URGENT ACTION NEEDED: The Victorian upper house is about to vote on new donation laws, which will see millions of taxpayer dollars funnelled into the pockets of the major parties – with the Greens getting nearly $6.3m.
That’s nearly $900,000 per Green MP – the highest funding per MP of any party.
That’s bad news for us because it’ll improve their chances of getting what they want – which is a complete ban on duck hunting and probably more.
The vote could happen as early as this coming Tuesday, so your urgent action is needed.
The other thing the new laws will do is to severely limit the ability of community organisations – such as shooting clubs and associations – to provide voting recommendations and donate to political causes.
It means that organisations like Field & Game, VAPA, TRV, VRA, the collectors guild, ADA, SIFA and so on, will be able to donate no more than $4,000 to a political party in any 4 year election cycle. Not only that, but the new laws will force them to provide financial reports to the Victorian Electoral Commission.
They will also prohibit, in some circumstances, your right to make donations anonymously.
The punishment for trying to work around the laws is 10 years jail.
In return for these restrictions on donations, the major political parties will receive significantly increased electoral funding out of your pockets – to $6 per vote in the lower house (more than triple what they get now) and $3 in the upper house – and receive significantly more funding for ‘administrative expenses’, of $40,000 per year, per MP.
The new laws will also allow funding to be received under both the current and new funding arrangements – effectively dipping into two funding models.
This is a $60 million cash grab by our politicians which could be going into more ranges and pro-shooting programs, but will instead be going into their pockets.
Who supports this?
The bill was introduced by Labor, so clearly they will vote for it.
So will the Greens, because they can see dollar signs in front of them.
The coalition however, does not. Nor does Rachel Carling-Jenkins or James Purcell.
In late June, the Shooters, Farmers and Fishers Party were set to vote against the bill, which would have killed it off.
In fact Daniel Young told The Age that the donations bill would severely disadvantage minor parties.
He said I can’t comprehend why any crossbenchers would support it”. The bill was dead.
A change of mind
Yet only a couple of days later, they seemed to change their mind. The Age reported that Jeff Bourman “has now flagged his party’s likely support for the bill”. The Herald Sun also suggested the SFFP would now vote for the legislation after reaching “a deal between Labor and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party”.
Why?
Why would the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party support a bill that would reward our enemies and make life harder for shooting organisations?
Why would they support any measure which would cut the right of shooters to donate, and make voting recommendations?
Why would they support laws which impose new electoral reporting burdens on the shooting industry?
The Herald Sun has suggested it is because of an increase in the administrative funding the SFFP will receive. It has jumped from $40,000 per year per to a massive $250,000 for their first MP.
The payments will commence on 1 August, nearly four months before the election.
Even if the SFFP don’t get anyone re-elected, they will still walk away with money in their pocket.
A boon for the Greens
Before the SFFP changed it’s mind, the Herald Sun said: “[Daniel] Young said it would be a massive boon for the Greens, especially if the Left-wing party ran in more seats to get more public funding”
Daniel was right. The Greens have 7 MPs in state parliament, and with the extra money could easily hold the balance of power. If they get that, then duck hunting will go. Handguns too.
The Greens will be a much happier and richer party than they are now –thanks to two shooters who took the bait.
But wait … there’s more…
If that isn’t bad enough, the new laws will also provide ‘policy development’ funding for political parties who currently don’t get electoral funding.
It means the Animal Justice Party will get an additional $263,000, and Socialist Alliance around $100,000 – which you can bet won’t be going to help you and I go shooting.
Jeff’s and Daniel’s votes will determine what happens to gun owners in 2019.
While the SFFP’s support for the bill is disappointing, we do acknowledge and appreciate that they will look at an amendment to raise the donation limit for community organisations to $50,000, an amount which would still allow shooting organisations to have their say.
One minute to midnight
If you’re a member of the SFFP you need to make it clear to Jeff that he and Daniel need to put the interests of shooters ahead of their own.
However you need to tell them to reject any idea of passing laws which help the Greens and Animal Justice Party, because that’s simply unacceptable.
Click here to send an email to Jeff (Jeff.Bourman@parliament.vic.gov.au) or post something on the SFFP’s Facebook page by clicking here (facebook.com/SFPVIC).
The vote could be as early as this coming Tuesday, July 24th
– so we urge you to do this without delay!
Whether this bill may or may not inhibit voting ‘recommendations’ in future, free speech at least should let organisations advise their members where problems originate. In the days of the Cain government elections, we were able to advise people of the inherent problems involved in their policies, particularly that individual firearm registration instead of Shooter Licensing was merely setting up machinery for confiscation instead of solving or preventing crime. We can’t suggest to vote for any particular Party, but we can still focus on the problem policies of our opponents. Caveat Emptor.
If this is true, then the SFFP, can forget about my vote.
Don’t do it SFFP, my vote gone if you do, alongbeith many others. It’s political and shooting suicide
😡
Here are some facts that properly explain how this law will actually effect parties, the SFF is better off by $1.65 million and Greens are worse off by $4.7 million, If the Greens get the exact same vote at the next election that they did at the 2014 state election their vote-based funding would increase by $2,175,099 (from $1,239,216 to $3,414,315)
For the financial year ending 30 June 2016 based on the current proposal of funding changes the Greens would lose $1,716,017 (a gain in administration funding of $480,000 offset by a loss in all donations over $1000 of $2,196,017). If we extrapolate this over a 4 year term, they are worse off $4,688,970 over a 4 year term.
The impact on SFFP is as follows:
· If we get the exact same vote at the next election that we did at the 2014 state election our vote-based funding would increase by $185,340 (from $0 to $185,340), For the financial year ending 30 June 2016 based on the current proposal of funding changes we would gain $270,000 (a gain in administration funding of $270,000 offset by a loss in all donations over $1000 of $0).
· If we extrapolate this over a 4 year term, we are better off $1,265,340 over a 4 year term.
With all the pressure from the anti’s and major parties, it is very disappointing to see a supposed representative body of shooters scurrilously bad mouthing a pro firearm party, by putting out misleading and mischievous posts like this the CFCV is no better than David Shoebridge or Samatha Lee, who are the real enemies, not the SFFP, no wonder we are having trouble getting ahead, white anting like this from within is the major reason why we are having so much trouble advancing our cause, very disappointing attitude by the CFCV.
Thanks for your comment. We’ve had this discussion on Facebook. I decided to publish this because it is an honestly held view and complies with our requirements.
However it is wrong in that the new model has a ‘double dipping’ element which means the Greens (and others) will ALSO pick up funding under the existing model.
In terms of the last para, the blog and decision to publish it was the collective decision of our member organisations, and has nothing to do with whiteanting or anything of the like. As we also discussed online, we have no interest in bad mouthing a pro firearm party unless we believe they are working against the interests of the shooting community – or at least our members. If the SFFP vote against the bill, they will become heros. If they go for the money, then they won’t be.