Better gun laws? Australia lacks that calibre of MP today

The mass murder in Las Vegas this week was so horrific that Australians naturally responded with grief for the victims, revulsion toward the killer and despair at America’s national paralysis on gun violence. Yet there was a secondary theme, understandable but unhelpful, in the fury at the inability of someone else’s political system to reach a national agreement on a chronic problem. Some of the Australian voices sounded a little too smug.

Two decades after Australia responded to the Port Arthur massacre with tougher gun laws, there is a sense of self-satisfaction that we can do what others cannot. But can we? There should be no complacency about the hard-won changes brought about by John Howard with the agreement of the premiers and the support of a relatively united federal parliament.

Two questions stand out. Are our gun laws strong enough today? And would we have the political will and the national unity to toughen those laws if necessary? The answers are no and no.

The political commitment to gun control is weaker today than when Howard faced angry gun owners at public meetings around Australia. That took political guts. No leaders display the same conviction now, when talks on gun control produce more paperwork than hard law. It took 18 months for Canberra and the states to negotiate a new version of the National Firearms Agreement, the foundation document for the policy since Howard’s time. The update was agreed at the end of last year and the 14-page text was quiet­ly posted on a government website in February. The changes sought by gun control advocates were nowhere to be seen.

A key omission is in section 30 of the document, which says all jurisdictions agree to record details of every gun purchased so the details can be shared with the “national information-sharing hub”.

The trouble is the hub does not exist. The idea of a national gun registry has been around for decades but the central system has never been set up. Worse, it is not even clear whether the states are collecting records in a way that makes it easy to share the data. Nothing in the new agreement sets out who will do what to make it happen, let alone when.

Sharing data is not always this hard. Consider the outcome yesterday when Malcolm Turnbull reached a swift agreement with premiers and chief ministers to allow rapid access to personal data and photographs from drivers’ lic­ences. The centralised system will allow authorities to check records in real-time with the help of facial recognition from images gathered by security cameras. Things happen when there is the political will to make them happen.

Another omission in the National Firearms Agreement is in section five, which states that all semiautomatic long-arm weapons and pump-action shotguns must be given the tightest restrictions, known as Category C and D. There is no mention of semiautomatic handguns, even though these are capable of rapid fire and ideal for criminals or terrorists because they are so easy to conceal.

There is no mention of lever-action shotguns, either. These weapons have developed quickly since the original gun laws.

A briefing paper from NSW police in July 2015, obtained by NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge under Freedom of Information laws, suggests authorities believe lever-action shotguns such as the Adler A-110 belong in a more restricted category.

“Technological advancement has meant that these types of firearms are now similar, in terms of their rapidity, to pump-action shotguns,” says the briefing to NSW Police Minister Troy Grant. Much of the rest of the document was blacked out before being released.

The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia disagrees with the concerns, saying opponents of the weapons are exaggerating its firing rate.

What is clear is that the states will allow thousands of people with recreational or hunting lic­ences to get access to the Adler, even though the same applicants are banned from getting pump-action shotguns.

This does not mean Australians are exposed to the sorts of weapons that inflict so much terror and horror in the US.

One of the weapons used in the Las Vegas killings, an AR-15 assault rifle, appears to have been modified with a “bump stock” that used the recoil to increase its firing rate.

Although AR-15 models are available in Australia — some stores offer used ones for $6000 to $8000 — the bump stock is illegal here and the rifle itself is restricted to professional shooters such as those who need it for kangaroo culls. This is the legacy of Port Arthur, where the killer also used an AR-15. Even so, Gun Control Australia head Sam Lee says the states are “eroding” the national agreement. An audit by Philip Alpers, adjunct associate professor at the University of Sydney, finds that no state or territory complies with the new NFA.

The Alannah and Madeline Foundation, set up by Walter Mikac after his wife and daughters were murdered at Port Arthur, is worried the NSW rules will allow someone to own five of the most restricted weapons. The foundation also opposes state “minor’s permits” for children as young as 12 when section 33(a) of the NFA says gun licence holders must be 18 or older.

Do not think for a moment that Australian gun laws are uniform, agreed and all neatly in place. “The house looks good enough,” is the message. “No need for a renovation, a quick repaint will do.”

This approach works only as long as nothing goes wrong. What happens if a terrorist kills with a semiautomatic handgun? What if another Man Haron Monis appears, this time with a licensed lever-action shotgun instead of a stolen pump-action? Australia does not look ready for that challenge.

The fragmentation on the conservative side of politics means the Liberals and Nationals would face internal divisions and external pressures on gun control. Voters are already drifting to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives or David Leyonhjelm’s Liberal Democratic Party.

If a Coalition government had to toughen gun laws, would a Labor opposition take a harder line? Would it be willing to soften its stance to make things easier for the conservatives? If Labor were in power, would a Coalition opposition refuse a compromise so it could rally angry conservatives?

We have seen at least a decade of political tactics in Canberra to exploit division whenever possible. There is no reason to think gun control would be any different. That is why the self-satisfaction over gun laws is so misplaced.

Leaders want the reflected glory from the achievement of two decades ago. The real test is whether they could do the same themselves.