The Queensland Government is proposing to bring in late-night
pub rules for gun clubs – to address a problem that doesn’t exist
Prefer the Gun News Australia version?
Watch the podcast on this matter- click the image below.
The proposal
RELENTLESS DIGGING by Politics Reloaded has revealed that the Queensland Government is proposing to include late-night pub style measures in gun clubs – without any apparent need to do so.
Queensland wants ID checks for visitors
Documents from the Federal Attorney Generals Department reveal that the Queensland Government is looking to require gun clubs to use “Safe Night” scanners to check non-licensed individuals “prior to” entering a range.
From documents obtained by Politics Reloaded
The vivid imagination
Safe Night is ID scanning technology that licensed venues that trade after midnight to ensure people who gain entry are not on a banned list run by Queensland Police.
The Queensland Government says of the Safe Night scanners:
“They are a Queensland Government initiative to reduce late-night drug and alcohol-related violence.”
In fact the scanners are meant to apply to venues that operate past midnight – but gun clubs don’t operate past midnight, and many don’t even have bars.
Scanners used at licensed venues
The unnecessary cost
The costs of the scanners themselves are significant.
In addition, only licensed crowd controllers are allowed to operate the scanners. The scanners also comes with ongoing software subscription costs.
One Queensland business estimated the cost to them was $80,000 a year including staff costs.
Plus clubs would need online access to the Queensland’s ‘banned’ list.
Imposing the scanners means that if a person can’t issue a government issued ID, then the club may need to refuse entry. That means having to turn juniors who want to take up the sport, away.
An ABC article article says that the scanners have led to “a sharp drop in patronage” at bars where they are installed.
The ‘un-Australian’ bottom line
As one Surfers Paradise bar said, the scanners are as ‘stupid’ and ‘un-Australian’. We agree.
However, we reckon the proposal tabled at the FWPWG won’t proceed because of the problems we’ve outlined – but it should never have seen the light of day.
Followers will remember the interview we had with the Muckadilla Rifle Club, which at one stage, had just two members. How would it be possible for them to comply – and why should they?
The fact this night club idea was considered strong enough to put on the national table, tells us just how broken the consultation model with shooting organisations is.
The registries’ undisciplined forum
The Safe Night fiasco comes as part of a response to a Freedom-of-Information (known as Right-To-Information in Qld) request submitted by Politics Reloaded late last year.
That request dives into the policy discussions of the Firearms and Weapons Policy Working Group.
The group – or FWPWG – is the national forum of our registries who meet twice a year.
Their mandate is to improve consistency between jurisdictions, however much of their output seems to more about creating barriers than achieving better outcomes.
The FWPWG seems to have such a deep lack of discipline, that even idiotic thought bubbles such as that tabled by Queensland will get entertained – and then hidden from public view.
Other shooting organisations have tried and tried to break through the FWPWG’s veil of secrecy but failed. Until now.
Politics Reloaded is now sifting through hundreds of pages of policy discussions that we will be bringing to you. Appeals we have lodged mean that there will be more.
Registry link with the audit office
Keen observers will note that item tabled at the FWPWG was under the title of “Queensland Audit Office”, yet presented by an inspector.
While we’re not exactly sure why, we do note that the office did an audit of the firearms registry in 2020 into it’s effectiveness – and can only surmise that this included QPol’s ‘wishlist’ to spend more money on a new registry. All in the name of efficiency.
That office’s report does float the possibility of a scanning system with some spurious language at page 17, however it did not end up as a recommendation.
Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?
