Yesterday we received a media release, reproduced below, regarding a call for a ‘royal inquest’ into the Port Arthur massacre perpetrated by Martin Bryant. Apart from the timing – effectively on the anniversary – being in poor taste, we would like to state for the record that Tasmanian Times accepts the known facts of the incident including the guilt of Bryant.
Nevertheless, as a public interest journal we feel a need to lift the lid on conspiracy theorists by exposing them to the light of public scrutiny. We therefore made the difficult decision to publish the communication(s) as is.
Note that the media release was sent to us by documentary-maker Moder himself and not directly from the SFF Party. It was not on SFF letterhead although as we sought further comment from Phillip Bigg and he did so without fuss, we believe the media release to be genuine.
We put the query to Phillip Bigg: What exactly are the ‘unanswered questions’?
His response is also included below. As Bigg is both Secretary of the SFF and a serial candidate it is reasonable to assume that his position accurately reflects party thinking on the issue.
For what it is worth, I have watched at least 4 episodes of the so-called Wasp Files series on YouTube and it is my considered opinion that the ‘investigator’ has uncovered precisely squat of any major import. In case there’s any doubt about that: zip, nada, zilch, nyet, as our old pal John Powell would have said (God rest his soul). The series however has over 10,000 subscribers.
Whilst comments on this post are on, we would remind commenters to stay on topic as far as possible and to be mindful of the feelings of victims’ families and victim survivors.
– Alan Whykes, Chief Editor Tasmanian Times
Content warning
This report contains material that may be confronting and disturbing. Sometimes words can cause sadness or distress, or trigger traumatic memories for people, particularly survivors of past abuse, violence or childhood trauma.
For some people, these responses can be overwhelming. If you need to talk to someone, support is available through redress support services. The following services are available 24 hours a day:
Media release – Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, 30 April 2025
TASMANIAN FEDERAL CANDIDATE FOR SFFP THIS ELECTION – PHILLIP BIGG – CALLS FOR ROYAL INQUEST INTO THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE
On this, the 29th Anniversary of The Port Arthur Massacre, outspoken Tasmanian Federal Candidate – Phillip Bigg (Shooters Fishers and Farmers Party) has called for a Royal Inquest into the massacre that took place at The Port Arthur Historic Site in 1996.
Phillip made the call during his interview with Adam Stokes where they discussed the environment, housing, gun control and support for the shooters, fishers and farmers.
Phillip believes that the magnitude of the tragedy warrants a Royal Inquest to provide answers to the unresolved questions, including why the hard evidence of the crime has been locked down for 75 years (until 2091) Chief Police Commissioner’s eyes only.
Phillip referenced controversial Port Arthur conspiracy theorist Paul Moder and his YouTube channel The Wasp Files, which question the official narrative.
On Sunday, 28th April, 1996, The historic penal colony and international tourist destination of Port Arthur was the scene of the world’s worst massacre by a lone gunman.
Using high powered, semi-automatic rifles, 29, year old Martin Bryant, killed 35 men, women and children and injured 23 others. The resultant backlash and outrage led to the biggest shake up in firearm ownership in Australian history, when Prime Minister John Howard brought in sweeping bans on semi-automatic and military style weapons.
Despite Byant’s guilty plea, much controversy and mystery surrounds the tragedy, with conspiracy theorists alleging Bryant was not responsible for the shootings and was unjustly imprisoned.
Additional comments from Phillip Bigg
Here is a compiled list of relevant questions. Before reading this, I would like to explicitly state that I am calling for answers and to put an end to conspiracies. I am not interested in fueling conspiracy.
1. Why did the biggest mass shooting by a lone gunman in the world at the time, not mandate a Coronial or Royal Inquest?
2. Why did a crime of this magnitude not warrant an open trial (irrespective of Martin Bryant’s guilty plea, which was obtained under arguably coercive circumstances) – Martin held a not guilty plea staunchly for 5 months, whilst kept in solitary confinement before his defence lawyer – John Avery, convinced his mother, Carleen Bryant, to attend Risdon and threaten Martin that unless he changed his plea to guilty, he would never see her or his sister again.
3. Martin Bryant had an IQ of 66, equivalent to an 11-year-old child. He was placed on a guardianship order by the Hobart Supreme Court in 1993 and declared incapable of managing his affairs. He should not have been able to enter a plea in the first instance.
4. Why did John Avery not pursue an insanity defence?
5. Why has no media interviewed Martin in 29 years?
6. Why when at the start of his police interview with Inspectors Warren and Paine, did he ask “Shouldn’t I have a lawyer?” and was told “Oh, he knows about this.” And conducted the interview without legal council present (Thus technically making the interview inadmissible.)?
7. Why were 65 pages of that interview redacted when read out in the court pre trial hearing?
8. Why wasn’t Martin’s claims that he was in essence tortured whilst in custody not investigated?
9. Why did the state government change the legislation prior to Port Arthur removing breaches of Workplace Health and Safety as grounds to sue the government?
10. Why were the main management heads of the Port Arthur Historical Site requested to attend a work conference, off site, at 11.00am on a Sunday? Luckily taking them out of danger. This had never occurred in the 20 years prior.
11. Why did State Coroner Ian Matterson send a letter to the survivors stating he could not continue a Coronial Inquest ‘particularly if his findings were inconsistent with that of the Supreme Court’ ? (Given the Supreme Court determined Martin to be guilty, what does this mean from the Coroner’s point of view?
12. Why was a 16 person refrigerated transport vehicle commissioned to be built by the State Government prior to Port Arthur. At the time, Tasmania had virtually no deaths and Victoria and NSW, which had much higher fatalities, did not have one. Why was the vehicle not kept after Port Arthur and instead advertised for sale by ex Special Operations Group police Chris Wright?
13. Why did Embalmer, Ex Police officer and Liberal Party member, Steven Shane Parry word the procurement of an embalming box and large storage box, from Nelson Brother’s Funerals as ‘manufactured ready for the incident’ ?
14. Why has the media never interviewed Port Arthur survivor Graham Collyer, who watched the shooter enter Broad Arrow Café, was shot in the throat, and lay on the floor choking on his own blood, playing dead and watching the gunman, who tendered a witness statement that the person who shot him was not Martin Bryant?
15. Why was Port Arthur employee Wendy Scurr, not interviewed by the media stating the same?
16. Why were employees on a government run tourist site and survivors from the massacre ignored when calling for a Coronial Inquest into the café fire exit door being nailed shut?
17. Why did ballistics expert Gerrard Dutton, who prepared the ballistics report, not mention the use of a shotgun, when both Steven Howard and Wendy Scurr witnessed clear wounding and pellet damage?
18. Why were the police kept at Taranna, having a barbeque for six hours before attending the site of the massacre? (shooting occurred at 1.32pm, police did not arrive in force until 7.00pm)
19. Who fired three shots in the immediate vicinity of the tourist site at 7.30-7.45PM after Bryant had reached Seascape Cottage?
20. Who decoyed the only two police officers (Constables Garry Whittle and Paul Hyland) whose task was to close the swing bridge to the mainland in the event of emergency, to the Saltwater Mines, 30 minutes from Port Arthur, on report of drugs found at the mine. Only to discover jars of soap powder?
21. Who was the ‘naked, dark-haired woman’, running screaming between the Seascape Cottage and Guesthouse, as witnessed and stated by Whittle and Hyland? Sally and husband David Martin had been killed at the cottage that morning and Sally was elderly with grey hair.
22. Who fired 20 shots from Seascape Cottage (clearly audible in the background) whilst Martin (calling himself ‘Jamie’ was having an amiable conversation with police negotiator Terry McCarthy. Why were these transcribed as coughs, when they were later verified as shots from an SKS rifle?
23. Why did Martin state in the ambulance to a paramedic (in witness statement) that his girlfriend Petra, was in the cottage with him?
24. Why did Martin as ‘Jamie’ refer to someone with him in the cottage as ‘Rick’ that he knew Rick’s wife and that she was ‘high up in intelligence’?
25. Why did the newspapers print a stolen photo (from Clare Street) of Martin on the front pages with headlines like ‘This is the man’ and ‘Face of a Killer’ the day after he’d been arrested at Seascape? Martin hadn’t even been charged and in doing so, they prejudiced any trial.
26. Why did the video footage of a man running from Broadarrow café with a grey blanket be played at the pre trial and on television, as proof of Martin leaving the café, when in fact, the running man was bringing blankets to victims at the buses (Witnesses stated the shooter did not run, but exited calmly, rifle in hand in a long dark coat and shoot at victims) The head of the running man was superimposed with a ‘still’ blonde haired person. Who did this?
27. Similarly, a media outlet doctored a picture of Martin to make his eyes ‘wild’ and eyebrows lifted to enhance a crazed appearance. Why?
28. Why did ballistics expert Gerrard Dutton state during a public conference after being challenged on his findings, that ‘there is no empirical evidence linking Martin Bryant to Broad Arrow café’?
29. Why did the Cheok family state in witness statements that when they reached the tollgate entrance to Port Arthur, they saw a blonde haired male sitting with two of the occupants in the Yellow Volvo (owned by Martin) conversing, before the blonde exited and argued with a male before retrieving a rifle from the Volvo, shooting the male and dragging the other three occupants from the BMW and shooting them before taking their vehicle? Why were they conversing not a gunpoint? Why did they not try to escape or grab the rifle?
30. Why did Martin as ‘Jamie’ identify S.O.G police in the dark (and state he had night vision equipment) and that the police were ‘gonna shoot your main man’?
31. Why did Martin identify the Colt SP1 (AR 15) and Daewoo shotgun, but claim he’d never seen the much larger FN FAL .308 when shown during his interview?
32. Why was the order put out over the police radio during the Seascape siege, when S.O.G sniper ‘Sierra’ had the shooter in his sights “Do not engage, this has to happen.” (Two AFP officers resigned after hearing this)
33. Why have fingerprints, DNA, never been tendered in court as proof of the shooter’s identity?
34. Why were gundealer’s Terry Hills (Guns and Ammo Tasmania) and Garnet Featherstone’s (Granite Arms Bendigo ) gun registers seized and never seen court or the light of day?
35. Why was the Colt SP1 (AR 15) recognized by Yea Farmer Bill Drysdale as the rifle he handed into police in 1987 in Victoria, under John Cain’s ban, as being the rifle used at Port Arthur? How did the rifle end up at Port Arthur? Asst Commissioner David Sinclair admitted that the rifle was handed in, not destroyed and kept by Victorian S.O.G and later sold to Garnet Featherstone, who then supposedly sold it to someone in Tasmania.
36. Witnesses stated the shooter entered Broad Arrow café with a grey video camera bag and long Prince sports bag. In the leaked police training video, you can clearly see a black video recorder set up on the table the shooter place his gun bag on. Was this camera the shooters? Did he film the café assault? What happened to the tape that would presumably contain footage of the shooter?
37. Why can’t people see Martin in prison and speak to him about the Massacre?
In addition to these questions (which are the tip of the iceberg) there are a multitude of ‘coincidences’ that suggest a synchronicity of event and when taken together, strongly indicate foreknowledge and pre planning of the shooting. I have not detailed these as they may afterall, just be coincidence
In summary, it is clear, that a Royal commission , release of the hard evidence on file (locked away til 2091) and independent, transparent publicly accessible audience with Martin Bryant is essential to determining 100% the facts the case and put to rest the ongoing controversy surrounding Port Arthur.
Tasmanian Times is participating in the Local & Independent News Association’s (LINA) national donation drive for independent newsrooms in Australia.
The campaign will run all week, from 28 April to 4 May,
As always we’re busy doing what we do: publishing community stories by and for Tasmanians for over twenty-two years.
Although we’ve come a long way, there’s lots more we’d like to do. And from what you tell us, there is much more you’d like to see us do.
During this week we’ll be revealing some of what we have planned to improve and expand Tasmanian Times.
We believe free access to information is vital in a democracy. As a result, our reporting is open access and not hidden behind a paywall. Your donation not only supports our work but supports an important public resource.
If you’re in a position to do so, please consider making a donation at our LINA appeal page. With your generous support, we can commission more in-depth reporting on political, social, environmental and community issues in Tasmania.
An independent media presence is more important than ever in Tasmania, so let’s make it a dynamic and powerful one.
Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
6 Comments
6 Comments
Ben Marshall
May 2, 2025 at 10:25
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I see none with this.
Conspiracy theories give comfort to those needing to react rather than to think, thereby allowing them to bypass critical thought to arrive at a perception of an underlying order to a random chaotic event. In other words, they’d prefer, especially if they are in a gun lobby, to believe in a conspiracy that Port Arthur was a false flag operation by ‘the anti-gun lobby’ to suppress our God-given rights to bear arms.
As our increasingly uncertain world makes people feel so uncomfortable that it is being flooded with this conspiratorial crap, it thereby makes it easier to lean into a ‘this is what they don’t want you to know’ narrative, and a thrilling ‘aha!’ moment, than to actually drill down into an issue to look at the evidence and intersectional issues.
Bigg’s nonsense is also self-serving, and this does him no credit. He seeks to play old-school fear politics to win votes in his rural community rather than to address real-world issues.
If anyone wants to see the depth of thought that the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers’ party gives to its policies, I recommend they look at the paragraphs given over to ‘action on climate’ where it’s clear they neither understand, nor care to learn, what is causing climate change and what actions are required to slow, mitigate and stop it.
I know there are good people in the SFF, but if they’re running with this sort of stuff I’d urge them to step up and do better for their communities.
Port Arthur; why won’t it lay still? How about actually reading the unanswered questions above and know that this is the reason.
Since when was it a crime to ask questions and question events, particularly in the absence of the hard evidence that has been locked down until 2091 when most of us, certainly everyone who lived through the tragedy at Port Arthur, will be dead. Ah well, but by then who will care? I care! And so does Phil Bigg. The arrogant mouthpieces will simply move on to more palatable and frivolous faff as there’s always a convenient cultural sandpit to stick your head into.
One final thing. I thought we wanted plain talking and gutsy politicians like Phil, the only one with the courage to put his head into the lion’s mouth, in his home state and reasonably and justifiably, and call for the Royal Inquest we never had. Or would you rather the current crop of mealy mouthed, double talking liars whose legacy is crapping on us all from a great height for decades?
Please note the word is (intransitive) lie , not lay, which is the past tense of lie or the present tense of the transitive verb lay, and is clearly incorrect in this context.
Yes, we read the so-called unanswered questions and they range from utterly tendentious to the spectacularly irrelevant to the whiffy dribble of Big Conspiracy which has a vested interest in selling sensationalist beat-ups to the gullible. It’s not a crime to ask questions, just pointless and expensive (were there to be an enquiry) on a cost-benefit basis when 99.9% of Tasmanians have the answers they need.
You continue to use the term ‘Royal Inquest’ as if it has any meaning; it does not.
The great shame here is that you are clearly capable of making decent documentaries, so how about turning your hand to some real issues – pssst, Tasmania has them a-plenty, yanno – rather than the Reject Shop phantoms of your imagination?
“An independent media presence is more important then ever in Tasmania” proclaims Tasmanian Times, yet its Chief Editor censors Comments offered for publication with his repeated ‘Irrelevant Waffle Removed’!
It’s a requirement for all incoming comments that they be on topic, but yours weren’t. This publication focuses on Tasmanian issues. We have no interest in global conspiracy theories. You are welcome to start your own site and publish all the irrelevant waffle there; I’m sure it’ll cure many people of insomnia.
We also had multiple comments submitted that were effectively the same thing, but rewritten with an AI bot and sent in from a fake email address. Guess what – we didn’t publish those either.
Tasmanian Times’ Code of Conduct is linked at the bottom of every page on the site, but in case you missed it, check this out:
“TT has ultimate editorial control over all its online services. There is no automatic right to publication. TT may edit, remove or exercise its discretion not to publish your contribution for any reason whatsoever, including (but not necessarily limited to) the following if it is:
– defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or that it violates laws regarding harassment, discrimination, racial vilification, privacy or contempt;
– intentionally false or misleading;
– an infringement of intellectual property rights including copyright. For example reposting of previously published material except as brief quotes with correct attribution;
– abusive, offensive or obscene;
– otherwise inappropriate, off topic, repetitive or vexatious. For example, TT reserves the right to reject contributions from participants who seek to dominate or ‘bully’ the discussion.
– compromising the privacy of any person or containing inappropriate personal information. For example, a full legal name, email address, workplace, home address etc;
– seeking to endorse commercial products or services;
– too long-winded (as a guide, 250 words maximum), tendentious, dull;
– deliberate provocation of other community members; or
– impersonating someone else and/or posting on behalf of a suspended member.
“If you breach these Terms of Use, TT may block your account or contributions.”
Media release – Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, 30 April 2025
Ben Marshall
May 2, 2025 at 10:25
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I see none with this.
Conspiracy theories give comfort to those needing to react rather than to think, thereby allowing them to bypass critical thought to arrive at a perception of an underlying order to a random chaotic event. In other words, they’d prefer, especially if they are in a gun lobby, to believe in a conspiracy that Port Arthur was a false flag operation by ‘the anti-gun lobby’ to suppress our God-given rights to bear arms.
As our increasingly uncertain world makes people feel so uncomfortable that it is being flooded with this conspiratorial crap, it thereby makes it easier to lean into a ‘this is what they don’t want you to know’ narrative, and a thrilling ‘aha!’ moment, than to actually drill down into an issue to look at the evidence and intersectional issues.
Bigg’s nonsense is also self-serving, and this does him no credit. He seeks to play old-school fear politics to win votes in his rural community rather than to address real-world issues.
If anyone wants to see the depth of thought that the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers’ party gives to its policies, I recommend they look at the paragraphs given over to ‘action on climate’ where it’s clear they neither understand, nor care to learn, what is causing climate change and what actions are required to slow, mitigate and stop it.
I know there are good people in the SFF, but if they’re running with this sort of stuff I’d urge them to step up and do better for their communities.
Paul Moder
May 2, 2025 at 21:34
Port Arthur; why won’t it lay still? How about actually reading the unanswered questions above and know that this is the reason.
Since when was it a crime to ask questions and question events, particularly in the absence of the hard evidence that has been locked down until 2091 when most of us, certainly everyone who lived through the tragedy at Port Arthur, will be dead. Ah well, but by then who will care? I care! And so does Phil Bigg. The arrogant mouthpieces will simply move on to more palatable and frivolous faff as there’s always a convenient cultural sandpit to stick your head into.
One final thing. I thought we wanted plain talking and gutsy politicians like Phil, the only one with the courage to put his head into the lion’s mouth, in his home state and reasonably and justifiably, and call for the Royal Inquest we never had. Or would you rather the current crop of mealy mouthed, double talking liars whose legacy is crapping on us all from a great height for decades?
I know who has my vote.
Chief Editor TT
May 3, 2025 at 11:37
— Irrelevant waffle removed —
Please note the word is (intransitive) lie , not lay, which is the past tense of lie or the present tense of the transitive verb lay, and is clearly incorrect in this context.
Yes, we read the so-called unanswered questions and they range from utterly tendentious to the spectacularly irrelevant to the whiffy dribble of Big Conspiracy which has a vested interest in selling sensationalist beat-ups to the gullible. It’s not a crime to ask questions, just pointless and expensive (were there to be an enquiry) on a cost-benefit basis when 99.9% of Tasmanians have the answers they need.
You continue to use the term ‘Royal Inquest’ as if it has any meaning; it does not.
The great shame here is that you are clearly capable of making decent documentaries, so how about turning your hand to some real issues – pssst, Tasmania has them a-plenty, yanno – rather than the Reject Shop phantoms of your imagination?
I know which ones I’d prefer to watch.
— Chief Editor
Paul Moder
May 5, 2025 at 01:57
— Irrelevant waffle removed —
Thank you for at least publishing the questions.
Peter Andrew Mann
May 24, 2025 at 03:44
“An independent media presence is more important then ever in Tasmania” proclaims Tasmanian Times, yet its Chief Editor censors Comments offered for publication with his repeated ‘Irrelevant Waffle Removed’!
So much for independence!
Chief Editor TT
May 26, 2025 at 11:02
It’s a requirement for all incoming comments that they be on topic, but yours weren’t. This publication focuses on Tasmanian issues. We have no interest in global conspiracy theories. You are welcome to start your own site and publish all the irrelevant waffle there; I’m sure it’ll cure many people of insomnia.
We also had multiple comments submitted that were effectively the same thing, but rewritten with an AI bot and sent in from a fake email address. Guess what – we didn’t publish those either.
Tasmanian Times’ Code of Conduct is linked at the bottom of every page on the site, but in case you missed it, check this out:
“TT has ultimate editorial control over all its online services. There is no automatic right to publication. TT may edit, remove or exercise its discretion not to publish your contribution for any reason whatsoever, including (but not necessarily limited to) the following if it is:
– defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or that it violates laws regarding harassment, discrimination, racial vilification, privacy or contempt;
– intentionally false or misleading;
– an infringement of intellectual property rights including copyright. For example reposting of previously published material except as brief quotes with correct attribution;
– abusive, offensive or obscene;
– otherwise inappropriate, off topic, repetitive or vexatious. For example, TT reserves the right to reject contributions from participants who seek to dominate or ‘bully’ the discussion.
– compromising the privacy of any person or containing inappropriate personal information. For example, a full legal name, email address, workplace, home address etc;
– seeking to endorse commercial products or services;
– too long-winded (as a guide, 250 words maximum), tendentious, dull;
– deliberate provocation of other community members; or
– impersonating someone else and/or posting on behalf of a suspended member.
“If you breach these Terms of Use, TT may block your account or contributions.”