WA Potato Marketing Corporation bites the dust

Cartoon: By R May 

It looks like Western Australia is sliding off into anarchy with the removal of another regulator.  The Potato Marketing Corporation appears to be heading towards the chopping block on the recommendation of the Economic Regulation Authority (ERA) apparently at the behest of the Labor opposition.

Fears of rogue potato growers doing whatever they want and street vendors selling illicit potato products to unwary addicts in dark alleys have been dismissed: 

Arguably an anachronism in today's capitalist world, WA's Potato Marketing Act of 1946 - and its subsequent regulator, the Potato Marketing Corporation of WA - trace their history back to the shortages of the Great Depression and post-war food security. 

The corporation not only controls what potato varieties can be grown and sold, but who grows them and how much they are paid. 

It has the power to search premises, confiscate equipment and crops, and prosecute farmers - as rebel southwest potato grower Tony Galati has found over the years after being threatened with legal action for overplanting and trying to sell excess spuds cheaply. … 

… ''The Potato Marketing Corporation and Western Australia's absurd laws have stifled competition and denied choice to growers and consumers,'' Mr McGowan said.  ''No other Australian state has a body that decides what varieties of potatoes can be grown, who can grow them and at what price they can be sold. 

''It should be left to the growers to decide if they will grow a particular variety of potato.''Mr McGowan said the restrictive laws were responsible for some of Australia's highest potato prices and, of the 66 commercial varieties grown around the nation; only 13 were permitted in WA. 

''It would be comical if it wasn't so damaging to WA's economy and consumer and grower choice,'' he said. ...

Marketing authorities and regulations became popular after World War 2, possibly as a reaction to the demise of wartime rationing, fears of a free market renaissance, and a need to find spots for all of those bureaucrats likely to be left with nothing to interfere with.

Both Labor and the Liberal and Country Party, (now National Party or LNP) were very keen on the idea; the difference being that while Labor aimed to control production, distribution, and marketing of products, the conservatives chose to regulate it.  There was little difference in the result.

During the 60s, and 70s, the most heinous crimes you could commit in Queensland on the basis of penalties, were breaches of national Party orderly marketing regulations. 

An alternative to Chris Berg’s views on breaking election promises

Statements on a theme:

“Voters need to ask themselves who they trust to protect jobs and guide the economy through a new age of uncertainty.” – Kevin Rudd

"This election will be about trust." – Tony Abbott

This election, like never before, is about who you can trust - Christine Milne

“From this day forth, you put your trust... in me.” – Lord Voldemort.

During the 2013 election, the economically literate were dismayed as then opposition leader, Tony Abbott in question after question ruled out any action that would reduce the profligate waste of taxpayers money that had been occurring under Labor, to the point where he was willing to embrace every big spending ‘initiative’ that Rudd came up with.

The reality was that with Labor less popular than a dose of clap and major concern in the electorate at the ever-increasing deficits and escalating national debt, he pretty much had carte blanche to offer to take the hard decisions necessary to pull the nation back into gear.  He would have been cheered for it.

He didn’t have the courage to do it and now has to tread the tightrope between the need for action, and his ruling out most of those very actions.

Cartoon: By R May 

Chris Berg has offered some helpful tips: 

… Here's one answer. Parties don't see election promises as promises in the plain English meaning of the word. Instead, promises are signals designed to express a deeper character of the political party. When Abbott promised not to change the pension and not to cut public broadcasters he was trying to signal that his would not be a radical government; that he was firmly targeting the median voter. 

After all, why give the SBS promise? Did it win any marginal votes? Surely not. But it did suggest to the electorate he had no secret plan to burn through Australia's institutions. Promises like that increase the political cost of radical action. 

This practice is of course deeply deceptive - election promises as signals rather than genuine commitments - but it's a deception we're used to. 

Voters are rational. We know campaign nonsense when we see it. As this interesting 2004 paper points out, voters infer the true policy position of candidates for office despite the thicket of untruths. 

Obviously Coalition failures deserve to be treated as harshly as Labor failures were. Perhaps more. The Coalition swore to be guided by higher ethical standards than its predecessors. 

But let's not pretend to be surprised. Australia is one of the world's oldest democracies. We've been voting for broken promises for a very long time.

To some extent Berg is correct, although normally incoming governments find an excuse to break their promises as early as possible in their tenure.

Whitlam claimed that the problem with the economy was that we had too much money sloshing around in our pockets and the responsible thing for government to do was to increase taxes to absorb that which we didn’t need.

Malcolm Fraser was too arrogant to give us a reason to break his, but Hawkie and Keating came up with a budget ‘black hole’ and offered us consensus.  Under consensus, the government would negotiate with the opposition in order to decide the position they would like us to be in, and what to do with us when they had us there.  The result was, that rather than being screwed by the government, we were gangied by the parliament as a whole.

It hasn’t gotten any better since.

One of Tony’s options is the use of the term core, and non-core promises.  That though has been done already.

On the serious side though, there are plenty of options available.

While Abbott promised not to reduce the funding for the ABC and SBS, he said nothing about keeping them in public ownership.  Fairfax already provides left wing bias quite effectively in the private sector, so there is really no need for the government to duplicate that service.  There is nothing wrong with the ABC that couldn’t be fixed by Kerry Stokes, James Packer, Rupert Murdoch, or Gina Rinehart.

The Department of Climate Change could be abolished.  It would simply require an acknowledgement that the government hasn’t the competency to change the climate, certainly not for the better.  

While doing this, forget the idiotic climate action plan, abolish the ‘Clean Energy Finance Corporation’, the renewable energy target, subsidies on wind, solar, etc, and mandates on the use of renewables.  This would save billions.

There is considerable scope for the abolition of all federal government departments that duplicate state government ones.  The states themselves can run their own affairs in ways that are better suited to their individual circumstances better and more efficiently than can be done by a distant bureaucracy,

Where coordination is needed, the relevant state ministers can do this.

All of the departments left will probably go out on strike in solidarity with their fellow public servants.  When this happens, the government should examine the effects, and abolish all of those, which cause no inconvenience to the public by their absence.

By this time the budget crisis would be solved and we would be back in surplus again, but we can go further.  The SPC issue proved that there is really no need for taxpayers to pad the profit margins of Coca Cola Amatil.  There is no reason why any corporate welfare should continue; the government having made a nice start here.  It should then look at the inefficient churn of middle class welfare which would no longer be required as everyone would benefit from the substantial tax cuts the above would make possible.

EPA wants environmental impact statements on water for droughted cattle

With drought biting hard in much of Queensland and NSW, many farmers are attempting to improve water distribution on their properties in order to give starving stock access to larger areas of grazing.  While this is happening, bureaucrats in the capital cities are fretting over whether this will threaten the environment: 

As the government steps up its drought relief, there's concern a move by the federal environment department might actually make it harder for graziers to roll out emergency water infrastructure. 

Millions of dollars have already been spent installing bores, pipes and troughs to keep starving stock alive and yesterday's federal package increased the government's contribution from half to 75 per cent. 

Yet, the federal environment department is currently investigating whether the 'proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points' represents a threat to the environment. 

It's a move that's incensed graziers and land managers who are questioning the department's decision to consider a nomination under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation (EPBC) Act. 

Northern Gulf NRM chief executive officer Grant Fawcett- based in Georgetown, about 400 kilometres west of Cairns - says getting the balance between economic and environmental benefits should be left to land managers. … 

… But graziers such as former Cattle Council president Greg Brown, who've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars improving waters on his property, 'Meadowbank', says it shows federal bureaucrats are out of touch and he hopes the review is ignored. 

"I think it's a rather strange sort of assertion myself. I would have thought that additional water in country would actually enhance the survival of wildlife and biodiversity." 

"Obviously people are entitled to establish watering points on their own property... it's entirely up to you with regard to putting watering points around the place and I have some doubts as to whether they're going to be consulting the federal department of environment.” …

The greatest single asset of most farmers and graziers is their land, which is what they rely on to provide the majority, if not all of their income.  They would be cutting their own throats economically were they to damage its productivity by carrying out actions with poor environmental outcomes.

They also understand the land and its workings far better than the average big city bureaucrat even though they don’t work for a government department and are not trained to apply theoretical ideas to hypothetical situations using self-righteousness as a guide.

Coalition of eco-loons and anti-market fanatics

Daniel Hannan presents another glaring example of how both incarnations of the modern authoritarian left combine to screw things up in the name of the environment and consumer protection:
 

 Eco-loons and anti-market fanatics tend to be natural allies in inflicting greater and more intrusive regulation on all of us in order to advance their own jaundiced view of the kind of society they would have us become.

Council global warming planning decisions suffer court setback

Local authorities in Australia have been moving increasingly towards becoming another arm of big government, micro managing local affairs.  One area they have entered with gusto is including hat tips to big eco in planning decisions.

Woe betide any resident with a tree threatening his house that is deemed to be ‘of significant biodiversity value’.  Old houses that have gone through a number of evolutions in the last century must not change in any renovation beyond some time in the past deemed appropriate by cultural censors, and must not have anything modern done with them.

The latest plaything of councils is to plan for global warming induced sea level changes with building restrictions on waterfront property.

A recent court decision may provide some relief: 

A NSW judgment has castigated a local council that permitted a couple to build a house on a beachfront plot, on condition they tore it down in 20 years assuming UN predictions of sea-level rise and coastal erosion come true. 

NSW Land and Environment Court senior commissioner Tim Moore struck down the condition, saying in his judgment that Great Lakes Council had held a "Damoclean sword" over Greg and Lesley Newton, who had sought to build on a vacant block at Jimmys Beach on the mid-north coast of NSW. 

The judgment has been hailed by a lobby group representing coastal home owners in the region, who are facing similar "time-limited consents" based on dire UN International Panel on Climate Change predictions of rising sea levels. 

It comes when, as revealed by The Australian, the NSW government, infuriated that some coastal councils are unquestioningly adopting the IPCC predictions and imposing often severe planning restrictions, is preparing to issue instructions for them to apply common sense.It is a victory for the deputy mayor of Great Lakes Council, Len Roberts, who led a minority of councillors against a majority headed by Mayor Jan McWilliams who voted to impose the time-limited consent on the Newtons. 

Commissioner Moore struck down Condition 7 in the development approval, which was limited to a period of 20 years, at which point the owners would have to hire a consultant to re-examine coastal hazards. Unless the council decided sea-level change and coastal erosion were not developing as predicted, the owners would have to abandon the house. …

Council climate change planning decisions are based on the precautionary principle in the wake of the sort of climate modeling that inspired a group of climate scientists to get caught in Antarctic sea ice that according to modeling, wasn’t supposed to be there, costing millions for their rescue.

While it is reasonable to prevent residential building under known flood levels, it is idiotic to base decisions on what are essentially unproven theories promulgated by the same sort of people who were predicting a CO2 based ice age back in the 70s.

Much of the issue of building approvals could be handled by the private sector. In order to get finance to put up a building, it is first necessary to make the banks feel secure by having insurance.  If the owner cannot convince any company to issue a policy on the construction, it simply will not be built unless the proposer is able to pay for it and take the risk of losing it.

Bureaucrats block Top Gear from Gold Coast

We are plodding along at a pace set by centralized planning, red tape, rules without responsibility, and regimentation without recourse. – Barry Goldwater

Most cities and major towns anywhere, especially those in the tourism business would welcome the Top Gear team to do a film clip in their area.  As one of the most watched shows on international television, Jeremy Clarkson and his crew could not help but bring worldwide attention to wherever they do their thing.

But not on the Gold coast where they have noise abatement laws extending out into the cane fields out of town.  There, they need several days to sign a piece of paper allowing a temporary waiver for the use of a V8 car on a racetrack: 

Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson wanted to come to the Coast next week to film a new Microsoft Xbox-sponsored V8 Supercar at the Holden Driving Centre at Norwell, in a deal brokered by racing legend Mark Skaife.  But Gold Coast City Council bureaucrats put the brakes on the show, watched by an estimated 350 million people in 170 countries, when they failed to relax noise restrictions in time. … 

… The council snub has angered driving centre boss Paul Morris, who said the Coast had lost the chance for ‘priceless publicity’.  “It’s an unbelievable lost opportunity,’’ Mr Morris, a racing car driver and team owner said.  “We are talking about the world’s biggest TV show and the council, which is always banging on about how the Gold Coast is open for business, can’t even facilitate it. 

“Clarkson was going to drive the car himself. It’s bureaucracy gone mad. The pen-pushers are strangling this town with red tape.” 

Mr Morris said the driving centre, despite being located in the northern Gold Coast canefields, operated under strict noise restrictions because of surrounding homes.  He had applied for a temporary relaxation but was told it could not be done in time to meet Top Gear’s tight scheduling demands. 

Mr Morris said the council ‘should have moved heaven and earth’ to attract the show.  “The guy cutting cane next door makes more noise with his harvester than the V8 car,’’ he said. 

Deputy Mayor and Norwell area councillor Donna Gates said the council had been given only 24 hours’ notice to approve the noise relaxation.  “We offered to move forward on it but it would have taken a few days,’’ she said.

It appears that the council have implemented a noise restriction of 65 decibels, which is making life difficult for the track itself which has had to cancel a number of events because of it.  With a noise limit of this level, they may still be able to race electric cars if that ever becomes popular.

24 hours should be more than ample to sort out some kind of approval and the idea of a system so inflexible as to take several days to grant permission to drive a V8 on a racetrack is ludicrous.  Only government could be that idiotic.

Any objections could easily be sorted by inviting the neighbors in to watch, but that’s not the way bureaucrats do things.

$7,500 fine for helping bogged motorists

It's somewhat ironical that tonight’s episode of Australian Story was about the way people pitched in to help others during the Tasmanian bush fires.  It was a great show featuring the effort by a woman who created a Face Book page that put people in need of help in touch with those willing to give assistance and help coordinate the whole show.

In times of trouble, the best seems to come out in people.  It was not that long ago that we saw victims of a North Queensland cyclone donating their emergency assistance checks to the Victorian bushfire appeal, and before that, Southern farmers donating semi loads of hay to droughted farmers in Queensland.

On the other hand, it is a bad idea to be a Good Samaritan if it is likely to incur the wrath of the Greens or attract the baleful gaze of their captive envirofascists in the Queensland Department of the Environment.  A retired businessman in Harvey Bay has just been fined $7,500 for towing bogged motorists in a national park and could be hit for $15,000 more: 

A GOOD Samaritan who says he has towed more than 200 bogged cars from roads in the Burrum Coast National Park in the past 20 years has been fined $7500 for damaging the park during the rescues. 

Douglas George Waters, 71, appeared in the Hervey Bay Magistrates Court on Monday charged with six counts of breaching a restriction on cultural and natural resources protected areas and one count of driving an unregistered tractor. 

Magistrate Graeme Tatnell convicted Mr Waters on two counts of damaging the national park but dropped the five other charges.  He was fined $7500 - and he may be up for a further $15,000 payment because of a hole he dug while fixing a road. 

Mr Waters has lived on a property in the heart of the Burrum Coast National Park for 25 years and, under the Queensland National Government in 1988, was given permission to maintain the isolated roads leading to his home.  The previous state Labor government cancelled that permission. 

Mr Waters said outside court that the roads had since deteriorated and people could easily become stuck.  He told the Chronicle outside court he was dumbfounded by the lack of common sense.  "At the moment I can't tow anyone out," he said. 

"If you are unlucky enough to be bogged and it's a Friday afternoon or out of normal hours DERM (now Environment and Heritage Protection) has no after-hours number to help which could result in your situation becoming life-threatening."

It is a bit surprising that Mr Waters is “dumbfounded by the lack of common sense” given that he has been dealing with bureaucracy for some time now and should be getting used to it.

It appears that the department was really going after him given the charge of driving an unregistered tractor.  Given that most farm tractors are unregistered unless the farmer has reason to take it on public roads often, and that the road was unmaintained, it has to be assumed that the enviros were trying to get him for everything they could pin on him.  The withdrawal of permission to maintain the road leading to his home may be taken as an attempt to make his continued occupation of his property untenable.

About the only decent thing coming out of this other than the actions of Mr Waters is that the Member for Hinkler, Paul Neville is taking his case up with the Qld government.    

Politicized bureaucrats try to stamp out dolphin feeding, get stamped on

Photo: Dolphin feeding time at Tin Can Bay. Credit Craig Warhurst Gympie Times

Tin Can Bay is a mall township on the mainland opposite Fraser Island, where for many years wild dolphins have interacted with the people and arrive for feeding.  This has been the cause of considerable outrage among greenies, the DNR, and Labor governments for nearly as long.

This opposition should have ended a few days ago when Environment Minister Andrew Powel arrived, fed the dolphins and announced that the activity could continue as long as the dolphins kept coming.

Within twenty four hours, a group of bureaucrats from the Transport Department arrived seeking to get involved.  It is not well understood why this group were doing the environmentalists dirty work as the dolphins arrive at the feeding spot by swimming, not in cars. Anyway they settled in to make pricks of themselves: 

A party of Queensland Transport officials threatened the continued operations of both the Barnacles Cafe dolphin feeding facility and the separate Rainbow Beach business, Dolphin Ferry Cruises, according to Bay fisherman, conservation adviser and dolphin feeding advocate Joe McLeod. 

"They arrived at about 1pm and demanded to see a copy of the new conditions for dolphin feeding, to see if they breached Barnacles' lease. 

"They also said that Transport Infrastructure regulations would prohibit ferries, including the Dolphin Ferry, from operating out of the boat harbour area, which includes most of Snapper Creek. 

"They claimed the regulations also prohibit people living on boats, even though the marina is in the harbour area. And they also prohibit anchoring a tinny for fishing.  "But they were really only interested in Barnacles," he said. …

The Transport Minister, Scott Emerson on being informed launched an investigation and has demanded the names of those involved in this action.  These people will probably join the other 12,000 public servants who have found themselves surplus to requirements since Newman took office.

Labor, like the left worldwide has a habit of politicizing the bureaucracy.  In some ways this is not dissimilar to the actions of the IRS in the US who have now admitted to targeting any group with Tea Party, or Patriots in its name.  These political hacks need to be weeded out and cast adrift into the private sector where they are going to have to learn and adopt a sense of reality if they are to have any hope of succeeding.

Bligh government phone account debacle

Cartoon: Baloo Cartoons

The Bligh government’s fiscal policy was like something from one of those Simpsons episodes in which Bart had got hold of Homers credit card and went wild with it.  It was pretty much carnival time on the taxpayer’s dime with government spending considered the highest of virtues.

The Ski Jumping Centre of Excellence in sub-tropical Brisbane, and the $700,000 egg shaped rock sculpture in an inaccessible area are two of the ultra-stupid ideas hatched by them.  The Health Department payroll debacle, in which an untried system replaced the previous one and didn’t work despite the waste of hundreds of millions in fixes, was another, but it is now revealed that they couldn’t even organize a phone account: 

The Sunday Mail can reveal that a whole-of-government telecommunications deal signed in 2011 commits the current administration to a prescribed level of annual expenditure.
However, public servants are not texting, dialling or googling anywhere near enough to meet the "committed spend" contract, which does not expire until mid-2014. 

The Newman Government has confirmed it received a $15.3 million bill from Optus for under-spent telecommunication services in 2011.  The bill arrived just three days after the LNP took office in March.  Another bill for about $18 million is expected to arrive within weeks. 

The botched communications contract adds to a long line of bungled IT decisions and controversial spending under Labor, from the health pay system rollout to $700,000 for an egg-shaped rock art work in a remote location. … 

Negotiations have been occurring behind the scenes for months between senior government members and Optus in a bid to prevent taxpayers wearing the cost of unused communication services.  But the contract is believed to be watertight, making negotiations to avoid the unnecessary costs amid Budget cutbacks difficult. 

Mr Crisafulli said the Government would continue efforts to reach a sensible agreement with Optus.  "I am certain other ICT providers would welcome the fact that this Government, unlike the last, is seeking real value and better services not pipedream proposals that don't deliver," he said. …

While it’s difficult to imagine that such a deal could be done without some sort of corruption involved, there is little evidence of SingTel-Optus donating in a lop sided manner toward Labor.  They seem to have favored the Liberal Party as far as political donations go.

We probably have to chalk this one up to ineptitude or bloody minded stupidity.

Rural fire service tale of incompetence and bureaucratization

 A friend of this site, Dale Stiller has made a couple of postings on the evacuationgrounds site highlighting the problems faced by rural fire brigade volunteers owing to the growth of central control and bureaucratization within the service: 

On Tuesday I was called out to a fire north of Miles on the Hookswood Road and witnessed one of the biggest stuff ups, of incompetency that you don't want to see. Qld fire & rescue set up a controll centre, overrode local people and treated volunteer rural fire brigade people like dirt. 

They stood around that long talking about what may happen with the fire that it did happen. The fire went from big to massive while us volunteers weren't allowed to do anything. Then at 6.30 when the incident controller was sending in the locals to do some backburning to save people's houses, his mates left in a heap of units to go back to Toowoomba. 

I got to bed a 1am, I have to go now & fight a much bigger fire than yesterday with many unsecured fronts.  I will be having a lot more to say about this.

The subsequent post explained his position: 

In my previous post, Hookswood Rd Fire, I expressed my frustration at the incompetence of Qld fire & rescue who took control of all efforts to fight a fire and by their inaction causing a big fire to grow to something far more dangerous and destructive. 

I was also angry to learn from those who were on the scene on the Sunday, Monday and first thing Tuesday before I was called in as part of the Downfall Creek rural fire volunteers, of 3 occasions were the fire could have contained as a small fire and that on 2 of these occasions the opportunity wasn’t taken because of blindly following of the rule book by Qld fire & rescue. Having hours of inaction on my hands during Tuesday and hearing the outrage of my fellow rural fire volunteers I made sure that their views became known to the media. These two articles are the result - Heat on resourcingas fire threats intensify More RFS review forQld 

This image above was developed from the NAFI web site gives the perfect illustration of why preventive burning is very important.   The image also shows what sectors of the fire the Downfall Creek brigade played a part. 

On Tuesday night our crew joined others to back burn to save property of a family. The Qld fire & rescue incident controller would have had a heart attack if he knew that we went to the lead of the fire yet many km’s away. The sky glowed red, thick smoke billowed overhead and the roar of the fire was enough to strike fear. Earlier we had sighted a spot fire start up 1km in advance of the fire front. We knew of nothing that would stop this fires advance. We left that location to go back to burn a wide band around the house and buildings.  

The Downfall Creek rural fire brigade operated within the Barakula State Forest at the western flank of the fire from Wednesday afternoon to Thursday night. The forestry fire fighters were on the eastern side of the fire on the Wednesday and could only bring equipment to the western side on the Thursday. When the forestry workers shift changed soon after dark on Thursday we learnt from the shift supervisor what stopped the fire front from going any further. 

On Wednesday night he was just off to the east of the lead of the fire front. At 3am the fire was still crowning, that is burning in the tree tops, when it hit an area that had a preventive burn back in September. In the image above it is the peach colour area. The fire lost its ground fuel source and bit by bit died down to a halt.

Look at the image to see how few preventive burns have occurred in the fires path, both in privately held land and the state owned state forest. There was a large fuel build up in this area. You don’t need to be Einstein to know that fuel load plus hot temperature plus ignition equals destruction. More needs to be done to encourage cool burns in August and September.

In this day and age, much of firefighting has come under the control of state bodies, as has land use and management owing to the increased influence of the Greens who tend to be based among the inner city trendies.  As result, fuel reduction burns have become a sacrifice to political correctness and policies developed by the ignorant of reality and idealists who believe standard practices are the result of the stupidity of those they see as yokels.

State bodies are by nature bureaucratic and inclined to follow the rule book rather than rely on commonsense.  Initiative is scorned by such people as a dangerous anarchic tendency.

Most people raised in the bush get their first experience of firefighting soon after their dads deem them strong enough to swing a wet corn sack, and understand that a buildup of dry grass and shrubbery is a disaster waiting for the next ‘dry storm’ where a lightning bolt can set the country aflame.  This experience should be utilized rather than scorned.

Effort to cut gun law red tape

Image: David Gibson inspects Ron Owen's gun vault, where guns bought up to two years ago are still waiting for police to complete licensing paperwork Source; Gympie Times

The State Member for Gympie has highlighted some of the stupidity of the current gun laws.  The paperwork and long drawn out registration process results in waits of up to two years from the time of purchase, to being able to pick up your new gun: 

LEGITIMATE gun owners and public safety were the victims of a dysfunctional gun licensing and registration system, Gympie MP David Gibson said.  He said Queensland's gun laws, introduced by the Beattie Labor Government, were "at best, inefficient" and were "misdirected at law abiding firearm owners". 

Mr Gibson said the cumbersome paperwork associated with legitimate gun ownership had very little public benefit, as criminal groups continued to trade in illegal firearms and used them with tragic consequences. 

He foreshadowed changes to the Weapons Act to reduce paperwork for legitimate gun owners and increase penalties for illegal firearms possession and use. 

Gympie gun dealer Ron Owen backed plans to make gun ownership more manageable for legitimate primary producers and sporting shooters. 

Mr Gibson visited Mr Owen's shop on Thursday, where he inspected a vault with guns (mostly sports rifles), which had been sold and paid for but awaited paperwork to be completed by police.  "Some of them have been waiting here for two years," Mr Owen said. 

"The police can't keep up with the paperwork either. They've got so many documents, they don't know what's going on.  "It's a failure of the system.  "Since it came in 15 years ago, we've generated 68,000 records; whereas, really, there should be just one in and one out. …

Some of these delays could also be due to police holding back and delaying the process.  Many of them have an obsession with the idea that guns in the hands of law abiding people will turn them into homicidal maniacs, determined to wipe out the police force.

Gun laws need to be eased off to the point where law-abiding shooters have no trouble getting hold of firearms for whatever purpose they want them.  Current laws have had little if any impact on crime statistics, and have failed to keep guns out of the hands of criminal elements.  The only people affected are the law-abiding elements of society who are not the problem anyway.