property owner, not the police.  Deer are exotic to Australia and most people would consider it laughable to be prosecuted for shooting them.

Sneaking around with the police to catch people who don’t obey laws that harm nobody else is the other side of the Game Council.

What makes it worse is that the government subsidises the Game Council by about $4 million a year because only about 7,000 shooters have paid for a licence. The rest of the hunters of NSW (over 150,000 of them) are voting with their wallets.

What’s the bet a lot less than 7,000 renew their licences once it becomes known the money is being used to fund brownshirts?

Politicians must be held to account. We pay their salaries and they spend our money. It is pointless merely being in parliament if it has no effect. We all know that politicians mostly just talk, but outcomes are what really matter; tangible changes that benefit those who voted for them, not just press releases, questions in parliament, speeches and newsletters.

Any assessment of performance is obviously dependent on expectations. For this we turn to what we were told prior to Smith’s election.

In March 2007 Robert Brown wrote on the party’s website: “We will negotiate the end of the ridiculous twenty-eight day so called “cooling off” period, at least for second and subsequent firearms. This has been dropped by most other jurisdictions, as being pointless and expensive.”

In the March 2007 SSAA NSW Newsletter, readers were told: “Look deep inside your crystal ball, what do you see in March 2008? … Together, the pair combined to remove much of the red-tape that had restricted sporting shooters.”

After the election Shooters Party members were told in a newsletter in the third quarter of 2007: “Our two votes will be crucial again and again, and the Government will be aware of that when our members are negotiating improvements in the firearm laws, and other matters affecting legitimate firearm owners.”

Roy Smith’s inaugural speech in parliament spelled out a list of objectives.

Smith and Brown regularly do hold the balance of power in the Legislative Council. Many votes are decided by a majority of one, two or three votes, meaning there would have been a different result if they had voted differently.

However, it is also a fact that they do not hold the balance of power exclusively. There are eight cross bench members, including the Greens with four and the Christian Democrats with two. If the Greens and Christian Democrats join with either the Government or Opposition, the two Shooters Party votes will not determine the result.

So, given that, have Brown and Smith met the expectations they raised? This is my opinion of their performance so far. If you have a different opinion, leave a comment below. For background go to the summary on MLC Watch or for more detail, Hansard is on line. As always, irrelevant and abusive comments will be deleted.

My rating of their performance (out of 10) is as follows:

Brown: 2 for effort    1 for results

Smith: 5 for effort (mostly due to the Firearms Amendment Bill)      0 for results

To understand why they have been given this rating, read on.

1. So far, neither Brown nor Smith has achieved anything like what was promised. In fact, in objective terms, benefits for shooters are virtually zero so far. (Arguably that has been the case since 1995, when John Tingle was first elected.)

2. Brown and Smith nearly always support the Government on substantive matters, only voting with the Opposition on procedural matters and some amendments. To date, the Government has given them little or nothing in return.

3. Brown failed with a private members bill to amend the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act to increase transparency. The Government and Greens opposed it.

4. Brown succeeded with a private members bill to reduce the impact of good behaviour bonds on shooters. The bill was originally introduced by John Tingle along with a similar one relating to Apprehended Violence Orders. It is a pity the AVO bill failed as it would have been of benefit to a number of shooters. Very few shooters will benefit from this one.

5. Brown frequently speaks in parliament, offering comments on all sorts of things. Some of his comments have been bizarre, including a suggestion that the floor of parliament be lowered to enable the installation of a new coat of arms. Another equated “violent protests” to domestic terrorism.

While MPs are expected to vote on everything and legislation covers a broad range of subjects, it is difficult to see how Brown brings credit to shooters. His comments often lack intelligence and rarely have any impact.

6. Brown appears subject to John Tingle’s direction. In October 2006 he asked a question relating to prostate cancer, a disease suffered by John Tingle. He has also introduced a private members bill to reinstate Port Macquarie-Hastings Council to local government elections in late 2008. John Tingle lives in Port Macquarie.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Brown pursing these matters on Tingle’s behalf, but they should obviously be of much lower priority than achieving gains for shooters.

7. Brown regularly asks questions in parliament. A number have related either to the Game Council or fishing, but very few have been about shooting per se.

8. Smith has asked a few questions in parliament, all of them about shooting. However, he never participates in debates and has made only two speeches (including his inaugural speech). He has also been absent from votes at various times and invariably votes the same as Brown when present.

9. Notwithstanding their support for the liberty of shooters, Brown and Smith are inconsistent supporters of liberty generally.

a. In support of liberty:

i. Both voted in favour of a bill to allow stem cell research.

ii. Both voted in favour of a bill to give equal rights to the children of same sex relationships.

iii. Brown has consistently expressed reservations about government spending in response to global warming.

b. In opposition to liberty:

i. Both voted against a bill to extend the heroin injecting room trial in Kings Cross.

ii. Brown appears to be opposed to (or at best equivocal about) the privatisation of electricity generators in NSW.

iii. Brown is emphatically opposed to the privatisation of Snowy Hydro, despite its parlous financial state and the socialist implications.

iv. Brown suggested a complete ban on placing posters on power poles.

v. Brown voiced doubt about GM canola and effectively confirmed the government has a right to regulate what farmers grow on their own private property.

vi. Both voted against Opposition amendments to a bill that would reduce from 90 to 21 days the duration of a warrant for surveillance using listening devices.

vii. Brown opposed the sale of Government assets such as Callan Park.

viii. Brown spoke against extending daylight saving to correspond with Victoria and ACT.

ix. Brown and Smith supported the establishment of a new parliamentary position for Fred Nile (Assistant Deputy President).

x. Brown voted for a bill to remove exemptions for smoking in pubs and clubs, including outdoor areas. (The bill was proposed by the Democrats.)

xi. Brown expressed support for monitoring by GPS the speed of heavy vehicles.

10. The Firearms Amendment Bill, introduced by Roy Smith, is the first genuine attempt by the Shooters Party to lift the burden on shooters. I understand Smith’s parliamentary assistant, Pamela Reeves, is largely responsible for it.

Whether the Bill becomes law is a moot point. Private members bills cannot succeed without Government support, as they have to pass the lower house. Much will depend on whether Smith and Brown can effectively leverage their vote better than has been evident so far.

The Opposition regards them both as Labor Party lackeys, as they viewed John Tingle during his 11 years in parliament. Being a lackey is not a formula for negotiating the best outcomes.

The next performance review will be in six months. MLC Watch will be kept updated during that time.