The Tasmanian Conservation Trust (TCT) wishes to provide a late submission to the Legislative Council Select Committee – Firearms Law Reforms Inquiry. The TCT is very concerned regarding the subject of the committee’s inquiry but we were unable to provide a submission by the advertised deadline due to numerous urgent and important deadlines. We hope that our submission can be taken into account.
The Firearms Law Reforms Inquiry has been established by the Legislative Council Select Committee to investigate a range of matters related to the Liberal party 2018 state election policy on firearms – these are elaborated in the inquiry’s Terms of Reference.
The Tasmanian Conservation Trust is most concerned regarding the provisions of the Liberal Party’s firearms policy that relate to the management of browsing animals, in particular, native species. Hence we are most concerned regarding the section of the policy titled:
‘Finalise a Memorandum of Understanding between the Government, Tasmania Police and the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA)’.
These concerns relate directly to the Committee’s terms of reference, in particular:
(4) The role of the proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the Government, Tasmania Police and the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA);
(5) The ownership and use of sound suppressors by Category C license holders;
The TCT’s concerns are twofold:
- First, the primary purpose of the proposed changes to legislation relating to Category C licences and sound suppressors is to make them available to a much wider group of people, for the purpose of managing browsing animals, but this is not clearly or explicitly stated in the policy.
- Second, that no evidence has been provided by the Liberal party or stakeholders to show that increasing the number and type of people who are eligible for Category C licences and sound suppressors will improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and humaneness of browsing animal control.
Failure to clarify the purpose of the proposed changes to legislation relating to Category C licenses and sound suppressors
The Liberal party firearms policy proposes (page 2) that ‘we will ensure the legislation’:
- ‘Provides for genuine employees to include contractors or agents of primary producers to be able to hold Category C licenses for standard crop protection and pest control purposes.’
- ‘permits Category C holders or crop protection permit holders to own and use sound suppressors’.
Note: although the policy does not refer to wallabies and possums, these are the primary species that are shot under crop protection permits.
Under existing legislation, primary producers are eligible for Category C licences (but not suppressors) and this eligibility extends to people employed as farm managers as well as the property owners. Just what it means to include contractors or agents of primary producers as genuine employees who are eligible for category C licences is not made clear and explicit in the policy. It is our view that this will extend the eligibility for Category C licences to all recreational shooters who obtain permission to shoot on a property. There were 7741 licences issues in 2017 for recreational wallaby shooting (‘Game Tracks’, 2018, page 14). Adding the number of primary producers (those who are currently eligible) and recreational shooters would mean that upwards of 10,000 Tasmanians would be eligible under the new laws to own and use Category C firearms. The proposal to amend legislation to permit all Catergory C licence holders to own and use sound suppressors would make them available to upwards of 10,000 Tasmanians.
It is astonishing that the implications of the proposed changes were not spelled out.
Absence of evidence to support the proposal to increase the number of people who are eligible for Category C licences and sound suppressors
Given the strong concern that has been expressed in the broader Tasmanian community regarding increasing access to Category C firearms and suppressors and the potential for a lot more native species to be shot, it is critically important that there is evidence to justify these proposed changes.
The Liberal firearms policy provides no evidence or references to sources of evidence to justify changes to legislation relating to the use of Category C firearms and suppressors for browsing animal control. The policy is based on a series of serious assumptions, including:
- that existing control measures are inadequate;
- allowing more people to have access to rapid-fire firearms and sound suppressors will have benefits for browsing animal control; and
- that the proposed changes are preferable to other actions.
The policy fails to address animal welfare concerns. It seems to be assumed that using rapid-fire firearms (regardless of experience, skill, training and supervision) will result in improved animal welfare outcomes as more animals are killed instantly. Use of rapid-fire firearms may just result in shooters being less careful and relying on a second or third shot.
The TCT wrote to the Minister for Primary Industries and Water Sarah Courtney on 30 April 2017 asking if there is evidence (and if so to provide it to us) to support the policy proposals regarding Category C firearms and suppressors but do date we have had none of our questions answered.
Our letter of 30 April 2017 asked three key questions:
- What evidence is there that providing more people with access to Category C firearms will lead to a significant and measurable increase in the effectiveness, efficiency, and humaneness of browsing animal control?
- Has the TFGA provided the government or Liberal Party with any analysis regarding the benefits of the proposed changes to firearms legislation for browsing animal control?
- What other actions does the government intend to take to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and humaneness of browsing animal control?
The TCT received a reply from Minister Courtney dated 4 July 2018 but this provided no substantive response to these questions. We wrote again on 10 July 2017, explaining in more detail our concerns and responding to her arguments regarding another Liberal Party policy proposal to establish advisory committees. As yet no reply has yet been received.
The letters to Minister Courtney and her reply are attached.
No evidence has yet been provided regarding the benefits of the firearms policy for browsing animal control. There has not even been a reference to the current impacts of browsing animals and the adequacy or otherwise of existing control measures. As we have stated in our letters to Minister Courtney, there are many other practical means of improving browsing animal control that the government has not supported in its election policies. We are left thinking that the firearms policy has little to do with improving browsing animal control.
Conclusions
As many others have stated, it is a very alarming state of affairs that the Liberal Party intended that its firearms policy would only be released during the state election to selected people, who the government had previously consulted with, and not to the broader Tasmanian public. The policy is a letter addressed to ‘Dear Consultation Group member’.
But as we have stated in this submission, the deceit goes much further. The wording of the policy is not at all clear or explicit in regard to the meaning and implications of the proposal to change legislation regarding Category C firearms and suppressors. In many critical respects, the policy is worded to be clear to shooters but not to non-shooters. The failure to refer to ‘native’ browsing animals or ‘wallabies and possums’, could reasonably be construed to be misleading. Presumably, this was done deliberately to avoid community concern if the policy went to a broader, non-shooter audience, than was expected. However, shooters would definitely know what the most serious browsing animals are.
The failure to spell out that Category C firearms and suppressors would be available to a vastly greater number of shooters than is currently the case is grossly misleading. The true meaning swings solely on understanding what is meant by ‘contractors or agents’ of primary producers and this is not explained.
This was presumably done deliberately to avoid negative responses from non-shooters. It is reasonable to assume that recreational shooters are much more likely to know what a Category C firearm is and to know the implications of use of sound suppressors than are the broader public. Use of technical legal terms seems designed to mislead those who do not know much about firearms but to win favour with those who do.
Finally, the government is proposing changes to legislation that may have little benefit in regard to browsing animal control and farm productivity. No evidence has yet been provided regarding the benefits. The Liberal party has missed an opportunity to put forward policies that are based on evidence and would actually improve the effectiveness, efficiency and humaneness of browsing animal control and improve farm productivity.
Yours sincerely,
Peter McGlone
Director
Tasmanian Conservation Trust