Now for a bash.
Couldn't really believe that the Greens haven't thought things through, after all they've had plenty of time.

31. Guns in urban areas are to be stored at gun clubs under lock and key, with firing mechanisms kept at designated police stations;

This is really well thought out, if its aim is to cause the maximum of trouble for the poor old Law Abiding Firearms Owner, LAFO for short.

Now let's say it's Friday afternoon of a long weekend, and he's just got home from work. He lives in Newtown (inner Sydney). There's a call from a mate.

"Hey Blue, You doin' anythin' this weeken' 'cause I just got a call from Charlie [Charlie lives near Aberdeen, in the Upper Hunter area] 'e's 'avin' trouble with th' bloody dogs agin an' they're organizin' a shoot for Sat'dy night. Can ya come?'

"Geez mate, I'd like to but my rifle is at the club at Hilltop and that's 50 miles each way at least, then my designated police station is at Burwood 'cause th' local don't have storage facilities for the mechanism.
No, don't reckon I could make it. To far in the peak hour traffic and all. But maybe I could, I'll ring ya back".

Ends conversation with conventional farewells and rings Burwood Police station to arrange to pick up the mechanism without any delay.

"Sorry", says the probationary Constable on phone duty,"I'm the only one here because everyone else is out, there's some protest about coal trains going through Strathfield Junction and a 'bus has broken down on the Strathfield approach to the Freeway and it's blockin' two lanes and there's a fight at the market at Flemington and I don't have the authority to issue mechanisms.".

Ah well! Next time.

They are either very brave or very stupid to advocate no coal mining in Newcastle.

This might help

"Dr. Karl's" reaction to coal power stations
In his book "Sensational Moments in Science", ABC Press, 2001. His take on coal power:-:-

"In 1982, some 111 (US)nuclear-fired power plants consumed about 540 tonnes of nuclear fuel.
In the same year, coal-fired power plants released over 800 tonnes of uranium." into the atmosphere.
"If a single nuclear-fired plant released 8K of uranium into the bio-sphere. there would be . .an enormous outcry."
He says the nuclear content of coal has not yet reached general public awareness in the same way that the greenhouse effect AIDs, or the ozone hole have.
There are no nuclear regulations about the disposal of coal ash

Coal apparently contains a heap of uranium and thorium
He concludes that you will get three times more radiation from a coal fired power plant than a nuclear fueled power plant! That's if you include the complete nuclear fuel cycle mining, processing operating, disposal(!?)
If you don't include these your average coal-fired power plant puts out 100 times more radiation than a nuclear-fired plant.
p103-104

What testing is done by Health Officials in areas near coal mines?

How do we know how much radioactivity is floating about mines, power-stations and slag heaps?

What is the Green's policy on Thorium reactors?

Used 'Google' a while back to have a look at the various party web-sites and made the, to me, amazing discovery that none of the parties, except one, provide any facilities for the ordinary voter to ask questions and interact with the candidates.
Surprisingly the one exception is The Shooters' Party, they have a normal website where anyone may join in discussion and ask questions.

Why do not Labor, Liberals and the Nationals offer the same service, surely they have the money?
One can understand, up to a point, that the Democrats, the Greens and the smaller parties might be strapped for cash and because of their small membership can't justify this provision of 'Participatory Democracy' on their sites.

Perhaps it is that they don't value the expression of opinions or are not game to answer questions or engage in open debate?

C'mon someone.
Defend them, engage in open debate.
I would have thought that at least one green supporter would come and do some little refutation.
I've been accused of being a stooge for the Shooters' Party but I'm not. I would really like to see someone refute what I've written.

Do the Greens mean what they say or, if not, is what is in their policies just waffle to fill in space?

Apart from their firearms policies what else is just twaddle?

Here's another one for consideration:

"20. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm.".

Most of this is already the law, except that using one for personal protection is allowed by law when the threat to the user is such that the user believes that his/her life is threatened.

It is for the Court to decide not the Greens or any other political party if personal protection was justified.

Beware any Party that would usurp the prerogative of the Courts, or is this just another instance of not thinking things through.

I've been looking at everyones' policy statements as I haven't yet really made up my mind on who to vote for in the lower house, although I favour the local Independent.

I'm fascinated by the Greens though, I'm a keen shooter and I keep getting the feeling that they are out to pick on firearms owners and make life hard for them; consider this:

"38. A ban on the so-called sport of 'combat shooting' where participants use semi-automatic handguns to shoot human-shaped targets in simulated scenarios.".

Here's a group of pistol shooters firing at paper targets on an approved range, collecting all the spent bullets, reloading and
recycling, doing no harm to anyone.

The Greens want to stop it all.

Why? Because it is a danger? Apparently not, it's being done on a police approved range by shooters who have the Police Commissioner's approval, and who have passed all the requirements to be licenced pistol shooters, and who are under the supervision of experienced and accredited Range Officers.

Could it be that the Greens don't like what these people are doing? Spoil sports perhaps? Interfering busybodies?

What's next on the hate list, archery perhaps? Or darts ?
Now there's a nasty weapon if ever there was one, yobbos throw them at football matches in Britain; Germans used to drop them from aeroplanes in WW I and even the ancients were wont to fling them at each other.

Compare the Greens' policy on drugs. It could only be called solicitous and no where do they suggest that drug users, and therefore by law criminals, should be subjected to anywhere the same restrictions or proposed laws as Licenced Shooters, who are by any definition among the most law-abiding groups in society.

Has any Green come out and called for tougher laws against the use of firearms by drug growers, dealers, pushers and peddlers?
It's not uncommon to hear that the Police, at no small risk to themselves, have apprehended drug criminals who, along with illegal drugs also possessed illegal firearms.
Never a peep from the Greens. They target the law-abiding it seems.