DC Shane Patton
A good regulator:
consults;
is open and transparent; and
tests its proposals with key stakeholders before submitting them to
government.
Then there’s Victoria Police ….
As many of you know, we started 2017 chasing ‘recommendations’
Victoria Police made to the state government to change YOUR laws, but refused
to consult on.
First there’s the bad news: we lost the case. However the good
news is that we found out what those recommendations were through other means.
Not only that, but the evidence submitted by Victoria Police
confirmed the accuracy of the information we received, and revealed how much
lobbying a member of VicPol’s Executive Branch did behind the scenes.
A bit of background …
In March 2016, Victoria Police told the Herald Sun that
they had made ‘recommendations’ to the government on “firearm law reform”. This
followed around a dozen articles in the Herald Sun over the preceding
months where Victoria Police expressed concerns about firearm thefts,
coinciding with the 20thanniversary of the Port Arthur shootings.
In February this year, the CFCV put in a FOI request to find out what
those recommendations were.
Our FOI application was rejected on the basis that the
recommendations were “Cabinet in Confidence” and also that they were “working
documents”, which are two exemptions which are available under FOI laws.
The problem we had with this was that these protections are normally
available to government departments rather than agencies like the Victoria
Police, whose job is to enforce the law, not make it.
Our VCAT action
In May, we hired a lawyer – Avi Furstenberg from Furstenberg Law –
and a barrister – Robert Cameron – to fight the decision in VCAT (and
for their help and patience, we’re truly grateful. They did a great job).
To help fund the case, hundreds of shooters chipped in to raise what
we needed to run the case – and we’re also sincerely grateful for their (and
your) support.
Over the past few weeks, we’ve had a Directions Hearing, a Compulsory
Conference and an “admin mention” and finally on November 13th, the hearing.
The decision was ‘reserved’ which meant that we received it by email
around the middle of last week.
We lost the case because VCAT agreed that Victoria Police should be
able to enjoy the protection of Cabinet (which we still have a problem with,
but it is the way the law is).
What we found out from the case
We learnt a number of things from the evidence VicPol provided,
including the events which led to how the recommendations came about.
They are:
1. That it was Deputy Commissioner, Shane Patton, who
liaised with the Police Minister’s office. Specifically, Victoria
Police’s statement advises that:“In around February 2016, Crime
Command, Victoria Police instituted a legislative reform proposal around
firearms legislation. The proposal was of utmost importance to Crime Command
and was targeted at decreasing firearms related offending in Victoria.”
It also stated: “In late May 2016, it became clear that both
Crime Command and Deputy Commissioner Patton (the accountable Executive
Command member) wanted to ensure that the importance of this proposal for
various legislative changes in relation to firearms was fully understood at
Ministerial level” and that “DC Patton wanted to brief the Minister
directly with concrete proposals for reform due to the significance of the
proposals.”.
At the time this started, the Police Minister was Robyn Scott.
Lisa Neville took over the portfolio in May, which is when Patton decided to
start briefing the (new) minister directly.
2. That the Department of Justice and Regulation (DOJR) was
involved in discussions about the proposals and organising for the matter to go
to Cabinet. DOJR hosts the Firearms Consultative Committee (FCC) but once
again, decided to keep it in the dark.
DOJR has done this before: several years ago it developed new
regulations hiking firearm dealer fees up by up to 600% which would have driven
several of them out of business.
While we were able to beat that, it is clear DOJR, like Victoria
Police, has a problem in being a good regulator;
3. That the recent Firearm Amendment Bill, which proposed the
introduction of Firearm Prohibition Orders and other things such as changing
what constitutes trafficking of firearms came from the recommendations; and
4. That the recommendations went to Cabinet. Twice.
The first time is to secure the government’s approval of the concept
– called “Approval in Principle” – while the second is where Cabinet gets to
see the detail of what eventually goes to parliament – that stage is called
“Bill at Cabinet”.
We know from VicPol’s statement that the recommendations were sent
after the AIP date had communicated to VicPol by the Department. It
means the recommendations were sent after Deputy Commissioner Patton had
secured the Minister’s agreement to take the matter to Cabinet. That’s why VCAT
ruled in their favour.
.. but we know what the recommendations are
You would think that because we lost the case, that we don’t know what
the recommendations are.
Wrong. Shortly after filing our matter in VCAT (in
May) we were contacted by a source who was encouraged by the action we had
instituted, who then sent us a detailed email outlining the recommendations –
and what the government did with them. (Thank you source, you know who you
are …).
Several months later, Victoria Police’s statement provided evidence
which corroborated the information we had earlier received (in particular, it
verified the origin of the Firearms Amendment Bill, the involvement of Cabinet
and the timing of when these events happened). Our crystal ball proved to
be right.
So, in the absence of information to the contrary, it’s pretty clear
the information we received is correct. VicPol, DOJR and Labor are all
welcome to refute this, but it would be up to them to prove us
wrong.
The recommendations
The recommendations are listed below. They were agreed by
Cabinet, which decided to defer them until after the 2018 Victorian State
Election, “so as not to alienate shooters”.
The recommendations are to:
Disarm most cash-in-transit security guards – Cabinet has agreed
to remove firearms from plain clothed security guards carrying cash and other
valuables, who make up 80-90 percent of the cash-in transit industry. This will
threaten the safety of those guards, and the viability of the businesses who
supply the equipment they use. (If relevant industry bodies want to
stop this from happening, then they need to get political. They can email
us at admin@firearmscouncil.org.au to find out how);
Greater search and seizure powers – (in addition to the Firearm
Prohibition Orders which we already know about), these powers will extend to
allowing police to check your firearm storage at any time of day or night,
without any warning or a warrant;
The right to reclassify any firearm – Cabinet agreed with police
that they – not parliament – should be able to reclassify any firearm, for any
reason, and without the right of appeal.
The abolition of the Firearms Appeal Committee – this will
remove the ability of shooters to appeal decisions made by Victoria Police (for
example, something relating to licence applications) to the Firearms Appeals
Committee. This means shooters will need to take the more expensive option of
hiring lawyers to take their matters to VCAT or court; and
Increased penalties for firearm offences and changing what
constitutes trafficking firearms. The issue of what constitutes
trafficking has already appeared in the Firearms Amendment Bill (currently
before parliament), but not the ‘increased penalties’. Cabinet agreed to
increase the penalties for minor transgressions of the law, such as leaving a
couple of 22s rolling around the floor of the ute.
If Victoria Police or government wish to correct the record, then
they are free to do so by producing the source documents we were pursuing,
however the information we have been given accords with the evidence given by
Victoria Police.
In the absence of this, we are entitled to take these as matters of
Labor policy.
Hopefully exposing these particular recommendations will make them go
away for now – but more needs to be done to make sure the regulator doesn’t try
something like this again (it’s happened before, so is likely to happen again).
At the end of the day we do not have a problem with laws which
legitimately target criminals. However we have to take action
where there are deliberate efforts to bypass our community on laws which
directly affect it. It’s as much about “good regulatory practice” (eg
being open, transparent and consultative …) than anything else.
If Victoria Police can’t or won’t behave like a good regulator, it
will never be able to suggest good laws – which means the crims continue to get
away.
Stay in touch
With the next state election coming up in November 2018, it’s
important that shooters like yourself follow the CFCV:
on Facebook by Liking our page; or
joining our email list (on the link in the comments area with this
video)
Following us means we can get pro-shooting voting advice out to you
before you vote. That way, we will be able to use the political process
to stop things like this happening.
It’ll also make it easier for you to work out who to vote for when
you’re standing in front of your ballot papers unsure about who the candidates
are or what they stand for! We’ll go through the parties and candidates
who will be contesting the election, what their policies are, and where their
preferences will go.
No comments:
Post a Comment