fallingblock
Member
Courier Mail Qld
Minister quizzed on gun buyback
Sean Parnell, State political correspondent
24feb03
THE national hand gun buyback has again sparked controversy, with
claims
the Howard Government wants to spend its $15 million contribution on a
glossy advertising campaign.
Queensland Police Minister Tony McGrady yesterday called on Federal
Justice Minister Chris Ellison to detail how the Commonwealth would
spend the money, which was left over after the 1996 gun buyback. "We
are
hearing information to the effect that the Commonwealth intends to
spend
all or part of that $15 million on
a national education campaign and to resource the CrimTrac database
system," Mr McGrady said.
"Why spend further money on fridge magnets and advertising when it
could
be spent on the heart of the problem by directly paying to remove hand
guns from our streets?"
But Senator Ellison rejected the claims, declaring the $15 million
would
go towards the buyback and any advertising campaign would be smaller
than that required for
the last buyback.
"There will be a public information campaign but I don't see that as a
full-scale one because the Sporting Shooters Association didn't think
that was necessary," Senator Ellison said.
In December, the Council Of Australian Governments agreed up to 20 per
cent of all hand guns, or more than 500 models, would be made illegal
from July 1 this year, with a six-month amnesty and strict exemptions
for sporting shooters and law
enforcement officers.
The Commonwealth would pay the first $15 million and two-thirds of all
costs after that, with the states paying therest.
Senator Ellison said the range of banned guns was still being worked
through, and he would take a list of accredited sporting events to Mr
Howard, who would ratify it with the states. "Certainly, in general
terms what we've agreed so far will involve, I believe, a substantial
amount of hand guns being forfeited," he said.
Senator Ellison expected many people to forfeit their hand guns not
because they had been banned but because they would no longer meet
licensing requirements.
***************************************************
Is it just my bruised paranoia whispering to me, or does it sound in that last paragraph like more than a mere 'buyback'?:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Minister quizzed on gun buyback
Sean Parnell, State political correspondent
24feb03
THE national hand gun buyback has again sparked controversy, with
claims
the Howard Government wants to spend its $15 million contribution on a
glossy advertising campaign.
Queensland Police Minister Tony McGrady yesterday called on Federal
Justice Minister Chris Ellison to detail how the Commonwealth would
spend the money, which was left over after the 1996 gun buyback. "We
are
hearing information to the effect that the Commonwealth intends to
spend
all or part of that $15 million on
a national education campaign and to resource the CrimTrac database
system," Mr McGrady said.
"Why spend further money on fridge magnets and advertising when it
could
be spent on the heart of the problem by directly paying to remove hand
guns from our streets?"
But Senator Ellison rejected the claims, declaring the $15 million
would
go towards the buyback and any advertising campaign would be smaller
than that required for
the last buyback.
"There will be a public information campaign but I don't see that as a
full-scale one because the Sporting Shooters Association didn't think
that was necessary," Senator Ellison said.
In December, the Council Of Australian Governments agreed up to 20 per
cent of all hand guns, or more than 500 models, would be made illegal
from July 1 this year, with a six-month amnesty and strict exemptions
for sporting shooters and law
enforcement officers.
The Commonwealth would pay the first $15 million and two-thirds of all
costs after that, with the states paying therest.
Senator Ellison said the range of banned guns was still being worked
through, and he would take a list of accredited sporting events to Mr
Howard, who would ratify it with the states. "Certainly, in general
terms what we've agreed so far will involve, I believe, a substantial
amount of hand guns being forfeited," he said.
Senator Ellison expected many people to forfeit their hand guns not
because they had been banned but because they would no longer meet
licensing requirements.
***************************************************
Is it just my bruised paranoia whispering to me, or does it sound in that last paragraph like more than a mere 'buyback'?:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Last edited:
