Groups wanted former justice minister to recognise that ‘lawful use of firearms can also have benefit to society’

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

Pro-gun groups used a ministerial advisory panel to lobby against mandatory 28-day cooling-off periods for firearms owners and to call for changes to the “genuine need” provisions which make up the backbone of Australia’s gun laws.

Documents obtained by Guardian Australia under freedom of information laws reveal the former justice minister Michael Keenan was subjected to intense face-to-face lobbying from pro-gun advocates during a review of the National Firearms Agreement (NFA).

The documents also reveal Keenan was warned against making changes to the classification of lever action shotguns and was pushed to include wording in the preamble of the NFA to recognise that the “lawful use of firearms can also have benefit to society”.

The lobbying occurred during meetings of the government’s controversial firearms industry reference group. The group was established to advise Keenan on “the technical elements of the National Firearms Agreement” during a review of the Howard-era reforms prompted by the 2014 Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney.

The review centred on the classification of the Adler 110 lever action shotgun, and also received input from gun control advocates, who called for more stringent control over the firearm.

But the documents show how the firearms advisory panel was used by pro-gun groups to argue against attempts to tighten gun laws.

Members of the reference group include the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia (Sifa), the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) and the Firearms Dealers’ Association.

The documents – including meeting minutes and briefing submissions – show the gun lobby used its time with the minister to push-back against changes to gun laws and to argue against tighter regulations.

Shooters' association official says it's 'only a matter of time' before mass shooting Read more

Sifa – a lobby group made up of Australia’s largest gun dealers which has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations, including some to the Liberal party – used the group to make a submission to Keenan arguing against “language creep” in the NFA.

In a briefing document prepared for the minister and obtained by the Guardian, Sifa argued the introduction of a mandatory 28-day waiting period for prospective gun owners was a “major issue” that would have “devastating economic costs for farmers”.

The original NFA agreed to after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 stated a permit “should” be subject to a 28-day waiting period. Following the review the new draft NFA changed the language to “must”.

The change reflected evidence that no Australian jurisdictions other than the ACT require a mandatory 28-day waiting period. In all states and the Northern Territory, authorities can waive the waiting period in certain instances, including when applicants are seeking a permit for a second gun.

The documents also reveal gun groups complained about the “genuine need” provisions enshrined in the NFA. The requirement for prospective gun owners to have a “genuine reason” for making a permit application was one of the core elements of the NFA agreed to in 1996.

People may have two, three, four, five firearms. It doesn’t mean we’re lunatics Geoff Jones, national president, SSAA

Correspondence establishing the reference group stated there would not “be any consideration of the need to have a genuine reason to possess a firearm, or any addition to the existing genuine reasons”.

But that did not stop the groups complaining about the provision. Meeting minutes show the managing director of Beretta Australia, Luca Scribani Rossi, who sits on the group as a representative of the National Firearms Dealer’s Association but is also a director of Sifa, suggested changes to the “genuine need” provisions during one meeting.

Rossi, the documents state, “suggested the possibility of recognising the genuine use of a firearm, not necessarily the genuine need aspect”.

In another meeting Tim Bannister from the SSAA – the largest member-based shooting group in Australia – said that the group wanted “the genuine need issue addressed”, and questioned why buying additional firearms required “a second level of checking or verification”.

“Mr Bannister sees a lot of this as red tape,” the meeting minutes state.

Geoff Jones, the national president of the SSAA, told the Guardian that the group’s problem with the genuine reason provision related to the application of 28-day waiting periods for second applications.

He said gun owners who applied for a second firearm within the same category should not have to undergo the same checks as first-time applicants.

“If you play golf your golf bag has 14 clubs in it, the reason being that you have a special club for every shot,” he said.

“Firearms owners, from a sports point of view, we’re similar. People may have two, three, four, five firearms. It doesn’t mean we’re lunatics, it’s just different needs within the sport. The issue then is that every time you buy a second firearm you have to go through another 28-day waiting period.”

In a statement to Guardian Australia a Sifa spokesman said the group had “no issue with the mandatory 28-day waiting period and supports this for the licensees first firearm and believes checks are absolutely appropriate”.

“In regard to second firearms, it is often the case that circumstances change making appropriate updated checks necessary. Sifa supports this,” the spokesman said.

“In respect to your inquiry regarding ‘genuine need’, it is Sifa’s position that all license applicants should be assessed as a ‘fit & proper person’ by authorities and have a ‘genuine reason’ for possession of a firearm and be registered and licensed for that firearm.”

The pushback against changes to the waiting period was unsuccessful.

In February last year the Council of Australian Governments (Coag) said the change in language was necessary “to enable appropriate checks to be made on licensees in order to ascertain whether circumstances have occurred since the issuing of the original licence which would render the licensee unsuitable to possess the firearm or which would render the licensee ineligible for that type of firearm”.

The Margaret River shooting shows that we must stay vigilant about gun access | Denise Cullen Read more

But some jurisdictions have not adopted the change. In New South Wales amendments to the firearms act introduced last year did not change the wording around the 28-day waiting period, meaning existing gun owners can still have the waiting period waived in certain instances.

The government has previously faced criticism over the reference group.

In 2016 a group of 30 domestic violence groups, gun control advocates, politicians and prominent Australians criticised Keenan for holding “one-sided” meetings with the gun lobby after Guardian Australia revealed he had told the same group the government wanted to cut “red tape” from gun regulation.

But advisory groups stacked with pro-gun advocates exist in most states and territories.

In NSW the Firearms Consultative Committee exists to “monitor and advise” the state’s police minister on issues relating to the state Firearms Act.

When it was established in 2012, its members included pro-gun groups including the Shooters and Fishers Party, the SSAA, the NSW Shooting Association and the Firearms Dealers Association.

In Queensland the former Newman government was criticised when it established a ministerial weapons advisory panel tasked with advising the government on “how to reduce the red tape, delays and bureaucracy legitimate firearms users face when applying for a licence or new weapon”.

In 2016 the Palaszczuk government overhauled the panel to include victims of crime organisations.