KAP state leader Rob Katter said, after a year without substantial discussions, it was time for the state government to open up a line of communication with licenced gun owners.
Mr Katter said it was important the wider public was involved in discussions about firearms safety and the development of the new National Firearms Agreement (NFA).
A review into the NFA was ordered last year, following a recommendation of the Martin Place siege review.
The review aims to modernise Australia’s original firearm agreement, created in 1996 by the Howard Government.
Mr Katter said the state’s rural sector, including farmers, had been left in the dark with Queensland’s contribution to the review.
“The shooting community are always trying to work with the government, we cannot continue to let such a significant portion of the rural population be ostracised,” he said.
The MP has continued to call on the government to reinstate the Weapons Advisory Panel, which had he said worked constructively with previous ALP and LNP governments, to ensure a rounded view on firearms policy and associated matters.
“Last year we approached the former police minister on the issue of the Weapons Advisory Panel which was disbanded last February by the Palaszczuk Government,” Mr Katter said.
“Since that time there has been no consultation with those who will be effected by the new agreement, outside of the Queensland Police Service.”
Mr Katter said he will again be approaching current Police Minister Bill Byrne on the matter of the review, to ensure firearm owners are part of the conversation.
“At this stage, with only preliminary talks we have high hopes Minister Byrne will have a fair and open approach to the panel and the community of licenced gun owners,” he said.
“There are many initiatives that the group would hope to develop with the government, that can enhance safety measures and minimise costs to the taxpayer.
“As we have made very clear in the past, we will be doing everything within our power to ensure appropriate consultation around these laws takes place.
“We don’t want to see the government place any unnecessary restrictions against law abiding gun owners, sportsmen and women.”
Vote NO! against Fixed, Four-Year Terms for Queensland Michael Darby On Monday evening 14 March 2016, in the historic Legislative Council Chamber of the Queensland Parliament, the Australasian Study of Parliament Group (ASPG) convened a Discussion Panel on the subject: Fixed, Four-Year Terms for Queensland. ASPG President David Gibson, the former Member for Gympie, welcomed the seventy-two guests and introduced the Moderator. Deputy Speaker Di Farmer MP, Member for Bulimba, who chaired the Finance and Administration Committee during its 2015 inquiries into possible changes to Queensland Parliamentary terms, contributed her skills as moderator of a discussion which involved the following distinguished panellists:In support of the Referendum: • Mr Ian Walker MP, member for Mansfield and sponsor of the Constitution (Fixed Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 2015 and Constitution (Fixed Term Parliament) Referendum Bill 2015 • Mr Mark Ryan MP, Assistant Minister of State Assisting the Premier and member for Morayfield • Ms Catherine Fang, representing the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland.Opposed to the Referendum • Mr Robbie Katter MP, Leader of Katter’s Australia Party in the Queensland Parliament and member for Mount Isa • Professor Graeme Orr, LLM LLB BA PhD, political and electoral law specialist, University of Queensland • Mr David Muir, LLB BEc, Brisbane-based legal partner at HWL Ebsworth and member of the ASPG-Q Accountability Round TableCross Benches • Mr Chris O’Brien, ABC senior state political reporterIn leading for the Yes! case, Ian Walker MP explained that the proposed constitutional change would require Parliaments to be elected on the last Saturday of October every four years. He carefully qualified that statement by stressing that the proposed change would preserve intact all the circumstances which can presently lead to the Parliament being prorogued. Unfortunately for the Yes! case, Mr Mark Ryan MP announced with delight that if the referendum passes, never again would an election campaign interfere with the school holidays, as occurred in 2015 with the 31 January poll.Clearly there is a mindset among the proponents of this legislation that the protections and guarantees are so much window dressing, and the goal is for four-year fixed terms to be set irretrievably in cement. The Yes! team acknowledged that three year fixed terms could be established in Queensland by simple legislation without a referendum.The arguments presented in favour of the Yes! vote included: • Elections are expensive • Elections are bad for business • Elections cause uncertainty • Elections are stressful for the public service • Elections make the work of government more difficult. All of these arguments are also arguments for abolishing elections entirely.Strongly led by Rob Katter MP, the team for the No! case saw the referendum proposal as a charter for expanding executive power, and collectively made these points: • There are two separate issues, fixed terms and extended terms, which should not be lumped together into the one decision. • No evidence has been produced showing that four years is an optimal term. The Chartists wanted annual Parliaments, Americans are accustomed to voting for Legislatures each two years, and the British have a five-year minimum. • Queensland lacks an Upper House, and without the protection of a Legislative Council, Queenslanders are more vulnerable than the residents of any other State to the excessive and arbitrary power of a State Government. • The Committee system is no substitute for an Upper House. • Three years is plenty of time for a Government which comes to office ready to govern. Examples of Leaders who have achieved a great deal in a short time have included Whitlam and Kennett. • If the Referendum is passed, then Queensland will be reduced to constitutional arrangements identical with those of the Northern Territory. • The right of the voters must be paramount, and that right includes the right of removing an unpopular government. • Queenslanders have previously rejected similar proposals. • Government is not primarily about ease and convenience for politicians or public servants. Government is about representing the people who express their views through the ballot box. Any restriction on that expression of the views of the voters must be rejected.Queenslanders for Constitutional Monarchy encourages all Queenslanders to vote No! Moreover, QCM recommends that every individual who cares about defending the timely expression of views through the ballot box should print a supply of how-to-vote cards. These can be as simple as an A5 sheet with the words VOTE NO, and including of course an authorisation line. When you go to vote, hand out your own HTVs. If you wish, make your own posters, but always include the authorisation line.Queenslanders can beat this Referendum. Let’s do it. The author is a Chinese interpreter and former Army Officer whose political experience includes standing as a candidate against then Prime Minister E.G. Whitlam in Werriwa in 1974. He is a lifelong supporter of bicameral parliaments. Together with Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen, Michael Darby is a Patron of Queenslanders for Constitutional Monarchy, one of the organisations calling for a No! vote on Saturday 19 March 2016. Contact: commodities@michaeldarby.net
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:58:51 +0000 To: mrmichaeldarby@hotmail.com