Feds make up story on appearance laws

Feds make up story on appearance laws


Home Affairs Minister, Karen Andrews, who oversees the National Firearms Agreement

HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER, KAREN ANDREWS, is the MP who is responsible for why we have ‘appearance laws’ in the National Firearms Agreement, but her bureaucracy has been caught out making up a story to back why we have appearance laws.

In this article:

  • The NSC asked Minister Andrews, to remove the appearance laws from the NFA after not one jurisdiction was able to provide evidence supporting the need for it;
  • Her response stated there were ‘numerous incidents’ that justified the law;
  • We challenged the minister to provide just one example of such an incident;
  • The deadline for a reply has passed – which means not one government has been able to provide evidence of why the law exists

Could, may, potential and assumption

Readers might recall our previous article where we revealed the only explanations that our respective police ministers could give for the reason why we have the laws, were that they were based on things that ‘could’, ‘may’ or had the ‘potential’ to happen and an ‘assumption’.

Click here to see that story.

Minister asked to remove appearance law from the NFA

We were curious about how the minister ultimately responsible for the NFA, Home Affairs Minister, Karen Andrews, would react knowing this, so wrote to her in April asking her to explain why the law was needed.

We attached copies of the responses from the jurisdictions and respectfully requested that she led the

“process to have the provision removed and obtain the specific agreement of the jurisdictions to reflect this in their respective statutes by a common date.”

Feds say there were “numerous incidents”

Our letter was referred to the Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, Jason Wood MP who in turn referred the matter to the Department of Home Affairs.

In their response, Assistant Secretary of Strategy and Law Enforcement, Daniel Mossop, stated:

The fact that Mr Mossop asserts were ‘numerous incidents’ clearly suggests there is evidence that supports the need for the law. Or so you would think.

So we wrote back to Minister Andrews asking her to provide “any examples that support the assertion of there being “numerous incidents and involving “fully automatic firearms”.

Just one would be a good start.

No evidence. Not one shred.

We asked the minister to provide a response with a month of our latest approach, and even provided a polite follow up letter on 17 May that was acknowledged. We also offered to fly someone to her to discuss the matter further.

More than a month on, we are still waiting. In fact two months after first writing to the minister, we still have not seen anything from any Australian government that can be verified.

It remains a policy based on nothing more than a fabrication – and we hold Minister Andrews responsible for this and failing to take this matter seriously.

The problem we have is that she is in a safe seat, so we are working on our next plan to target two of her colleagues in more marginal seats.