NSW Premier Chris Minns praises Port Arthur response amid pressure over Shooters' reform bill
The bill, introduced by Shooters, Fishers, and Farmers' MLC Robert Borsak, seeks to enshrine a 'right to hunt' into law and create a new hunting authority, as well as paving the way for the introduction of a bounty system for the killing of feral animals.
Former Prime Minister John Howard, who oversaw sweeping gun reforms after the killing of 35 people in 1996, on Monday said he did not support establishing a hunting authority he described as a 'government-funded lobby group'.
Asked about the comments on Tuesday morning, Mr Minns described Mr Howard's urgent reforms as 'one of the best decisions any government has made' and hit back at claims the bill would allow access to military-style equipment.
'We won't be watering down gun laws in NSW,' Mr Minns told 2GB.
'Any suggestion we're going to introduce silencers, or night vision goggles, or body armour … Police oppose any changes to those provisions in the legislation, and I won't support them either.
'I'm also taking heed of his (Mr Howard's) warning not to have a government-funded gun lobby. That's not what we need in NSW or Australia.'
Mr Minns hit back at claims of a deal with the NSW Shooters.
The Premier said he was 'open at looking at' a potential bounty scheme, which is not an explicit provision of the bill, but would open up recreational hunters to killing feral animals and then collecting a bounty.
'There's recreational shooters in forests across Australia, across NSW, every weekend, that are getting rid of feral pests,' he said.
'Is there a way of allowing them to shoot a lot of these pests that cause significant damage to private land and public land?'
The bill is due back before a parliamentary committee on Friday.
It has faced stiff opposition from the NSW Animal Justice Party and the Greens, but is general supported by the major parties who both proposed amendments when the bill was still before the NSW upper house earlier this year.
In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, John Howard said he was 'totally opposed' to any weakening of gun laws.
He said: 'They have worked well, they have saved lives and they are the envy of the rest of the world.
'There are no politics in this as far as I'm concerned.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Australian
21 minutes ago
- The Australian
Tech giants could gain access to Aussie content under new proposal
Big tech companies would gain access to a vast library of copyrighted Australian content to further fuel their AI capabilities under recommendations put forward by the Productivity Commission, with the controversial scenario likely to leave the nation's news media outlets and creative professionals without compensation for their work. In an interim report on 'unlocking the benefits of AI and data to spark growth', released on Tuesday night, the commission called for feedback on what reforms were needed to bring the copyright regime up to date, amid its concerns that the laws were outdated and ill-equipped to deal with the rise of artificial intelligence technology. Possible overhaul of the laws is expected to prompt a fierce backlash from industry leaders, many of whom have previously aired concerns that big tech routinely sourced content it did not own as a means to further its products, without compensating the owners of the copyright. In a submission to the report, arts advisory body Creative Australia expressed concern about the unauthorised use of copyrighted materials to train AI models. 'Much of the data has been used reportedly without consent from the original creator, and without acknowledgment or remuneration,' the submission says. 'The global nature of the technology industry has made it difficult for the owners of creative work to enforce their intellectual property rights and be remunerated for the use of their work.' Last week, KPMG chairman Martin Sheppard and chief executive Andrew Yates warned the Albanese government that distrust of AI was 'not without basis'. Two days later, the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance called for greater government intervention on AI, with a new survey revealing high level of concern in the media, creative, and entertainment sectors regarding the technology. As part of the wider recommendations in the interim report, the commission finds that while the full effects of AI on productivity are still uncertain, AI 'will likely add more than $116bn to Australian economic activity over the next decade'. 'It recommends an approach to regulation that limits the risks that AI presents without stifling its growth potential,' it says. In a recommendation set to anger the news media and creative industries, the report's summary reads: 'The government should check for gaps in current regulation exposed by AI and, where possible, amend that same regulation to fill them. AI-specific regulation should only be considered as a last resort.' The report recommends exploration of 'whether current Australian copyright law is a barrier to building and training AI models'. The report acknowledges that 'copyright violation is an example of a harm that AI could exacerbate by changing economic incentives', but suggests tweaks to the laws that would grant exemptions – under the guise of 'research or study' – to big tech companies wanting to improve the data libraries of their AI models. 'There are concerns that the Australian copyright regime is not keeping pace with the rise of AI technology – whether because it does not adequately facilitate the use of copyrighted works or because AI developers can too easily sidestep existing licensing and enforcement mechanisms,' the report says. One of the policy options suggested is to amend the Copyright Act to include a fair-dealing exception that would cover 'text and data mining' – a move that would potentially grant technology companies wider access to the works and content produced by Australian journalists, artists, authors, and musicians, to name a few. AI specific regulation is rare globally, although last week the developers of leading AI models such as OpenAI, Google and Microsoft agreed to abide by rules on transparency, copyright and safety across Europe. The commission flags several options, including: 'no policy change', under which copyright owners would continue to enforce their rights under the existing framework, including through the courts; introducing measures to facilitate licensing of copyrighted materials, such as through collecting societies; or amendments to the Copyright Act to include the fair dealing exception. While text and data mining – methods that use automation to analyse large volumes of text and data to identify patterns – is considered 'fair use' in relation to copyright use in some overseas jurisdictions, it is seen as a flawed model that can leave legitimate copyright holders short-changed. 'It should also be noted that a TDM exception would not be a 'blank cheque' for all copyrighted materials to be used as inputs into all AI models,' the commission says. 'The use must also be considered 'fair' …' The commission warns against introduction of too many onerous legislative requirements on big tech's AI advancements. 'It is the PC's view that the copyright issues posed by AI can also similarly be resolved through adapting existing copyright law frameworks rather than introducing AI-specific regulation,' it says. James Madden has worked for The Australian for over 20 years. As a reporter, he covered courts, crime and politics in Sydney and Melbourne. James was previously Sydney chief of staff, deputy national chief of staff and national chief of staff, and was appointed media editor in 2021. Economics New regulation risks $116bn in economic gains at risk, Productivity Commission warns Jim Chalmers. Politics Treasurer's marathon consultation with Australia's business elite faces being relegated to a talkfest as government backs away from major economic reforms.
ABC News
21 minutes ago
- ABC News
Productivity Commission says government must pause plan for 'mandatory guardrails' on AI
The Productivity Commission has opposed the introduction of tough laws to control AI being considered by the government, warning its plan for "mandatory guardrails" should be paused until gaps in the law are properly identified. The government has been working on a comprehensive response to the rapid rise of artificial intelligence tools, with one option being a dedicated AI Act that would set rules for all AI technologies based on their risk to society, including possible bans on the most risky technologies. AI will be one of the central issues debated at the government's upcoming productivity round table late this month. Ahead of that, the commission has cautioned against a heavy-handed approach from government, though it agreed gaps in existing law "exposed by AI" should be closed as soon as possible. Its warning comes just two days after former industry minister Ed Husic, who began the government's years-long review into AI laws, publicly backed the creation of a dedicated Artificial Intelligence Act. It also puts the commission at odds with unions, who have toughened their stance on AI ahead of this month's productivity roundtable, saying not only is an AI Act needed, but protections from job losses to AI should also be on the agenda. In a report released ahead of that round table, the commission conservatively estimated AI could add more than $116 billion to Australia's economy over the next decade, or $4,400 per capita, driving a boost to productivity as large or even larger than the internet and mobile phones did 20 years ago. But it warned that such a boost would be at risk if regulation was introduced as anything other than a last resort. "Adding economy-wide regulations that specifically target AI could see Australia fall behind the curve, limiting a potentially enormous growth opportunity," commissioner Stephen King wrote. "The Australian government should only apply the proposed 'mandatory guardrails for high-risk AI' in circumstances that lead to harms that cannot be mitigated by existing regulatory frameworks and where new technology-neutral regulation is not possible." To give a sense of scale, the 20-year average for labour productivity growth is sitting at about 0.9 per cent a year, and the Productivity Commission expects AI alone could add about 4.3 per cent to labour productivity growth over the next decade. The past few years of inflation and cost-of-living pain have proven why it matters: growing the economy means wages and living standards can grow too, or fall backward if the economy stagnates. It is the kind of growth Treasurer Jim Chalmers has described as potentially "the most transformative technology in human history", which is why it has become such a focus of the coming round table. However, the Productivity Commission said there was considerable uncertainty around how big AI would prove to be, saying at the lower end it could provide just a tiny 0.05 per cent annual boost, or it could cause a 1.3 percentage point annual lift — an almost unimaginable explosion in growth. The commission also acknowledged that opportunity would not arrive without "painful transitions" for workers made redundant as sectors reshape around AI. It said that while the picture was uncertain, the World Economic Forum expected nine million jobs could be displaced globally, and the Australian government may have to consider support for workers to be retrained. Responding to the Productivity Commission's report, Mr Chalmers said the government could ensure AI was a force for good by treating it as "an enabler, not an enemy". "We're optimistic about the role AI can play in strengthening our economy and lifting living standards for more Australians at the same time as we're realistic about the risks," Mr Chalmers said. "AI will be a key concern of the economic reform round table I'm convening this month because it has major implications for economic resilience, productivity, and budget sustainability." The AI industry has yet to win the public's trust. Repeated surveys have found skepticism among the public, most of whom say they fear AI will do more harm than good. The sector and the government know the public must be brought along for the potential of AI to be realised, and for Australia to keep pace with the world as it changes. But investors have warned the Productivity Commission that delays in a comprehensive response from the government to AI are leading to a "wait-and-see" approach. The federal government has said little about its AI response since former minister Ed Husic told reporters in January the government was in "the final stages" of developing mandatory guardrails. The treasurer wrote on Sunday that the government intended to regulate "as much as necessary" to protect Australians, "but as little as possible" to encourage the industry. "It is not beyond us to chart a responsible middle course on AI, which maximises the benefits and manages the risks," he wrote.
ABC News
21 minutes ago
- ABC News
NSW Labor government unsuccesful in condemnation of independent MP Mark Latham
Mark Latham has escaped parliamentary condemnation after the former federal Labor leader was accused of sharing secret government information. The NSW Labor Party put forward a condemnation motion against Mr Latham after accusing him of "disclosing authorised information" under parliamentary privilege about a fellow MP. But the motion was adjourned after being blocked by the opposition until October 13. The condemnation was defeated 22 to 16 after a fiery debate. It is alleged Mr Latham referenced confidential information from a psychologist's report prepared for the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) in proceedings brought by independent MP Alex Greenwich, a claim Mr Latham denied. On Tuesday night, he told the chamber that the remarks were based on publicly available information, including several affidavits signed by Mr Greenwich. "This is not a state secret," he said of the information. He said when he viewed the information, it was only under a non-publication order, not formally under parliamentary privilege. During the debate, Mr Latham went on to further criticise Mr Greenwich and journalists present at the NCAT hearing. He said if he had the chance, he would share the information again. Penny Sharpe, leader of the government in the upper house, moved the motion to condemn the independent MP. Ms Sharpe said that revealing deeply personal medical records about a fellow member meant the house should take a stand over Mr Latham's use of parliamentary privilege. "If you don't draw this line, I don't know what line you are going to draw," Ms Sharpe said, calling on her parliamentary colleagues to support the condemnation. However, Mr Latham again insisted he had not broken standing orders in parliament. Despite the failure of the condemnation motion, Mr Latham was later successfully referred to the Privileges Committee over the alleged sharing of information in a privileged report by the NSW Police Force in a separate incident. On the prospects of a parliamentary committee investigation into his actions on that matter, which relates to former police commissioner Karen Webb, Mr Latham said: "Bring it on." "I'm happy for these things to go to privilege … I wouldn't mind if this matter went to the High Court," Mr Latham said. Last month, it was revealed Mr Latham's former partner, Nathalie Matthews, had sought an apprehended violence order against him in a NSW court, with media reports that she accused him of a "sustained pattern" of abuse and pressuring her into "degrading" sex acts. The independent MP has vowed to defend himself in court, and labelled Ms Matthews's claims as "comically false and ridiculous". Police are not investigating the matter. In the wake of the application being made public, it also emerged that Mr Latham had sent disparaging photos and comments about some female MPs to Ms Matthews, which he said was part of an "in-joke" taken out of context. He has apologised to the MPs at the centre of the photos, describing them as "ill-advised". Mr Latham released a lengthy public statement last month, addressing allegations of inappropriate behaviour in state parliament.
