Content area
Full Text
Abstract
From time to time, a single event or issue has forced Australian politicians at both levels of government to seek a more cooperative approach to federalism. Such was the case in 1996 when, following the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, a combination of a culture of gun ownership and an ideology of 'States' Rights' came into conflict with Prime Minister John Howard's demand for uniform national gun legislation. Due to the impact of this massacre on public opinion, the states had no option but to adopt a more cooperative approach to federalism, and to comply with the Prime Minister's demands. This article explains how the massacre led to uniform national gun laws, and determines whether or not that process was an example of cooperative federalism. It also compares that issue with aspects of the current Murray-Darling basin debate, and then outlines some implications of Port Arthur for the future of Cooperative Federalism.
The Port Arthur Massacre
At 1.30pm on Sunday 28 April 1996, the peace surrounding the Tasmanian historic precinct of Port Arthur was shattered. Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old Hobart resident, arrived with two semi-automatic assault rifles and opened fire on visitors having lunch in the Broad Arrow Café. He fired 250 rounds, killing 35 and injuring a further 21 in or about Port Arthur, and was apprehended by police the following day. Bryant, although having had learning difficulties at school, had no previous criminal record or history of diagnosed mental illness (Bingham 1996,22,119,135; Chapman 1998,1). Bryant had never possessed a gun licence, and was not asked for one when he purchased his lethal weapons, although the law in Tasmania required it (Bingham 1996,164).
The Background
State gun legislations, prior to 1996, were not only weak but extremely inconsistent. This was brought about by the piecemeal approach of separate states making amendments to their laws following shootings in their own state. The inconsistencies from one state to the others were made worse by the many common shortcomings; for example, there were only nominal requirements for the safe storage of firearms in all states (Fine 1988,8,9&21). There were no real restrictions in any state on the ownership of military-style semiautomatic weapons nor, prior to 1985, any requirement for a genuine reason to possess a...