Back to updates - - To Deceit & Terrorism opening

at Inverell, NSW, March 2001
by the author, Andrew S. MacGregor
The main questions asked in relation to the Port Arthur Massacre after people realise the impossibility of the task being executed by Martin Bryant, is who and why.  There are all types of answers being generated putting the blame onto the CIA, the United Nations, or whoever.  These points are irrelevant.

The sovereignty of Australia rests solely upon our governments, both State and Federal and it is there that the ultimate responsibility must lie.  If there was involvement by such bodies as the CIA, the United Nations or whoever, then it is still the Australian Government’s responsibility to protect its citizens and to decry these acts of terrorism that were perpetrated on Australian soil.  This has never happened.

It was the Australian Prime Minister who initiated the call for any inquest relating to the Port Arthur massacre to be denied.  It was the Australian Prime Minister who initiated the federal firearm guidelines, with the full support of the opposition of the day, the Labor Party, and the other minor political parties, being the Democrats and the Greens. The documents used had been drawn up by little bureaucrats within the Federal Attorney General’s department. This is not to deny the moves made in Australia before and after the Massacre, for the removal of firearms, and the intense propaganda that is emanating from America.  Nor does it deny the moves made in the United Kingdom by the Labor Party’s Tony Blair, where the report into the use of firearms in that country was totally ignored and the ban on handguns was implemented as part of a political agenda.

Moves though by persons within the legal and judicial fraternities should be considered. Their parts in the deception were within the judicial arena and in the preparations to convict Martin Bryant at all costs.  The criminal charge of ‘perverting the course of justice’, which is a felony, appears relevant as these people have never given sworn evidence, and so have not committed ‘perjury’.  What we must consider is that by these peoples’ actions, truth, justice and in fact every facet of what we call democracy in Australia has been undermined.  How can we trust a system when it has been utilised so that these ‘pillars of our society’ were able to steal from us, the very basis of our civilisation.

The question as to ‘why’ is then open to scrutiny.  The initial moves in relation to firearms was instigated within the Labor Party in 1987, and the New South Wales Labor Premier, Barry Unsworth is credited with the quote of, “There will never be National Firearm Laws until there is a massacre in Tasmania” in December 1987 at a Special Premiers meeting at Hobart.

We are given further evidence of the push in relation to firearms, from the former Labor powerbroker, Graeme Richardson, and his full political scenario as to why the Port Arthur Massacre occurred. When Richardson stated,  “I mean the governments in South Australia and Tasmania simply declined to take part in national gun laws the last time the Police Ministers discussed it.  The Tasmanian Minister saying that we don’t have a problem down here, so we don’t need to be in it.  I think everyone now seems to understand that they need to be in it, and the easiest way to get one law is to cede power to the Commonwealth”.     A major clue is for the ceding of the State powers in relation to firearms to the Federal government.  This was supported by the New South Wales parliament initiating moves to cede this power to the federal government before any announcement by the Prime Minister as to his intentions regarding moves in relation to firearms in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre.

Graeme Richardson gives us a clue to another reason.  In the 1988 election when the Labor Premier of New South Wales was soundly defeated, a new political party emerged.  It was the Shooter’s Party.  At last in Australia, there was some organization within the sporting shooter’s fraternity, and they campaigned long and hard with the result that the Labor Party lost every rural seat, except one.  These seats included the Attorney General, the Police Minister and the Prisons Minister.  However, the Shooters Party was only strong enough to oust the sitting members of those seats, and it was only able to put one party member into the Upper House, that being John Tingle.  The emergence of such a new political force had to be stifled and destroyed, before it became a political force.  Other plays also corroborate the moves to cede the State powers to the Federal government.  Activists such as Professor Simon Chapman who demanded that it was a Federal Government responsibility to pull the States into line regarding their powers in relation to the various Firearms Acts.  That these demands ignored the entire constitutional powers of both the State and Federal bodies involved demonstrates the inadequacy of the arguments pushed by these lobbyists.

There are also the media journalists of whom, Ray Martin was leading the vanguard.  In the second debate between Paul Keating and John Howard in February 1996, it was Ray Martin who was strongly advocating the full Labor Party agenda in relation to the ceding of firearm laws from the State to the Federal arena, during that debate.  It was Ray Martin who provided Australians with all the tainted evidence in relation to the Port Arthur Massacre, purported as factual evidence from the Tasmania Police.

What must be remembered is that once the Federal Government obtained the State powers in relation to firearms, then any treaty signed with any world body such as the United Nations and the treaty regarding violence against women could be effectively used to enforce laws made outside Australia.

So, it is noticeable that John Howard simply initiated a Federal ‘guideline’ whilst permitting the States to retain their constitutional powers in relation to firearms.  This is important, as while the States hold that power, any international treaty signed by any federal body is unconstitutional, and cannot be validly enforced in Australia.  However, it was not just the Australian Labor Party that was playing in this arena.  The Federal Attorney General, Daryl Williams, was also a staunch supporter for the new firearm laws, so much so that he supported the Gun Control lobby group in his State to the tune of $80,000 of taxpayers’ money, before it became public knowledge and was stopped.  It was also the Liberal Government in Tasmania, with Ray Groom being their Attorney General, who was another player.  The most prominent injury to the survivors and workers during the Port Arthur Massacre was PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), which was originally called shell shock back in the days of the 1914-18 war.  However this injury was removed from the Workers Compensation Act in Tasmania in November 1995, effectively removing any claim by any worker or volunteer for compensation to overcome this injury.  It is noted that British troops suffering from this condition were court marshalled and shot for refusing to obey orders during the First World War.

The subversion of the so-called ‘Freedom of the press’ in Tasmania in relation to the Port Arthur Massacre, the denial of any form of trial for the accused, Martin Bryant, and the deliberate actions to refuse any form of Coronial Inquiry or inquest into the deaths, feature strongly in both the Tasmanian Government (Liberal) and the Federal Government, which was also Liberal.  What this demonstrates is that both the major political parties were involved, and each must be apportioned with some of the responsibility of the Massacre.

But it is always that first question of, “Who did it?” that demands an answer.  There is insufficient proof at this moment to point the finger of guilt, but there is enough evidence to suggest who is responsible and why.  The motives are there, and so is the ability.

One clue is given by the Tasmanian Government’s SAC-PAV representative, Mr Bob Grierson, who has stated, “SAC-PAV proved its worth at Port Arthur.  If there were any doubts before about the value of the organization to the national security of Australia, then that doubt should disappear now.” And in fact, SAC-PAV did prove its worth at Port Arthur.  It is one thing to have countless exercises, but the proof is only evident in the real thing, and Port Arthur was as close as it could come, except for all the other preparations, which have been noted.  SAC-PAV have now gained the right to be in full control of the security of this country and that is essential considering the 2000 Olympic Games at Sydney.

SAC-PAV has demonstrated that they can control the media.  They have access to manipulating the health system, and they can do similar things to the transport industry (aeroplanes, trains, buses, etc) and many other facets required to combat a terrorist threat.  They have trained the constabulary, and have control over certain aspects of our law enforcement bodies, and although these are State bodies, protected by State constitutions, the influence now emanates from a Federal bureaucracy, which is not constitutional.

If there was any other bureaucracy in the running to compete with SAC-PAV for operating the required security of Australia, or if there had been doubts about the efficiency of the services under SAC-PAV to combine and present a united front in the fight against terrorism, then all that has been removed by the events at Port Arthur.  In this way the Federal Attorney General’s Department tightened its grip on all its various State and Federal components, and strengthened its own position in the bureaucratic jungle of Canberra.

SAC-PAV though is a committee, with representatives from both the States, in a minority, and the Commonwealth.  However it is the Protective Security Co-ordination Centre, that controls SAC-PAV, and this body is purely Federal, being a department with the Federal Attorney General’s Department.  PSCC provides the Executive and secretariat support, manages the equipment, training, exercise programs and maintains the National Anti-Terrorist Plan for SAC-PAV.  What is also noticeable was that the National Anti-Terrorist Plan was endorsed in November 1995, and first utilised during the Port Arthur Massacre in April 1996, five months later.  If we now consider the conversation between Jamie at Seascape and the SAC-PAV police negotiator, Sgt Terry McCarthy, there is a completely different context put on the phrase, “he’s going to shoot your main man!”

McCarthy;        Jamie?
Gunman;         okay.  Hello.   How are you?
McCarthy;        I’m very well thanks Jamie.  Yourself?
Gunman;        Well, I’m well up to now.  The past few 20 seconds.  What I’ve actually found out man, is that one of your boys is right outside, northeast I’d say, with an infra-red scope.  Would you just ask him to move on?
McCarthy;        Right, we’ll do that, we’ll do that now.
Gunman;         Cause he’s going to shoot, he’s trying to shoot, he’s going to shoot your main man!
McCarthy;        No, I can guarantee.
Gunman;         I’ll blow this, umm these you know, you know what’s going to happen.
McCarthy;        I don’t want to see anyone hurt, alright,
Gunman;        You just move him on.
McCarthy;        Okay, I’m organising that now.  I can also assure you that it’s not our intention to hurt you or see anybody else hurt, okay.
Gunman;        Really.

It can now be seen that ‘Jamie’ was of the belief that the gunman was a SAC-PAV agent.

All the reasons why Port Arthur took place, be they to bring about the removal of firearms in this country, be they retribution for the damage to the Labor Party in 1988, be they part of the race to win the prize of having the responsibility to take on the security of the Sydney Olympics, or be they to cause the ceding of State powers in relation to firearm laws to the Federal Bureaucracy, fail in every aspect to diminish the total disregard of democracy and the laws of this country in the planning and execution of the Port Arthur Massacre.  In considering the aftermath, and the cover-ups that have followed the Port Arthur Massacre, and the criminal way the survivors and relatives have been treated by not only the State of Tasmania, but also the Federal Government, then all Australians have a duty to remove these criminal elements from within our governments.