Home Australia Bryant’s Anniversary Series, Part 3: Tassie Premier Replies to Mal Hughes

Bryant’s Anniversary Series, Part 3: Tassie Premier Replies to Mal Hughes


Tasmanian FlagThe state flag of Tasmania, declared official in 1975

by Mal Hughes

It goes without saying that I have never received a significant reply to any of my Port Arthur letters to officialdom. After all, anything “significant” would mean that we citizens are really moving the government — and that never happens.

Might happen though.  This year is the 20th anniversary of the PAM and tomorrow marks 20 years since Martin Bryant explained to police that he had not been to Port Arthur in years. He even said to Warren and Paine “I could just as well say you guys did it.”  Too right.

As mentioned in my June 22, 2016 article at Gumshoe, I sent Tasmanian Premier Jim Bacon a letter in 2003. There was no reply but I followed up with his successor, Premier Lennon as follows, and got a reply!

September 2004

Mr Paul Lennon,
Premier of Tasmania
C/o House of Parliament Tasmania,
Hobart, Tasmania   7000

Mr Premier,

I have enclosed a copy of a letter that I sent to Mr Bacon late last year and I add a list of “points of interest.” When I wrote to Mr Bacon, I did not know he was ill, so I can forgive him for not answering me.

However I believe you would have read my correspondence since taking over the reins of Premier and am disappointed that I have not heard from you.

Martin Bryant has been incarcerated another 11 months since my letter. Please don’t be ignorant and continue not to reply — as I don’t intend to go away. This issue is far too important a subject for all Australians’ liberty and the democracy that politicians always spruik about when it suits them.

I have since learnt that the material sent to Mr Bacon was not written by one interested person, but in fact two. So I am not the only person in Australia with a “social conscience”.

I again request that a Royal Commission be set up to find out the truth of what happened that terrible black day in Tasmania’s history so that all those criminally involved including, officials and maybe newspaper proprietors are charged and Martin Bryant is set free.

Yours faithfully,
Still Concerned Citizen of Australia
Mal. R. Hughes

Points of interest [attached to the letter to Premier Lennon]

Why was only one car used by the murderer, set on fire?

My theory: Martin Bryant’s car needed to be identified to make the setup work. The other car unburnt, and with a proper forensic investigation, would have proved that Martin Bryant had never touched or set foot in that vehicle, which would have blown the charges out of the water.

The Police Report suggests that two gunmen were firing at one stage at Seascape but no investigation was proceeded upon, along these lines.

It was suggested in that report that Martin Bryant set fire to himself, but no evidence is put forward to cover that statement. How does an arsonist burn his back but his hands & front of his body escape burns?

The report also states that Bryant had 2500 rounds with him at Seascape but no suggestion where he obtained those rounds. It has been stated by Terry Hill that no guns or ammunition were sold to Martin Bryant at “Guns For Ammo” and the police have been unable to prove otherwise.

This amount of ammunition is fairly weighty and if this was taken by vehicle along with the weapons which were used to kill and other equipment that police state were used, many trips back to the vehicle would have taken place.

It seems amazing to me the Mr Roland Browne who reportedly made the statement that:

We are going to see a mass shooting in Tasmania of the likes you have seen in Strathfield and Hoddle Street, unless we get national gun control laws”…. has not been interrogated as where he got this marvelously accurate information.

If this were a casual guess I would have thought that Queensland would be the State mentioned, as it was well known that illegal weapons could be imported through that state. Is it possible that this statement was a threat to the Federal Government, which was carried out when they refused to act quickly enough?

Why has the Federal and State Government failed to act on this occurrence as a National Security threat even though all the evidence points to a world top rifleman being involved? If anyone with these capabilities lives in Australia surely his talents would be known to the “Services” and ASIO.

The American “tourists” who forwarded the forged and corrupted video evidence would have been involved in the conspiracy from the outset. So, I would like to know if they were ever charged and sentenced for presenting false evidence to the police and/or court. Are Americans exempted from prosecution in Australia because of the friendship between Governments and embarrassment likely to be caused to our Prime Minister?

It would appear that all Human Rights issues have been disregarded in respect to Martin Bryant by both levels of Government, and officials in both cases should face international court summonses.


The Reply from the Premier’s Office

I trust Gumshoe readers are waiting with bated breath to see how the new premier responded to my questions and advice.

The letter below does show that I was replied to in under one month (29 days, to be exact).

If you have a good sense of humor you may like this:


[on appropriately decorated stationery]:

Dear Mr Hughes

The Premier, the Hon Paul Lennon MHA, has asked me to acknowledge and thank you for your letter of 22 October 2004 concerning the Port Arthur incident.

Yours sincerely
Beth Ackerley
3 November 2004


Note: it’s proof that he was informed by at least one citizen!

— Mal Hughes is a patient and persistent letter-writer.  Stay tuned for his further offerings on the subject of “the Port Arthur incident.”



  1. Has anyone ever seen a medical report about Bryant’s back burns? When interviewed by Inspectors Paine and Warren on July 4, 1996 (or should I say “according to the Mike Willesee show”), Martin mentioned bandages. That’s 10 weeks after the fire:

    A. They get a bit smelly after a while these bandages.
    Q. Well you can notice, I can’t notice ’em so.
    A. … inaudible …
    Q. Sorry?
    A. I don’t even know what day it is today. I lose track of the days. I’m losing, I’m losing my mind.
    Q. It’s the, the fourth of July actually today.

    • Mal, this is only a guess but I think former premier Lennon will finally be answering your 2004 letter also. I see that when he got a gong last year, he confessed that he did not care about popularity:

      “I was never in politics for opinion polls or for popularity, I wanted to effect change above all else and I wanted to be involved in good decisions that lasted well beyond when I left politics,” he said [to The Mercury].

      Yay! Hooray! Everything’s coming up roses! Go, premiers!

      Mal, you can read an interview Lennon did with ABC when he took over from Jim Bacon, probably just before he got your letter in 2004: http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2003/s1074898.htm

  2. I have recently written (3/6/2016) to the current Tasmanian Premier, Mr Will Hodgman requesting once again, a Royal Commission and supplied a copy of Police Witness statements from 3 very important people, which in my opinion, prove beyond doubt that Martin Bryant is innocent of the charges against him. I still await an answer, one month on.

    • Aussiemal, let me compose a possible “reply”:

      Dear Mr Hughes, I have read your June 3, 2016 letter with great interest. Until now I had not been aware — honest — that the convicted criminal, Martin Bryant, had a solid alibi available.

      This cetainly deserves the immediate attention of the Court. I have no idea how the error slipped through. Perhaps in those awful days we were not able to think clearly.

      Thank you so much for bringing it to my atention. I shall discuss it in Parliament tomorow, or the next day at the latest.

      Yours sincerely,
      The Premier

  3. Mal, I admire your persistence with this case and letter writing, although that reply was more than pathetic, it is telling. I’ve written countless letters to officials involved with the Boston bombing case and have yet to receive a single reply.These officials really think they are something, which they are. It’s just not the same something they believe they are. It’s quite the opposite. However, we must continue to try. If everyone tried, there could be a good outcome.

  4. Dear Jared, in the Comments on July 2 you asked me to elaborate on two of the fifty complaints I wrote re the Port Arthur case. First of all let me say that I hope others will also catch me out if I get facts wrong. Gumshoe wants to have a reputation for accuracy and even for caution.

    It was from Stewart Beattie’s book, “A Gunsmith’s Notebook,” (DVD) that I learned most about the black van. As I said in “interviewing” that book (since I’ve been unable to contact the author), the research is meticulous. Beattie put together some of the video and photographic evidence to show how long the black van was parked outside the Broad Arrow Café. He does this by showing the van to be in the video when certain helicopters have landed for medical rescue, with known timings as to the arrival and departure of those helicopters.

    He also said, but did not state the name of the witness, that a man saw a black van (a “people mover” with windows blacked out) at the Seascape cottage around 2pm. Thus it seems the van could have first stopped off at Seascape and then continued a few km to Port Arthur Historic Site (PAHS), where it parked near the Café. If you want to know more, please try to reach Mr Beattie. This van business is extremely important.

    As to the removal of coverage for PTSD for the employees of PAHS, I said I would get back to you in 48 hours. We are down to 5 hours left and I doubt I’ll find it by then. Probably Wendy Scurr could quote chapter and verse on that subject. Also, you could google “workplace, PTSD, legislation” or simple terms like that. Soon you will find an url for austlii.edu.au, the HQ of all laws in Oz. It will give you the particulars.

    If my statement was wrong, re PAHS coverage for compo, I will go back and remove it from my list of 50. Thanks, really.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion