We’ve launched a legal challenge to a refusal by our registries
to come clean on what they’re up to on the national stage.
Prefer the Gun News Australia version?
Watch the full interview – click the image below.
The FOI long game
AFTER NEARLY A YEAR of battling bureaucracy, Politics Reloaded is on the verge of uncovering what new gun laws and policies our nation’s firearm registry managers are pushing for.
These meetings, under the federal government’s Firearms and Weapons Policy Working Group (FWPWG), have long raised concerns among shooting organisations because of the secrecy that surrounds this group.
The firearms policy group
The FWPWG includes representatives from all Australian states and territories, as well as federal agencies such as the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Institute of Criminology, the Department of Home Affairs, and the Defence Export Control Office.
The only information that the group publishes is that its primary objective is to facilitate improved national consistency in response to firearm and weapon issues.
While similar groups exist among senior public officials in other portfolios, this one lacks any form of transparency.
It publishes no minutes. It publishes no agendas. It does not invite the very sector (the shooting sector) that it affects.
That’s why Politics Reloaded has targeted the FWPWG with a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. FOI is known in other states as Right-To-Information, Right-To-Know and Government Information (Public Access).
Our FOI requests sought access to documents, such as minutes, that related to policy discussions and policy advice – because this ends up as being recommendations to state and territory governments to change our gun laws.
This started nearly a year ago, has cost a lot of money and involved dozens of emails with the relevant agencies. We’ve kept this under wraps – until now, because it’s starting to bear fruit.
The FOI challenge
One of the key FOIs is the one that went to the NSW Police because of the way FOI’s work in that state.
The NSW Police Force denied the request, stating that there was an “overriding public interest against the disclosure” of the information.
The refusal was based on concerns that releasing the documents could compromise the effectiveness of the police force’s functions, such as investigating and preventing crime.
They argued that they had to avoid releasing the documents to “stay one step ahead of criminals”.
However, we never asked for that information: we asked for documents that pertained to policy discussions and advice. Not once did we ask for operational information such as details of investigations – or on criminals.
What is particularly telling is that at no stage did NSW Police raise these concerns with us. Our request was specific and clear.
While investigations may provide background to discussions, our request was clear and agreed to – until they tried this smokescreen.
Dodging transparency and accountability
The response set out the principles that guide consideration of FOI requests. Among them are the need for transparency and accountability by public bodies such as our police forces.
That’s because public agencies need to be subject to sufficient public oversight. As the response says, failing to be transparent can erode public trust and hinder accountability – which, in our language, means politicians can lose their jobs.
Decisions made in closed settings will also inevitably lead to the wrong decisions being made.
In this instance, it is imperative that shooters be able to access and question the rationale behind firearm regulations and hold policymakers accountable for their actions.
Instead, it would appear some within NSW Police – possibly registry managers and policy representatives to the FWPWG – came up with the story about investigations and criminals for their FOI people to use, to avoid being subjected to transparency.
HOWEVER, we spotted this a mile away – and went straight to appeal. If that fails, then we’ll be off to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal – which is where this fight will involve real money.
We need to stop bias from driving public policy – and for shooters who want to see fights like this undertaken. This can be most effectively done by getting your support on Patreon (at patreon.com/PoliticsReloaded)
The FOI appeal
We have filed a formal appeal with the Information and Privacy Commission of NSW (IPC) with three main arguments.
The details of our arguments have been released to our subscribers on Patreon and members who helped to bankroll our work.
We’ve shown them the FOI response and the appeal we lodged.
If you would like to see our arguments – and like the work we’re doing – then sign up at Patreon now.
IF THE OUTCOME goes the way we hope, then we’ll be well placed to not only uncover what the FWPWG has or has not agreed on but put a stop the “policy by stealth” approach that several states have used, with their own unique attacks on shooters.
Examples include the recent ammo purchase attack in the Northern Territory, calibre attack Queensland, crazy new application form in Tasmania, and unexplained firearm reclassifications in Victoria.
Plus, don’t forget section 4 (2)(a) of WA’s atrocious new Firearms Act 2024, which states that one of the objectives of that new act is “to facilitate a nationally consistent approach to the control of firearms.”
That’s exactly what we reckon the FWPWG will be looking at now.
A SECOND FORMAL APPEAL in another state is likely to be made soon. We’ll be reporting on that one hopefully later this month.
That’s why backing Politics Reloaded makes sense …
Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?
who are these persons that are directing the abolition of firearms from the general public and telling the shop front persons (police and politicians) what to do and how to get it done, they know who we are would it not be right to know who they are !!!!!
I can only speak from experience: the Australian Club, at least in Sydney.
In the 1800’s it was fashionable to see and be seen walking Sydney Harbour’s foreshore, roughly from where the Opera House to where the Harbour Bridge are now. This social niche was… dismayed is how I’ll put it… at having to look at an Island called “Pinchgut”, so organised the spending of public money to build Fort Denison, that looks so much better, claimed it was to defend Sydney from the Russians, built it from Sandstone – the softest stone – and pointed the guns at the foreshore so they look good – not at the Harbour entrance. This was an achievement in their lives.
I don’t know the order of following events.
These families – not just individual members – founded the Australian Club in Sydney.
All organisations and social structures can be used as instruments. The memberships of people not in those families, who have done dirty work, such as John Howard, Joe Hockey and so on should be seen through that light.
Interesting, that Scott Morrison’s application was turned down – despite the people who thought themselves special and backed his application.
In other words, membership can be a way of keeping someone on a short leash.
But different parties can attempt influence. It’s hard to find on the internet, but if you look up Australian Comics you’ll find a one off printed in the late 1800’s by a Jewish group – presenting all young Australians as little yanks. Comics influence children, who grow into adults, and many pages online call it propaganda. Of note is these families later arranged for Australian Government bonds to be sold to the yanks, with the Commonwealth of Australia listed as some sort of corporation. Others speak of that online and I don’t know the veracity of all of it. Take note of that – never listen to yanks online.
In the late 1980’s I was told I was on a hit list held by these families, to be denied money, social inclusion, everything possible, and the words and hand motion gave me the impression there are still 7 acre house blocks in Warrawee, that the suburb is larger than it is, and they effectively are the Australian Club. No mention was made of Melbourne.
I had never heard of them.
Of note is why I was allegedly on such a list: a relative, of different surname, was joint business partner in an engineering company in Sydney, Brown and Kidd. Mr Kidd travelled to Japan on a business trip in the 1930’s and came back saying there’s going to be a war. Pointedly, that Japan’s industrial capacity far exceeded its consumption. (It’s the only way to fight and win a war, you’ll perhaps remember the yanks, and the political parties they ‘mentor’, actively denied this late last century, to push ‘free trade’).
Those families didn’t believe him, the yanks assured everyone the Japanese were short, buck toothed, wore glasses and their equipment was outdated. The families believed the yanks. Ten years later we were desperately defending our shores from the Japanese.
So perswasive was the yank claims a British officer in Malaya felt the need to report he had inspected some dead Japanese and found “Not a specimen under six feet, with not a buck tooth or pair of glasses among them”.
It’s impossible to understand what’s happening until you realise such a story impairs the reputation of the family line – who plan to be our hereditary nobility – it’s not about just whom is alive at the moment. Their solution is to crush all members of the Brown and Kidd families – including myself I found out, even though I have a different surname, and never met the long deceased Mr Brown of Brown and Kidd.
Also of note, and a shock, is that, before all the Commonwealth Government databases were put under one roof, someone was able to connect me to Brown and Kidd. I don’t know how.
Recently a woman told me an amazingly similar story regards her own family, and it’s building company, crushed in a prosecution involving the then public servant, Joe Hockey, whose subsequent career spanned two parliaments, thus two parliamentary pensions, and membership in a Basic Industries Group (BIG) front investment fund. A directly opposite trajectory to my and that woman’s families.
Also of note: her family is offensive due to her great-great-great grandfather founding a cult, then expelling someone, seeing him as a spy or agent for another party. The man he expelled was Aleister Crowley, that he was a spy for the Vatican.
That would be embarrassing for the Vatican, Aleister Crowley founded the OTO, that preaches, amongst other things, child rape, murder and drinking their blood. You won’t remove the browser search history from your internet account once you look that up. The Wikipedia article about them is rubbish.
That woman’s family was crushed to defend the Vatican’s reputation.
By the 1990’s I understood those priests, monks, whatever they are, want the rest of us living in small boxes, whilst these families live in detached houses on acreages, causing differences in our minds and outlooks that will affect our marriages. And they want the rest of disarmed – not those families.