It wouldn't surprise at all if the powers that be in VicPol are not listening to the uniformed officers at the sharp end and are buying into something exotic from Europe where they are getting stung for familiarisation visits, support, special cases and kit, new boiler suits, and even laser ranges.

Then the super duper assault rifles will be locked away in offices and not available when needed unless there is approval from the top, heaps of paperwork and rules never to use them etc.  Perpetrators have rights too!

Who'd be a cop?

They need an Austeyer in 5.56 to be carried in the boot of most vehicles.  A cop with a long arm is far safer in crowded areas where the target is 20 paces or more.  If they have shoot 300X, bring in the special guys with .308's from Lithgow

RnR,

Are your imagining that the news report must be a hoax because,

1) Australia doesn't have a gun problem after Howard's celebrated 'gun control' initiative, and

2) Victorian Premier Dan Andrew has denied that Victoria has any terrorism or criminal gang problems?

So understandably it could come as a shock to anyone that the State is buying 600 high powered assault rifles.

However, with the magic of Google it only took a few seconds to check the government tenders and lo and behold there it is and the State government has issued a tender. [click for link] I do not have the sub to follow that further.  

There is no explanation why it isn't being progressed by invitation to the existing federal and State suppliers. 

Nor is there anything from Dan in the media to explain how come?  That is the big issue, wouldn't you agree?  Y'know, how come the State needs so many sniper/assault rifles where gun crime is almost non-existent, excepting for the occasional bikie gang (one of those bikie gangs with members who cannot ride a bike) sorting out its drug territory.

RnR, I am wondering if the total amount is for a total system that includes the training of officers, firearms and a complete logistical fireing  solution that covers a long term contract.  As LJ pointed out, the majority of the long arms supplied only need to be 5.56/223 calibre and at that range do not need to be " Sniper " quality.  The 7.62/308 calibres should only be made available to  the very few members of the force qualified to make the best use of them.

For Law enforcement purposes I can not imagine many scenerios where a 300M + shot would be required.  I reckon someone with a lot of sales training has bipassed the boys in blue and got direct access to a Minister.

I hope the government of the day has the sense to recruit ex military snipers rather than to try and train police personel from scratch.  For that matter I would hope that the powers that be have had enough sense to talk to our armed service people to develope the specification as to what is required.  Why the hell aren't we going to the same people who sell to the army, Navy or Airforce?

LJ, I suspect you allready know this, but it has been proven over the centuries, automatic weapons are notoriously inaccurate, let the crims play with them but let us rely on well trained police and proven, accurate, reliable firearms.

It can not be expressed enough, a good shot with an average weapon will outshoot a bad shot with the best weapon available any day of the week.

The afghanies bought the Russians to a standstill using bolt action .303's against AK 47's. proof of concept.  They fired one shot and most times hit the target, the Russians fired twenty and seldom hit anything. Depend on the skill of the shooter not the price of their firearm. Most elite troops do not use the automatic setting on their weapons, they normally select semi-auto because it is more accurate.  That is where  the expression double tap comes from, you can not double tap on auto.

I am a self confessed socialist, but like many, I still believe in common sense strategies when people are spending my money.

ex PS,

A SMLE .303 with a couple of different loads would suffice.  An Austeyr would be perfect.

I am simply amazed by the multiple 30 round magazines (plural for each officer!) that are specified and the dedicated military (assault) style platforms that are being sought.  Paramilitary kit.  This ends up with 'bull-pup' style weapons with all manner of attachments that might be necessary for a Commando unit.  Even where the smaller calibre 5.56 is chosen, which limits its use in many ways, there is the limiting risk to hostages and onlookers.  Why do idiots want to get everything on their mobile phones and risk getting shot in the process

Thanks for realising that I am not about the politics.   It shouldn't be a big ask and a problem trying to get responsible politicians (all of them, both sides!) and bureaucrats to comply with their own firm statements and promises, or with their own regulations, standards and operational guidelines.  It is as though they set out to deliberately muddy the waters and conceal. 

Seemingly, it is impossible to be frank.  But why not?

The CFO and internal auditors have a tough job and in many cases, a short career.  

A quick look at the Invitation to Tender tells us that this is a three year contract with the possibility of two further one year extensions.

I will stick my neck out here and make some assumptions.  First, the scheduling of the length of the contract indicates a service contract/standing order of five years, this possibly indicates that the government has up to $25M to spend over that time.  Contracts that are structured in this way will almost always run full period as it costs money to set them up and other contractors may not be able to support the equipment allready supplied.

 This means the maximum spend would be $25M over five years or $5M a year.  That should cover training, maintenance and ammunition.  

It is reinventing the wheel and still seems to be very expensive for what it is, especially if you add the cost of the Tender process.  State and Federal Governments can normally share this type of arrangement, there would be little reason why this had to be done in the way it is.

Is this a case of a State Government trying to dodge Federal Guidelines as to the use of semi auto weapons by police officers?  Wild guess, I do not know what the state guidelines are.

The point is, as you pointed out, there is a big difference between policing and soldiering.  Soldiers fight to protect or take objectives in order to protect life, police are in a position where they are their to protect life directly.  in fact they can only take a life in order to preserve one.

These two different roles require different training and weapons systems.  If John Howards over the top weapons restrictions had worked as well as people believe, why does a law enforcement agency need to equip itself with the type of weapons mentioned here.

Carrying loaded and cocked weapons when not in action is a bad habit, I don't even fit my bolt untill positioned on the firing line, if a police officer has not got time to fit a magazine and work a breach when in danger he/she has been walking around in a daze.

All police in Australia carry their semi-auto sidearms with full magazines and cocked and no safety.  Once the hand closes on the hand grip it is ready to rock and roll, so a finger must not stray near the trigger. 

I don't object to that where police are given regular training and fire enough rounds on a range several times a year (and there are public ranges, instructors and competition available).  However, I remain to be convinced that VictPol police are given that opportunity, or anything near it, which in itself is problematic.  There are many positive spin-offs if police were to be encouraged to join the existing clubs and were refunded for membership and for ammunition expended in practice and competitions.

Paramilitary police and in big numbers are a concern for liberty.  The 'old' Left were right about that, bless them.

I guess my main peeve is the hypocrisy of Dan Andrews and the politicians from Labor, LNP and Greens and the 'turn a blind eye' reporting that allows them to get away with it.

Unbelievable, so a drunk can reach over and let off a round by simply pulling a gun part way out of a police officers holster?  Not good practice at all.  I would not put myself next to a person who would do such a thing.  The only safety worth having is the good practices of those who have possession of guns, things like safety catches are just a fall back strategy.

They don't get anywhere enough range practice either and some police are afraid of their own guns. 

That lack of confidence and inadequate practiced drill for safe handling and use are not tolerated on a public range, where range officers and other licensed people are quick to step in to advise and coach.

See here for a good overview [click for link]

Very good point Twila, my contribution to your point would be, value for money is usually attained by buying in bulk and standardizing product. The Australian Armed Forces may allready have a contract for the supply of any weapons that could be required by the police force.  As the state government could not match the quantity of goods required by the Federal government, it would stand to reason that they would get a better deal if they were to access the federal contract if practicable.

I am a great believer in the Tender process for all government spending, but I also feel that running an unneccessary one is a cost imposition that should not be bourne by the tax payer.  I spent 15 years managing the government procurement process and am a great fan.

By unneccessary I mean duplications of contracts allready in place, not because a Department doesn't want to go through the process for political or expediancy reasons. Most of the Standng Offer Arrangements that I conducted included a clause that allowed any other Department to share the contract upon application.

No state government needs to have units armed with automatic weapons,  I would even say that I can not think of a reason why semi auto rifles would be required.  The nature of law enforcement requires a close in tactical solution with limitations on the risk of collateral damage caused by long range high velocity weapons.  A semi automatic pistol is more than adequate for most situations the average police officer would encounter, after all we need to realise, most police officers go through their whole careers without even drawing their weapons in a real time crime situation.  That does not mean they shouldn't have them it just means that what they have is adequate.

As far as high calibre hard loads, for this type of shooting, in the old days a single shot weapon with a good scope was considered the best option, this seems to have changed  maybe for good reason.  Old processes used teams of snipers with the go to shoot not given untill at least two shooters could declare an acquired target, the order to shoot was given by a third party who oversaw the situation.

SAS no, SWAT yes, maybe.  Times they are a changing. 

I would challenge the statement that a State Government would have the resources to create a force larger than the SAS.  Not all police will be trained and armed with the same type of weapons.