How the Port Arthur Massacre Changed Australia
The Memorial Stone of the Port Arthur Memorial Garden.
On 28 April 1996, 35 people met their tragic end by the hands of one Martin Byrant. [1]
This incident will come to be known as the Port Arthur Massacre. It happened in the Tasmanian historic precinct of Port Arthur. Byrant fired 250 rounds with a semi-automatic assault rifle, killing 35 men, women, and children with 21 people escaping with their lives, notwithstanding the trauma. He was arrested by authorities the following day. [2]
Tasmanian law requires a gun licence to purchase firearms, however, Byrant possessed no such licence and yet could still buy the weapon that changed many lives. At the time, states made amendments to their legislation in response to shooting incidents within their state, exemplifying inconsistencies within Australian gun laws. The law had nominal requirements for the safe storage of firearms in all states, with no restrictions on the ownership of semi-automatic weapons or any requirement for a genuine reason to possess a firearm. [3]
The amount of public outrage following the Massacre was astronomical. The crime Byrant committed was evil personified. People wanted him dead, despite this not being possible as capital punishment was outlawed years prior. The public wanted an exception to be made for this man, showing the extent of anger and disgust Australian citizens possessed. [4]
Before the Massacre, Australia had experienced 13 mass shootings that claimed 112 lives. However, the Massacre was the last straw. [5] The then Prime Minister, John Howard, announced he would create ‘an effective national registration of gun ownership [and] include a total ban throughout Australia on all automatic and semi-automatic weapons’. This was heavily supported by the public as the Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion poll which showed 90 percent of voters were in favour with the ban, and 78 strongly in support. This was the start of the major perceptual changes in what people stood for, specifically regarding gun lobbying. [6]
Despite the significance of the Massacre, the gun lobby was determined to keep its member’s rights to gun ownership. This led to 50,000 gun owners marching through Melbourne and 30,000 marching through Sydney. The gun lobby was able to exploit the state governments resolve to protect their legislative powers and those with resentment against the Commonwealth’s interference, although, the resentment was subdued as most state governments were conservative. With the Queensland and Northern Territory government’s insistence, they saw some success as the Prime Minister conceded to allow limited-magazine self-loading shotguns regarding clay target shooting and restricted use of self-loading rifles for graziers. [7]
By the end of 1996, each of the states and territories introduced and passed legislation that met the demands of the Commonwealth. The public pressure exercised by the media and Howard greatly aided in pushing for the gun reforms despite the coercion and bullying from the gun lobby and state governments. The media and public praised Howard for his achievements, saying that he was a ‘worthy Prime Minister’ and that he ‘passed his first big step as Prime Minister’. Howard’s achievements were particularly impressive as he only became the Prime Minister six weeks prior to this significant incident, on 11 March 1996. These law reforms solidified Australia as a country with one of the strictest gun laws in the world. [8]
Besides the restricted use of certain guns for clay target shooting and graziers, many other restrictions are in place to prevent an incident such as the Massacre from happening again. [9] Howard introduced more uniform firearms licensing which required measures such as a proven genuine reason, waiting periods, security and storage requirements, sales regulations, compulsory buybacks of banned weapons, and the prohibition or cancellation of gun licences for violence. These laws are under the National Firearms Agreement, alongside the National Handgun Control Agreement 2002. These reforms reduced the national firearm stock by one-third and mass shootings have ceased since the Massacre. An evaluation in 2010 found that since the reforms, it saved 200 potential deaths per year and $500 million annually to be used for other causes. [10]
On 28 April 2000, the Port Arthur Memorial Garden was erected. The front inscription on the memorial stone reads, ‘May we who come to this Garden cherish life for the sake of those who died. Cherish compassion for the sake of those who gave aid. Cherish peace for the sake of those in pain.’ The left side inscription reads, ‘Death has taken its toll. Some pain knows no release but the knowledge of brave compassion shines like a pool of peace.’ The stone also lists the full names of all 35 victims. [11]
The garden was created to honour and remember the dearly departed, and while ever unfortunate, these people helped pave the way to save hundreds of lives in the implementation of the gun law reforms.
[1] Michael J. Dudley et al, 'The Port Arthur massacre and the National Firearms Agreement: 20 years on, what are the lessons?' (Pt AMPCo) (2016) 204(10) Medical Journal of Australia 381-383, 381.
[2] Bruce Laming, 'The 1996 Port Arthur massacre: implications for current and future Cooperative Federalism' (Pt Social Alternatives) (2007) 26(3) Social Alternatives 50-55, 50.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Paul Valent, 'Making Sense and Learning Lessons from the Port Arthur Killings' (Pt SAGE Publications) (1997) 5(5) Australasian psychiatry : Bulletin of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 233-236, 233.
[5] Antje Deckert and Rick Sarre, 'Australian Gun Laws', (Springer International Publishing AG, 2017), 787.
[6] Laming (n 2), 50-51.
[7] Ibid, 51.
[8] Ibid, 52-53.
[9] Ibid, 53.
[10] Dudley et al (n 1), 381.
[11] Elspeth A. Frew, 'Interpretation of a sensitive heritage site: the Port Arthur Memorial Garden, Tasmania' (Pt Routledge) (2012) 18(1) International Journal of Heritage Studies : IJHS 33-48, 40-41.