Nationals Going Down With the Liberal Titanic?
Recently we have witnessed National Party members of the government forcing a banking enquiry on the Liberals and the deputy premier of NSW calling for Malcolm Turnbulls resignation. What has caused this surprising burst of courage from a party that is noted for its crawling and grovelling to the liberals? My friends, it’s not courage driving this but political survival. The results of the Queensland election have brought it home to the Nationals that they are facing political oblivion.

At last the shooting movement in Queensland has become organised with the formation of the Shooters Union, an umbrella body that covers most disciplines. They are well run and financed and are affiliated with the NRA. Check out their web site and join. Become active politically and support pro shooting candidates at the next Federal Election. Some readers may wonder why, after 21 years, shooters are still dedicated to the downfall of the National Party. I’ll explain. Our fathers and grandfathers used automatic weapons in the second World War. The Bren, Thompson and the Owen Gun. In Vietnam the National Servicemen were given the SLR (semiauto), the M60 (machine gun) and the M16 (semiauto) and sent to kill people they did not even know. They were trusted with those weapons. Then came Port Arthur. Suddenly these patriots became criminals overnight and couldn’t be trusted with a .22 semi auto. They were vilified by the like of Howard, Fisher, Boswell, Cooper and Borbidge, put on Crim Trak and have to suffer Police inspections.

We will never forget or forgive. Some of the National members now realise that if they stay on the Liberal Titanic it will take them down when it hits the electoral iceberg. They are now thinking about scrambling into the life boats and saving what is left of the party. If this comes to pass they will want to rebuild what is left of the party. They will have plenty of time because they will have years in opposition (think Labor and the DLP). If the Nationals are to have any chance of rebuilding, they must reconcile with the shooters. It will take a lot of courage and humility, traits that are not common in the National Party.

The first step in that reconciliation must be a genuine, heartfelt apology from all members and the national executive to the shooters they have maligned. It would need to be followed up by some genuine empirical action. If the Labor Party thinks it can take comfort from the tribulations of the Nats, I would remind them that the bulk of Australian Shooters are workers and the seat that One Nation won in Queensland was from Labor, by a shooter.

Ian Mc Niven
Senior Vice President
Firearm Owners Association of Australia

NFA Gets Green Light from LNP and Labor in Queensland Parliament.
Within days of the Las Vegas Shooting Labor introduces  its Regulation changes to implement the increased restrictions of the National Firearm Agreement conspiracy. (Conspire to place impositions on the innocent)
These changes have been ready and waiting for nearly a year, waiting for Labor to use a completely un related incident to gain complicity.

MOTION

Disallowance of Statutory Instrument

Mr KATTER (Mount Isa—KAP) (7.45 pm): I move—

That the Weapons Legislation (Lever Action Shotguns) Amendment Regulation 2017, subordinate legislation No. 212 of 2017, tabled in the House on 10 October 2017, be disallowed.

I expect in the debate on this motion tonight that there will be some mudslinging. What is paramount in this debate tonight and what Queenslanders expect when this House deals with the issue of firearms is that the outcomes are significant and genuinely contribute to community safety around firearms. It is paramount that whatever we do here contributes significantly to community safety and is not window-dressing, is not a political stunt and is evidence based.

Secondly, the debate cannot be emotionally driven. These are very serious issues and there are very serious expectations around this in the community. We need to keep to the facts and evidence based data. That is very important in the context of this debate. I believe that firearm owners are very much demonised in the mainstream media, particularly in metropolitan areas where there is not as much interaction and use of firearms. It is quite easy to judge and misunderstand the culture that surrounds these firearms and the people who use them when people are not used to them and do not interact with them.

The issue and reason we are debating this motion tonight is pretty simple. There has been a lot of media hype and obscure media hype around lever-action shotguns. The Labor government has decided to attack licensed firearm owners by directing this at lever-action shotguns. We have been aware for a long time that this was coming. We gave notice of the disallowance motion last night so that we could debate this tonight. We believe the regulation should be stopped.

I firmly believe that the KAP and other cross-benchers could stand beside antifirearm people in a debate on firearms and agree on a lot more than they disagree on. If people really want to address community safety and firearms then there are some meaningful things we could do. This is not one of them. This is rubbish.

I would like to go back to where this started. There was a YouTube clip of an imported lever-action shotgun. I remind members in the House that it is misleading and quite frankly a lie for people to say that this is new technology. I could have acquired one of these legally in Queensland over the last 30 years.

Some politicians down south got hold of the YouTube clip. In the context of the National Firearms Agreement people were looking for something to make an issue out of. The National Firearms Agreement is a very meaningful document which has been worked on for 20 years. People were looking for some meaningful outcomes to address safety issues. This was the firearm plucked out by Minister Keenan. He decided to make a stand on this firearm.

Most firearm owners, particularly in western and regional areas where lever-action shotguns are predominantly used, are quite bemused about this. It is such an obscure category of firearm to pick on. Everyone is quite confused about why it has attracted all the attention.

The heart of the issue is that too many people who do not know what they are talking about have jumped on the bandwagon in terms of this issue and made a political football out of it. That is why we are here tonight debating this. The real issue here is that we are failing to recognise where the real effort should be put in and instead changing a category of shotgun.

The National Firearms Agreement is a very meaningful document. The antigun lobby could come together with others and do something meaningful. Let me go through some of the things that could be done. Unfortunately these things are a bit difficult for government and costly so they have been sidelined in this debate. Instead we are talking about one obscure reference in one particular category.

11 Oct 2017 Motion 3051

The things we could be doing include the following. We could have a permanent amnesty on firearms. We just finished an amnesty. That was a great idea. I totally in favour of it. It should be permanent.

The next thing we could do is have an instant licence verification system. At the moment we are still using an antiquated paper based system. I could have a gun licence and I could be radicalised or could have a domestic violence order against me and I would not be found out for six months. It is an antiquated paper based system that does not catch up with people. That should be digitalised so that we have an instant licence verification system. That is real safety. That is what we should be debating tonight. Unfortunately, we have a political football on our hands. There will be an illusion of public safety for the people of Queensland, which is a lie.

The next thing we should be doing is lobbying the federal government for customs to have more resources to track what is coming into the country in the post. I am sure that members who are going to engage in the debate tonight will have educated themselves by watching the Four Corners program a few months ago. It did not focus on licensed shooters or an Adler. It looked at all of the guns that come in illegally. That is where the problem is. People are bringing Glock pistols into the country by mail order. Customs are not checking 75 per cent of our mail coming into the country; only 25 per cent is being checked. I can log onto the internet tonight and order a Glock pistol to come in the post and I have a 75 per cent chance of getting it. We are told, ‘That is not a problem. We will not put any resources into that. We will not be lobbying for that. What we are going to talk about is a lever-action rifle that a small fraction of shooters use. That is the big problem. That is going to contribute to community safety.’ That is rubbish.

The next thing I would like to talk about is the way this is being used. This goes to the heart of how lever-action weapons are used. When politicians were scrambling for some meaningful evidence as to why this gun should be recategorised, they said it has a similar action to a pump action. I challenge you to go and talk to someone who uses firearms—I do not use them a lot—and say that to them and they will laugh at you. It is silly. The police in New South Wales finally came up with this idea to tell politicians that. This did not come from a study of weapons, analytically looking at what is a risk and what is not, looking at crimes and where the big risks are and pulling those firearms out. This came from media hype, from politicians trying to grandstand on the issue of firearms. It is sad that we have lowered the level of debate once again in this country. We have lowered the expectations of Queenslanders by using this as a political football and grandstanding on these issues, pretending that we are making them safer. If we want to have an argument about making Queensland safer, I am all for it—let us have it. Let us have a proper debate on meaningful action, but do not bring this rubbish into the House and say that this is going to solve the problem because it will not.

Anyone who has spent any time looking at the evidence and the data know that the problems do not come from the licensing part of the industry. That is not where the problems come from. The problems do not predominantly come from stolen weapons or licensed gun owners. They come from criminals acquiring weapons. When it comes to the tragedy in Martin Place, that shotgun was never registered in Australia and it was used by a deranged person. The licensing regime has no impact on those sorts of tragedies. If there is a reference to the tragic event in the United States tonight, if you try to pull that into this debate, shame on you because it has nothing to do with this. If you are talking about bringing into parliament changes to the categorisation of a lever-action shotgun as a response to that tragedy, that is poor government at best. We should be talking about making meaningful changes to our laws that will provide a safer environment for the community. We have a lot of common ground there with the antigun people.

Like I said, the main priorities of the firearms industry include having a permanent amnesty for people to hand in their firearms. That is what the firearms industry want. They want permanent amnesty. They also want an instant verification system. This is top of the pile of priorities for them. It is not about expanding the use of guns or including more guns in the easier-to-acquire categories. These are the priorities. The other priority is lobbying the federal government for more scrutiny by customs of items coming through the post. That is where the real change can happen.

Once again, it is very easy in parliament to pick on the licensed firearm owners. Changing the licensing regime seems like a good idea. If you follow through with this regulation tonight, it is cynical at best and misleading to say the least to the Queensland public. I think there are some really good things we can do in the Queensland parliament to increase community safety around firearm legislation. There are some good things we can work together on. If you want to throw in changes to the licensing of lever-action firearms, you are going to inflame people, you are not going to make any difference and it is not evidence based. If there is a tragedy or if there are crimes linked with this type of weapon or if

3052 Motion 11 Oct 2017

there is new technology being brought in, fair enough. Let the umpire decide. Do not create a story once you have decided that this is going to be used as a political football. I think that is the reason why people lose faith in politicians. They want to know that there is substance behind what we do in this House.

The issue of community safety around firearms is very serious. I think there is a lot of common ground in this House on that issue, despite our different ideologies around that. There are a lot of good things that we can do. This is not one of them. This is a smokescreen. This is low-hanging fruit. I think the timing of this is appalling. It is very much reflective of the continued attitude towards licensed firearm owners in this state, trying to make out that they are the problem. They never have been. All the evidence backs that up. All of the effort that goes into licensing and increasing the licensing regime is tearing up police resources. They should be chasing criminals. I plead with the House tonight to consider the way it is going to vote. Please consider the community safety issues that should be pursued. This will not make a difference there.

I want to make one other point before I finish—that is, the grandfather clause that is offered in this regulation is inoperable. If you dig down through the detail, there have been changes made to the definition of modifications of firearms. Modifications are commonplace in the industry—people will change a stock on a rifle and do a lot of things themselves. Changing the definition of modifications has the ability to make every modified licensed firearm out there unlicensed. It has the potential to make everyone who has modified a rifle a criminal—which would be a very big proportion of firearm owners. This regulation has been poorly put together and put together with a political agenda. Members better think very carefully about how they vote on this tonight. This regulation will have some unintended consequences that will not reflect well on this parliament if it gets through.

Hon. JA TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Minister for Transport and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (7.59 pm): I rise in opposition to the disallowance motion put forward by members of the Katter’s Australian Party in this House. It has been more than 20 years since Australia’s tough gun laws were introduced in the wake of the tragedy at Port Arthur where 35 Australians lost their lives—the worst gun massacre in Australia’s history. In this time these laws have proven to be very effective and are often internationally acclaimed as an example of comprehensive, effective public policy making. In fact, former prime minister John Howard once said that his changes to Australia’s gun laws were his greatest achievement in office. I did not agree with John Howard on much, but on this issue and on his reflection I absolutely agree.

I was proud of Australia as a nation when we adopted these laws after the Port Arthur massacre. It was not just the right thing to do; it was the only thing to do. Protecting the integrity of these laws—and that is what we are talking about tonight—is the right thing to do and, again, it is the only thing to do, particularly after we saw the incredibly horrific massacre in Las Vegas.

The Palaszczuk government will always fight to protect our gun laws because we know that these laws are keeping Queenslanders safe. Last year at COAG all states agreed to implement a number of measures aimed at keeping Australia’s gun laws strong and contemporary. That includes reclassifying lever-action shotguns like the high-capacity Adler shotgun into a more restrictive category, which is what this amendment will do. We are acting on our obligations under the agreement reached at COAG by all jurisdictions across all party lines to respond to the changes in technology since the introduction of the National Firearms Agreement.

Let us be clear: through technological advancement these guns are able to shoot seven or more cartridges in just seven seconds. That is similar to pump-action shotguns which were banned after Port Arthur. Through our regulations these guns will be reclassified as category D firearms, the highest level of classification. While Tim Nicholls and the LNP have said that they will not vote against these regulations, by their absence of vocal support here in the chamber tonight during this debate and by looking at their firearms policy it is clear that these laws will never be safe under a Liberal National Party government. I would not be surprised if this regulation was reversed under an LNP-One Nation government in Queensland.

We know that in an effort to secure preferences from their secret coalition partners in One Nation the LNP will undercut community safety by taking an axe to internationally acclaimed gun laws. We already know that the LNP-One Nation coalition would see the automatic renewal of category H licences with just a fit and proper person test. That is their own policy. That is the policy they are out talking up in the bush, but they come in here and they do not stand in their place and defend that policy position.

Under the current laws, gun owners must reapply and, as well as showing they are a fit and proper person, they must have a genuine reason to hold a concealable handgun—not just because of

11 Oct 2017 Motion 3053

the job they do but for a genuine reason. The LNP’s proposal would effectively give a class of people in Queensland an unfettered right to bear arms for no tangible reason. Let us be clear about that: these are rules that would apply to concealable weapons. This is the LNP’s official policy position on guns—to allow concealable weapons for no good reason.

Ms Jones interjected.

Mr Mander interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Stewart): Order! Members, we are not debating this across the chamber.

Ms TRAD: Twenty years on from our groundbreaking gun reforms the LNP do not even mention the National Firearms Agreement anywhere in their policy. It is not a cornerstone or a significant foundational reference for their guns policy. There is not one mention of the National Firearms Agreement. Given the chance, they will turn their back on the bipartisan, proven National Firearms Agreement to appease One Nation.

Ms Jones: Anything to do a deal with One Nation they will sign up to.

Ms TRAD: I take that interjection—anything to do a deal with One Nation. Is there nothing that Tim Nicholls, the member for Clayfield and opposition leader, will not do to try to become Premier? I stand here today to confirm that I will never grow complacent on this issue. This is an issue that I feel incredibly passionate about.

An opposition member interjected.

Ms TRAD: Everywhere. I take that interjection. I feel passionately about this everywhere I go, because community safety, gun ownership and gun control are issues for every single Australian and every single Queenslander. It is time that those opposite stop their hypocrisy and stand in their place and articulate their position. The Australian Labor Party will not let us go backwards. We will not forget the victims of Port Arthur. We will not forget the victims of the Monash University tragedy or Hoddle Street or any of the other tragic mass shootings that occurred before Australia had our strong gun laws. We realise that keeping our community safe is more important than doing deals with One Nation and Pauline Hanson.

Mr Emerson: Why don’t you say that to the CFMEU which is threatening kids tonight? What do you say about the CFMEU?

Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not taking the interjection from the member for Indooroopilly.

Mr Hart interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burleigh, I have called order. You need to come to order. Member for Indooroopilly, your interjections are not being taken. Neither are yours, member for Burleigh, and neither are yours, member for Burnett.

Ms TRAD: Like a coward, the member for Indooroopilly comes in here and heckles, but will he stand in his place and make it clear to the people of Indooroopilly what he thinks about—

Mr WATTS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. If the Deputy Premier is going to attack us, then we are entitled to defend ourselves and it is certainly—

Ms Jones interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Education, there is a point of order. The member is on his feet.

Mr WATTS: If members are going to be named by the Speaker and criticised by the Speaker, surely we are allowed to retaliate and defend ourselves to the Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! One moment, please.

Opposition members interjected.

Ms TRAD: Absolutely. I am calling you cowards because you are. Stand in your place. You want to talk big out there. Come in here and talk—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Deputy Premier, while I am taking counsel I ask the House to remain in silence. I have taken counsel from the Clerk. There is no point of order. I also warn the opposition whip about challenging the authority of the chair.

Ms TRAD: The Labor Party will always put community safety and strong gun controls above any dirty deal with One Nation and Pauline Hanson. What the LNP are doing on this issue is reprehensible.

3054 Motion 11 Oct 2017

They say one thing outside this chamber, but in this chamber they will not stand in their place and declare their position. I think the people of Queensland ought rightly reflect on this and come to the conclusion that these people are not fit to govern this fine state.

The member for Clayfield and the Liberal National Party will do absolutely anything for One Nation’s preferences and that is pretty clear—including coming into this chamber and remaining silent on this critical and very important issue that their colleagues at a national level and in other jurisdictions are at one on in terms of reclassifying the Adler lever-action shotgun. They will soften our gun laws and make it easier for people to carry concealable weapons. On this side of the chamber, we are not going to stand back and see our gun laws weakened in Queensland. To do that would not only put at risk the safety of Queenslanders, which is paramount; it would also undo and weaken what has been internationally acclaimed public policy in the area of gun ownership and gun control. Quite frankly, I think it is worth fighting for and I will always fight for it.

Mr DICKSON (Buderim—PHON) (8.10 pm): I am so pleased to follow the Deputy Premier and follow her bits and pieces of logic. I have not quite got through all of that yet. She spoke ad nauseam about One Nation and the great fear that the Labor Party and the LNP have, and I need to respond to those accusations that were made. I need to let the Deputy Premier know very clearly that we are not interested in making a deal with either party. She can continue to say it until she goes black and blue in the face, but again she is wrong. It is a bit like the $5.4 billion she wants to waste for the people of Queensland. She is also wrong.

Let me talk about the regulation, which is what we should be doing at the moment. The ALP will always demonise shooters. It does not matter where they are; they have a record and a consistency of doing just that. Tonight, we will find out whether or not the LNP will do that. That is a decision they will make later tonight when they vote.

This motion tonight is to do with the National Firearms Agreement, but we need to go right to the heart of what this is about. We are talking about an Adler seven-shot pump-action shotgun. Shotguns have been around for a very long time. They do not fire a great distance. Anybody who understands weapons knows that. We have what is called a 30-30. It is a lever-action weapon and it shoots a few more rounds than the seven shot. It shoots a lot further and with a lot more accuracy over a lot greater distance. If the Labor Party were concerned, they would probably ban them tomorrow, but 200,000 people in Queensland have licences and they legally own firearms.

The laws that were put in place by Prime Minister Howard a number of years ago have worked very efficiently and very effectively. We have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but the ALP have this lefty attitude about them where they want to implement silly rules. Today this is a silly rule and I will go straight to the heart of this silly rule. The silly rule relates to an issue of lawful modification. Crown law’s advice was that all modifications require a licenced armourer to do those modifications. If people do it themselves, as those 200,000 people will do, they will be breaking the law and hence be put in prison. We would need bigger prisons in Queensland to hold the 200,000 registered shooters. That is what the ALP are pushing tonight. They do not want to tell anybody that, or they just do not understand that that is part of the legislation that is going through. That information was given to me by the Shooters Union and they have crown law advice from the Queensland police on this particular issue. I urge members to dig in deep before they vote tonight.

I would like to ask the minister a question tonight. How many people have been shot or injured by an Adler seven-shot lever-action weapon? I am waiting with great anticipation to find out the number of people who have been shot or killed here in Queensland. Minister, I very much look forward to the answer to that.

Let me dig down into some of the things we need to jump into tonight. John Howard did a great job. This country has been in good hands with many good governments but I have not seen one for a little while. To ostracise these legal firearm owners in this state would be a great travesty, and that is where the Labor Party is going tonight. We all know that the Labor Party wants to ostracise gun owners. That is why the gun owners and the gun lobbyists across the state have started to erect signs. I can see many more signs going up across Queensland because these people are being victimised, and people in Queensland should not be victimised.

Sometimes when I wake up in the morning in Queensland I feel like I am living in the twilight zone. The cost of energy has gone through the roof. That did not happen by accident; it happened because bad governments let that happen. The basic thing we should do in this state is deliver services and look after the state, as we should be doing with the licenced firearm holders in this state. Tonight is a symbol about destroying democracy in the state of Queensland because that is what the Labor

11 Oct 2017 Motion 3055

Party are leading with. I am waiting to see what the LNP do. I have a couple of quotes that have been made over a period of time.

Ms Jones interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Stewart): Order! Minister for Education, that was unparliamentary language. I ask you to withdraw and please do not interject. Your interjections are not being taken.

Ms Jones: I withdraw.

Mr DICKSON: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know how rough the people in the Labor Party can get. When they cannot win by fair play, they play dirty. I heard about the unions today—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Buderim, those comments were not necessary. I now call you back to order.

Mr DICKSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, what I heard in the news today was something about unions saying, ‘If you don’t do it our way, we’ll rape your children.’ Where did that come from? Who says that? I was disgusted to hear that. I am sure that must have come from those opposite. It is their friends. I will return to the regulation and a quote from an ABC News report relating to the Adler shotgun in Queensland.

Government members interjected.

Mr DICKSON: If you want to talk about the Labor paedophiles, we can go there too but you should save that for later. This news article is titled ‘Adler shotgun: Queensland LNP threatens to block pm’s Adler restriction’.

Honourable members interjected.

Mr DICKSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot hear. It is very difficult to hear with these people.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members on both sides of the House, there is too much audible talk within the chamber. I am having difficulty hearing the member for Buderim. I ask you to please stop, otherwise you will need to take your conversations outside.

Mr DICKSON: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a shooter but I feel scared of those people over there. They are dangerous.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Buderim, you do not need to reflect on the chair. Please resume your debate.

Mr DICKSON: The ABC News published an article called ‘Adler shotgun: Queensland LNP threatens to block pm’s Adler restriction’ on 13 December 2016. It stated—

Queensland’s Opposition Leader says he does not take “riding instructions from Canberra” and could block the Prime Minister’s proposed restrictions on the Adler shotgun.

Malcolm Turnbull and state and territory leaders have agreed to put the seven-shot lever action Adler gun into the most restrictive ownership category, meaning it would only be available to professional shooters in certain conditions.

…

LNP leader Tim Nicholls has not ruled out blocking the restrictions, and says there has not been enough consultation with gun owners.

“We already have strong laws in Queensland that protect people and make sure only the right people can get those sorts of weapons.

“We want to understand exactly why it is that it’s thought necessary to ban it.

“We don’t think you should just ban these outright, you should understand exactly what the need for them is.”

Another article is titled “‘In danger and in the dark’: Perrett on Adler gun laws”. It states—

The LNP is under extreme political pressure to back its Gympie MP Tony Perrett in his defence of the controversial Adler lever action shotgun.

They should back him because there is nothing unlawful about these weapons. There never has been and there never will be, except under Labor’s rule, but that is what we are seeing happen here tonight.

Another article is titled ‘LNP to renew category H licences for Gympie farmers’. I thought the LNP were going to back gun owners. I am sure we will see that when the division is called later this evening. Otherwise, are the National Party dead and buried? Are they gone forever? I really hope not because they were protectors of the land, protectors of the farmer and protectors of those things we believed

3056 Motion 11 Oct 2017

were good and honest and those things that were fought for over many wars in this country. Our ancestors fought in two world wars. They were pretty brave men and women who did a whole lot of good. You would not believe it but they used guns and they used them in defence of this country. They came home and they owned guns. I grew up on a farm where there was a gun above every door but nobody got killed and nobody got hurt. That is in the past. We have moved forward after Port Arthur and we have the most restrictive gun laws in the world here in Queensland.

Tonight is about destroying democracy in this state. As I said earlier, when there is an election coming up, it means talking about the reef and talking about firearms. The ALP do not want to talk about anything like baseload energy or people burning candles in Queensland; they talk about firearms. They do not want to talk about things that really matter. They want to talk about Safe Schools. That program has to be the worst possible program in this country, and that was brought to us by the Labor Party.

Ms JONES: I rise to a point of order. I do not know what relevance this has to the gun laws, but I ask that the member gets back to the debate that is before the House tonight.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Stewart): Order! Thank you, Minister for Education.

Honourable members interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, members of the House. Member for Buderim, before I ask you to resume your speech, I ask you to make sure that you speak to the motion at hand, please.

Mr DICKSON: I am very happy to do that. I was led astray by those in the Labor Party who want to talk about One Nation and all these different things. I will not do that because that is what they do. I will not do that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Buderim, I have just counselled you that you need to speak to the motion. Otherwise I will ask you to sit down and we will move to the next speaker.

Mr DICKSON: Let’s go back to the demonising of gun owners in Queensland. Mr Speaker, the clock has not been restarted.

There are 200,000 gun owners in Queensland, who would love to be able to get on with their lives without having the Labor Party interfering with them on a daily basis. The Adler shotgun is not going to hurt anybody. We know what is hurting people in Queensland, and that is the Labor Party. They are interfering in shooters’ lives. There are 200,000 license owners in Queensland, hence, there are probably 200,000 families. They probably have four people in each family. That is a whole lot of votes. I hope and pray that they vote against this party that demonises shooters. We will stand up for them.

I know that after the next election there will be a balance of power; that is what the maths tells us. One Nation is not going to get into bed with either party. We will make sure that Queenslanders are put first because the two tied parties have lost their way. We will always put people before politics. These gun laws that we are debating in this House tonight are a demonstration to the people of Queensland that this parliament is getting it wrong.

Ms BOYD (Pine Rivers—ALP) (8.21 pm): I think if that is the calibre of the candidates of the One Nation Party in Queensland at the next election, we can probably all rest a bit easy. During my time in this place it has no doubt been a surprise for some to find out that I have been an advocate on behalf of the licensed shooting community. It is something that I have spoken about with my colleagues across this House and it is something about which I am passionate. In comparison with our friends in the United States, we are fortunate in Australia that gun ownership is not a political wedge issue; it is a public policy question. However, the fundamental framework is broadly agreed upon and settled. This is in large part due to the sensible approach taken on this issue by most sides in the debate over the past 20 years. It is a credit to former prime minister John Howard and his government that in response to the horrendous massacre at Port Arthur he and his ministers acted with such speed to address the issue of the future of gun ownership in a way that has dramatically reduced firearm deaths. It is a credit to the former Borbidge government that in the lead-up to a state election and in the face of community opposition, they supported this important reform through to completion.

I will not accept fringe arguments that we need guns for our national security or for personal property defence. That is the role of our professional Army and our professional police force respectively. However, we live in a free society and there are legitimate recreational and agricultural uses for firearms, so we must regulate our access to firearms accordingly to ensure that they end up in responsible hands and for legitimate reasons. It is easy to lose perspective in this debate and move to

11 Oct 2017 Motion 3057

a position of hyperbole. I have worked hard to ensure that the licensed shooters in my community and, indeed, across Queensland have an extra voice in this place.

The politicisation of this group in our community is not positive for them and it is not conducive to good policy outcomes. It achieves nothing positive at all. One of the reasons I have been a vocal advocate on this issue is there has been unfair demonisation of licensed shooters in the media and in our political process. I have had numerous meetings with individuals, advocates and stakeholders in my community and beyond. I am disappointed that the hard-won gun reform legacy of John Howard was so carelessly abused, first by Tony Abbott and then by Malcolm Turnbull in their horsetrading with crossbench Senator David Leyonhjelm. This trading on gun laws was part of a shameful exercise to strip away workplace rights and reinstate the illegitimate Australian Building and Construction Commission. This, of course, backfired horribly on Senator Leyonhjelm when Malcolm Turnbull reconnected with his dormant climate-change-believing, leather-jacket-wearing former self and did the right thing on gun laws at long last. It was either the ghost of progressive Malcolm Turnbull or the ghost of the Howard prime ministership that haunted the Prime Minister. In any case, Senator Xenophon summed up the situation well when he stated, ‘The problem with horsetrading is sometimes you end up with a donkey or, worse still, you end up making an ass of yourself.’

To be clear, the Palaszczuk government will never support a weakening of our gun laws. Under the Palaszczuk government, Queensland will remain part of John Howard’s internationally lauded National Firearms Agreement—NFA. At the December 2016 meeting of COAG, all states and territories agreed to reclassify lever-action shotguns. At the meeting it was determined that lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of five shots or under would be categorised as category B weapons and those with a magazine capacity of more than five rounds would be categorised as category D weapons, one of the most restrictive categories. In the 20 years since the Howard reforms it must be noted that we have seen technology and weapons advancements, so we need legislation that is reflective of that. As I have said to many, including the member for Mount Isa and also Rob Nioa, someone cannot market a lever-action firearm as shooting off eight shots in eight seconds and not expect that to result in community concern.

Mr Katter interjected.

Ms BOYD: It is not new technology; I take that interjection from the member for Mount Isa. It is a rapid firearm. It can shoot off bullets at a rapid rate and there is legitimate community concern around that. The laws that we make in this place need to reflect technological advancements. While the lever technology is old, the fire rate is new.

Lever-action shotguns with a capacity of five or fewer rounds will be transferred from weapons category A to category B, and those able to hold more than five rounds will move to category D. The reclassification of low-capacity lever-action shotguns to category B will have a negligible impact on existing owners. All current owners possess a firearms licence permitting them to own either a category A or B weapon. This will enable retention of the lever-action shotgun under the conditions of their current licence after its reclassification from category A to B.

Reclassifying lever-action shotguns as category B weapons will, however, affect new acquisitions by requiring a person, for the first time, to state a ‘genuine need’ to possess it. This is not a requirement for category A weapons. Reclassifying high-capacity lever-action shotguns to category D will significantly restrict community access to them as the authority to possess a category D weapon is granted only for specific reasons, such as agricultural culling.

However, there is no intention to adversely impact the rights of law-abiding gun owners who possessed a high-capacity lever-action shotgun prior to their reclassification. That is why the Weapons Legislation (Lever Action Shotguns) Amendment Regulation 2017 includes appropriate transitional provisions to enable continued ownership rights for existing licensees. The amendment regulation will grandfather the affected weapons by adding an endorsement to the licence of registered owners. The QPS will add an endorsement to the licence of all owners of high-capacity lever-action shotguns if, immediately prior to the notification of this amendment regulation on 10 October, the shotgun’s magazine capacity recorded in the commissioner’s firearms register was more than five rounds, or is more than five rounds because of a lawful modification of the gun. The endorsement will state that they must retain possession of the shotgun even though it is a category D weapon.

The provisions will also allow for a person inheriting such a weapon to be granted a similar endorsement enabling them to possess the weapon under the conditions of a category B licence, provided that the inheritor already holds a firearms licence. Having had extensive consultation and conversations in this policy space, I absolutely understand that not all firearms owners will agree with

3058 Motion 11 Oct 2017

this decision. That said, once the changes are implemented, most weapons licence holders in Queensland will continue to be able to own lever-action shotguns, including the five-shot Adler shotgun.

I want to be very clear in this debate: this is not about demonising licensed firearm owners. All of the evidence backs in that our licensed firearm owners are doing the right thing. Very rarely, if at all, do we see crimes committed by licensed shooters with registered firearms. It is just not prevalent in our country. Our role in government is to keep the community safe, and part of that is limiting access to high-powered weapons that can, if in the wrong hands, cause the kind of devastation that we saw in Las Vegas in recent weeks. At the beginning of the Adler debate I did not see myself making a speech like this, but I am very confident that as a government we will continue to work closely with all stakeholders. We will continue to carefully balance the interests of those with a genuine need to access firearms with the safety and security of the broader community.

We are a government committed to implementing strong gun protection laws. The reclassification of the Adler lever action shotgun needs to happen to comply with the NFA. All other states and territories are making this change in order to comply with the NFA that was set down by John Howard. We need to make that change too, and ultimately we will keep Queensland safe from those who would do us harm. It is for these reasons that I cannot support the member for Mount Isa’s disallowance motion.

Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—KAP) (8.30 pm): I fully support the disallowance motion moved by the member for Mount Isa. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Labor Party has tabled a regulation calling for tighter gun control in this House. The KAP has moved a disallowance motion to remove the regulation for tighter gun control, so the disallowance motion that we have moved in this House keeps the status quo. By moving this disallowance motion we do not add to or weaken gun control laws. Everything stays the same. The reason why everything stays the same is that John Howard introduced the toughest gun control laws in the world, so members cannot say that the disallowance motion that we have moved is badly worded or a stunt. We have basically moved this disallowance motion to maintain the status quo. Everyone, including the media and the Labor Party, has said that John Howard introduced some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, so we do not need it.

We are keeping the status quo but because we are a tight parliament, a hung parliament, we need the support of the opposition and the crossbenchers and we are hoping to receive the support of the Labor Party. Their support is vital, because if governments constantly change gun laws year in, year out we will lose the foundations that we have fought for right from the beginning. It is important that we block this motion, and I hope that we have the support of the opposition and the crossbenchers. This ABC article states—

Adler shotgun: Queensland LNP threatens to block pm’s Adler restriction

Queensland’s Opposition Leader says he does not take “riding instructions from Canberra” and could block the Prime Minister’s proposed restrictions on the Adler shotgun.

…

LNP leader Tim Nicholls has ruled out blocking the restrictions, and says there has not been enough consultation with gun owners.

…

“We already have strong laws in Queensland that protect people and make sure only the right people can get those sorts of weapons.”

These are not the Prime Minister’s tougher gun control laws: these are the member for South Brisbane’s tougher gun controls. The KAP has moved the disallowance motion to maintain the status quo. I will read you another article from the Gympie Times which says—

‘In danger and in the dark’: Perrett on Adler gun laws

The LNP is under extreme political pressure to back Gympie MP—

it is good that he is going to support us—

Tony Perrett in his defence of the controversial Adler lever action shotgun.

The Government reportedly plans to introduce new legislation to reclassify the seven-shot firearm, but will need the support of the Opposition or at least three out of five cross-benchers to pass the changes.

Katter’s Australian Party MPs, Robbie Katter and Shane Knuth say they will block the laws and need only one more cross-bench vote, or Opposition support, to succeed.

11 Oct 2017 Motion 3059

That is all we need. We need one more crossbench vote and the opposition to succeed and we will block this regulation. What will happen if we block it? It will keep the status quo of the toughest gun laws in the world. That is all it does, so that is all you are supporting. The article continues—

Although the LNP is still attempting to gauge public opinion before formulating its policy, Mr Perrett has already said the state government has no facts on which to base a reasonable decision.

…

“I’ve seen no evidence by any authority which supports the reclassification of the Adler.

“As a weapons licence holder, gun owner and primary producer, I support practical, evidence based gun classification.

“I support the rights of law abiding gun owners and not those who use emotional grandstanding to demonise guns and their users,” Mr Perrett told The Gympie Times.

We believe that we have Mr Perrett on our side. He does not believe in emotional grandstanding because there was a shooting in America. We do not believe that because there was a shooting over there we have to change things very quickly, because there is no evidence that shows this with regard to the Adler. There is no evidence to justify the restriction. There have been no incidents to justify the banning or restriction of the Adler. There is no evidence at all to support restrictions being placed on the Adler. This ABC article is quite good and we like it. It states—

Adler shotgun: Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie says heavy restrictions are irrational

Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie has been scathing of the heavy restrictions on the Adler shotgun, saying they are not based on evidence.

She is right: there is no evidence, and you will back us, won’t you, because you have been spruiking about it. The LNP—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Farmer): Order! Member for Dalrymple, please resume your seat for one moment. This is a passionate debate, but there is far too much conversation going on around the chamber and far too many ferocious interjections. Please allow the member to speak. I call the member for Dalrymple.

Mr KNUTH: I would like to remind everyone that this has been put into the same category as the AA15, so this is going a bit overboard. All of the reports, newspapers and everything that we have read suggest that the LNP is for law-abiding firearm owners and they are there to back them. ‘Day in, day out we’re with you.’ The article goes on to quote Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie, a great woman—

“There’s no evidence to suggest that this is a rational decision based in evidence, in common sense,” she said.

“Look, I think it is incredibly disappointing that today we saw Labor and Liberal premiers turn their back on evidence based policy making.”

This is not an evidence based policy decision. Moving this disallowance motion is not a stunt: it is removing Labor’s regulation for tighter gun control. What is disappointing is that, when there is a shooting, they always target the law-abiding firearm owner who has been through police checks.

An honourable member: Demonise them.

Mr KNUTH: They demonise them, and these are members of gun clubs and primary producers. Why don’t they target the tens of thousands of illegal guns that are trafficked through this country every year? Why don’t they check the 75 per cent of parcels that come through the post into this country unchecked? These are the big issues that we should be worried about. There is no evidence to support tougher gun controls in this state. We need the support of the opposition to block this, because we are here to ensure that Queenslanders get a fair go and they are not disadvantaged by governments that bring in emotive policies, particularly close to election time. I fully support the disallowance motion moved by the KAP.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Nudgee, I ask members to keep their conversations to a minimum. The volume of conversation is getting quite high and it is quite hard to hear members.

Ms LINARD (Nudgee—ALP) (8.39 pm): I rise to speak against the disallowance motion. I am no stranger to firearms. My father was a rifle champion in his youth and his family were all property owners. I grew up around firearms and I grew up with a healthy respect for the valid role they play in certain circumstances and a healthy respect for the dangers they pose. This government will never be against responsible gun ownership, but we will also never forget that the paramount principle in responsible firearms policy is to protect the community. This regulation demonstrates that commitment to protecting the community with strong gun laws while continuing to support responsible gun owners.

The National Firearms Agreement, which, as we all know, had its genesis in 1996 following the tragic events at Port Arthur, has formed the basis of successful gun control in this country for over 20 years. It has formed the basis of Queensland’s regulatory framework for the control of firearms which has indisputably served to prevent the types of tragic mass shootings observed overseas. The community—certainly my community—does not want to see this changed. Since 1996 over one million weapons nationally have been handed in and destroyed through gun buyback schemes or weapons amnesties. Nationally, mass shootings have reduced from 11 in the decade prior to 1996 to zero in the 21 years since. Evidence shows that the rate of firearms related deaths, both suicides and homicides, has also greatly reduced since 1996. These are indisputable facts.

This amendment regulation will bring the treatment of lever action shotguns, currently classified as a category A weapon, into line with other types of shotgun such as pump action or self-loading weapons. This reclassification brings Queensland into line with the 2016 COAG decision to strengthen the National Firearms Agreement. New South Wales has legislated to classify lever action shotguns, Western Australia has done it and the ACT has done likewise. It is time Queensland followed suit.

Lever action shotguns with a capacity of five or fewer rounds will be transferred from weapons category A to category B, and those able to hold more than five rounds will move to category D in respect of the potential threat they pose. The reclassification of low-capacity lever action shotguns to category B will have negligible impact on existing owners. The reclassification of lever action shotguns that hold more than five rounds to category D is warranted. High-capacity lever action shotguns do not by their nature require reloading as frequently as low-capacity shotguns. They have the potential to cause maximum harm in minimum time. Marketing for the Adler shotgun claims that the Adler A110 12-gauge lever action shotgun 20-inch model is ‘tailor made for fast and furious pig shooting … This new technology lever action shotgun is a game changer for the Australian market, and must-have’. That may not be a problem when such a powerful weapon is in the hands of a fit and proper person with a genuine reason for possessing such a firearm, but it is absolutely incumbent on any responsible government to put appropriate safeguards around such possession in the broader community interest.

I appreciate that not all firearm owners will be in agreement with this decision—some will vehemently oppose it—but it is vital that Queensland, and indeed Australia, continues to comply with the spirit of the National Firearms Agreement to keep Queenslanders safe. It is vital that we remain vigilant and committed to that decision 21 years ago to set a policy course in regard to firearms that seeks to achieve the best balance between the needs of people such as sporting shooters and primary producers who require genuine access to firearms and the interests of the broader community. The community expects it.

While I am talking about gun control, I want to talk for just a moment about category H licences and the capacity to carry a concealed handgun. To use the words of Tim Fischer, Australia’s deputy prime minister in the mid-1990s when Australia radically changed its gun laws, the suburban person with a gun in the drawer next to their bed—something, I gather, still common in the United States—has never been part of normal Australian life. Under our current laws that handy bedside gun would also be illegal, unless the bedside table was a gun safe bolted to the wall with a key kept separately and the ammunition stored elsewhere. This is what the community expects. It is certainly what the families across my electorate expect.

The Palaszczuk government will never support a weakening of our gun laws. Under the Palaszczuk government Queensland will remain part of John Howard’s world renowned National Firearms Agreement. The LNP’s election policy on firearms regulation does not, however, give this same commitment. The LNP’s proposed removal of the genuine reasons criteria for reapplications for category H licence holders to hold concealable handguns is a blatant watering down of gun laws and a deviation from the National Firearms Agreement. Under the current laws gun owners must reapply and, as well as showing that they are a fit and proper person, they must have a genuine reason to hold a concealable handgun. The LNP wants that test gone and has vowed to renew all existing category H gun licences. This is absolutely out of step with the expectations of much of the Queensland community.

The strong gun controls in this country have worked for 21 years. They are to be respected and not deviated from without extreme caution. Allowing the continued possession of a concealed handgun without, in changed circumstances, a genuine reason is appalling but predictable LNP policy, but it is a policy that I know people in my electorate will reject strongly.

As I said in my opening remarks, this government will never be against responsible gun ownership, but we will also never forget that the paramount principle in responsible firearms policy is to protect the community.

11 Oct 2017 Motion 3061

Mr MANDER (Everton—LNP) (8.45 pm): The LNP believes that the fundamental role of any government is to keep its citizens safe. As we have demonstrated to the people of Queensland time and time again, the LNP will always put community safety first. One of the ways this is achieved is by ensuring we have firearms laws that limit the possibility of the tragic events that we have recently witnessed overseas but that, at the same time, do not limit the legitimate rights of our primary producers to have appropriate tools of trade and the rights of those who enjoy shooting as a sport.

The overwhelming majority of Queenslanders support the National Firearms Agreement introduced by then prime minister John Howard in 1996. It is heartening to continue to hear members of the Labor government feting this great prime minister. For this reason the LNP cannot support tonight’s motion to disallow Labor’s new regulations because it is important that we have national consistency on weapons categories. We also believe that there are important protections that allow firearms owners who legally own lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than five rounds to apply for an exemption under the new laws.

There is another consequence to supporting this disallowance motion that the Katter’s Australian Party have failed to realise. A temporary import ban on lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than five rounds was put in place by the Commonwealth government in 2015. That ban remains in place today. That ban will only be lifted once every state and territory has moved to reclassify that weapon from category B to category D. If this disallowance motion is defeated tonight, we will be the fifth jurisdiction to do that, with three to go. Let me say again what this unintended consequence is. If this regulation is disallowed tonight, the temporary import ban will remain in place and none of these weapons will be allowed into the country for any reason. A successful disallowance motion by Katter’s Australian Party will backfire on the mover.

I acknowledge that many law-abiding firearms owners see Labor’s new regulations as an attack on their rights and an attack on their integrity. This is totally understandable when you look at Labor’s track record in this area. Law-abiding firearms owners are unfairly demonised—and we have seen it tonight once again—by left wing political parties and treated like criminals when all they try to do is the right thing and comply with the law.

It is hard for them to swallow Labor’s rationale of watering down tough laws that make it easier for organised crime gangs to get weapons yet treats them with utter contempt and disdain. It is hard for them to swallow the media reports that we see yet again today which sees the CFMEU get away with its ongoing lawlessness and treating construction workers with fear and intimidation, yet law-abiding firearm owners get demonised for trying to comply with the law and have increased red tape and regulations.

It is important to understand how we have come to this debate tonight. Last night we clearly saw the Labor Party and Katter’s Australian Party cook up a deal to create a wedge on an important community safety issue which should never be trivialised. It is not often that you see the Governor rushed to parliament on a Tuesday night to sign off on an Executive Council minute. I am sure that Queenslanders would like to know what deal was made in exchange for the events that took place last night. Last night’s political stunt was clearly choreographed, and the blame for that lies at the feet of the Deputy Premier, Jackie Trad, who continues to peddle misinformation and use emotional rhetoric that the firearm community are sick and tired of. That was clear from the Deputy Premier’s comments on radio this morning on the ABC and her contribution here tonight.

There is no doubt Labor’s election platform is skewed in favour of left-wing ideological policies to help salvage the Deputy Premier’s political hide in South Brisbane rather than governing for all of Queensland. It is about fighting the Greens on issues that matter to people in South Brisbane rather than across the state. While Labor’s policies lurch to the left, Queenslanders will suffer from that skewed policy agenda that they will reject at the next state election. I would encourage Queenslanders to completely disregard the emotional rhetoric and misinformation that comes out of the mouth of the Deputy Premier, Jackie Trad. It is clear that she is deliberately scaremongering. We understand that some people in the firearm community will be disappointed with our position this evening. However, we believe that we have made a balanced decision—one that takes into account the interests of the whole state—and it will not lessen our resolve to ensure fairer gun laws for law-abiding citizens.

Ms Jones: What does that mean?

Mr MANDER: I take that interjection; I will explain it now. It is our plan to respect the rights of law-abiding firearm owners—the people who do the right thing—with a focus on getting back to basics, and that is the centre of our policy, Fairer Gun Laws. We will do this by the following: we will restore proper consultation through a properly constituted ministerial weapons advisory panel as a standing

3062 Motion 11 Oct 2017

body that will meet every three months and there will be genuine consultation, not being told what will happen as currently happens, and we will ensure that policy decisions are informed by evidence and expert advice, not misinformation and media spin. We will improve the screening processes with real-time background checks by reforming the application and compliance process so that police can ensure there is a more rigorous system with a focus on compliance, not bureaucracy. This will be done by implementing a licensed instant verification system, with the reforms to be led by the ministerial weapons advisory panel as a priority. We will increase penalties for gun crime and reinforce our approach to cracking down on criminal behaviour, not Queenslanders who are doing the right thing. We do respect the right of primary producers and landholders in this state and the fact that they need firearms as a tool of trade, and those who have had category H weapons licences for years and years and years will be grandfathered.

The current approach by the Weapons Licensing branch has provided great uncertainty and needs to change. The LNP has continued to raise examples of this issue in the media and in the parliament where law-abiding owners have had licences denied for no good reason. Unlike Labor, we will not treat law-abiding firearm owners like criminals. The LNP will continue to respect law-abiding firearm owners and ensure that their rights are protected. We cannot support this disallowance motion tonight which would put Queensland out of step with every other state on a fundamentally important community safety issue.

Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Minister for Tourism, Major Events and the Commonwealth Games) (8.54 pm): I start by saying that clearly the member for Everton has just let the cat out of the bag. The staffers who work for the LNP have been working really hard at the moment briefing the Brisbane media that, ‘We support it. No, we’re not watering down gun laws.’ Even though very few of those opposite want to talk about it tonight, the LNP is going to vote with the government in ensuring that we have nationally consistent laws when it comes to firearms in this country. This is in stark contrast to what those opposite are saying out in the bush. We just heard the member for Everton say, ‘If we get into government we’re going to have fairer gun laws. We’re going to get back to basics. We’re going to restore public consultation for policy decisions on gun laws.’ Those opposite should come clean about the policy decisions on gun laws that they hope to introduce if they get back on this side of the House.

Ms Bates interjected.

Ms JONES: I take that interjection.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Farmer): Order! Member for Mudgeeraba, please allow the minister to speak.

Ms JONES: What I do know is that as a mother I am very happy that there are safe gun laws in Queensland. It does make me sleep better at night and I can say to my child that he lives in a state with the toughest gun laws in the country. I have had that conversation with him, and unfortunately I have had to have that conversation with him in the last couple of weeks.

Ms Bates interjected.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mudgeeraba, I ask you to please cease your interjections.

Ms JONES: Gun laws are not a fickle thing; they are a real thing. We know that gun laws save lives. That is why tonight no-one on the Labor Party side of politics got up and demonised farmers. No-one criticised law-abiding gun owners. No-one made any of those comments whatsoever—not one of us—and none of us will because we absolutely understand that the tools of the trade for farmers do involve gun laws. We understand that. We have always understood that. That has always been Labor Party policy, and I do know that, member for Mudgeeraba. I worked for a minister who had a gun licence thank you very much.

Tonight we saw the LNP briefing the Brisbane media to say, ‘No, we’re not voting against this. That’s just crazy Jackie Trad.’ That is what those opposite have been saying, but we know what they are saying in the bush and the Katter party knows what they are saying in the bush. The LNP says that it is time to rethink the rights of farmers on gun laws. Who is saying that in Kingaroy? The member for Nanango. Andrew Cripps, the member for Hinchinbrook, said that the LNP is going to be—

… focusing on compliance not bureaucracy, by rolling out a Licensed Instant Verification System.

We know what that means: that those opposite are watering down the criteria of genuine reasons.

Mr Cripps: No, it doesn’t mean that.

11 Oct 2017 Motion 3063

Ms JONES: Yes, it does. The member for Gympie in his local paper said—

Last week we heard calls for fixes to gun laws despite the big difference between fully automatic guns and farmers using guns as a tool of the trade.

That is what they say in the bush, but they are briefing the media upstairs to the opposite effect. There is then the headline ‘Fairer gun laws with proper consultation: Millar’. Lachlan Millar, the member for Gregory, is saying that under the LNP we will get fairer gun laws with proper consultation. The member for Everton appeals to the voters in his community, but he said in his own words that they are going to set up this new weapons advisory panel to look at the policy decisions on gun laws in this state. They should come clean about what those policy decisions are going to be if they do their dirty deal with One Nation to form government.

Mr Cripps interjected.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hinchinbrook, your interjections are not being taken. Please cease.

Ms JONES: Unfortunately, we know that, when a party like the LNP does a deal with One Nation, this is exactly what we are going to see in Queensland: the watering down of laws, including gun laws, in our state because it has to pander to the ultra right wing of its own party.

Mr Cripps interjected.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Farmer): Order! Member for Hinchinbrook, if you do not cease your interjections I will warn you under standing order 253A.

Ms JONES: Those opposite say one thing in the bush and then brief the media in Brisbane with another. We know that the LNP’s policy waters down Queensland’s laws and the laws introduced by John Howard. The LNP’s policy changes the category. I know that the police minister has made this very clear in his reply to all of the letters the members opposite have been writing. They are all a bit scared of those One Nation voters. They are pandering to them in their local communities.

Mr Cripps interjected.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hinchinbrook, I warn you under standing order 253A. You understand the consequences if I need to warn you again.

Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. When the previous speaker on this side of the House was speaking, government members screeched incessantly throughout his speech. I think this House deserves a consistency of ruling in terms of interjections.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Ms JONES: We know why the honourable member for Callide had to do that. They are getting called out here tonight. They know that, despite the letters they are writing to people in their communities, under the current laws gun owners must reapply as well as show that they are a fit and proper person. In addition, gun owners must be able to demonstrate a genuine reason to hold a concealable handgun. That is the law. It is consistent with what happens elsewhere in the country. The LNP has a policy saying that there will be only one test and people do not need to have a genuine reason to have a concealable weapon. As the member for Ashgrove, that concerns me. As the Minister for Education, that concerns me. As the mother of two children, that concerns me.

An opposition member interjected.

Ms JONES: What did the member say? I would like to take that interjection. Would the member like to say that again? No, I did not think so. That is what we are seeing here tonight. The LNP members are running scared. They know they are copping it in the bush. They have to pander to their One Nation mates, who are eating into their vote. But they are also scared about their vote in Brisbane, because they know that Australians want tough gun laws. We are proud of our gun laws. We know that our gun laws make a difference to safety in our country.

Tonight, the members opposite have been caught out. I know that they will vote with us, but they will go back home to their electorates and tell their mates that they do not support these laws, exactly like they have done in their letters. It is shameful. They should stand up and be honest about their true position.

Mr PERRETT (Gympie—LNP) (9.02 pm): I rise to speak in support of the motion to disallow the Weapons Legislation (Lever Action Shotguns) Amendment Regulation 2017.

Mr Minnikin interjected.

3064 Motion 11 Oct 2017

Ms JONES: I rise to a point of order. I heard that. I take offence to being called ‘crazy’.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you asking the member to withdraw?

Ms JONES: I am asking the member for Chatsworth to withdraw that comment, because it is offensive to people with mental illness.

Mr MINNIKIN: I withdraw.

Mr PERRETT: I have and always will support practical evidence based decisions about gun licencing and classification. I back data and facts against the emotional grandstanding and political point-scoring of the Labor Party any day.

This regulation is blatantly nothing more than the Labor Party playing politics. It is cloaking it in some spurious argument about being concerned about the welfare of Queenslanders by demonising law-abiding farmers, graziers and sporting shooters. The government has sat on this issue for 10 months, because it wanted nothing more than to wait for some incident, some event, to give it a chance to have a go at weapon owners. In December last year at COAG, the government made a commitment without proper consultation with Queenslanders. On issue after issue this government fails to consult those who are most affected by its decisions. It makes empty promises about embracing consultation. When it comes to gun owners, the government pays lip-service to consultation. When it comes to the way in which the government addresses gun licensing, gun ownership or gun classification, it significantly undermines the rights of law-abiding firearm owners in our state.

We have to ask: why is the government now proposing this regulation to punish our law-abiding firearm owners who do the right thing and comply with the law? Because it is no longer running a government. It is in full election mode as the Labor Party, not as the Queensland government. Of course, that means that every decision will be made and every discussion will be held with its eyes on vote chasing. The government is seeking to secure support from anti-gun activists at the expense of gun owners, because it is scrambling to shore up votes in anticipation of a state election.

The Premier and the Labor Party continually pander to inner-city zealots who use hysterical and shallow arguments to demonise gun owners and users. These zealots want to close down any activity in regional and rural Queensland. We already have effective gun control laws in Queensland that protect people and ensure that only the most responsible people can access guns. The government should be focusing its attention on criminality and noncompliance. Let me be very clear: this regulation is not about making Australia any safer, because it is criminals who access illegal firearms, not law-abiding gun owners. Jumping to conclusions based on innuendo, speculation and false comparison is plainly dishonest. Farmers use guns. Guns are a tool of trade. Farmers need guns for the safe management of their farms and properties to control feral animals. The Labor Party has treated farmers as if they are members of criminal gangs. Instead of being treated like criminals, they deserve a fair go.

Over and over again I have listened to the arguments put forward by the government—arguments that are full of emotive words, contemptible arguments that are purely blatant vote garnering. All this week we have heard the government raise issue after issue that is solely designed to play to an audience of wealthy, unproductive inner-city zealots who think the whole world revolves around their concrete enclaves. It is an audience that is obsessed with the lifestyle, the pastimes and the work practices of the workers who live outside a few square kilometres of Brisbane. It is an audience that demonises our rural and regional industries, our lifestyles and our workers.

Last year, the minister advised me that the state government body in control of weapons licensing does not even know how many weapons licence holders there are in each regional area. That means that the government is making decisions about the reclassification of weapons and weapons licences when it does not have any adequate knowledge and data on the use of weapons in Queensland. Obviously, the government is jumping to conclusions based on innuendo and speculation. I back data and facts against that any day. It means that this regulation about the reclassification of the Adler lever action shotgun has been based on reasons other than hard facts.

As I have said, I support practical evidence based decision-making regarding guns. I have seen no evidence by any authority that supports the reclassification of the Adler. There could be no other conclusion than that the government wants to make it harder for firearm owners, licensed dealers and sporting shooters.

I am committed to ensuring that we have a weapons licensing system that protects the community and respects the rights of law-abiding firearm users who try to do the right thing and comply with the law of the day. As a weapons licence holder, gun owner and primary producer, I will fight to

11 Oct 2017 Motion 3065

protect primary producers and the firearms community’s rights against the continual attacks from the Labor Party. I support the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Mr BUTCHER (Gladstone—ALP) (9.07 pm): I rise to oppose this disallowance motion on gun regulation. The Palaszczuk government will not allow our gun laws to be weakened in this state. Under the Palaszczuk government, Queensland will remain part of John Howard’s National Firearms Agreement.

The action that was taken following the Port Arthur massacre 20 years ago was the right thing to do. Our nation is safer and Queensland is safer. I will proudly put up my hand to brag about the Palaszczuk government’s refusal to weaken weapons laws in Queensland, because there is nothing more important to our government than the safety of all Queenslanders. Unlike the LNP, we will never risk the safety of Queenslanders for a cheap political grab at votes.

The Palaszczuk government will always take advice from those on the front line who have the most to lose from any weakening of our gun laws: our brave police. I know that Minister Ryan has met with many groups about this issue. To hear from the opposition that the minister has not consulted with anyone is totally wrong. As the brother of a policeman, I am seriously concerned about any relaxation in gun laws. It in the 18 years between 1979 and 1996, there were 13 fatal mass shooting incidents in Australia. These incidents resulted in a total of 104 deaths with at least another 52 people injured. With the number of serious deaths because of guns I am concerned about the safety of my brother and his colleagues when they have to turn up to any sort of altercation where a weapon is involved.

There have been no fatal mass shooting incidents in Australia since the introduction of the National Firearms Agreement and the initial gun buyback in 1996-97. In December last year at COAG every state agreed to reclassify lever action shotguns. The joint Commonwealth and New South Wales review of the Martin Place siege made a number of recommendations regarding firearms, including that the Commonwealth, states and territories should simplify the regulation of the national firearm market through an update of the technical elements of the National Firearms Agreement. The report included an acknowledgement that there had been significant technological advancement and departures from the NFA since 1996 which should be addressed in this new review, which we have done. Thirty-eight recommendations for changes to the NFA were put to the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council. The majority of the NFA recommendations were supported; however, there are five areas where Queensland legislation does not comply with the agreement.

Lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity of up to five rounds will be classified as a category B weapon and those with a magazine capacity of more than five rounds will be classified as the more restrictive category D weapon in Queensland. The federal government’s ban on imported lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than five rounds will continue until the COAG agreement is implemented by all jurisdictions.

The minister established a firearms advisory forum and its members are working constructively with stakeholders about a range of firearm matters, including how best to implement the changes agreed by COAG. Queenslanders deserve the same protections as every other Australian. When it comes to gun laws I take advice from our police and from my brother, not from members of the crossbench. I stand for the safety of our community and for our police.

Mr MILLAR (Gregory—LNP) (9.11 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to tonight’s debate. Let me make it clear from the start that the LNP supports primary producers and their right to access firearms. We consider them a tool of the trade. Where I come from in the seat of Gregory one of the biggest issues we face at the moment is access to category H licences. Category H licences are a tool of the trade for primary producers who cover properties from 25,000 to 80,000 acres. The category H licence is something that I regard as an important tool of the trade for primary producers. It is an animal welfare issue. If there is a beast that needs to be put down it can be put down quite easily and quickly. The last thing we want to see is primary producers running around with longarms on the back of four wheelers going through grids and fences.

We have seen a hold up in the access to category H licences. People who want to renew their category H licence have been unable to renew it. A couple of weeks ago a person who has had his category H licence since 1970 received news that his category H licence will not be renewed. He has had a pistol since 1970. He uses that in the same way one would use a pair of pliers to fix a fence or a shifter to fix a pump. It is there to be used as a tool of the trade. If he sees a beast that needs to be put down or he sees some dogs who are attacking some ewes he is able to use that weapon very quickly and effectively to protect livestock on his place. He has had his category H licence for well over 30, 40

3066 Motion 11 Oct 2017

years. He is a law-abiding person and a good member of the community. For him to be refused this licence is a real concern.

I call on the Labor government to make sure that primary producers have access to those licences because they are very important. Those primary producers feel alienated and demonised when they are refused licences they have held for a very long time. These are people who are on 30,000, 40,000, 50,000, 80,000-acre properties who travel from water point to water point, from bore to bore, from trough to trough to check water and to check on stock. They need to have access to that type of weapon.

I continue to get calls into my office with people saying, ‘I have had access to this licence for well over 40, 50 years. It was handed down by my grandfather. We are not lone cowboys.’ At one stage a former agriculture minister labelled them lone cowboys. It was absolutely insulting to those hardworking graziers to say that they were lone cowboys. They are responsible, law-abiding people. It is important to recognise that these people need to be treated fairly. I note that AgForce has come out today and expressed its concern about this being the thin end of the wedge. I will be looking at this very carefully and making sure that primary producers have access to the weapons they need to be able to carry out their day-to-day operations. They are not criminals. If the government wants to get rid of criminals or the issue of access to guns then maybe it should have a look at the watering down of bikie legislation. That is where we see access to those sorts of weapons. Primary producers are law-abiding people who are sick of being demonised. If they are not being demonised through vegetation management they are being demonised through this issue. These are the people who are putting food and on our table and fibre on our back. They are the unsung heroes of the economic renaissance we will hopefully have soon in Queensland. We have critical opportunities to access key markets in Asia, certainly with our beef industry with the growing demand for protein. For us to access that market we need to get rid of more red tape and allow primary producers to conduct their businesses the way that they need to. As the son of a primary producer, the grandson of a grazier and great grandson of a grazier I could not be more passionate about agriculture because it is something I believe in. I know members here are very passionate about it. We do not need to be demonised. We do not need to be used as political capital. When it comes to election time the same card seems to be rolled out.

Mr Power interjected.

Mr MILLAR: I will take that interjection from the member for Logan and ask why are we seeing the Deputy Premier introduce vegetation management laws that will stop people in their tracks and stop agricultural production? When was the last time high-value agricultural land was approved by the Labor government? Never! You have to approve high-value agricultural land to grow increased opportunities. We have India waiting for more chickpeas. We need to give producers the opportunity to run their businesses the way they see fit. One of the issues is access to the firearms that they need. One of the biggest issues I have in Western Queensland is access to category H licences and the continual denial of their applications given that they have had them for 30 to 40 years. It is shocking—in fact, it is depressing—when one sees this happening to law-abiding men in their seventies and eighties who have paid their taxes and played a huge part in their community. They have been involved in growing agriculture, whether it is increasing wool production or increasing beef production, and providing jobs and associated opportunities for the towns where they spend money with the local tyre fitter or the auto electrician. Agricultural production is the most important thing and to be demonised and used as political capital on these sorts of issues is wrong.

I will always stand up for agriculture and primary producers. I hope that we would all do that. I will be keeping a very close eye on this issue and making sure that primary producers have access to the weapons that they need. It is not a luxury. They are not, as a former agriculture minister said, lone cowboys. They use these firearms in the proper way. They have been taught from a very young age how to properly handle a firearm. I remember my father teaching me from a very young age how to handle a firearm. He was very strict and stringent in the way that we handled them. We have gun safes. We are law-abiding people, but we seem to get caught up in this issue all the time.

Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (9.19 pm): I wish to speak very briefly against this disallowance motion. I simply say no. We cannot in any way allow any weakening of our gun control laws. Every time we hear of a tragic event such as occurred in Las Vegas recently, we shake our heads and people all over Australia ask why US politicians are not doing something about gun control. How can they keep allowing such things to happen?

Tonight I have heard members from the other side describe people in my electorate as inner-city zealots, urban elitists and left wingers. I have even heard them called unproductive inner-city zealots. I

11 Oct 2017 Motion 3067

have heard people talk about destroying democracy, demonising gun owners and the right to bear arms. I say to the House that those are my people and they are Queenslanders. They deserve to know that their government is in charge and that we are going to retain the strict gun laws that have made us a lighthouse all over the world. There is nothing wrong with that.

I ask people opposite to think about saying what they have said tonight to an inner-city person who has lost their child in one of those massacres. Would they call such a person a left wing zealot or an unproductive left winger? How can they defend what they have said tonight? I do not know how the LNP is going to vote, because there seems to be a little bit of difference over there. They need to tell me what is wrong with farmers having to establish a need to renew their licence once every five years. If they say that to the parent of someone killed in a massacre, I will tell them why no-one will vote for them.

Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.21 pm): My government opposes this disallowance motion because this regulation is about one issue: keeping Queenslanders safe. Whilst most Queenslanders have never fired a gun and never will, for a number of Queensland, such as graziers, it is part of their work and they are licensed to own and operate a firearm. Through this regulation we do not seek to impinge on the ability of farmers to do their jobs; rather, we seek to protect all Queenslanders from the risk of firearms being used against others.

Before the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, this country was far from immune to mass shootings. Among others, we had endured the Strathfield massacre in Sydney and the Queen Street and Hoddle Street shootings in Melbourne. Here in Queensland, months before Port Arthur, at Hillcrest in Logan a man shot dead six members of his own family before killing himself. It was a horrific example of the domestic shootings that claim so many lives and it was committed with a lever-action shotgun.

Port Arthur changed Australia. John Howard deserves enormous credit for the decision he took in the wake of that tragedy. John Howard delivered strong national firearms laws. The member for Buderim acknowledged John Howard had taken strong action, but he claims that this measure is somehow a Labor assault on primary producers. The fact is that this measure was agreed to at COAG, headed by Malcolm Turnbull and made up of state and territory leaders, Labor and Liberal. COAG agreed to strengthen the National Firearms Agreement by reclassifying lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of no greater than five rounds to category B and those with a magazine capacity of greater than five rounds to category D; and to task COAG’s Law, Crime and Community Safety Council to finalise and implement the updated NFA as soon as practicable.

My government is restricting access to high-capacity lever-action shotguns in a move that will strengthen the National Firearms Agreement for Queenslanders’ safety. Lever-action shotguns are currently classified in the least restrictive weapons category, category A. The regulation means that lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of five rounds or less, low capacity, will be reclassified as category B weapons. This will require new applicants for such weapons or licences to demonstrate a legitimate need to possess a category B lever-action shotgun. At the same time, lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than five rounds, high capacity, will become category D weapons. Access to category D lever-action shotguns will only be granted to licensed applicants with an occupational requirement, such as professional animal cullers. We want to bring the treatment of these guns into line with other types of shotguns, such as pump-action or self-loading weapons. This will not prevent primary producers from eradicating vermin, but it will ensure that all high-capacity lethal firearms can only be possessed by the very small number of people who have a legitimate reason to do so.

I was at the COAG meeting. On behalf of the people of Queensland, I agreed to strong uniform national gun laws. Queenslanders deserve the same protections as every other Australian. We do not seek to diminish the rights of the vast majority of law-abiding Queensland gun owners. We ask for their understanding of our determination to ensure that this state and this nation need never again be put at risk from the kind of events that have sadly become so common in the United States. That is why the government will be voting against this disallowance motion.

Hon. MT RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Minister for Corrective Services) (9.25 pm): I oppose the disallowance motion. Australians will never forget where they were in April 1996 when 35 people were slaughtered and 23 people were injured by a lone shooter at Port Arthur. The loss of life was staggering and tragic. It followed a number of other shootings that had stunned our nation. However, thankfully, Port Arthur was the turning point. It was a proud but bittersweet moment in Australia’s history when we stood as one to say enough was enough.

3068 Motion 11 Oct 2017

To give credit where credit is due, John Howard, a Liberal Party prime minister who was by no means popular on my side of politics, showed remarkable leadership to unite and protect this nation by forging the National Firearms Agreement. That was not an easy thing to do politically for Mr Howard or the conservative state leaders who had to sell the agreement to their rural constituencies and took much political pain as a result. We have heard Rob Borbidge, a former premier of Queensland, make that very point. However, those leaders were resolute and, as a result, the National Firearms Agreement and the legislation that the states introduced as a result stopped the mass shootings we had begun to get used to.

In the 18 years between 1979 and 1996, there were 13 fatal mass shooting incidents in Australia. Those incidents resulted in a total of 104 deaths, with at least another 52 people injured. There have been no fatal mass shooting incidents in Australia since the introduction of the National Firearms Agreement and the initial gun buyback in 1996 and 1997. I repeat: there have been no fatal mass shootings in Australia since the NFA was introduced. It was unequivocally the right thing to do. Our nation is safer and Queensland is safer. In fact, Australia’s gun laws have become the gold standard internationally, cited each time a tragedy happens in the United States.

The National Firearms Agreement placed tighter controls on firearms possession. Our Weapons Act and weapons regulations are based on the National Firearms Agreement and include the underlying principles that weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety and that that safety is improved by imposing strict controls on the possession of firearms. The weapons category regulation categorises those weapons in line with the National Firearms Agreement. Those categories generally had regard to the potential danger posed by the weapon, with lever-action shotguns classified as category A weapons.

In December 2014, the unthinkable happened. A lone gunman, a terrorist and mad man, held 18 people hostage in the Lindt cafe in Sydney’s Martin Place. Two hostages died and three hostages and a police officer were injured. Again it was time to review our firearms laws. A report by the joint Commonwealth and New South Wales review into the Martin Place siege was considered by the Council of Australian Governments’ Law, Crime and Community Safety Council. The report included an acknowledgement that there had been significant technological advancement and departures from the National Firearms Agreement since 1996 that should be addressed. As a result, the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council agreed to implement a number of the review’s recommendations, including simplifying the regulation of the legal firearms market through an update of the technical elements of the National Firearms Agreement.

There had already been concerns articulated over the proposed importation of a large number of Adler A110 lever-action shotguns with high-capacity magazines of seven rounds or more as opposed to the more commonly available three or four round shotguns. In August 2015 the Australian government banned the importation of lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than five rounds based on concerns that their continued importation may undermine the public safety intent of the National Firearms Agreement.

The reclassification of lever-action shotguns was subsequently incorporated into the National Firearms Agreement review. Lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of up to five rounds will now be classified as category B weapons and those with a magazine capacity of more than five rounds will be classified as the more restricted category D weapons. On this very point, this year I met with John Howard in Sydney and discussed this matter with him. Mr Howard told me that he remains resolute about gun controls in Australia.

The Palaszczuk government will never water down our tough gun laws. In light of last week’s tragedy in Las Vegas, the debate about gun control has again been reignited around the world, and it is a debate worth having. In fact, it is a debate that must be ongoing and untainted by base political motives. This issue is too important to shy away from, particularly in the aftermath of the deadliest mass shooting in United States modern history, with 58 dead and almost 500 people injured—mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and friends slaughtered by a mad lone gunman. Hundreds more maimed and thousands more had their lives changed forever.

The Queensland government has an added responsibility to ensure the safety of everyone who lives and visits our state in the lead-up to the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games next year. Nothing must mar our reputation as a safe place to visit. The Palaszczuk government has always acknowledged that the vast majority of firearm owners in Queensland are decent, law-abiding citizens.

I established a firearms advisory forum to ensure they all had a voice at the table. It includes representatives from the firearms industry, the dealer network, the agricultural sector, sporting and

11 Oct 2017 Motion 3069

recreational shooters, victims of crime groups, the police and Police Union and the Queensland Law Society. We have worked constructively with stakeholders on a range of firearm matters, including how best to implement the changes agreed by COAG. They do not all agree with all of the changes, but they are changes that must be made. Queenslanders deserve the same protections as every other Australian, as we agreed at COAG. Our community and our police need to know they are protected by the toughest firearm laws possible and that their government will stand up for them and not allow any weakening of those laws. Allowing one crack to appear in the armour we have created with our laws will weaken our entire shield. It may also lead to more and more deviations from the National Firearm Agreement and the protections that it affords.

I will not apologise and I will not, unlike the LNP, retreat under the pressure. Under the Palaszczuk government Queensland will remain part of John Howard’s National Firearms Agreement. I am surprised and wary to hear the LNP will support the Labor government on this issue. I surprised because both the LNP leader and his police spokesman have been touring Queensland’s regions in recent months saying quite the opposite. Unfortunately it appears the LNP members are saying one thing in front of the cameras here in Brisbane and another thing completely different out there in apparent fear of the threat of One Nation. Earlier today—

Mr Cripps interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Member for Hinchinbrook, I would urge you to make your interjections relevant.

Mr RYAN: Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition said—

We support John Howard’s gun laws. We believe that they provide the appropriate level of security. We put community safety and security at the forefront of our considerations and we support those laws that were brought in in 1996 and we won’t be supporting the disallowance motion.

Yet his police spokesman, the member for Everton, has been saying something quite different to gun lobbyists. Earlier this year the member for Everton told the Shooters Union Australia that this reclassification that we are considering tonight had nothing to do with the Lindt Cafe incident and refusing to reclassify lever-action shotguns would not undermine the National Firearms Agreement. In fact, he went on to add that this particular reclassification was an attack on the integrity of Queensland shooters and their rights to have firearms.

It appears that we have a case of good cop, bad cop on the LNP side, but it is mostly bad cop. The LNP’s recently released firearms election policy goes onto further water down aspects of our strong gun laws—for example, by removing the genuine reasons criteria for reapplications for category H concealable handguns for rural use. Worryingly, nowhere in the LNP’s election policy do they mention a commitment to John Howard’s National Firearms Agreement. In fact, they do not mention it at all.

I also found it interesting that their policy is called fairer gun laws. Why would they not say safer gun laws or tighter gun laws? Could the LNP perhaps explain who their gun laws will be fairer to? Could it be Ron Owen from Gympie because the member for Everton has admitted that he has been talking with the president of the Firearm Owners Association of Australia who, just last week, just days after the Las Vegas shooting massacre had the gross insensitivity to describe all gun laws as irrelevant and demand the unregulated ownership of firearms. In that interview that the member for Everton did with the Shooters Union Australia he mentions how he drops into Ron Owen’s place when he is in Gympie to consult with him and also mentions how he is now more informed on gun laws. The Shooters Union Australia is an international affiliate of the US pro-gun lobby, the National Rifle Association, and has the stated aim of stopping the National Firearms Agreement.

Perhaps even more alarmingly the member for Everton has repeated his attack on the Queensland Police Service’s Weapons Licensing Branch. He has told the Shooters Union that the Queensland Police Service’s Weapons Licensing Branch was dictating policy by refusing some applicants licences and that any minister who allowed that to happen was gutless. He said a police minister was obligated to intervene and order police to stop interfering with people’s right to own firearms. I make no apology for taking advice from those on the front line—those who have the most experience and who are impacted the most by weapons legislation, our brave police.

The offensive attack on our police by the member for Everton is not new. He has made numerous allegations again the Weapons Licensing Branch and has even accused them of not complying with the law. In their just released policy, the LNP state that they would stop the Weapons Licensing Branch from rejecting applications for licences. ‘The current approach by the Weapons Licensing Branch has provided great uncertainty and needs to change,’ the policy says.

3070 Adjournment 11 Oct 2017

Last month the member for Everton also told Queensland Country Life that a Tim Nicholls led government would be ordering the Weapons Licensing Branch to toe the line. ‘The government can’t abrogate its responsibility to public servants, which is what Labor has done,’ the member for Everton has said.

People who have had their licence renewal refused will be able to reapply under the new policy they say. In other words, a Nicholls led LNP government will order the Queensland Police Service’s Weapons Licensing Branch to issue licences to people who have previously been rejected. They will be telling our police how to do their job. Operational decisions should always be made by the police in accordance with law, not by politicians. The Liberal National Party have made no secret of their opportunistic plan to grab votes by watering down our tough gun laws. In April this year, amid a worrying outbreak of gun violence on the Gold Coast, a gaggle of local LNP MPs joined pro-gun lobbyists at a Gold Coast shooting range to open fire on John Howard’s firearm laws. The Gold Coast Bulletin reported that the Shooters Union Australia and joint host, the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia, used the event as a platform to criticise existing gun laws.

What we see time and time again from this LNP opposition is a persistence to mix policing with politics. It got them into trouble in the dark old days of the Bjelke-Petersen era and it will get them back in trouble again. They have learnt nothing from the lessons of the past. The Leader of the Opposition now has to come clean. Is he weakening our gun laws as part of a preference deal he has done with One Nation or is holding on to the leadership of the LNP—

Mr DICKSON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not think One Nation has too much to do with the debate, and we are still waiting for the minister to answer the question: how many people have been shot by Adlers since June 2015?

Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Mr RYAN: The Leader of the Opposition now has to come clean. Is he weakening our gun laws as part of a preference deal he has done with One Nation or is holding on to the leadership of the LNP so important that he is willing to betray his constituents in Clayfield and around Queensland who will no doubt be appalled by any weakening of our gun laws?

Our government stands for strong gun controls. Our government will not step back from the National Firearms Agreement. We oppose the disallowance motion and we support keeping Queenslanders safe through a robust, responsible, strong gun control regime here in Queensland.

Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to.

AYES, 5:

KAP, 2—Katter, Knuth.

PHON, 1—Dickson.

INDEPENDENT, 1—Gordon.

CONTRARY VOTE, 1—Perrett.

NOES, 76:

ALP, 39—Bailey, Boyd, Brown, Butcher, Crawford, D’Ath, de Brenni, Dick, Donaldson, Farmer, Fentiman, Furner, Gilbert, Grace, Harper, Hinchliffe, Howard, Jones, Kelly, King, Linard, Lynham, Madden, Miles, Miller, O’Rourke, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pease, Pegg, Pitt, Power, Russo, Ryan, Saunders, Stewart, Trad, Whiting, Williams.

LNP, 37—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Bleijie, Boothman, Cramp, Crandon, Cripps, Davis, Elmes, Emerson, Frecklington, Hart, Janetzki, Krause, Langbroek, Last, Leahy, Mander, McEachan, Millar, Minnikin, Molhoek, Nicholls, Powell, Rickuss, Robinson, Rowan, Seeney, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stuckey, Walker, Watts, Weir.

Pairs: Byrne, Costigan; Enoch, Stuckey; Lauga, McArdle.

Resolved in the negative.

ADJOURNMENT.

Truth “Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools” R. Kipling.
by Jim Jefferies.

See.

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/vb.346937065399354/964786396947748/?type=2&theater

The following is a response I wrote to his video clip which seems to be infecting young people on facebook who do not have the depth of general knowledge to realise they are being conned in a big lie.

Truth “Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools” R. Kipling.

“Fans of Jim Jefferies who all would score less then 80 on the Stanford–Binet IQ test, please do not read any further, it will be too mentally challenging for you. You would never understand an intelligent debate.”

To state the previous sentence would be arrogant, it imitates the arrogance and ignorance of the bully. It is similar to the tactics of Jim Jefferies, who assumes that anyone who pays money to hear his diatribe must be intellectually retarded so treats them to his insane illogical, rubbish, leaving a pause and commanding them to laugh.

Treating his audience, like training a choir of monkeys, who laugh when someone else laughs, laughing in the hope that eventually he might say something funny before they go home.

If the un funny comedian wants to look for grounds to sue in this article here they are, Jim Jefferies is a fraud, a liar, and a foul mouthed creep. With his highly exaggerated artificial “Australian oker-isms’ he insults all Australians. What’s more he is a bully, he bullies his audience to laugh and make fun of the bereaved. Sneering, at those who have lost their property, degrading anyone who might have a different opinion than himself. A ‘knave’ by name and actions.

As Jim discusses Massacres, we all have to know what a massacre is.

“Oxford Dictionary”. Defines a Massacre as, “An indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people”: Example ‘reports of massacres by government troops’

Government troops are mentioned as in most cases civilians are mainly massacred by their own governments, but a slaughter of many people is a massacre.

The figure of a 100 million is regularly ascribed to the deaths due to governments slaughter of its own population during the 20th Century. This is not deaths in warfare, but governments eliminating large amounts of its own population as in Mao ‘s Cultural Revolution, 50 million Chinese, Hitler 10 million Jews, Gypsies, Poles Russians, and Stalin’s 20 million Russian, Ukraine and Poles, Pol Pot million Cambodians, Turkeys Armenians, and 13 million massacred by the Japanese.
All of these people were real like you and me, they valued their life, Jim Jefferies has written them off, they do not count, he says the ‘biggest massacre ever on earth’ was Port Arthur where 35 people were killed. In these first words Jims credibility sinks to zero.
For Example; In 1570 Cyprus. Ottoman Muslims captured Cyprus and massacred 30,000–50,000 mostly Greek and Armenian Christian inhabitants. See a short list in Notes below.

In Jim Jefferies  youtube ‘An Australians View on Gun Laws’ he states,

” Things that are just Facts, ‘Right’,”

“In 1996 Australia had the Biggest Massacre on earth,” (Pause for laughter)

“Still hasn’t been beaten. ‘Laugh’. Then they banned the guns. ‘Right’”

“Since 1996 there has not been a single massacre since. ’Laugh’”

Of course to anyone who knows the truth, those are not the Facts, they are lies.

Neither Port Arthur, nor any other Australian Massacre was the Biggest Massacre, No where near, his whole statement was a direct lie.

So to was his main premise, the lie that there has not been another massacre since.

For Example;

Childers Palace Backpackers fire 23^rd June 2000 Childers, Queensland 15 Dead , Arson attack by Robert Paul Long, which killed 15 international backpackers.
See below for a longer list, but not fully complete list.

Jim Jefferies uses his skill and bullying power to manipulate people to laugh at the expense of the dead and their bereaving relatives. Not even the evilest of communicators ‘Hitler’ did that.

Jim Jefferies laughs at the expense of the 450,000 law abiding shooters who had their property stolen, by Jims Australian gun laws on the false basis that it was for the good of the community. When all thinking people knew that it was a feel good response that would not inhibit the bad people supply of illegal firearms one iota.

Rudyard Kipling wrote of the truth, “Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools” but we have to realise the trust of the innocent is the liar’s most useful tool, and without truth evil rules.

No better example of this phenomena exists as when the artful knave, so called comedian Jim Jefferies creates a fiction and calls it ‘Facts’.

Jim Jefferies is his professional name but he was born as Geoff James Nugent on the 14^th February 1977 in Perth Australia. He spent 8 years in Manchester and London UK and after doing the British night clubs he moved to Los Angeles, where he now practices his overly ‘ocker’ Australian accent to promote the disarmament of the law abiding.

We laugh at Comedians, we laugh at jokes because they expose the truth. Truth which is often hidden behind layers of egos and subconscious curtains in our minds. So we naturally trust Comedians to reveal the truth, but in this particular instance Jim Jefferies reveals fabrications. Usually, with clever propaganda the presenter uses many half truths to redirect the minds of the general public who are never shown the full truth. However, in this particular instance Jim Jefferies makes his moves and uses his ‘timing’ to carefully choreographed the cheering assent, this follows the skills and principles of Adolf Hitler who also used this technique of timed pauses in his oratory. Hitler also agreed with Jim Jefferies in his use of blatant prevarication where he says in (My Struggle) Mein Kampf ‘The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed.’and about the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” It was said of Hitler and Dr Goebbels that their primary propaganda rules were: “never allow the public to cool off……… concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.” These are tools of trade for Knaves who make traps for fools.

‘Time discovers truth.’Arthur Schopenhauer

Jim, deceptively compares Australia’s restrictive tyrannical Gun laws to a false premise that there is no Gun Laws in the USA.

The USA Federal Government has the 1968 Gun Control Act and many other legislatives controls on firearms and firearm owners, so to do the 50 States, five major territories and so to do the 3,143 counties. Some authorities claim 48,000 articles of legislation other claim 20,000 acts and ordnances, all control firearms or their owners. Over a 100 million firearm owners out of a population of over 300 million people. Of course like all gun laws they do not work, what is inverse and hard for some people to understand is that in the cities where the Gun laws are most severe, with the highest penalties and the most impositions on firearm ownership they have the highest deaths due to firearms. It was safer in Bagdad at the height of the Irak war than in Detroit.

See. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE

Jim Jefferies makes fun of people who do not want to die a victim in seconds when the police turn up 20 minutes later. He has no sympathy for those who have been disarmed, refused permits to own a tool to defend themselves then murdered. Jim laughs at those who were forced to queue as they waited to be gassed. Jim laughs at those ladies in Paris who were all in a Gun Free Zone lying on the pavement prostrate waiting for the Muslim terrorist to walk along and give them each some bullets.

Yes, the Terrorist rifle might be called by the media an ‘Assault Rifle’ which is a word that is not a name it is an action. Firearm owners do not ask for an Assault Rifle that is a word used by the anti gunners to box in a typr of rifle that they cannot understand. Jim has never considered that Sam Colt called the most famous hand gun in the world the “Peacemaker” the equaliser, as it could defend the weak elderly lady against the strong. Jim laughs in disbelief using the words no one wants a ‘Defender rifle’ when in fact that is another lie as that is precisely what they do want. Any reasoning person knows that the bad guys will not hand in their guns, they will not register their guns, they know the Police will not hand in their guns, nor will the army. They the thinking civilians who want nothing more than peace and quiet want the same means of defence as those other elements of our society. Maybe, the truth is more important than the ‘facts’, but we might need another comedian to explain those truth to us?

Ron Owen

Notes.   For firearm owners who might wish to respond to similar Anti Firearm lies.

Compare this Australian Massacre

29 April 1996 was a killing spree in which 35 people were killed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

With these large Massacres.

1209 France Massacre at Béziers 15,000+ First major military action of the Albigensian Crusade

May 1182 Constantinople, Byzantine Empire Massacre of the Latins 60,000–80,000 Wholesale massacre of all Latin (Western European) inhabitants of Constantinople by a mob

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres

1570 Cyprus massacre 30,000–50,000[39][40][41][42] Ottoman forces capturing Cyprus killed mostly Greek and Armenian Christian inhabitants.

August 23, 1572 Paris, France St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre 5,000 – 70,000 A wave of Catholic mob violence against the Huguenots.[

December 1937 – January 1938 Nanjing, China Nanking Massacre

as many as if not more than 300,000 The Imperial Japanese Army pillaged and burned Nanking while, at the same time, murdering, enslaving, and torturing millions of prisoners of war and civilians .

August 8, 1944 Warsaw, Poland Wola massacre 40,000–100,000 Special groups of SS and German soldiers of the Wehrmacht went from house to house in Warsaw district Wola, rounding-up and shooting all inhabitants.

At the time of the The Massacre of Magdeburg 20 May 1631 by Catholic forces under General Tilly.
“For then the soldiers began to beat, frighten, and threaten to shoot, skewer, hang, etc., the people.” [7] It took only one day for all of this destruction and death to transpire. Of the 30,000 citizens, only 5,000 survived. For fourteen days, charred bodies were carried to the Elbe River to be dumped to prevent disease.”
By 1648, the city’s population had further dropped so that only 450 people were still living in the city.

The devastation was so great that Magdeburgisieren (or “magdeburgization”) became an oft-used term signifying total destruction, rape, and pillaging for decades. The terms “Magdeburg justice”, “Magdeburg mercy” and “Magdeburg quarter” also arose as a result of the sack, used originally by Protestants when executing Catholics who begged for quarter.

Beslan massacre Sep. 1 2004 Beslan, North Ossetia-Alania Russia Russia

385 dead 783 wounded

The Beslan school siege (also referred to as the Beslan school hostage crisis or Beslan massacre) started on 1 September 2004, lasted three days, involved the capture of over 1,100 people as hostages (including 777 children),[5] and ended with the death of at least 385 people. The crisis began when a group of armed Islamic terrorists, mostly Ingush and Chechen, occupied School Number One (SNO) in the town of Beslan, North Ossetia (an autonomous republic in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation) on 1 September 2004. The hostage-takers were the Riyadus-Salikhin Battalion, sent by the Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev, who demanded recognition of the independence of Chechnya in UN and Russian withdrawal from Chechnya. On the third day of the standoff, Russian security forces stormed the building with the use of tanks, incendiary rockets and other heavy weapons. At least 385 hostages were killed, including 186 children, with a significant number of people injured and reported missing

The Bath School massacre was a series of violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan, that killed 38 elementary schoolchildren and six adults and injured at least 58 other people. Kehoe killed his wife and firebombed his farm, then detonated a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder to take place at a school in United States history.

Here is a List of some Australian Massacres since 1996.

Snowtown massacre May 1999 Snowtown, South Australia 12 dead attack by John Bunting, Robert Wagner, and James Vlassakis, a total of 12 bodies were found in acid filled barrels and rainwater tanks.

Childers Palace Backpackers fire 23 June 2000 Childers, Queensland 15, Arson attack by Robert Paul Long, which killed 15 international backpackers.

Monash University massacre Oct. 21 2002 Melbourne, Victoria Australia Australia 2 Dead 5 wounded, Sent to psychiatric hospital Monash University Shooting 21 October 2002 Melbourne, Victoria 2 5 A shooting spree by Huan Yun Xiang, a student at Monash University

Churchill Fire  7 February 2009 Churchill, Victoria 10 unknown Arson attack by Brendan Sokaluk that killed 10 people.

Victoria Fire 9 February 2009 Victoria, Australia 135 Mass arson. that the fires were in indeed due to arson (and potentially “arsonists”) and thus the deaths are a mass murder and fit the definition of massacre.

Lin family massacre  18 July 2009 North Epping, New South Wales 5 Blunt instrument attack which killed 5 members of the Lin family

2011 Hectorville massacre 29 April 2011 Hectorville, South Australia 3 3 A shooting that took place on 29 April 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, shot four people on a neighbouring property (three of whom died), and also wounded two police officers, before being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour siege.

Quakers Hill Nursing Home massacre  18 November 2011 Sydney, NSW 11 Arson attack by Roger Kingsley Dean, a nurse, which killed 11 people

Hunt family massacre 9 September 2014 Lockhart, New South Wales 5 0 Murder-suicide shooting spree by Geoff Hunt who killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself .

Wedderburn massacre  22 October 2014 Wedderburn, Victoria 30. A shooting murder of a neighbour family (Greg Holmes, 48, his mother Mary Lockhart, 75, and her husband Peter Lockhart, 78) by Ian Francis Jamieson, 63.

Cairns Children Massacre 19 December 2014 Cairns, Queensland 8 . 1-self inflicted (perpetrator) Stabbing attack. 8 children aged 18 months to 15 years killed. Thirty-seven-year-old woman also found injured. The woman, Raina Mersane Ina Thaiday, was later charged with the murder of the children, 7 of whom were hers, plus her niece.

2014 Lindt Cafe Sydney hostage crisis – Two hostages and hostage-taker Man Haron Monis were killed, during a 16-hour siege inside a Lindt cafe in Martin Place, Sydney, with six other people injured. (It appears that the hostages were killed by the police)

Plus

Melbourne gangland killings – 36 underworld figures murdered so far in gang related violence between 1998 and 2010. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

WHY DO WE HAVE STARVATION IN A LAND OF PLENTY?

As this site is concerned with our Freedoms, our Rights and our Security, its time to take a broader brush and give a lot of thought to our Economic Security.

Why do we have an economic system that turns the government into an end, instead of a means, and the individual into a means instead of an end?

What has happened to the Constitutional demand that all institutions exist to serve the individual, that the State exists to serve its citizens? Now it appears that the only reason for individuals to exist, is to serve the State.

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much. —Ronald Reagan.

Real economic security would mean that individuals in society must have sufficient purchasing power to provide effective demand in order to consume what they produce. Absolute economic security resides in the possession of a sufficient income at all times to buy the goods and services without which their would be no demand, no production and no payments of wages.

We have next to ask, where do wages, and dividends come from? All incomes as purchasing power are distributed into the hands of consumers through the operations of productive industry. All real purchasing power arises in production. It takes the form of wages, salaries and dividends paid directly to individuals engaged in industry or indirectly from them, through taxation, to those bureaucrats and beneficiaries who spend the money we produce. With loans they are spending future income from production. There is no other form of purchasing power in the Western World system of economics.

Why is there never enough purchasing power in our national economy?

Government doesn’t produce, it only consumes and produces a large negative effect. Here are some of the reasons we have poverty amongst the plenty.

In 2015-16 it took $405.4 billion in taxation, but its total expenses for 2015-16 were $434.5 billion, so the balance was a further debt of 29.1 billion. Just paying the interest on that is taking spending’s from our future earnings, or the earnings of our children.

In 2012 Australian Households spent a total of $642 billion on general living costs but in the same year only earned $521.3 billion in wages and income. So again the balance goes in a $120.7 Billion dollar debt which has to be paid from our future earning.

The manufacturing industry in Australia has declined from 30% of GDP in the 1960s to 12% of GDP in 2007. Yet in 2012 we still donated $7.7 billion in Foreign Aid.

From the figures above we can understand that although Australians earn over a Trillion dollars annually their government masters, remove over $400 billion in taxation which is used to pay their governments interest on its debts. (According to a report released in October 2013, the nation’s poverty rate increased from 10.2 per cent to 11.8 per cent, from 2000/01 to 2013.)

The above general formula is endemic to most countries in the Western World, the governments are run in debt to the banks and so to are 90% of there populations.

There is no single cause operating in the western world today which is of such importance and is so fraught with the possibility of world disaster, as is the disparity between purchasing power and prices. The longer it continues, unchecked the more certain and with more speed approaches either Depression, or War, or Both.

What causes that disparity, that lack of spending power? It is simply that when any item is being produced only a part of its final selling price is the wages and income factor. Say with a packet of .22 ammunition, its production can be split into

A. The cost of lead, powder and brass,

B. The cost of wages and dividends,

C. Taxation and Interest.

Only the earnings, wages and dividends goes into the economy to allow income to be spent on purchasing what they produce.

Governments Sell Tomorrow, To Pay For Today.

Taxation and Interest remove money from the economy, so instead of economic security you have economic slavery. All Government spending is borrowed from the four major banks, and all of the Taxation (Government Revenue) goes to pay the Bank interest on the Government Debt. The Governments Principle Debt just increases annually.

Look at your electricity bill only a part of your payment will go back into the economy in wages, the rest will be negatived by government tariffs and interest. Though these costs, representing profits, interest and depreciation, are all loaded into prices, the money to liquidate them is not distributed to the public neither as wages, salaries, nor dividends. So to afford them the public have to borrow from the banks.

Therefore, prices are always greater than the money available to buy them. In other words, there is always a disparity between the flow in the generation of purchasing power and the generation of prices in any one productive period. As can be seen, this is due to accounting all costs into prices without making provision for liquidating all of them.

This is the flaw in the finance-economic system, and is the main cause of all the economic troubles in the world. It is directly traceable to the use of debt for money and to the policies and practices of the monopoly of credit. Under the present financial system, there is no sound means of bridging the gap between purchasing power and prices.

Now I am not suggesting that the current position of some of the people doing well and the majority struggling in debts should be swapped for socialism.

Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1979 to 1990, summed up socialism nicely: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Socialism takes income away from productive people and gives it to non-productive people. When a percentage of your hard-earned money is confiscated, you have fewer choices and a lower standard of living. If a larger amount of money is confiscated in taxation, you’re a slave and your only reason for continuing to work is to lessen the depth of the debt.

Socialism is simply a camouflaged Communism.

The once-mighty USSR fell apart in 1989 due to iron-fisted socialistic policies that destroyed the economy while taking away virtually ALL freedoms from its citizens.

People who have recently visited Cuba report that it’s like time has stopped in 1959 when Castro and communism took over. Literally all the cars on the road were manufactured in, or before, 1959. Cuba today still looks like 1955. Unemployment is 48 percent and 80 percent of those who have jobs work for the government, making Cuba’s economy a disaster.

Venezuela is a bigger disaster, their hospitals are germ-infested trash dumps and they’re currently rioting over food. Venezuela’s hospitals are horrible. In less than 20 years they’ve gone from the most prosperous South American nation to the poorest, all because it elected a socialistic government that did away with good economic policies.

North and South Korea are perfect examples of the difference between a free economy and communism (slavery). In communist North Korea, 2.5 million people starve each year. In capitalistic South Korea, her GDP is the 10th largest in the world.

The application of science and technology to production now enables mankind to ensure a reasonable sufficiency of material needs to all, without continuing economic servitude. But the existing financial system is fundamentally flawed. It is endangering the planet through ruthless exploitation of its limited resources in pursuit of financial profit and its wish for ever greater power over the people.

Industry, to be successful, must get back from the public in the prices of its goods more than it pays out to suppliers of materials and labour involved in their manufacture. Otherwise, it could not make a profit. Then the GST factor takes a great slice out of the available spending power.

As industry by necessity distributes all incomes as purchasing power, where does industry, in its turn, get the money for its infrastructure? A brief examination will show that industry is financed from savings, or from loans or overdrafts from the banking system.

Let us follow logically the results flowing from the disparity in which the producers, wage earners, farmers can never find the money or means of exchange to purchase the goods that they produce and need.

It must be evident at the outset, that in every cycle of production a proportion of the goods must remain unsold. As further cycles are completed, the unsold portions must pile up till it is useless and dangerous to produce more for the time being, so banks restrict credit, production slows down, and men are laid off.

When workers are laid off, wages cease, purchasing power further diminishes, less goods are sold, credit is further restricted or called in and cancelled. There is a rush to sell below cost and bankruptcies occur.

Standards of living now fall rapidly; there is further unemployment; dole conditions and acute depression appear; governments start relief works, and the banks readily lend to governments the credit they refuse to industry. Debt and taxation grow apace. As the spending power decreases much of the surplus goods remains unsold, and we have starvation and poverty in the midst of abundance. Goods are wantonly destroyed by oversized banana, oversized pigs etc. and production is forcibly restricted. With mass unemployment everywhere, we are told to work harder, save more, and spend less. Saving and spending less is also a negative.

Parallel with these manifestations is the struggle to find markets abroad for the goods that cannot be sold at home. As all nations are doing the same thing, and are in the same economic plight from the same cause, this leads to commercial hostility, international friction, and finally and inevitably, to WAR.

Government is not a solution to our problems, government IS the problem…
Government does not solve problems, it is the root source of the main problem. Government gives the nations right to create credit, to the four main‘Banks of Issue’ and allows them to create it and charge us all for the privilege to borrow it from them.

As a simile imagine that all the oil and gas beneath the land mass of Australia, which is really the public credit, or wealth of Australia owned in title by the Commonwealth Government on behalf of all its citizens, was given away to a private company at no charge, and then every time the government, or the people wanted some oil and gas the private company lent it to them and then charged and ever increasing interest rate, plus demanding the full return of the oil and gas.

Current governments have never dealt with the root problem, the monopoly of credit creation by the international banking system, they take the donations from banks into their party election funds and considers themselves lucky. The first government that ever succeeds to handle this problem might never be given an election donation by a Bank but would be elected forever by the people.

The Black Heart of the Problem.

The banks only lend money/credit as a repayable interest-bearing debt, with number one priority over the assets of the borrower, so it is clear that the banks entirely control production in this way. In the national economy of ever increasing disparity between prices and spending power, as loans are paid back and the credit crossed off, and as the interest is paid the spending power within the community decreases, and only increases when the Banks create and issue more debt. The Banks choses who wins and who goes without, who succeeds and who fails.

We have already seen that the money flowing through industry is the only source of purchasing power, so it is also clear that the banks, in controlling production, automatically control consumption as well.

That is to say, the whole economic system is dominated by the banks and, consequently, they dominate the lives and destinies of the people, and dictate the policies of governments. History proves this conclusively.

It must be remembered that the banks have discretionary powers to call in loans and overdrafts even before the goods they brought into existence have been sold, and they sometimes exercise this power with disastrous effects on the community. Now let us go still another step further and ask where do the banks get the money they lend to industry, and which gives them control of the community.

The answer is again quite simple:

THEY CREATE IT.
In the terse phrase of the English economist, Sir Ralph George Hawtrey, “They create the means of payment out of nothing.” The money so created is called bank credit, but it really is the public credit, like the oil and gas under our feet, it belongs to all of us.

Banks do not lend the money deposited with them by their clients as most people suppose. Every bank loan or overdraft is an absolute creation of new credit and this credit functions as money.

When cheques are drawn against this credit, they come back into the banking system and form deposits. Practically all deposits are created in this way. Instead of deposits being used by the banks to create loans, as is generally believed, the loans are book figures, (or electronic) and real money or credit has to be deposited to write the loan off the books.

The actual creation of bank credit is an almost costless operation as it consists merely of written entries in bank ledgers or computers, and made effective by written entries in cheque books, or credit cards. Banking, is mostly bookkeeping. Finance is mostly accountancy, and money is mostly figures.

Though bank credit is supposed to be issued against the security of the borrower, it is really issued against the productive capacity and the real or “social” credit created by the communities wealth as a whole. The banks, however, treat this community credit as though they are the sole owners, and are thus in the unique position of being able to lend something they do not own, and of being well paid for it.

As banks have the sole privilege of creating and issuing money in this way, they thus constitute a monopoly of credit that functions as money which keeps the whole community, to whom the credit rightly belongs, in subjection through debt. This monopoly of credit or money creation is the greatest power ever vested in any institution in the history of the world.

The economy should exist to provide people, as efficiently as possible, with the goods and services that they need to survive and flourish. That is, production exists for the sake of consumption, not for the sake of money-making, employment, satisfying the creative impulse, or ‘moral’ discipline (considered as ends in themselves). It most certainly does not exist for the sake of centralizing wealth and power in the hands of a Banking oligarchic elite.
Ron Owen

The Way Out, and the way to Freedom will be in next months bulletin.
Here is the second part of that article.

Most Bulletins we discuss Personal Security, sometimes National Security, and as all security issues of any sort affect us all. Last month we discussed economic security.

As previously explained the major Banking Houses such as Westpac, ANZ, National and the New Commonwealth Bank are given the monopoly of credit by the major political parties who are dependent on the large election donations that are distributed by these Banking Houses. In Australia the Commonwealth Constitution gives the government of the day, the right to use the public credit.

“Part V. – Powers Of The Parliament.

Legislative powers of the Parliament

51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have powers to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-

(iv.) Borrowing money on the public credit of the Commonwealth:

(xii.) Currency, coinage, and legal tender:

(xiii.) Banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money;”

That was the section used by the Andrew Fisher Government, under the good encouragement of King O Malley MP

and under the good guidance of Sir Hugh Denison Miller, to form the Old Commonwealth Bank, that used the public credit to give Australia its greatest economic leap forwards. Even through four years of war, and massive industrial growth, including building the Trans-Australian Railway which linked Western Australia to the Eastern States.

The line was commenced in 1912 and worked on during World War One and completed in October 1917, over a thousand miles of desert railway line united a country. The Governor of the Bank, Sir Hugh Denison Miller wrote a cheque for Four Million pounds to pay for the enterprise and due to the fact that all of those pounds had to find their way back to the Commonwealth Bank, the clearing house, all of that credit could be cancelled, causing no debt. In the same way that the current clearing house banks  could cancel everyone mortgage debts without suffering a loss, or a downturn in trade. That credit will circulate back though their coffers, they will still make money from the buyer and the seller, every transaction adds to their wealth.

Sir Hugh Miller, when publically asked why Australia had fought the four years of war and was the only country in the world with no debt, answered that he could have found the money/ credit for three wars with three times that amount, without any detriment to the bank, or the nation.

All we need is a Government with the Backbone to Represent the People instead of the Banks.

Major CH Douglas, a world renown economist, stated,

“The prerequisite to resolution of these problems is the elimination of this monopoly of financial power, and its control by national governments through a properly constituted statutory authority, a National Credit Authority, answerable to parliament but immune from political manipulation. This Authority would maintain the national accounts of production and consumption in both physical and monetary terms (as is already done by the Bureau of Statistics in calculating gross Domestic Product and Gross National Product), and regulating the issue of credit in accordance with the performance of the economy. It would operate in the interests of the citizens, and with compatible arrangements for mutually complementary international trading.”

Which was the position given to the old Commonwealth Bank between 1913 and1922 when its control over the ‘public credit’ was greatly diminished and shared again with the major private banks. This backwards step was initiated by the incoming Bruce/Page Coalition government whose election had been duly financed from private bank donations. We have been in debt ever since. All that changes is the amount. As far back as the 1990s 90% of the National Debt to the Clearing House Banks was for the outstanding interest, the principle, the initial loan being less then 10% but as the unpaid interest over 50 years compounds and increases like a virus.
Raising taxation to pay it to the banks in exchange for the ‘public credit’ lead to intolerable burdens of public and private debt and ever-increasing taxation. They must eventually culminate in the breakdown of the economic system and the moral of the community. The means to that end are known and available. There is growing international recognition that such change is necessary. A return to the Old Commonwealth Bank system would then ascertain from all available sources the financial and economic position of the nation as a business concern, and draw up a correct Trading Account and Balance Sheet of the Nation. As we are a hard working nation, with immense national wealth which is continually increasing, there would be a considerable credit balance in every accounting period, representing the profit of national appreciation of wealth over national depreciation.
Credit would be issued against the profit balance to establish an equation between purchasing power and prices, pay a social dividend, or meet any commitment deemed necessary for the safety or welfare of the people of Australia.
Once we have established the control of our national credit, the power to do things would no longer be determined by money conditions. Under Public Credit, “what is physically possible is financially possible.”

The German Economic Miracle 1933 to 1939.

Another example of the potential of the use of ‘public credit’ if not eventually for a good cause it does show that the system works.

Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht was appointment as Germany’s Reichsbank president on 17 March 1933 by Adolf Hitler and as Germany’s Minister of Economics in 1934. Schacht supported public-works programs and lent money to new industry, he used an innovative solution to the problem of the government deficit and instead of borrowing money from the major clearing house banks he created mefo  bills which served as bills of exchange, convertible into Reichsmark upon demand. MEFO had no actual existence or operations and was solely a balance sheet entity. The bills were mainly issued as payment to armaments manufacturers. Mefo bills were issued to last for six months initially, but with the provision for indefinite three-month extensions. The total amount of mefo bills issued was kept secret. Essentially, mefo bills enabled the German Reich to run a greater deficit than it would normally have been able to. By 1939, there were 12 billion Reichsmark of mefo bills .This enabled the government to reinflate their economy, which culminated in its eventual rearmament.

Then Schacht disagreed with what he called “unlawful activities” against Germany’s Jewish minority and in August 1935 made a speech denouncing Julius Streicher and Streicher’s writing in the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer. Following the Kristallnacht of November 1938, Schacht publicly declared his repugnance at the events, and suggested to Hitler that he should use other means if he wanted to be rid of the Jews. He put forward a plan in which Jewish property in Germany would be held in trust, and used as security for loans raised abroad, which would also be guaranteed by the German government. Funds would be made available for emigrating Jews, in order to overcome the objections of countries that were hesitant to accept penniless Jews. Hitler accepted the suggestion, and authorised him to negotiate with his London contacts. Schacht, in his book “The Magic of Money (1967)”, wrote that Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England, and Lord Bearstead, a prominent Jew, had reacted favourably, but the spiritual leader of the London Jews, Chaim Weizmann, opposed the plan. A component of the plan was that emigrating Jews would have taken items such as machinery with them on leaving the country, as a means of boosting German exports and manufacturing.

He remained President of the Reichsbank until Hitler dismissed him in January 1939. After the attempt on Hitler’s life on 20 July 1944, Schacht was arrested on 23 July. He was sent to Ravensbrück Concentration Camp, then to Flossenbürg, and finally to Dachau Concentration Camp.

All We Need is a Brave New Government That Owes NO Allegiance to The Banks.

Imagine,if we had a government that had received no election donations from the big banks, it could ask on of the clearing house banks to create a government credit every year, on the public credit from which the expenses of the government could be withdrawn from. If all of the big four clearing house banks refused, the government could follow Prime Minister Andrew Fisher’s example and create its own bank and deposit all the government resources within that bank. It could legislate for that new bank to handle the note issue, pensions,  the pay to public servants, the holder of all government insurance etc. The major Banks would be insane not to assist the government as they would not want competition on that large scale.
So then instead of paying GST to the government, which effectively slows our economy, by making our produce more expensive, sometimes un- buyable for many people, the government pays a bounty of 10 % to all goods for sale that were Australian produced. This factor would ensure that the money or credit issued against the profit balance in the nation’s books would not only increase purchasing power, but, at the same time, reduce prices. This could be covered by a tariff of 20 % at the Customs barrier on all imported goods. Plus payment of a 20 % bounty for all exports of Australian goods to the manufacturer or producer. This money would  increase the people’s purchasing power  in the form of a national dividend which would benefit all individuals and irrespective of employment. This credit comes from the national profit already mentioned, and would provide the means of Australia’s future economic security.

At present all our taxes presently go to service the interest on the government debt and never even starts to pay off the principle. All we need is a government (like the one of Andrew Fishers, that was not dependent on Banker election donations) to tell the banks that they are using our public credit and charging us for the gift, so wipe the past debts, and every year create a government credit (call in MEFO or MONOPLY) for the billions it needs for defence and pensions. Close all other government spending and ensure all government spending is onshore, within Australia. Then forget every other form of taxation /theft forever.

No longer will governments pass legislation instituting socialistic policies which forcibly takes from those who have worked hard, and gives it to those who don’t want to work at all.

The most effective “planning” in the world is adequate money in the hands of consumers. Having effective demand in this way, the government could give the necessary orders, and industry would be enabled to function to the limit of producer capacity or to the limit of consumer demand, whichever occurred first. The standard of living would thus rise to untold heights.

Yes we would need a very strong immigration policy because the World would want to be beneficiaries of an Australian economic miracle. A copy of the Old Commonwealth Bank could finance all of Australia’s needs, and fulfill projects like the Bradfield scheme and new defence industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradfield_Scheme

By this method, the consumer’s money would have increased its buying power, and all goods could be sold without loss to the producers. Inflation would be impossible, and all the economic uncertainties of boom and slump incidental to the present “trade cycle” would disappear, The economic system would be stabilized.
When we have a government brave enough to implement this new system, borrowing for national purposes would be unnecessary; public works could be constructed without debt, people could afford their own health plans, health costs would reduce without any government subsidies, unemployment would only affect those who do not want to work.
Ron Owen

The UN,  A Gang of Tyrants That Use Civilian Disarmament For Genocide.

Written  as a Letter to the Editor in Reply to  a printed article saying “The UN Does have merit.” by Colin Claridge.’

Colin seems to be one of the decent people who are attracted by the science fiction, “Startrek” concept of a ‘United States of the World’ uniting the peoples of the planet for its adventures into the universe, but is forced to defend its shortcomings, by vastly exaggerating its ability to achieve anything. He criticises ‘One Nation’ and puts them on a par with his “League of Corrupt Buddies”, where if he looked more carefully at the facts instead of ‘rolling his eyes’, he would find that corruption always thrives in the UN.

The concept of the UN was not born from the ashes of the Second World War, it was spawned from its failed predecessor the League of Nations. The idea of Alger Hiss, an advisor to F.D Roosevelt who as a spy was really working for Josef Stalin. The UN was privately discussed at the Tehran Conference in 1943 and we all have been paying for it ever since. Last year Australia gave $58,146,547, yes, that is $58 million of your taxpayers dollars, but that’s only the general figure, that does not include the peace keeping contributions, or Aid Funds, or our $200 million contribution to the international fund that helps developing nations tackle climate change. Imagine, what a difference that could make to our hospitals and pensioners. The UNs 2014-15 budget showed $13.2 billion for Climate change liabilities that’s on top of its $9 Billion general budget, to pay its 120,000 workers.

Colin brushes quickly over the UN’s failures and concentrates on the ideals, he advocates that the UN should have the right to step in and act, “they do not have the right to behave however they like” he says, but nor does the UN have a right to behave as they like. If that was correct there would be no point of being a citizen of a sovereign country which is governed by the people, for the people, as anytime, they could be told to take in a few hundred thousand refugees, or accept Civilian disarmament, or accept Agenda 21, or pay for another countries Climate control, or remove your right of Freedom of Speech. Yes, that is right, its all happened already. Surely Colin, would think and investigate before handing over to an un elected body of politicians, known as the UN, the power to dominate the World.

Iraq ‘Oil For Food’.

In 2005 independent U.S. investigation, led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, exposed ‘a staggering deficit of oversight and accountability.’ Volcker said, “The Secretariat, the Security Council and U.N. contractors, failed most grievously in their responsibilities to monitor the integrity of the program.” and the suffering of the Iraqi people more acute, by the U.N.’s bald-faced malfeasance. One of the reasons for this finding was the Australian Wheat Board corruption. The AWB was a Australian Government Quango entity, meaning it alone could export Australian wheat. Volcker found that throughout it was paying kickbacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein, in exchange for lucrative wheat contracts. This was only the skin of the UN’s bubbling rice pudding of corruptions.

Why should any rational person trust the United Nations again to enforce sanctions or run a humanitarian aid program?

The UN.’s Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, was a perverse fiasco that only one of many in the institution’s history. After the first Gulf War, Iraq was under U.N. sanction for its failure to comply with Security Council resolution ‘that it fully disarm’. From 1996 to 2003, the Oil-for-Food program allowed Saddam Hussein to buy humanitarian aid (food) in exchange for oil. Instead, Saddam generated, through bribes, oil smuggling, and illicit kickbacks, over $21 billion to shore up his sadistic regime. He used oil money, to buy arms and to buy influence on the Security Council and weaken international sanctions. In the process, millions of ordinary Iraqis starved and died from malnutrition and disease.

Human Rights Abusers Run The UN.

Also consider the U.N.’s track record of defending human rights. The U.N. Charter welcomes all “peace-loving states” that affirm the institution’s “faith in fundamental human rights.” Yet the distance between the U.N.’s ideals and its day-to-day operations can only be compared to distances between Galaxies, light years apart.

Human rights abusers, such as China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, sit in judgment on nations that respect the rule of law. They manipulate the system to shield themselves and their plutocratic pals from scrutiny. Other U.N. bodies have been similarly debased. The U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development invited North

Korea, a communist tyranny that has pushed millions of its own people to the brink of starvation, to become a member in good standing. This Disney, ‘Upside Down world’, in which dictatorships have veto power over democracies, heartens despots everywhere and prolongs the human misery of their victims.

UN Activates Genocide.

Nowhere is the U.N.’s debasement more grievous than in the recent tragic fiascos in Sudan, Burma, and Zimbabwe. The Islamist regime in Khartoum has helped orchestrate the killings of about 200,000 people and displaced over two million in Sudan’s Darfur region. This created part of the illegal immigrant nightmare and the UN,s orders to European countries to accept the problems that it created.

The UN’s Development Council (SPDC), an Orwellian creation if there ever was one, was named “the worst human rights violator in the world” by the British Conservative Party’s Human Rights Commission. Under the thuggish rule of Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe launched a campaign of social demolition that left 700,000 people homeless and destitute. In each case, brutal dictators have instigated massive repression and ethnic cleansing against their own populations.

These governments always avoid U.N. censure or sanctions, instead they reward one another with seats and privileges into countless U.N. Quangos. The Security Council allows Sudan to dictate the terms of any U.N. troop deployment to stop the killing. The General Assembly goes to sleep over the killings in Tibet, Burma and Zimbabwe. The Human Rights Council, caught up in the machinations of China, and the Organization for the Islamic Conference, has essentially ignored ethnic cleansing in its member states.

A Gang Of Dictators.

In the book, ‘Complicity With Evil’, Adam Lebor, former London Times correspondent, accurately describes the U.N.’s culture of contradictions. “If there is a sense of shame among Secretariat officials for the U.N.’s failures…it is not a career hindrance,” he writes. Instead of confronting regimes for their atrocities, the U.N. system “confers legitimacy and prestige on those perpetrating human rights abuses, providing them with psychological and political succour and the plentiful company of kindred spirits.”

The ongoing scandal of U.N. peacekeepers who sexually exploit civilians seems to defy reform, or even serious scrutiny. In Lebanon, Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia, and elsewhere, the blue helmets have stood aside as chaos and killing erupted.

From the first signing of the UN’s Human Rights Charter in 1948, the Soviet Union continued on to commit hideous acts against its own citizens, much of it under the cruel dictatorship of Joseph Stalin. As the Cold War raged on for twenty years, thousands died in Hungry, and Czechoslovakia, the impotent UN said and did everything it could, which always turned out to be nothing. Zero. The UN always failed to hold the Soviet Union accountable for countless crimes against humanity.

After the UN. plunged further from grace into the cesspit, when the new secretary-general Kurt Waldheim from Austria was appointed in 1972 to 81 he was considered at the time a”squalid . . . uninspired, officious and essentially a trivial bureaucrat.” This was the worlds first impression, but later it came to public attention that he got the job precisely because of his past life qualities. Intelligence services of the superpowers and a few lesser states knew that Waldheim had concealed his wartime service on the staff of a German unit that committed atrocities against Yugoslav partisans and Jews. Because Waldheim was eminently black-mail-able, he was a malleable secretary general, eager to do the bidding of his Soviet and American masters, although always paralysed with fright.

The Korean War.

(Note, No disrespect to the 1000s of servicemen who have served their countries orders and suffered and died for what appeared to them to be a Noble cause).

Korea, which had been one nation for over 1000 years, was divided at the end of WWII. The UN legitimatised an election in the South of Korea in May 1948, but would not include the election in the North both elections had boycotted, or excluded many Koreans. The North invaded the South and to this day peace has not been declared, both North and South Korea will blame the UN for its half hearted cease fire that solved nothing.

The Arab-Israeli Wars of 1948, 1956, 1965,1973.

The UN has been involved in all of these wars and still there is no peace. The latest UN resolution 23 of December 2016, shows that the UN is only interested in supporting the Arab stance that every Jew should be removed from the West Bank. Whilst, Israel stance is to leave the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank in peace, which still leaves the other 99 % of the Middle East for Arabs to live in. However, as Arab/Muslim nations presently control the UN, we can only expect the same stance.

The Congo.

The tragedy began on June 30, 1960 when independence gave total power to a Moscow sponsored Communist terrorist Patrice Lumumba. In a directive to the heads of the Congolese provinces, Lumumba wrote that they should use “terrorism, essential to subdue the population.” His directive was carried out enthusiastically. In order to avoid the nightmare that attended the new Communist rule in the Congo, the province of Katanga declared its independence. Its president, the Christian, pro-American Moise Tshombe, announced that “we are seceding from chaos.” Lumumba and his successor, Cyrille Adoula, asked for and got the aid of United Nations “peacekeepers” to force Katanga back under Congolese rule. It took two years of UN war mongering to accomplish this goal.

In 1962 a report from the 46 civilian doctors of Elizabethville, Katanga (Congo) denounced the atrocities carried out by UN troops. The UN consistently bombed, machine-gunned, and looted civilian targets: hospitals, ambulances, churches, schools, homes, cars. “Over ninety percent of the buildings bombed and shelled by the United Nations were strictly civilian structures with no military value,” said the doctors’ report. After protesting the UN attacks on ambulances, Mr. Georges Olivet of the Swiss Red Cross was murdered by UN troops as he travelled in a Red Cross ambulance. I had a friend Mr George Turner who served as a medic/nurse in Elizabethville Hospital, he was present in the Hospital when it was bombed by UN planes, he told me the following day they made a giant Red Cross and spread it over the roof of the Hospital a few hours later the UN aircraft returned and used the Red Cross as an aiming mark. Patients and staff again were killed.

Worse yet, if possible, was the behaviour of Congolese troops supplied and transported by the UN to invade Katanga from the north. Reports of cannibalism, massacre of missionaries and other civilians, and other atrocities were rife. The passage of these UN allies left in its wake complete anarchy in place of the peace and prosperity that had formerly prevailed in that region.

Cambodia

When the United Nations does use force, the results are often pathetic. The various national contingents that make up U.N. peacekeeping operations — Bangladeshis, Bulgarians, Brazilians, and the like — are chosen not for martial prowess but because their governments are willing to send them, often for no better reason than to collect a daily fee. The quality of these soldiers varies widely: William Shawcross (Deliver us from Evil) writes, that the Bulgarians in Cambodia were “said to be more interested in searching for sex than for cease-fire violations.”

In 1979, the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia to oust the Khmer Rouge and end the massacre. Pol Pot was forced in exile, and a new government was put in place in Cambodia. Shockingly, the United Nations refused to recognize this new government because it was backed by Vietnam. Until 1994, the United Nations recognized the Khmer Rouge as the true government of Cambodia, despite the fact that they had killed 2.5 million Cambodians, amounting to 33% of their total population. Meanwhile, Pol Pot was a guest of the Chinese Government and resided in the Holiday Inn, Beijing.

Rwanda, 1994.

Hundreds of desperate Tutsis sought refuge on the first day of the genocide at a school where 90 UN troops were under the command of Captain Luc Lemaire. Here, they were surely safe from the Hutus and their machetes. The UN flag flew over the school. The Belgian peacekeepers were armed with a machine gun, planted at the entrance. The Tutsis could not imagine they would stand by while people were slaughtered. The 39-year-old Captain feared otherwise. The UN in New York had ignored warnings that the Genocide was being planned and the security council was pulling out peacekeepers in response to the mass killing. The UN command decided there was more important work for Captain Lemaire and his men than protecting Tutsis. The peacekeepers were ordered to abandon the school in order to escort foreigners to the airport and out of Rwanda. As the soldiers left, Tutsis begged to be shot rather than left to the militia’s machetes. Within hours, the 2,000 people at the school were murdered by gun, grenade and blade. Lemaire’s contingent kept a sporadic video diary of the wretched events. At one point a shaky camera captures a sandbagged machine-gun post and a pickup truck of Hutu militiamen sweeping by. The video then focuses on the soldiers’ log. It reads: “New York didn’t agree to change the rules of engagement.” The peacekeepers were not to be permitted to save Tutsis. The camera’s microphone picks up an anonymous voice: “There are killings and New York doesn’t give a damn.”Thousands had flocked to the school for UN protection, and roaming gangs of Hutu supporters killed nearly all of them”. Close to one million Rwandans were killed in the following Genocide, amounting to twenty percent of the population.

Srebrenica.

Again, in 1995 the UN had to admit the massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in the “UN-protected” enclave of Srebrenica, where Dutch peacekeepers, (following orders from the UN) failed to stop the massacre of 8,000 Muslim men in Srebrenica, a supposedly UN “safe area”, the most notorious mass killing by the Serbs in Bosnia.

East Timor.

From 1974 to 1999 the UN refused to intervene to prevent the Timor people from systematic murder, torture and imprisonment by Indonesian Military Forces. In other countries it would have been correctly called genocide. Any voice of Timor nationalism was silenced by government murder. Only, when Australia was forced to intervene and official Indonesian forces had withdrawn, did the UN make a resolution sanctioning Australia’s intervention. Indonesian butchery of its own citizens and the people of West Papua continues to this day.

Yemen.

Earlier last year, Saudi Arabia was condemned by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for “an appalling record of violations” in Yemen, where Riyadh has already killed up to 4,000 civilians during its campaign of air bombardment on Houthi rebels since 2015. The United Nations is performing no better in the 21^st Century security environment, the emergence of radical Islamic terrorism and global jihad. Ten years after the 9/11 Trade Centre massacre the General Assembly still cannot agree on a definition of terrorism.

The UN appointed Saudi Arabia to chair the United Nations Human Rights Council. Meanwhile, the U.N. offered governments such as Syria, a leading exporter of terrorism around the world, a seat on its Security Council. It grants any member state an “inalienable right” to nuclear technology (just read the fine print in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). And it allows countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan, all of which have broken their non-proliferation obligations, to shape global arms-control policies, yet still calls out for civilian disarmament, and our silly Australian governments pay them and carry out the UN’s policies.

Angola.

In 2000, British forces under Brigadier Sir David Richards landed in Sierra Leone after the UN peacekeepers(Indian) had stood aside or fled an advance on the country’s capital, Freetown, by a notoriously brutal rebel group, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). Several hundred of those peacekeepers had surrendered to the rebels. Brigadier Richards said, “I had a real argument with Major General Jetley the officer in charge of the Indian UN peacekeeper. “They were very reluctant to fight and that permeated quite a lot of the other contingents as well, to the point where I remember going in to the UN headquarters on my first day there in May 2000 and finding General Jetley. I said General, we’ve got to stop the RUF, you’ve got to tell your people to fight. At least hold their positions. He was very reluctant to do it.” He said, ‘India had sent its troops to monitor the peace, not enforce it.” Genenral Jetley accused the other UN peacekeeping troops, Garba and other senior Nigerians of being more interested in smuggling diamonds than keeping the peace.

Child Prostitution.

Children Rights International Network has a timeline of the “peacekeepers” atrocities.

Reports from Bosnia, Kosovo, Cambodia, Haiti, and Mozambique revealed a shocking trend; areas with peacekeeping forces saw a rapid rise in child prostitution. Often, soldiers would reward the children with candy or small sums of money, so they could claim the sexual relationship was prostitution rather than rape. Senior officials in the United Nations refused to condemn the peacekeepers, as they feared this public shaming would discourage nations from joining peacekeeping forces. UN peacekeepers sexually abused children in the Central African Republic. The sexual abuse of children, rape and quid pro quo sexual abuse of the impoverished in the CAR was uncovered in May 2014 and led to further disgusting cases being uncovered. The UN peacekeepers in South Sudan ‘ignored rape and assault of aid workers.’ As aid workers were assaulted in South Sudan, the UN peacekeepers sat by and ignored their pleas, despite being close enough to help the many cries for rescue, something the UN had reportedly done before when local women were raped by soldiers, right outside the UN’s main camp.

The Rules.

The Rules that Colin seeks, should be encapsulated in every nations Constitution, such as the 2^nd Amendment Bill of Right in the USA and section 7 in the British Bill of Rights as ultimately the ability for civilians to defend themselves is the only protection against government crimes against humanity. The United Nations philosophy is diametrically opposed to that basic human right and promotes total Civilian Disarmament even when it well knows that the first law of Genocide is that the Civilians be disarmed. Jews and Arminians, Cambodians and Tutsis all say, “Never let it Happen Again”and fight civilian disarmament. (Example, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership) but we taxpayers allow our government to use our money to exacerbate, and encourage organised genocide.

Ron Owen.

07 54 825070

24 Mc Mahon Rd Gympie.

See

http://www.idppcenter.com/un_peacekeeping_failures.pdf

Thoughts For The Week
All the One Multi Headed Monster.  Globalism.
A Christmas Read. This is a long one take your time, read it over the Christmas break, then please distribute the information. Its Good News and everyone deserves to hear it.

“Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.” Sun Tzu, 6^th Century B.C.

Sun Tzu, the most famous Chinese philosopher of war correctly identified this principle 2500 years ago.  We firearm owners are in for a battle, not an Adler battle, but a battle to correct a corrupt decision by our countries so called leaders. They made a decision that impacts on our sport and way of life, based on a lie, there was no evidence to base the Adler decision on, no logical reason, not even a glance to look at the facts, no checks no consultation. No lever action shotguns have been used in a crime, no investigation, or thought on this huge fact.

When our politicians can knowingly make a decision on a lie to push the ideological view of their financial masters banning the Adler then none of our property is safe. Our political leaders have shown that they can concoct fear, lies and misinformation and present it as an acceptable method of creating legislation. I suspect that most of them realise that the Adler out come – will be the catalyst that removes them from government, but they are so dependent on party donations from the international trust funds, that they will commit personal political suicide to save their status quo party.

Firearm Owners are fully experienced with the “creeping regulations” on our rights.
We have had it burnt into our minds that if it’s lever-action shotgun today, it will be something else tomorrow, semi-automatic pistols, pump-action rifles, lever-action shotguns and lever-action rifles are all on their list and they won’t be happy until they take our pea shooters.
On the other side of this long war, we know well that we have never been better placed to fight this battle, if we are going to win this battle now is the time to do it. We all know that any recommendations that COAG make have to be forced through the State parliaments. Nothing that happens in COAG is final. Nothing is set in stone. It is only a committee with no legislative power. Soon, this will be a much broader struggle, but given the fracturing of state politics, we have a much better chance of preventing ratification. We have up and coming elections in Western Australia, NSW and Queensland, we have two members of the Katter party willing to cross the floor in Queensland and vote against its introduction. To bulldoze this legislation through the Queensland house Labour would have to go to a general election, and an election at this time would NOT give either Labour, or Lib/Nats a majority. At the next election, minor parties will have the balance of power in Queensland, so we must work and vote to ensure that pro firearm rights candidates are elected to parliament. If this legislation is blocked in one state, the federal governments uniformity is fractured and ultimately lost. Whatever happens, the media will hype this re-categorisation as a done deal and besmirch any candidate who speaks out against it. These people must have our support and our encouragement to cross the floor when the time comes. Start preparing a list of your state candidates in categories:
“Pro Gun” – will vote against re-categorisation
“Persuadable” – can be persuaded to cross the floor with the Pro members
“Lost Cause” – Greens and others who will never change their minds.

We will focus on the ones who are persuadable, encouraging them to cross the floor, and threatening them with an Orange-style defeat at the coming election if they don’t. Remind them that an exclusive online poll ran by Fairfax Agricultural Media ‘Farm Online’ and reported in Queensland Country Life found: 98.41 per cent say Adler shotguns should not be in Category D.  Of the 6109 total votes received, 6012 respondents voted ‘no’ and a mere 97 voted ‘yes’, on the question. That amounts to 98.41 per cent voting against placing the gun in the toughest classification category and only a minuscule 1.59pc agreeing its access should be tightly limited.
So we have an up and coming battle, this is the letter I sent (and I hope they received thousands more like it) last week to local MPs and Police Ministers.
——–
Dear Sir.
I am one of the two million (Crimtrac Annual Report 2015/16) Licenced firearm owners, who have conscientiously jumped through all the hoops and impositions, paid application fees, Permit to Acquire fees, and 20 or so renewal fees(which are more like un just fines) all created to punish us, for enjoying our sport and hobby. All of us are worn ragged with corrupt politicians incessantly crucifying the innocent pillars of the community, to appease the internationally financed socialist Gun Control, lusus naturae’s who could have their annual meeting in a telephone box.

When Australia’s main party politicians, knowingly, plan to introduce further restrictions on firearm owners. Some licensed firearm owners might own one of the lever action shotguns, (technology that has been used in shotguns since 1887) and some will not, but all can immediately realise that if politicians are prepared to lose government, lose their seats to impose unjustified legislation, (re categorising means confiscations) on firearms that have not been used improperly, not unsafe, only at the whim of the internationally owned anti gunners and their mainstream media henchmen, then any firearm that they own is in the waiting line for similar treatment.

When main political parties accept huge election donations from international sources, when their politicians accept donations from international organisations and are prepared to commit electoral suicide to carry out the wishes of their sponsors, instead of representing there constituents, then the electors will work strenuously to ensure that quickly occurs.

‘The Genie is out of the Lamp’, and he can see ‘the Emperor has no Clothes On’.
(The voters are waking up, the Orange NSW by Election can be repeated successfully in every State in Australia.)
These international financiers who donate so well to mainstream political parties, make huge donations to academics in Gun Control, they are also huge shareholders in mainstream media and give generously to organisations that prop up the billion dollar budget to the ABC, have replaced the constitutional representation with corrupted dollars. If this information is a conspiracy theory, and not just information re-published by Jennifer Oriel Australian, 22nd August 2016 newspaper from Wiki leaks,
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search…

then do your worst, get voted out of office and sue the Australian newspaper for slander.

On the other hand if you wish to vote in parliament for your constituents and vote against this Re categorising legislation and please inform your electorate of your brave stand against international globalism.

Yours

Ron Owen JP (Qual)

…………………..

Know Your Enemy.
Thirty five years ago, when I began to write about the international trust fund intervention in our firearm legislation I was castigated by mainstream media and even opposition Australian shooting magazines poo poohed the facts that I presented in Lock, Stock and Barrel. The opposition shooting magazines and the general firearm trade changed its tune, when John Howard adopted the 23 points of gun control issued by the United Nations Civilian Disarmament Conference in Cairo, Egypt and placed Daryl Smeaton, (who had attended that Conference) as Director, Office of Law Enforcement Coordination, Commonwealth Attorney -General’s Department to supervise the Un informed Gun Steal Back which took the people’s property and paid some of them back with their own money.
When the United Nations policies were forced on Australia, most people instrumental in resisting the activities of the Gun Control Australia and Daryl Smeaton looked at the common factor in this movement intent on destroying all individual liberties. That common factor was the international funding, that went to the three heads of the hydra, being
1.  Gun Control Australia, Academics,
2. Main Political Party Campaign donations, and
3. Ownership of mainstream Media outlets. The connecting factor was mainly the journalist academics who were involved in all three heads, but finance ultimately came from one source in the body of the monster.

Of course to expose this brought the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, I was often referred to as that Red Neck Conspiracy theorist from Gympie. At that time we had no economical way of distributing information to other shooters, mainstream media was all powerful and had a huge depressing affect on our own shooting brothers and sisters.

These days, this international conspiracy is not a theory it is a fact established by mainstream media such as the Weekend Australian

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3A9DbqiAzgnswJ%3Awww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fopinion%2Fdumped-files-show-influence-of-george-soros-on-western-politics%2Fnews-story%2F937a225e62420ea3807bd8308b0dad83+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

due to the release of the Wiki papers. This battle against the latest imposition might not be the last battle, but it will be a key lynch pin to future success in our war for individual freedoms, it will be fought on the internet, facebook, twitter, emails, letter to the editor, the result will be the pressure we can bring to bear in 2017. Once we have a win, we can use our ever increasing numbers to use the same tactics to win further battles. To win this coming battle we can distribute the information of the source of the monster we have against us. Australians are becoming much more disgusted with international financial trusts controlling our future. Pointing out that Gun Control is only one of the issues that is being instituted by this three headed hydra and it is a powerful tool in our arsenal. Gradually, Australians are realising that the enemy wishes to buy control over every part of there lives, from working for the common world wage, importing illegal immigrants, or being a nuclear waste dump, to a hole in the ground for foreign owned resources, for buying the water that falls on our property, to limiting our food production, so it increases their own  prices. When they wake up to the idea that all of the impositions are coming from the one source, then they may act together to prevent us from falling into the New World Order pit.
Gun Control Bought and Paid For.
If you have had to suffer under the continued, ever increasing, creeping impositions of firearm legislation a large part of that served up to you has been due to the orchestrations of Rebecca Peters who served as Director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) from 2002 to 2010. She was still listed on the IANSA board of directors as of April 2012.
Prior to her work with IANSA, Rebecca Peters was also paid by the Open Society Institute, a private foundation funded by George Soros. As chair of the (Australian) National Coalition for Gun Control at the time of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Rebecca Peters played a key role in the impositions and suppression of individual liberty in Australia.

The Umut Foundation which is a Turkish chapter of IANSA states:”I’d written earlier in 2000, about a “star” of the gun control network, Doctor Rebecca Peters, who coincidentally went to Baltimore as soon as her task “down under” was done.”
The following was taken from ” Andy’s RANT published on 1 May, 2011. I can vouch for much of this information..

‘In Australia the “gun control” compact deployed as a network of Non-government organisations (NGOs), but also they were strategically grafted into the administration of the Attorney General and Justice Departments. Duncan Kerr (Labour) was the Minister responsible for the Department of Justice who over saw the appointment of one Daryl Smeaton, charged with the drafting of new gun laws, for the States and Territories to enact – as early as November 1995.”
The National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC) was based in Sydney, but had an important branch in Hobart, Tasmania, headed up there by lawyer Roland Browne, while in Melbourne a “sister” organisation, the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC) was run by John Bruce Crook. Prior to 1996, Crook was involved in a defamation action in Melbourne, and in that trial it was reported that none other than Daryl Smeaton presented the Court with a supportive character reference for Crook.
It was in Sydney where Rebecca Peters rose to prominence, arriving in 1981. While Peters says “she decided” to settle Down Under and become an “Australian citizen. We must remember those famous words, “In politics nothing happens by chance. If it happens, it was meant to happen that way”.
The Fanatic.
Rebecca Peters grew up as a teenager in Costa Rica, the second of six children in an American family. As her father worked for the American Government there, ‘half jokingly,’ she suggested in an interview in Australia he “probably worked for the CIA.” In Sydney, Peters enrolled in a university in the faculty of Engineering (possibly Macquarie), being just one of only two females in the course, but in 1983 she dropped out. For a time Rebecca took a job as a researcher and reporter with ABC Radio (known locally as the “Gay-BC”), and worked with Andrew Olle. In 1991 with a not-so-subtle agenda, Peters returned to university, enrolled as a law student gaining her law degree, at the end of which, she produced a thesis on ‘tighter gun control’. This was the “centrepiece” of an enormous folio of material she collected and wrote for her campaign to remove loop-holes in existing gun laws in Australia. She promoted herself as a ‘multilingual middle-class lawyer’ who was fanatical about “gun control”.
By ’91 Peters was running the NCGC, rising fast to the position of “chair”, almost as quickly as the death rate climbed with each incident of that new phenomenon to Australasia, the gun massacre. With the shooting massacres she produced a ‘win-win sound-bite’ for the minds and meek support of the gullible Mums and Dads of Australia. The Dunblane massacre occurred on 13 March ’96 and Port Arthur followed 46 days later. Then all the pieces fell into place for Federal Attorney General, Daryl Williams, to implement the gun-ban laws prepared and ready from Daryl Smeatons’ trip to Cairo.

For Rebecca Peters, her 1996 schedule was quite hectic. It was crunch year and on 13 March at Dunblane Primary School in Scotland, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton, shot dead 16, wounded 13 and then shot himself. Fifteen of the sixteen dead, and ten of the thirteen wounded were all children. Energetically publicised by their chums in the Media, Dunblane was in the scheme of disarmament, the precursor to Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, Australia. At Port Arthur on 28 April 1996, 35 people died and 20 were wounded in the first convoluted terrorist shooting massacre in this nation. In the massacre, the murder of Nanette Mikac and her two daughters was said by the CNN’s John Raedler in the EMA papers to be the classic ‘win-win’ sound bite. Raedler scurried down to Tasmania from Sydney to capture that ‘win-win’ sound bite.
However, in relation to both massacres it should be remembered it was Rebecca Peters’ colleague, Roland Browne, now chair of NCGC, who predicted a shooting massacre in Tasmania in November of 1995, and quite remarkably again made a repeated prediction on the “A Current Affair” TV show, straight after Scotland’s Dunblane Massacre. But then anti-gun proponents in Australia seem to have this remarkable psychic skill. For in Tasmania’s capitol city Hobart after a Special Premier’s Conference in relation to Gun Control held in December of 1987, NSW’s then Premier, Barry “No-gunsworth” Unsworth stated bluntly: “There will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre in Tasmania.”

Port Arthur massacre was the catalyst for subsequent reciprocal visits across the globe by some of those closely involved with victims of both shooting murders. But with Peters in America, in the, Washington Mall, just 9 weeks after Dunblane massacre, three mothers; Kareen Turner, Alison Crozier and Karen Scott, who each lost a daughter in the Dunblane murders, featured in the Million Mom March. Now while we all probably sympathise with their personal loss of young innocent children, in Washington they marched along smiling and waving. I wonder who paid for their return flight to America and similarly other flights to Australia, and conversely the Port Arthur survivors to Dunblane? Dr Peters also flew to Dunblane in August of 1996 … ‘to deliver messages from Port Arthur survivors’ it was reported at the time.

The network of Peters’ and her NGO’s the global Gun Control Network, are well funded and conveniently placed, as the synonym suggest – outside of governmental restraints. I would be astonished if it was proven, her Australian network had not received a generous helping of Institute hand-outs to disarm our good people between 1991- 1996. To example the extent of these amassed fortunes, one such “funder”, the Joyce Foundation, was reported as granting between 1993 and 1997, some $13.2 m, for distribution among 55 ‘gun control’ organisations. John Hopkins is bank-rolled to sustain disarmament battle by such “funders” as the California Wellness Foundation (CWF), Gerorge Soros’ Open Society Institute and the Public Welfare Foundation, just three of the well-endowed tax-exempt funders supporting the global gun-grabbers. George Soros’ Open Society Institute funds gun control networks on a national scale across America, but indeed globally, in 33 countries. One should be surprised if Australia didn’t figure high on this list. Open Society also gave the Violence Policy Center $1.2 million in 1997 to expand its anti-gun efforts.
What should be engraved in everyone’s minds is that while Rebecca Peters was “Down-Under”, 6 shooting massacres occurred in Australia and New Zealand resulting in 76 deaths and 53 wounded people. In “gun control” here, Peters was no doubt – numro uno supremo. Curiously though since Peters left, the shooting massacres, of the same style, lone gunman, have ceased! And private firearm ownership and number of firearms have doubled. Since Peters has returned to the USA, they have been subjected to the lone gunmen syndrome ever since.
It was announced in 1997 that Peters was awarded (if you believe their own news releases – or if logic is your guide, rewarded may be the more appropriate word) – with a Senior Fellowship in March 1997 by the Soros Foundation’s Open Institute funded Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Merryland. So the good citizens there should perhaps keep her Australasian achievements in mind.
In making application for her fellowship, Rebecca Peters had to ‘submit a budget’ for her envisioned work … forgive me from chuckling. Can you imagine her difficult task here? Think of a big digit add lots of zeros and voila … a budget!
You may wish to drop a line to the Doctor so here is her working address: The Center on Crime, Community and Culture, 400 West 59th Street, New York, NY10019. Or perhaps you may wish to forward a congratulatory e-mail to  rpeters@sorosny.org   . Rebecca’s doctorate included a stipend incidentally of US$32,500 p.a., plus various expenses covered in her ‘budgeted’ expenses, the lot bankrolled by the tax-exempt Soros Foundation.

In New York, Rebecca Peters hit the pavement ‘running’ and is immediately associated with Desmond Riley of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence – part of the NAACP crowd involved in ‘crafting a gun control strategy’ for “curing gun ownership” – their words.

Her citizenry disarmament program is far flung, and includes Australia, New Zealand, the sub-continent, South America, Great Britain and Europe: she’s a true-blue “globalist”. First on the list after jetting out of Australia though, was her close involvement in organisation of the ‘Million Mom March’ and in reports of this event, her trademark outlandish unsubstantiated claims regarding crimes, firearms and related deaths appeared on cue. Easily destroyed later by reputable writers, but once the lie is said, truth inevitably is the casualty. Before leaving Australia though, her name was noted alongside that of her NCGC Hobart colleague (now chair of NCGC), Roland Browne on a University Paper entitled, Australia’s New Gun Control.
It should come as no surprise to learn that John Hopkins in 1986, received funding of a reported $317m American “defence dollars”! What level of “Arms and Military” funding does John Hopkins receive today that in any way assists the works of Dr Peters and her ‘arms-grabbing’ cadre?”

Who Is George Soros?
To put this together, who is George Soros, (just check him out on google)http://concit.org/soros-and-his-australian-minions/
Here is a short synopsis that shows the links between the body of the hydra beast and its three heads. George Soros was born in Hungary. His family were non practising Jews and changed their name to assimilate into the gentile population. When Hitler’s henchman, Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary to oversee the extermination of the Jews, George Soros ended up working with a man whose job it was to confiscate property from the Jewish population. Seventy percent of Hungary’s half a million Jews were killed that year.

No Sense of Guilt.
“Sixty Minutes”, Steve Kroft interviewed Soros about that time, years later:

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

SOROS: “Yes. Yes.”

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that’s — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

SOROS: “Not — not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t — you don’t see the connection. But it was — it created no — no problem at all.”

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

SOROS: “No.… in a funny way, it’s just like in markets–that if I weren’t there–… somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.”

Sucks Blood.
In 1956 Soros moved to New York City where he would work on Wall Street specialising in hedge funds and currency speculations.
In 1992 Soros made his first billion by breaking the Bank of England shorting the English Pound.
In 1994 Soros went onto to almost collapsed the Russian economy by similar means.
In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia. Soros was part of the full court that dismantled Yugoslavia in a coup, caused trouble in Georgia, Ukraine and Burma (Myanmar).  France also fined him $2.9 million for felony insider trading in France. Hungary fined him $2.2 million for illegal market manipulation after putting his own home country’s economy into a tail spin by driving down the share price of its largest bank.
These actions earned Soros the title of “Financial Terrorist” and was described by various commentators and leaders as a “planetary parasite”, “a kind of “Dracula that sucks the blood from nations of people”.

Mass Migration.
His eyes are now on America, with a wealth far more vast than the Rothschild’s empire. He told the Australian newspaper “America is the centre of the globalised financial markets was sucking up the world savings, this is now over…the time has come for a “very serious adjustment in America’s consumption habits, he implied he was the one with the power to bring this about.”
On the economic front he is shorting the dollar in global currency markets, trying to force a devaluation. At the same time Soros is orchestrating a nationwide movement to encourage mass migration into the United States and to mandate the provision of free social services to illegal immigrants in order to bankrupt the nation.
(On Aug 7, 2015 Obama, who is financially backed by Soros, reissued his pledge to the press that he wanted to legalise all illegals.)

SOROS: World financial crisis is “stimulating and in a way the culmination of my life’s work”(A blog you might want to keep an eye on is www.SorosWatch.com. Their mission is dedicated to all who have suffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits of George Soros.)

Open Society Foundation.
When Soros arrived in the UK he attended the London School of Economics a Fabian establishment where he met his mentor, philosopher Karl Popper. (Fabians are socialists who support the notion of a One World Government and key supporters of the United Nations.)
The Open Society Foundations, created by George Soros, was inspired in name and purpose by Popper’s book—”Open Society and its Enemies”.
To this end Soros’ “Open Societies Foundation” pick and choose organisations to support and activists to get behind, according to local advisors that will further their cause. Universal acceptance of the United Nations has given Soros the right to meddle in any country if the meddling promotes human rights, democracy and fundamental freedoms. Soros is using the Human Rights Charter of the United Nations to direct support from his Open Societies Foundation.
Soros is shaping the governments and societies of the world to the tune of $18 billion dollars a year—influencing government policy, education, media, public health, and human and women’s rights, as well as social, legal and economic engineering according to his personal and Foundation’s agenda.
President Obama—a Liberal Democrat, recently promised $10 billion dollars to Brazil in order to give them a leg up in expanding their off-shore oil fields. This came after his political financial backer George Soros invested heavily in Brazilian Oil (Petrobras). The Petrobras loan was a windfall for Soros and Brazil which could produce $1.7 trillion in revenues.
Soros virtually owns the Liberal Democratic Party of America and is currently backed the billions for Hilary Clinton’s campaign.

WikiLeaks.
In August of 2016 Wikileaks released a series of emails between Soros and Hillary Clinton on the Albania situation which clearly show Soro’s recommendation being adopted by Hillary Clinton even to the person recommended as mediator.
Soros intervenes in elections both in the US, and Australia. In the US he spent $42 million at the High Court of America to ensure that “non political” groups were able to give political donations and agitate for change but not have their donations scrutinised by the various electoral commissions.

Channel 9.
In 2013 Soros bought into Australia’s Channel 9 network—Billionaire investor George Soros is understood to have bought $6 million to $8 million of shares in Nine Entertainment ahead of the company’s $1.9 billion IPO.

 Enter—Move On, GetUp, Emily’s List,
These groups have received enormous support from Soros because these are the change agents for elections, in both Australia and the US that can operate outside of Governmental control.

GetUp
Australian GetUp was founded by David Madden and Jeremy Heimans, the same week Liberals under Howard won power in the Senate in 2005. These two founders both from America were also involved with another Soros-financed left-wing activist group, MoveOn.org.
Public records reveal that between January 2003 and December 2004, Soros contributed $2,500,000 to MoveOn.org.
GetUp! (who is a major agitator for their ABC). Sources have also suggested that Soros’ money is being funnelled into the coffers of militant groups such as Refugee Action Coalition (RAC), Socialist Alternative, ANTIFA and other radical Left-wing cadres. Following the lead of the Australian Greens, the left wing organisation, ‘GetUp!’ has launched a campaign to fund political action in electorates where recent criticism of the ABC is likely to have an impact. This action by GetUp!, complementing the Greens’ ‘Hands off our Aunty’ campaign, Landscape is more evidence that the ABC is not only biased, but as a media organisation, has become hopelessly, and perhaps irredeemably politicised. The ABC is supposed to be an independent and impartial media service for all Australians, but it is becoming clearer and clearer that this is not the case.
What is becoming crystal clear is that the ABC is only serving one constituency in Australia, and that is the ‘progressive’ Left. Not only is the ABC only serving the left, the desperate campaigns launched by the Greens and GetUp! reveal that the ABC acts as an important mouthpiece and advocate for their policy agenda. Without the ABC’s billion dollar plus budget provided by tax payers, and vast resources to disseminate the so called ‘progressive’ agenda, the left would have to rely on its own resources and funds to promote its political platform. Of course, this is why the Greens and GetUp! have been so quick to criticise calls for the ABC to be accountable to its charter, to all Australians and tax payers, and have launched their campaigns defending the ABC and its bias.
Madden and Heimans are also co-founders of the global activist group, Avaaz.org, an organization that the Canadian Minister John Baird in 2008 labelled as “shadowy foreign organization tied to billionaire activist George Soros.”
The largest donor to Get Up in Australia in 2010 with a donation of $1.1 million is the CFMEU, a coalition of 5 former communist unions.
Another AVAAZ linked cause to GetUp, namely “Climate Alarmism” in Australia, received an alleged $15 million donation from Soros.
Shorten on Soros Payroll?
On Get Up’s original board, members included Australian Workers Union secretary Bill Shorten, Australian Fabian Society Nation Secretary Evan Thornley, Green activist Cate Faehrmann, and left-wing trade union researcher and “community organiser” Amanda Tattersall.
(Little know fact…GetUp are the first two words from the first Communist Anthem “The Internationale” by Pier de Geyter Lille. “GetUp Not Arise”) (It depends on the translation)
In 2005 they campaigned AGAINST anti terrorism legislation and against Racism of the Cronulla riots.
In 2006 They campaigned AGAINST changes to the migration laws and Iraq war, supported terrorist David Hicks.
In 2007 They campaigned AGAINST Northern Territory National Emergency Response, but campaigned for repeal of laws that stopped electoral fraud (closing rolls the same day an election is announced—100,000 fake voters could then be counted in the election.)
In 2009 They campaigned AGAINST mandatory detention, but for same sex equality, renewable energy, paid parental leave.
In 2011 Against mining, coal seam gas…in order to fund a climate change Disaster fund in line with UN policies, and for marriage equality. (For homosexuals)
On the surface you could be forgiven for thinking it is simply a front for the Labor Party and the Greens. While it did criticise Labor’s Fuel Watch—it has NEVER criticised the Greens.
Get Up is an instrument of mass manipulation …not a mass movement. It was conceived in league with the unions. In 2007 and 2010 elections GET Up fielded 7,000 volunteer campaigners complete with T-shirts and how to vote cards. In 2010 they ran 700 television ads and fielded 3,000 booth workers. Every member on their board has been associated with either ALP, Fabians, trade unions or extreme environmentalism. They raise millions of dollars each year but have no actual accountability to their members.
Get Ups role in our elections is excessive yet, because its not a registered political party it does not come under the charge of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). (Abetz, Minister for State, in 2005 asked to have Get Up investigated by the AEC and the ACCC but that request was turned down due to “insufficient grounds”.)

EMILY’s List
EMILY’s List is another Soros funded Fabian organisations. It functions with the Democratic Party in the US and the Labor Party in Australia.
EMILY stands for “Early Money Is Like Yeast”—because it rises like dough.
The stated aim of Emily’s List is to raise money to help progressive, (PRO ABORTION), women get elected. The reason we can say pro-abortion is a mandate because anyone standing against abortion, as one Emily List candidate found out, had their $100,000 support subsidy immediately withdrawn. That is why in Victoria because of Ms Gillard’s intervention we have late term abortion right through 9 months of pregnancy. Gillard herself a socialist, Fabian and EMILY List member.
This groups funds women into Parliament. They negotiate seats (with Labor in Australia) to ensure that a woman and not necessarily the best person, gets the seat in at least 40% of the time. EMILY’s List candidates also support “equality” — the promotion and preferential hiring of women and “diversity”— homosexual rights. They claim to have have helped 115 women into State and Federal politics in Australia.
EMILY’s List is now the second most powerful lobbying and fundraising task force in the United States. It was founded in 2007 by Ellen Malcolm (Fabian) after Soros won his court case to stop the limit that political candidates could receive from individuals to EXCLUDE donations from organisations…hence Getup, Move On AND EMILY’s List.

FABIANS
Fabians are the new communists—supporters of One World Government, Agenda 21 and the United Nations. They will feature in the next Soros post along with the Club of Rome and the influence they have had in destabilising Australia while creating the United Nations and One World Government.
Suffice to say that Soros after his introduction through the London School of Economics supports the UN and backs the establishment of a One World Government. Obama—Soros’ current Liberal Democratic puppet—last month also signalled that he wanted the top job in the UN at the end of his Presidency. Just keep watching that space.
As for Australia, Greens Leader Sarah Hanson Young last month flew to Switzerland to accept her World Economic Forum, Young Global Leader for 2016. The Chairman of the World Economic Forum is none other than George Soros. So we can safely assume the Greens now have the full support of Soro’s tentacles over here.

Conclusion.
What Soros wants, simply put, is a New World Order outside of the grips of the US congress where he can exert his control and is prepared to dismantle America to do it. He also uses the values of the UN Human Rights Charter and and his enormous wealth to facilitate his Open Society utopia. The problem for us in the West that as a Fabian and a Socialist, Soros is a one world government man and therefore against any movement that preserves a Nation’s Sovereignty to go it alone or to leave the United Nations. Abbott and the Canadian PM—the only nay-sayers to the United Nations, were both ousted by Soros’s tentacles before the 2015 November UN Climate Summit. As a result the UN received 100% acceptance of a global taxation system and wealth redistribution system using the ruse of climate change. Any group that challenges the One World Government direction like the Reclaim Australia Rallies did in Australia in 2015, would also be shut down by what ever means. We all watched this happen in Australia with the heavily backed” No room for Racism” counter rallies through Soros’s mates—the Unions, Greens and the Left. The media then finished the job with unrelenting, biased reporting of all their rallies and a further towing the United Nations socialist “equality” and “diversity” line—without realising they were weakening the sovereignty of their own nation in the process. Soros is an atheist and has fallen into the same trap that so many non-religious, communists and Fabians have fallen into, believing that all religions are the same and that Islamic believers, like any other person, in the comfort of having their needs met, will let go of their religion. The fault in this logic is that Islam has been falsely identified as a “religion”. Instead, had it been classified as a totalitarian ideology with a religious component steeped in terrorism and death, then perhaps his planetary utopia could move a step closer as Islam would not have been granted the licence it currently has. Instead it would have been relegated with all those other totalitarian regimes like Nazism, Fascism and Communism that are the true enemies to open societies. But the way that the UN Charter reads concerning the practice of well meaning and quaint religions, is leading to social travesty of monumental proportions. Islam is not a religion first, but a totalitarian ideology first—complete with its system of racist laws, and prescriptive intolerant social behaviour and a religious component that glorifies those who die or used their possessions for those who die, killing for Islam. This is what makes the current Open Society support to this Charter a threat to humanity.
Soros is globally promoting a social system that fits neatly into Islamic expansionism with catastrophic results. He will never realise his New World Order because of the clash of values between the West and Islam that must inevitably result in civil war. Soros by his support of organisations that support left wing counter rallies like the “no room for Racism” he is forcing the tolerance of the West to tolerate the intolerant—Islam. His support of the UN Charter of Human Rights is giving Islam the ammunition to drive its totalitarian system into the world instead of allowing a true open and democratic society. There is nothing democratic in Islam. Further, by supporting these Communist, Green and left wing groups Soros is also removing “freedom” for the sake of “equality”, flying in the face of his Mentor, Popper’s warnings NOT to do so.
Political Correctness is being underpinned globally by Soros sponsored organisations like “Common Cause“. “Common Cause” is program designed for governments on “political correctness” for the sake of equality and diversity. The Rotherham Muslim rape gangs flourished in the UK for 10 years because of the Common Cause training the police departments were obliged to follow. As a result tens of thousands of innocents suffered. The Fabian, come Popper student, has now become the greatest agent of oppression of mankind in the 21st Century ensuring the rise of Islamic imperialism and the closing down of freedom and democracy in the West. He is more interested in how to break nations than strengthen them. He intends to force a sovereign UN based government on the world rather that a nation state model. Soros—the God Father of the Left—with his socialist New World Order goals has become the most dangerous man on planet Earth, because he has the means to do it.”…
Every person in Australia who has been charged for not closing the window of his house, or not locking their gun safe, or have lost their guns due to the domestic issue of not putting the milk on the wife’s cornflakes in the morning, or have been charged for having a broken un-fireable Daisy Red Ryder can put the blame fairly on these international monsters. Please research this subject yourselves we must use this information against our three headed enemy.
………
There is no Spring without Winter, without Mistakes there is no Learning. There is no Life without Death, without Doubts there is no Faith. There is no Peace without War, without Fear there is no Courage. For without Mistakes, Doubts and Fears there are no pathways to Wisdom.
Ron Owen