Mr Daryl Smeaton, Bureaucrat, and the May 10th Police Ministers' Conference
Australia's worst mass murder occurred at Port Arthur in Tasmania,
where thirty-five people died by shooting. There are those today who think that
the response of the Howard-Beazley bipartisan firearms legislation and
confiscation was the result of a poorly thought-out and over-hasty reaction.
Yet the facts have since demonstrated that the proposals put to the 1996 May 10th Police Ministers' meeting had been predetermined since the release of the National Committee on Violence report in 1990. The Government was only waiting for an excuse to implement them. Port Arthur provided it.
These punitive measures against a legitimate minority group, firearm owners, have been planned for many years, and it is clear that if we allow it, worse is yet to come.
Who is Mr Daryl Smeaton?
Mr Daryl Smeaton is a key player within the Commonwealth bureaucracy and is primarily responsible for bringing to you the 1996 gun laws.
Whichever government is in power does not appear to affect his activities. Mr Smeaton's office produced its version of what the laws should be under one government, and implemented them under the next. (See page 14 of this document.)
Mr Smeaton holds a very senior position within the bureaucracy for which he receives a package valued at around $168,000 a year including perks like a car and a phone.
It would be reasonable to expect that someone in such a position would be responsible for providing the Government and the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Board with timely and accurate advice to enable sound decisions to be made.
But how would it be if certain individuals in places of bureaucratic power could operate without reference to independent researchers or those whom the legislation will most affect? This is hardly what an effective public service and democratic government should be made of, and yet it is exactly the way things seem to have developed.
In an article in the Australian Federal Police magazine, Platypus, Mr Smeaton expressed some laudable and worthwhile views regarding the media's role in creating fear in the community, especially in the nightly news which he aptly renames the "violence reports".(1)
His comments concerning gun control, however, reflect his naivety about the nature of the broader firearm-owning community. From the article Mr Smeaton appears to think that the only people who have an interest in firearms are criminals. Perhaps he has been watching too much television.
Director of the Office of Law Enforcement Coordination (OLEC) within the Attorney-General's Department of Daryl Williams, Mr Daryl Smeaton is also the Executive member of the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Board (CLEB), appointed to the position in May 1994. That means he controls the agenda and the input which the Law Enforcement Board receives. Mr Smeaton has a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in administration and politics, and also holds a Graduate Diploma in Legal Studies with majors in law. He is a career public servant of some thirty years and is principal advisor on national firearms policy. He was also the Secretary to the Australian Police Ministers' Council and Senior Adviser to former Labor Justice Ministers Michael Tate and Duncan Kerr. |
Mr Smeaton and the May 10th Meeting:
When accused of producing a knee-jerk reaction, both the Government and Mr Smeaton claimed that it was not. "Nothing could be further from the truth",(2) claimed Mr Smeaton.
An effective bureaucrat must conduct accurate research, provide succinct information, explore all relevant considerations withholding nothing of importance, and provide accurate policy proposals and recommendations.
The paper put to the Police Ministers on May 10th contained inaccurate research with flawed technical information, drawn-out irrelevancies, no references to positive and negative implications, no costings, no weightings of advantages and disadvantages, and no other options. On the face of it this is extremely unusual bureaucratic practice, and the public record holds no evidence of any other proposal. How do the Police Ministers know that the proposal they were given was the best option, seeing that they were provided with no others?
One must ask whether this paper was more a document of ideological belief than one of accurate and balanced bureaucratic advice.
It seems unlikely that there has ever been an Australian Government decision of such magnitude, involving the expenditure of such vast resources, made in just one day on the basis of one paper which appeared to follow none of the customary procedures nor include any of the usual bureaucratic considerations.
Such actions are born out of a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues and of the implications of dealing with those issues without observing full democratic process. Although they might have been a victory for Mr Smeaton, international studies show that these laws will fail to achieve their claimed objectives.
On May 10th, 1996, the Police Ministers were pressured into making and accepting an "agreement" required to meet the very last of the evening television news deadlines. Prime Minister Howard was determined to have his way and be seen to be a strong leader riding on the crest of a wave of frenzied community support whipped up by a biased media.
He felt he could not lose. It was every politician's dream come true. Certainly the way in which the rushed process was conducted is as capricious as anything ever seen in this country's politics. The paper finally put before the Police Ministers was supposedly the result of many years of "consultation" with appropriate "interest" groups and undefined "firearms experts and specialists" who, it appears, were essentially senior police officers and bureaucrats, and did not include significant representation from the shooting sports community or primary producers.
The superficial recommend-ations concerning firearms control as contained in the 1990 National Committee on Violence (NCV) Report entitled Violence: Directions For Australia(3) were referred to by Mr Smeaton as being embodied in the plan put to the Police Ministers. Such is clearly the case.
Mere wishlists from police officers and anti-gun activists, however, do not constitute sound policy advice. The Chairman of the NCV at the time, anti-gun activist Professor Duncan Chappell, advised in response to a Freedom of Information request that the Committee's consultations with "experts" were pursued informally and that the names of such experts involved were not given to the NCV, nor were formal written opinions solicited or received by the Committee. Does this appear to be a proper and transparent consultation process?
We are left to conclude that anyone with an anti-gun axe to grind was welcomed and anyone attempting to advance a different or competing view was disregarded.
Mr Smeaton at the Violent Crime Symposium
On March 3rd and 4th, 1997, The Second National Outlook Symposium on Violent Crime and Public Policy was held at the Hyatt Hotel in Canberra. Mr Smeaton, speaking to his paper, "Firearms and Public Policy", rejected criticisms from "the gun lobby" concerning the governmental knee-jerk response by stating that the proposals were the result of "extensive consultation and discussions over the previous ten years".(4)
In his address Mr Smeaton refers to the paper "A Proposal For Effective Nation Wide Control Of Firearms" put before the Police Ministers on May 10th as a "discussion paper". Clearly it was not. The paper noted that the proposed standards represented "the absolute minimum" to be introduced and this was supported by Prime Minister Howard's assertion that he would "brook no discussion". The Commonwealth's mind had already been firmly made up on the basis of selective and one-sided information.
In his paper Mr Smeaton also attempts to validate the May 10th resolutions via opinion polls, indicating that the majority of Australians supported the new firearm laws. Opinion polls concerning specific areas of expertise are valueless if those polled are ignorant of the previous laws and ignorant of the proposed reforms, and this was certainly the case.
It is also incredible that a supposed "expert" at Mr Smeaton's level can be so heavily involved in their conception, and then be on the record as having said that the new controls over semi-automatic firearms "may or may not affect the broader murder or crime rate."(5)
Is this the sort of confident outcome the community can expect for the expenditure of half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money?
In addition, Mr Smeaton said that the new laws "will assist in the reduction of firearm-related deaths and injuries, including suicides, by reducing the availability of firearms."(6) Unfortunately, the evidence to support Mr Smeaton's utopian claim simply does not exist.
Mr Smeaton Talks to the SSAA
On March 10th, 1997, Mr Smeaton met with the SSAA at its Adelaide National Office. It was a telling occasion.
During the discussions Mr Smeaton said, "I can genuinely say that there was not an intention to frustrate the genuine gun owner".(7) Yet the clear consequences of excessive legislative regulations outlined by each jurisdiction are to frustrate the genuine shooter and make his or her life a misery, thus forcing as many as possible out of firearm ownership. It is apparently of no concern to the Attorney-General's bevy of bureaucrats how the legislation impinges upon the lives of ordinary, licensed firearm owners.
When confronted in the meeting with anomalies in the categories of occupational licensing, Mr Smeaton said, "You're getting down to a level of detail which I find very hard to comment (on)."(8) It is clear that his office has not worked through the legislative implications to the level required, yet they set themselves up as the experts.
If they had bothered to consult with firearm owners in a comprehensive and meaningful way, then many of these problems would have been avoided.
Mr Smeaton also said, "What we did was fantastic", and "Gun owners right across the country (will know what) firearms they are allowed to possess and what type of shooting they are allowed to undertake".(9)
Big government certainly knows what is best for supposedly ignorant firearm owners.
Mr Smeaton is further on the record as having said:
It has never been our intention to make it impossible for gun owners. I have no doubt about the fact that the agreements have made it much harder for gun owners but it was never our intention to make it impossible.(10)
Legitimate gun owners really appreciate that it is now just much harder for them, but not impossible. What will pistol owners say, however, when a UK-style total ban on handguns is inflicted upon them? Will this just make it "harder" to be a gun owner, but not "impossible"? - they just won't be allowed to own the particular firearm they require for their sport.
Another very important revelation of the SSAA meeting with Mr Smeaton occurred in this exchange:
SSAA: From the least... to the most developed countries (gun laws) such as we've just seen here have never in any way brought down the crime rate, prevented mass murders, diminished any kind of death rates, including suicide, nor have they lowered the armed crime rates.... Why do you think these moves in this country now will?
Mr Smeaton: I don't disagree with you at all, but what is interesting when you break down (the) figures state by state, there were two large drops in firearm death rates in '88-'89... and '92-'93....
The point is not the "two large drops", but the two large increases which preceded those years. [See pages 11-13 - Ed.]
Is it unrealistic to believe Mr Smeaton's understanding and interpretation of statistical data leave a great deal to be desired? His reference to selected, isolated, random fluctuations which happen to be decreases does not provide a basis for his case. In addition, he continues to confuse firearm homicides with all homicides and firearm suicides with all suicides, and to mix up firearm homicides with firearm suicides. Is this just carelessness?
We see in the record of interview how Mr Smeaton converts questions about whether Australians will keep dying in crimes to questions about whether they will keep dying by guns. The fact that the same number or more will keep dying does not deter him. It goes on:
SSAA: (We're) not talking about firearm death rates, (but) about homicide....
Mr Smeaton: Yes, but you see, we don't just take homicide rates into account because clearly the biggest problem of gun deaths in this country is suicides (and he again converts the discussion not to all deaths but just to some special deaths).
One more attempt was made to have him answer the question:
SSAA: The death rates, the suicide rates, the armed crime rates have never gone down in any country on the globe where gun legislation has been instituted....Why is it thought it would help here?
Mr Smeaton: Following similar sorts of things to Port Arthur in the past....there is clear evidence that in those jurisdictions that did take action the death rates from firearms in both homicides, suicides and accidents (sic) has dropped....
SSAA: It was still murder and suicide - not from firearms, but the overall rate.
Mr Smeaton is entirely unable to show how the firearm laws will aid the government's alleged aim of protecting the lives of Australians. All he is able to do is claim he has support - which we have not seen and he does not seem able to produce - for the reduction of deaths by firearms, which ignores the phenomenon of method substitution as already shown by Australian and overseas experience.
Such shoddy logic would not survive for one minute if it were allowed to be debated in the public arena. The failure of the laws to lower overall death and crime rates in the future will become obvious.
Mr Smeaton, Spokesman
Interviewed in an Australian Penthouse article reporting increased black market sales in firearms since the introduction of new gun laws, Mr Smeaton says: "Our research indicates that two-thirds of gun owners will comply with the laws as law-abiding citizens."(11) What research? Why has it not been released to the community? Is Mr Smeaton afraid to bring his "expertise" into the public arena to have it challenged?
And if indeed there are roughly three million firearms owners in Australia then there are, according to Mr Smeaton, one million firearm owners who will ignore the laws. Given his admission, should people be asking if Mr Smeaton's methods will be effective?
In the same article even The Australian Institute of Criminology's Dr Adam Graycar is noted as claiming that "the new legislation banning semi-automatic firearms will do nothing to prevent the vast majority of Australia's gun deaths"(12). Centrefire semi-automatic firearms are involved in only 1.75% of Australian firearm deaths. Why then is this country spending in excess of half a billion dollars on something which even the government's own "experts" and the Prime Minister himself admit will not achieve the objective?
As the Federal Government's delegate to the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Mr Smeaton is reported to have said in May, 1997, "We have certainly got good statistical evidence that shows where you do introduce regulation to control the use of firearms you can cause dramatic reductions in homicide and suicide rates"(13).
His assertion is completely contrary to acknowledged Australian Bureau of Statistics information. If he does have any "evidence" of "dramatic reductions in homicide and suicide rates" then this Association would be delighted to review it. Why is it not readily available to the public? What is there to hide?
What Can be Concluded?
Where is the evidence to demonstrate that what has been done will be effective?
Governments and the international community have been told that there is "research" indicating these gun laws will make Australia a safer society. In reality, the new laws are nothing more than an enormous waste of taxpayers' money and of precious Australian resources. Where is this "research", and why is it not in the public arena for critical analysis?
With his belief in what is "right", has the Director of the Office of Law Enforcement Coordination lost his ability to remain impartial and objective? Have we seen here the results of a bureaucratic machine giving faulty advice, using incorrect bureaucratic process and using flawed evidence?
Do Australian constituents have the right to expect that a well-balanced, fair and proper detailed analysis of the issues from well-paid bureaucrats and advisers will be given to politicians?
Would accurate figures, fair interpretations, and genuine conclusions be a good place to start? Then, could we expect reasonable debate that looks dispassionately at the evidence about gun legislation - an inquiry, even?
Questions to consider:
Endnotes:
1) Smeaton, Daryl: "Beginning to Get it Right - a Partnership Approach", Platypus Magazine No. 51, June, 1996, p17.
2) Smeaton, Daryl: "Firearms and Public Policy", The Second National Outlook Symposium, Violent Crime and Public Policy, The Hyatt Hotel, Canberra, 3-3-1997.
3) National Committee on Violence: Directions for Australia, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, 1990, pp175-7.
4) Smeaton, 1997.
5) Smeaton, 1997.
6) Smeaton, 1997.
7) Transcript of meeting, SSAA National Office, 10-3-97.
8) Transcript of meeting, 1997.
9) Transcript of meeting, 1997.
10) Transcript of meeting, 1997.
11) Miles, Wayne L, "Armed Response - Gun Prohibition Spells Big Business for Australia's Black Market", Australian Penthouse, June 1997, p30.
12) Miles, 1997.
13) "UN Presses for Action on World Wide Gun Control", Elizabeth Fullerton, Reuters Limited, Vienna, 5-5-1997.