- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 3 July 2003
Firearms Amendment (Prohibited Pistols) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 42 of 61
| Next Item »
Page: 2752
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [2.30 p.m.]: Before question time I said that the Opposition believes that the people of New South Wales deserve to be better protected from gun crime than they have been, and that the Government needs to focus on collecting the firearms that legislation has made illegal. That is where the major problem lies. All in all, it is to be hoped that the provisions of this bill are administered in a manner that will achieve its object: to reduce the level of gun crime.
It is also to be hoped that the Minister for Police will adequately respond to the many concerns raised in another place by the shadow Minister for Police, Peter Debnam, on behalf of the Sporting Shooters Association and the National Coalition for Gun Control. Finally, it is to be hoped that the State Government will be able to provide a great deal more thought, planning, and resources to deal with the upsurge in the number of illegal guns used in this State. The long-suffering people of New South Wales, who bear the brunt of crime arising from the use of guns, hope they do not have to wait too much longer.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.33 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic party supports this bill, which, as honourable members know, is based on an agreement reached at the Council of Australian Governments on 2 December 2002. The bill fully implements the national agreement, which places a range of restrictions on handguns used by target shooters. They include restricting handguns that can be used for target shooting to a maximum of.38 calibre, restricting semiautomatic handguns with a barrel length of 120 millimetres or more, and restricting revolvers or single shot handguns with a barrel length of 100 millimetres or more. This is uniform legislation, so the amendments proposed by the Greens and the Australian Shooters Party—probably coming from two opposing points of view—cannot be accepted if we are to have uniform legislation based on the national agreement.
There has been some controversy about a new competition, which I have only just become aware of, called the International Practical Shooting competition, in which the competitors use.45 calibre handguns. It is a bit like what we see on television with the training of squads to combat terrorism. Apparently some people engage in this as a sport, using a handgun to shoot at moving targets while passing through a constructed range in the form of a building. I am not too sure whether that is a desirable sport; I have some reservations about it.
I understand that the police, the army, and particularly the SAS have to be expert in handling guns, but it seems dangerous to allow people, who may be unstable, to learn handgun skills that they could use in an antisocial way. Nevertheless, I understand that requests were made to the Premier and that the Premier wrote to the Prime Minister requesting that he consider including this activity as an accredited sport. There is even some talk that it may become a recognised sport at future Olympic Games. That would seem to be a strange development.
The national agreement includes a provision for a prohibited pistols buyback. This is one of the strangest parts of the legislation because there have been a lot of reports in the media that because the value of some pistols has increased—the Glock was mentioned—and because the Government pays the current price, some people will make a profit out of the buyback.
The Hon. John Tingle: Not so.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That is what has been reported. I would ask the Government to give an assurance on that, because it would make a mockery of the whole buyback. If there is a buyback, obviously people would have to produce the receipt for the purchase of the gun. If it is a second-hand gun the owner certainly should not be compensated at the current new gun price. But I suppose the experts in the department who are handling the buyback scheme will have to determine the value of various pistols.
There are a number of other practical aspects of the legislation that affect licensed shooters. I am concerned that quite often there seems to be a great focus on imposing more and more controls and regulations on licensed shooters as if they are responsible for the armed offences crime wave. There has been an increase in the criminal use of firearms, particularly pistols, and there seems to be a government crackdown on licensing gun owners.
One of the arguments is that some licensed gun owners are careless and that their guns are stolen and used by criminals. I believe the gun control theory is: get rid of all the pistons and there will be none for criminals to steal, and thus there will be no more crime. The reality is that whenever strong controls have been imposed on licensed gun holders, there has been no impact at all on the use of pistols in criminal activities. Criminals, guns hidden in their pockets or elsewhere, will be amused to see licensed gun owners handing in their pistols under the legislation. That is the irony of this approach by the Federal Government and the State Government.
Police and other agencies should take further measures targeted at criminals who use firearms to commit offences, and penalties for those offences should be increased. Operation Vikings was successful in apprehending people suspected of carrying knives, so perhaps a similar operation could be mounted to apprehend people suspected of being in possession of pistols. Police raids could be conducted without warning on the homes of people suspected of having unlicensed pistols, or on motorbike clubs that have a reputation for involvement in criminal activity. The weapons could then be confiscated and the offenders charged.
Pistol holders must ensure that their pistols are not stolen and used for criminal activity. The bill prescribes a 12-month probationary period for first-time handgun sport or target licence holders; that no handguns can be owned in the first six months of the probationary period, and that only two handguns of certain types may be owned in the second six months; and that handgun target shooters meet nationally agreed minimum participation rates in club competitions and events. It is also essential that people who own handguns must be mentally stable. In previous debates I have promoted the notion that all licensed pistol holders should be required to be a member of a recognised club that has strict membership requirements. Any member who displays strange or Rambo-like conduct will be kicked out of the club and lose his or her licence. That would be a sensible form of self-regulation.
The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill, or, rather, we do not oppose it, because some controls are necessary. However, we feel that the bill focuses on the wrong people: it should focus on criminals. The bill will restrict handguns for target shooting purposes to a maximum of.38 calibre—except for especially accredited sporting events where handguns up to.45 calibre will be permitted—semiautomatic handguns with a barrel length of 120 millimetres or more, except for a small number of highly specialised target pistols; and revolvers and single-shot handguns with a barrel length of 100 millimetres or more. The Commonwealth Government will make the largest contribution to the cost of the scheme but the States will be responsible for the details of the buyback scheme. The scheme should be carefully monitored to ensure that no person makes a profit from it. We support the bill.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [2.43 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the National Party on the Firearms Amendment (Prohibited Pistols) Bill. As a mother of two young children I naturally abhor the illegal ownership of guns and those in the community who use weapons to intimidate, maim, kill, or hurt people. However, I cannot in good faith support this bill, because it will do nothing to stop the illegal ownership of handguns; it will only penalise law-abiding citizens at a cost to the taxpayer of $100 million. We need to target the criminals in our society, particularly those who use handguns. This legislation will affect only people who have done the right thing and registered their handguns. It will hit those who have gone to the authorities and said, "This is the sport I like to participate in. I am going to purchase a firearm to use in that sport." Though they are completely upfront, they will be the only people to be affected by this legislation.
Under the buyback scheme not a single, illegal handgun will be handed in. An amnesty will be put in place but, essentially, the people most affected will be law-abiding citizens. Indeed, those people would be the most keen to see strictest penalties imposed upon those who use handguns illegally and give their sport a bad name. Whenever anyone asks what is being done about handgun crime, the State Government will parade this legislation as the panacea for the problems of handgun crime in this State. This is extremely deceptive and wrong. The legislation will certainly remove a number of handguns from the community but it will not remove one handgun from criminals. For example, it will not remove handguns from those who hold up convenience stores or service stations, but it will remove them from the people I referred to earlier, who are perhaps the most law-abiding people in New South Wales.
For that very reason, I agree with the concerns raised by sporting shooters organisations and the like. The broader community has an expectation that governments will do something about gun crime. I suggest that the money raised in the buyback would be better used to specifically address handguns used in the commission of crime. Our community can always do with more police, and if we are to direct funding at one particular issue, perhaps it should be for more police resources to be aimed at those trafficking in illegal guns and illegal gun ownership. Considerable funds will be spent on the buyback scheme, but I do not think it will achieve its objectives.
The Minister for Police referred to law enforcement measures to be put in place, but the $100 million to be spent on the buyback could be better used. Perhaps a financial incentive should be included to encourage people to hand in unregistered guns. A person would not be expected to hand in a gun that he has used to kill people, because it would be part of the evidence against him.
A large number of handguns are not registered and are not used in crime, and I am sure their owners would hand them in if they were given some incentive. An amnesty would give people an opportunity to hand in guns without the fear of prosecution or recriminations. Perhaps a financial incentive would entice more people to hand in guns that they no longer need or use. As I said, there are better ways to spend $100 million.
The bill will impose new restrictions, new paperwork, and a gun buyback on the sporting shooters community. The fundamental issue is that although we abhor the illegal use of firearms in crime, this bill will do nothing to arrest that problem. The process of sporting shooters surrendering their sporting pistols, receiving compensation, and using the money to acquire replacement pistols will not reduce the number of pistols in the community. Some people may not avail themselves of the secondary opportunity to purchase a new pistol of the right size, and there will be marginally fewer sporting pistols. However, this bill will not stop criminals from obtaining illegal firearms on the black market and being involved in drive-by shootings of police, police stations, or drug lords.
As legislators, we should concentrate on preventing crime. The prosecution and penalties regime should be aimed at criminals, not sporting shooters. The community does not fear the legitimate activities of sporting shooters, merely the use of illegal firearms. The National Party has had many discussions with sporting shooters and clubs across New South Wales. We know they conduct their club activities responsibly. They are members of the community, they have ordinary jobs; they are not criminals, they are simply law-abiding people who enjoy their sport.
I am proud to support these law-abiding people, who are being persecuted mindlessly because of the misguided perception that the bill will bring criminals to justice. It will not. I take this opportunity to place on record the support of my National Party Legislative Council colleagues Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, who has a severe case of shingles, and the Hon. Rick Colless, who is recovering from heart surgery, and will not be here for the vote this afternoon. The National Party opposes the bill.
The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [2.48 p.m.]: The proposal to compulsorily buy back guns from the community is simply a waste of time and taxpayers' money. It could not seriously be suggested that a criminal in possession of a concealed weapon and intent on committing a crime with it would first be concerned to ensure that the length of its barrel was legal. Gun control is not crime control. Contrary to the position taken by the Hon. David Clarke, there are many guns in the community and the recent buyback of weapons, commonly known among shooters as the "new guns for old scheme", was a $500 million waste of money. This bill will be a sequel to that comedy. I must point out that I do not own a gun; nor do I hold a shooter's licence. Once upon a time I did own a gun but that was many years ago. So I am not speaking from a position of self-interest.
Some time ago I went to see a film called Bowling for Columbine, a very famous documentary for which Mike Moore won an academy award. Honourable members may recall Mike Moore's controversial acceptance speech. Like many other anti-gun documentaries, Bowling for Columbine ridiculed the United States of America and its attitude to guns, and some of the bizarre extremes that nation has gone to with its business practices. For example, the documentary makers went to a bank where, on opening an account, one received a free gift of a gun of one's choice. The anti-gun lobby—one can imagine how many film reviewers would fall into this category—praised the film, which has been enormously successful for a documentary.
However, the major point of the film, which has not been revealed by any critic, is this: Canada has more guns per head of population than America. If Canada does not have more, let us at least say that it has as many, not less than, America. Canada has nothing approaching the gun crimes of America, and the film examines why. The essential reason is that American politicians over many years have realised that running the country by fear is very effective for them. This is not simply limited to America. The Soviet Union always ran its country on fear. For example, if the Red Army wanted to increase its budget it simply argued that it could no longer secure the motherland's borders. Watchers of CNN and Fox News can clearly see this factor, if they care to look for it, being subtly played upon in news and current affairs programs daily.
Canada does not operate this way, perhaps with the exception of Quebec province. It does not prey upon the fears of its citizens in the same way. Similarly, up until recent times, Australian governments did not prey upon such fears, except the fear of the yellow peril back in the nineteenth century and the resultant White Australia Policy. In general terms Australia does not govern its population with politics that instil fear. Australia is much more like Canada than America. If the message of this important documentary is to be heeded, it is that the level of fear in the community is the problem, not necessarily the number of legal guns.
How does Canada compare with America? It is common to contrast the strict firearms legislation in Canada with the firearm laws in America, and to attribute the much lower homicide rate in Canada to this difference. For example, a study compared Vancouver, British Columbia, with Seattle, Washington, and claimed that the difference in firearms legislation explained the lower homicide rate in Vancouver. J. H. Sloane and A. L. Kellerman, in "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities", in the New England Journal of Medicine, 1998, stated:
However, BC and Canada had a lower homicide rate before the introduction of the present firearms legislation. Therefore, it is hard to imagine how the present laws could have caused this history of lower homicide rates. This study ignored important differences between the two cities, such as ethnicity, that might also be explanatory factors.
I grew up in the United Kingdom, and I did not know anyone who owned a handgun. During my entire early years I simply thought that handguns, except for airguns, were not available in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom introduced a handgun ban. A report tabled in the House of Lords stated:
Home office figures tabled in the House of Lords by the Under-Secretary of State, Stephen Bassam, show that handgun related crime in England and Wales grew by almost 30% in 1999/00 compared to 1998/99. Additionally, Metropolitan Police data published in June 2001 indicates that gun related murders in London tripled in the first half of the year compared to 2000.
I have some tables; I will not seek to have them incorporated in Hansard, but I will table them at the conclusion of my speech. The report further stated:
According to recent analysis carried out by the King's College London Centre for Defence Studies, in 1999-2000 handguns were used in 65.2% of all firearm-related robberies in Britain, representing the highest level of handgun use in the period covered by the report (1985 to 1999/00).
The study noted that if the 1997 legislation—this is the important crux of the matter—is to be justified as an effective tool in the fight against the criminal use of handguns we would expect this percentage to be much lower. In 1997 there was a total buyback of handguns in the United Kingdom. Since that time, following that total buyback, crime involving guns went up by 30 per cent. So they tried to take all the handguns out of the community, and the crime rates went up. That emphasises the point I made earlier that gun control is not crime control. These figures clearly establish that fact. An article by C. F. Sproule and D. J. Kennett entitled "The use of firearms in Canadian homicides 1972-1982: the need for gun control", in the Canadian Journal of Criminology, 1988, stated:
If the Canadian firearm laws acted to reduce violent crime, then there should be a noticeable change after the introduction of new legislation. Criminal violence should decrease, or at the very least not continue to increase at the same rate. While it is too early to be able to evaluate (the Bill known as Canadian) Bill C-17, which was passed by Parliament late in 1991 and phased in over the next three years, there is ample time to assess Bill C-51, which was passed in 1977 and introduced in 1978. The conclusion of three independent studies of the effect of the 1977 legislation is that it had little or no effect.
Sproule and Kennett examined the impact of Bill C-51 on the homicide rate using an analysis of variance and found no significant effect. Robert Mundt visually compared the trends across time in both Canada and America, before and after the 1977 legislation, on a variety of dependent variables. That is reported in an article entitled "Gun Control and the rates of firearms violence in Canada and the United States" in the Canadian Journal of Criminology, 1990. Mundt was unable to find support for any effect of this legislation on Canadian homicide rates, armed robbery, fatal firearms accidents, or suicide rates.
Mauser and Holmes used a pooled regression model to examine the impact of the 1977 legislation but did not find a statistically significant effect on the homicide rate. The Mauser and Holmes model also evaluated the impact of the 1977 firearms law within the context of the changing social and economic conditions. In addition to the firearms law, the model included the theoretically most important independent variables: unemployment rates, percentage of Status Indians, percentage of foreign immigrants, percentage of males between 15 and 24 and percentage of cases successfully dealt with by the police. All variables were measured annually at the provincial level from 1968 to 1988. Every one of these independent variables was found to be statistically significant, except for the 1977 firearms legislation. The most important factors driving the provincial homicide rates were the percentage of Status Indians and the percentage of young males in a province.
While it may be difficult to show the impact of firearms legislation on violent crime, it is relatively easy to show how such legislation affects law-abiding firearms owners. The firearms amendment introduced in Great Britain in 1988 has had no visible impact on violent crime or on robberies committed with firearms. Indeed, the contrary was true. However, it has decimated the number of illegal firearms owners. That information was supplied by David Kopel in his articles in Guns Review of April 1994 and August 1994. The note accompanying that information states:
This data available shows that firearms violence is not directly related to the number of people who legally own firearms. Violent crime is increasing, even while the number of legal gun owners declines.
It would appear that the difference in homicide rates is determined more by the sociology of major urban centres than by firearms legislation. Canadian firearms legislation is very similar to Australian firearms law, requiring handgun owners to be members of gun clubs, et cetera. There are two distinctly different types of gun owner. The first is the ordinary person who hunts, or target shoots, or is perhaps a rural landowner with feral predatory problems to contend with. The second is the violent offender. The threat to public safety posed by these two distinctly different groups is very considerable. The current legislation is more than sufficient to control—I would say overcontrol—the former group. The Government needs to apply its considerable resources to the control of the second group.
It is not rational to fear firearms owners; it is irrational. Neither here nor overseas is there any demonstrable link between firearms availability and violence. Norway, Switzerland, Canada and Israel have the lowest homicide rates in the world and have a high number of firearms per capita. In the United States of America, violent crime has reduced every year since 1991. In the past I considered the United States to be a violent society. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation put the improvements down to increased imprisonment rates, mandatory sentencing, more police, community policing, improved police methods, the ageing of gang populations, a reduction in cocaine and crack usage and improvement in the economy. They are the real clues to reducing violent crime. During the 1990s, notwithstanding that crime was decreasing, gun ownership in the USA grew by 5.3 million guns per year. Project Exile was a project to strictly enforce existing gun laws, and the results were staggering. When the authorities enforced existing gun laws in Richmond, Virginia, homicides dropped by 41 per cent from the 1994 all-time high. Politicians and police, by applying existing laws against the second, violent category of firearms owners, rather than endlessly restricting ordinary gun owners, will achieve what the community demands.
I believe we are going the wrong way in following this false trail. The Unsworth Labor Government suffered an election defeat in 1988 over punitive gun reforms. The Liberal Party gained office for the same reason. Now a misguided Prime Minister wants to turn the screw tighter on gun owners. Surely his New South Wales colleagues must have learned from their own experiences the folly of this act. The gun laws in place are restrictive enough by far! Disarm the criminals. Learn from real experiences and studies in countries like ours. I oppose the bill.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.03 p.m.]: We are dealing here with a bill that implements a national response to the tragedy of the Monash University shootings. It is rare that the Greens find support for our position in an editorial in a News Limited newspaper, but that is the case with this issue. On Saturday 26 October 2002, shortly after the Monash massacre, the Australian editorial headed "Safety comes first in gun control debate" stated:
The Monash University shooting rampage took place less than a week ago.
But some good may come out of this loss of life.
Already John Howard and the premiers have reached an in principle federal-state accord to tighten firearms laws. A national ban on almost all handguns could be in place by the end of the year. It is rare and refreshing to see state and federal governments working together for all Australians …
Mr Howard proposed a buyback of all handguns, except those used for Commonwealth or Olympic Games and similar events, or for police, security and military purposes...
The handguns buyback must have teeth.
Unfortunately the Federal Liberal Government and the State Labor governments have wimped out. Former New South Wales police Minister Michael Costa led the charge on behalf of the dangerous "pistol packers" as the Daily Telegraph calls them. He went to the Australian Police Ministers Conference and watered down the agreement put forward by the Commonwealth, arguing for a greater number of semiautomatic guns to be allowed than even the Prime Minister wanted. Once again we see Labor further to the right than the Howard Government. Premier Carr wrote to Prime Minister John Howard on 29 May requesting that the international practical shooting competition [IPSC] be approved as an exempt sport. IPSC is a front, a whitewash that seeks to use the cloak of the Olympics to let shooters keep a massive and growing arsenal of assault-style handguns. The key fact here is that legality and regulation are not enough. As the Daily Telegraph argued on 26 October 2002, licensed shooters are in fact the cause of massacres and so the solution is to limit their access to weapons. Knowing how this debate will play out, I will not cite figures from various sources. I will quote them from the Daily Telegraph, which has brought various research studies together. The Daily Telegraph said about the Monash massacre:
Was the shooting committed by a hardened criminal who had stolen a gun or somehow obtained a firearm to commit an evil deed? Quite the contrary.
In fact alleged killer Huan Yun Xiang was a licensed gun owner, a legitimate licensed holder of seven guns in fact.
A Harvard Research report published this week produced evidence indicating the use of licensed weapons is every bit as much of a problem as the abuse of those weapons that are not licensed.
According to the study in 14 of the deadliest mass shootings that have occurred over the last 35 years, eight out of every 10 victims was shot with a legal gun.
About 86 per cent of these mass shootings were committed by legal gun owners.
They are not the words of the Greens but of a report in the Daily Telegraph, based on Harvard research and other papers. It is important in this debate for honourable members to consider that so many of the shootings are the result of actions by legal gun owners. The package of amendments the Greens is proposing today will deal with the problem and help prevent future tragedies. These amendments go some way towards putting the teeth back in the agreement. The national handgun agreement negotiated by the Federal Liberal Government and the State Labor governments does not provide any mechanism to limit the number of semiautomatic handguns in the community. That is largely because of the power of the shooters lobby. Mr Tingle and Mr Oldfield will be moving a number of amendments. Obviously they will attempt to outdo themselves on behalf of their constituency, but they have already had a pretty good win. They have already watered down this agreement so it will do very little to make our communities safer.
The legislation will allow any number of gun owners to trade up from their current semiautomatic handguns to newer weapons of almost the same calibre and capability and claim they need them for sporting purposes. The Greens propose a simple, single mechanism to limit the availability of guns while allowing legitimate Olympic and Commonwealth Games competitors to train and compete. The Greens urge honourable members to seriously consider our amendment. It will bring the safety that most members wish for in the community but which is not occurring because of the way things have played out. It will certainly not occur with the package that has been presented to us in this legislation. There are massive loopholes.
Adoption of the Greens amendments would address this issue from the sporting angle and tighten up the situation. We urge members to vote for our package of amendments to establish an Olympic and Commonwealth sporting regulation committee under the auspices of the Commissioner of Police. The committee would invite nominated representatives of the Australian Olympic Committee, the Australian Commonwealth Games Association, the Australian Shooting Association, the sports Minister, the National Coalition for Gun Control, the Australian Medical Association, the Teachers Federation and the Domestic Violence Advocacy Centre to join the body. We have spoken with the people involved in the shooting and gun-control community and received strong support for the proposal.
The Domestic Violence Advocacy Service is enthusiastic about having a role in keeping the buyback on track to minimise the risk of guns being used in acts of violence in our community. The committee would approve which persons could use semiautomatic handguns and which weapons would be used in association with legitimate sporting competitions and training. All other semiautomatic handguns would be banned, in agreement with public opinion in the wake of the tragedy of the Monash University massacre. I will elaborate on the Greens amendments in Committee. Mr Jones reflected on the 1988 State election, which in some areas has gone down in political mythology as being a loss for Labor because of the guns policy of the Unsworth Government. There was certainly a short period when the Unsworth Government talked about tightening guns laws in this State. But attributing the Labor loss in March 1988 to the Government's position on guns is a result of getting sucked in by Labor spin.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What happened in the Hunter?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am not discounting the impact that Labor's position on guns had on the election, but it was not the whole cause of the loss. The Labor Government was coming to the end of its time and it had alienated its constituencies considerably. In 1987 there was a huge march of unionists across the Sydney Harbour Bridge against the Labor Government's workers compensation proposals. We saw a rerun in 2002. In many other issues Labor had deserted its heartland. Its voters were angry. Guns were only one aspect, but it was very convenient for Labor to blame just the guns issue because it allowed it to back off on that and not address all the other issues on which it had alienated the community. The history books need to be corrected.
The Greens have moved the amendments to ensure that the so-called buyback does not become just an upgrade. Without the amendments the people of New South Wales effectively would be left with a system that allows shooters to upgrade their weapons. The Greens are concerned that the system will be unworkable. We were strengthened in our concerns on that score when we received an answer from the Minister for Police to a question asked on 29 May. As so often happens in this place, not all the questions were answered. The questions that were not answered highlight the economic problems that the scheme could run into. The answer to how much had been budgeted for the scheme was that $29.424 million was set aside for the buyback scheme in 2003-04. We also asked what economic model had been used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the scheme. There was no response on that point. Where does the Government pluck the figures from? How does it determine how much will be needed?
How was it possible to estimate the amount as finely as getting down to $0.424 million? One wonders about the financial management of this State. We also asked how much is being budgeted for the cost of the new regulatory scheme and whether New South Wales would seek additional funds from the Commonwealth. This is where it gets a bit more interesting. The Minister stated that the New South Wales Government requested that the Commonwealth fund the ongoing implementation but the Commonwealth has declined this funding. So is this going to be a running sore for the taxpayers of New South Wales? Will money be taken away from hospitals and schools to allow shooters to upgrade their weapons? That is where the situation stands at the moment. It is not a good scheme. It needs to be amended and I urge members to seriously consider the Greens suggestions.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.15 p.m.]: When I was at university, students would think up a prank for Commemoration Day, negotiate with the police and carry out the prank to the amusement of the population. One was to have a pretend delivery on the steps of the GPO. One that my flatmate was involved in concerned robbing a bank at Wynyard. The students appeared as bank robbers with toy guns. The bank staff were wised up. The students got a bag of money, just like in the movies, came out of the bank still shooting back into the bank in derring-do fashion, and jumped into a utility that drove up with a screech of brakes and then roared away. I asked my flatmate whether all the people were excited. He said, "Oh yes, it was terrific. All the people looking were excited to be right there at a bank robbery. They thought it was terrific." I asked whether anything had gone wrong and he said, "There was one thing: one of the policeman got cross and took the gun away. But he gave it back. It damaged the flow a bit. The other thing that went wrong is that as the getaway vehicle roared off it had to stop at a red light with all the people cowering in the back. The passers-by looked at the people who had just done the bank robbery sitting in the back of the vehicle."
The point I make about this nostalgic little story is that the students at that time could be absolutely confident that no passer-by would have a gun and think about being a hero by shooting the students. Because nobody had guns everybody assumed that they were not being carried and they could perform such pranks without fear of being shot. I wonder if such a stunt were pulled today whether the participants would be shot by a passer-by, a security guard on his way to work. If we have guns for playing cowboys and Indians on the weekend or the gun is inherently a toy and it is removed from the reality—
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: As you do.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I acknowledge the interjection. People do now play with guns on weekends: the difference is that now it is real. People can duck around buildings and shoot people. I suggest that to the people who use guns for recreational sports it makes the carrying of guns and the use of guns and the thoughts associated with guns far more real than in the days when students could get away with such a prank on Commemoration Day. It is a question of how ubiquitous guns are in society and the way people think of guns. Michael Moore made this point in his movie. As a person who believes in crime prevention I think crime relates very much to people's degree of desperation. That relates to the amount of poverty, particularly the level of expectations, and the amount of hope one has that, using the normal processes in society, one can have one's needs met. There are more guns but less harmony in our society. The Government should do more to tackle that problem than it does by putting people into gaols and educating them in the brutal side of human nature and how to make money illegally.
This bill is a step in the right direction but a rather small and faltering step and quite suboptimal to what could happen. The Australian Democrats have been active and committed campaigners for gun control for many years. In the enactment of this bill we will be slightly closer to mitigating the spread of guns in our community. I have been involved in the campaign of the National Coalition for Gun Control to introduce tighter regulation of firearms in New South Wales. I often wear a coalition T-shirt promoting gun control when I go for a jog to give the local burghers the message. Therefore, I am concerned about this legislation because only about 20 per cent of the types of handguns used in Australia will be banned. A partial buyback could mean that persons with banned guns will use the money received from the buyback to purchase new handguns that meet the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] specifications. It is even possible that this will result in no significant decrease in the number of handguns in our community.
The bill implements the COAG agreement to reform firearms laws on a national basis, finally recognising the need to tighten the control of handguns used for sports shooting and as part of an historical collection in Australia. The Democrats have been advocating a national uniform code of handgun control for a long time. This agreement is intended to reduce and significantly strengthen controls regarding access to handguns in the community. The other change that has occurred since my halcyon days at university is the idea that shooting handguns is a reasonable recreational pursuit.
As a libertarian, I believe that people should be able to do anything they like as long as it does not hurt others. The Government recently banned the use of jet skis on Sydney Harbour. I spend time on the harbour and I must confess that my Sundays were adversely affected by the endless whine of jet skis. That recreational activity was banned in that location because of the harm it did to other people. Some people may be getting pleasure from shooting targets with guns, but if only a fraction of them use their guns against the community that would constitute a significant risk. It is reasonable for society to reject placing some people at significant risk of being shot so that other people can get a little bit of pleasure. People are being asked to pursue other recreational activities. I challenge the legitimacy of the idea that high-risk sports should be allowed from a civil libertarian perspective.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What about car racing and rugby?
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I note the interjection. It is true that the Cannonball Run car race from Darwin to Adelaide was marred by the poor driving skills of the drivers of a Ferrari vehicle, which was capable of travelling at 250 kilometres an hour. The car left the road and killed some track marshals. The road they were using was not appropriate for a car race. Most car racing is conducted within the confines of racetracks and is subject to safety rules regarding fire and impact. In the balance between safety and excitement, everything possible is done to load the scales on the side of safety. It is also true that accidents happen during rugby matches that result in people becoming quadriplegics. I have been in a scrum and recall thinking that if someone were to push at a particular time, I would be quadriplegic. Fortunately, that did not happen, but it is a salient point. Extensive training is undertaken and rules have been changed to take the risks into account.
Regulating the use of handguns is more complex. Legislation has been enacted requiring people to store their weapons in secure places, without bolts and so on. Even eminent people in our society have breached those regulations. Once someone is sold a handgun and is allowed to participate in fantasy games the risk is increased to an unacceptable level. The Democrats believe that the ban on guns should be as wide as is reasonably possible. From 1 July the classes of handguns permitted for sport shooting purposes will be restricted on the basis of calibre, barrel length and magazine capacity. That is not sufficient. Sporting shooters will be prohibited from importing, purchasing, possessing or using a handgun that has a calibre greater than.38 inches unless the handgun is used to participate in a specially accredited event, in which case a handgun with a calibre of up to.45 inches will be permitted.
To prevent easy concealment, guns must not have a barrel length of less than 120 millimetres for semiautomatic handguns and 100 millimetres for revolvers and single-shot handguns or a magazine capacity that exceeds 10 rounds. The majority of States and Territories have agreed that the events for metallic silhouette and single or western action should be specially accredited for the use of handguns up to.45 inch calibre. However, some exemptions apply. Highly specialised handguns custom-designed for target shooting are exempt from barrel length restrictions. Black powder muzzle-loading pistols and cap and ball revolvers are exempt from the calibre, barrel length and magazine capacity restrictions, for obvious reasons. The Commonwealth Government amended the (Customs Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 in December 2002 to prevent the importation of prohibited handguns by sporting shooters and their direct sale to sporting shooters by firearms importers. This bill will introduce new measures to tighten controls over the licensing of sporting shooters and historical collectors and their access to handguns, as outlined in schedules 1 and 2. Schedule 3 outlines amendments that will increase the range of penalties for the illegal possession and alteration of a firearm.
Following the success of the national gun buyback scheme established after the horrendous mass murder of 35 people in Port Arthur on 29 April 1996 a handgun buyback scheme will operate from 1 July this year to 31 December. Under the buyback, sporting shooters, dealers, importers and historical collectors will be compensated for the surrender of certain handguns, parts and accessories. On paying a visit to the national handgun buyback web site at www.handgunbuyback.gov.au I found that the national valuation list for handguns that will be banned is now up and running. However, the valuation list for parts and accessories has not been finalised. An amnesty was meant to start on 1 July and run until 31 December 2003 for unregistered handguns or those held by an unlicensed person. No compensation will be paid for illegally held handguns.
The 1996 gun buyback scheme cost taxpayers $320 million, and 643,000 rifles, shotguns, semiautomatics and automatics were destroyed. Australia has experienced a significant decline in gun-related violence since then. However, the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research report on crime in New South Wales for 2002 notes a significant increase in the use of firearms, especially handguns, in robberies. In 2001, 765,000 Australians, or approximately 4 per cent of the population, had firearms licences. Up-to-date data is not available. The figures for New South Wales have varied. In response to a letter dated August 2001, the Hon. Michael Costa—who was then Minister for Police—informed me of the number of firearms licences compared with the number of registered firearms in New South Wales. There was a mistake in the classification, but that was corrected in a letter dated 9 January. As of 21 November 2001 there were 179,496 licence holders in New South Wales and 618,753 registered firearms, of which 546,354 were held by individuals under an individual licence, collector's licence or permit. That figure includes the firearms registered as a result of the recent amnesty.
The new restrictions on handguns were proposed following the mass shooting at Monash University in October 2002, when two students were killed and five people were injured. The offender was a licensed shooter and a member of a shooters club. I agree that that horrible incident is not representative of the average sporting shooter. A huge percentage of them are law-abiding citizens and would not contemplate such actions against their fellow humans. However, if the offender had not had access to guns, he would not have been able to shoot people. The Hon. Malcolm Jones raised self-regulation and suggested that if a member of a shooters club behaved strangely, his behaviour would be noticed. In my view, it is nonsense to suggest that self-regulation—whether it be in relation to advertising, used car sales, or whatever—solves any problem.
The cliché touted by gun lobbyists that "guns don't kill, people do" is true in some respect. However, people without guns do not kill with guns. I believe the answer is to limit people's access to guns. I share the concerns of the National Coalition for Gun Control that the bill is suboptimal because it does not provide a list of banned handguns. Proposed section 4C outlines the COAG criteria for handguns that will be banned.
The handgun buyback web site provides a comprehensive list of handguns by their make, model name, calibre, action and magazine capacity. Handguns that do not comply with the COAG criteria will be banned. However, the New South Wales Government still has not signed the intergovernmental agreement with the Commonwealth. Therefore no immediate action will be taken to implement the Act. The bill does not contain a specific list of handguns to be banned.
Registered handgun owners will be requested to hand in their guns for assessment through shooters clubs. However, this is of little use in regulating the criminal elements. I ask: If we can register firearms and shooters, why would it not be possible to create a database containing details of the fingerprints on weapons? The firing pin and carrying block of a semiautomatic handgun is the loading and extraction mechanism for firing a shell. The movements in this process leave a unique mark on the shell, and this is different for each gun. A gun database would be of great assistance.
The bill is far from perfect. It has been rushed through the Parliament, and more work needs to be done on it. I believe it has been rushed through the Parliament in the interests of national uniformity. The Democrats believe that the bill needs to be further tightened. We ask that the Government issue a statement that it wishes to reduce the number of guns in the interests of safety. People would then be discouraged from buying guns, which they may then resent being taken from them or even bought back at a later date.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [3.32 p.m.]: What a weird and wonderful debate this has been. We have seen a consistent attempt to confuse the rising incidence—as we are told—of gun crime with the use of legal pistols in this State, when there is no connection between the two. We have heard a continuous barrage of rubbish about how many legally owned guns are used in crime, whereas the latest statistics from the Australian Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, produced at the end of 2002, show that during that period only one legally owned handgun was used in a crime. But the weirdest thing about this debate—and this is quite epoch making—is that for the second time in 4½ years the Shooters Party and the Greens are in absolute agreement about something: that this bill is no good.
Obviously, I utterly oppose this bill. But what I oppose even more is the genesis of it, which lies in the Prime Minister's unreasoned and obsessive attitude towards all firearms. Because of that personal attitude, many thousands of inoffensive and law-abiding citizens of this State and, indeed, this country, will be deprived of legally purchased, legally owned, legally used firearms, with which they have committed neither crime nor offence. On 17 April 2002 the Prime Minister stated on radio 2GB in Sydney, "I hate guns. I don't think people should have guns." I ask members to note the Prime Minister's statements, "I hate guns" and "I don't think people should have guns." They are statements of subjective personal bias without substantiation—just an unjustified personal feeling.
The Prime Minister has imposed his personal prejudices on State and Territory governments in a manner which makes me wonder about the so-called sovereignty of the States and Territories and about the manner in which the Australian Constitution has effectively been bypassed in its provision that only the States and Territories have the power to make laws about the ownership and use of firearms. The bill flows from an event, discussed in this debate this afternoon, which was conveniently proclaimed a massacre, when in fact it should have been treated as a multiple homicide—and as an outright condemnation of the incompetence of Victorian police in screening applicants for pistol licences. This provided exactly the excuse the Prime Minister needed to introduce knee-jerk legislation, without realistic reference to the facts, and in complete denial of the statistics.
That is the background to this bill. And so we have before us today a bill that is unnecessary, futile, illogical, discriminatory, a huge expense for taxpayers, and that does nothing to reduce the use of pistols in crime and will not reduce the numbers of legally owned pistols. The bill is unnecessary, because there is no statistical evidence that the citizens who will have their legal property confiscated have done anything improper or used that property in any illegal or untoward manner—an issue I will address in detail later. The bill is futile, because it will not have the slightest beneficial effect on the community. It is illogical, because it attacks the wrong people, in a supposed attempt to reduce crime with guns. It is discriminatory, because it is directed specifically, and only, at members of target pistol shooting clubs, who are the most tightly regulated of the whole shooting community given the requirements for obtaining, owning, storing and using their firearms.
These people—and I am one of them—go through the most stringent checks when they seek to join a pistol club. Those checks are carried out by the club and police, and a mandatory probation period applies during which the prospective member is assessed by the club on attitude and performance. After that, and when the person is given a form of approval by the club recommending him or her for a pistol licence, he or she undergoes another check by police—and even then, the first licence usually allows only a small-calibre rimfire pistol. It is interesting that the bill does not similarly affect people in the security industry, who carry sidearms or need pistols for their work and whose guns are often "on the street", as John Howard would say.
I do not suggest that these people should not have, or do not need, their pistols; indeed, they are essential to their work. But I am trying to highlight just how hare-brained and discriminatory this legislation is. Most of the pistols that will be confiscated because they are deemed illegal are also needed by competitive target pistol shooters to contest the matches they shoot—which is why those pistols will be replaced by legal pistols after they are surrendered. The Hon. Melinda Pavey made the point that perhaps people should hand in pistols they do not need. However, under the law, if a person does not need a pistol, he or she does not have reason to have it and therefore he or she cannot have it, and that is all there is to it.
And what of the buyback, as it is euphemistically called? The so-called buyback will be a huge expense for taxpayers. The money would be much better applied to areas of real community. In legislating in this manner, we are also being asked to agree to issuing a blank cheque—a huge blank cheque, with no certainty about the number of zeros it will contain—and to a huge and avoidable expenditure of public money to satisfy the Prime Minister's fixation on guns. And that is because nobody knows how many pistols will have to be surrendered, or what the ultimate cost of compensation will be.
The formula under which pistols will be ruled compliant, or non-compliant, is a mix of barrel length, calibre and magazine capacity. The NSW Police Firearms Registry has a database of every one of the nearly 48,000 registered pistols in New South Wales. It contains the make, model, serial number, type of action and calibre of each pistol on the register. But even with all that detail it is an incomplete database. It does not contain the barrel length of any of those pistols, because that information has never been required to allow a pistol to be registered—for the simple reason that barrel length has never seemed particularly significant or relevant. And, in fact, it should not be significant or relevant.
But now we have a weird and wonderful piece of illogical legislation that says, in effect, that a semiautomatic pistol with a four-inch barrel is dangerous, but that a semi-automatic pistol with a five-inch barrel is safe. The fine thinking behind that fuzzy nonsense appears to be that a four-inch barrel is concealable but a five-inch barrel is not. What rubbish! What incredible condemnation of the blind ignorance of the people who dreamed that one up. The legislation blithely ignores the fact that a five-inch barrel is likely to be more accurate, and therefore probably more effective than a four-inch barrel. Of course, a five-inch barrel is concealable. In fact, in the long-gone days when respectable citizens could legally own a handgun for the sensible purpose of self-protection, I knew a man who carried a huge.44-magnum revolver with a 10-inch barrel in a shoulder holster—and nobody would have known it was there.
Let me explain that I refer to four- and five-inch barrels because that is the way the two basic types of semiautomatic pistol are generally referred to in the shooting movement, in manufacturers' catalogues and in advertising. In the bill, of course, the five-inch barrel as we know it is referred to as being 120 millimetres long. In fact, some of the pistols most commonly categorised as five inch come in not at 120 millimetres but at 115 millimetres or 118 millimetres. This means they will fail the test by just a couple of millimetres and will have to be bought back and compensated for at increased expense to the taxpayer. Yet those guns, in overall size, meet John Howard's criteria of being safe, non-concealable pistols. What genius thought up this rule of thumb? However, to revert to the lack of the barrel length on the firearms registry database, this means that every one of the registered pistols in this State, nearly 48,000 of them, will have to be inspected and measured to see which are compliant and which are not. Until that is done, nobody can say with certainty how many pistols will have to be surrendered. I have heard the figure of 21,000 quoted, but that is merely a guesstimate. It could be more, it could be less.
The other unknown is what compensation will be paid for a given pistol, because that is one of the many aspects of this legislation that is still being worked out. It is not uncommon for a really dedicated competitive pistol shooter to spend four or five times the original cost of his pistol having it improved and modified to a particular shooting characteristic. I have seen pistols worth $7,000 or more in terms of what their owners have invested in them. But how much value will be given to them in the crude three-level rule of thumb we are told is going to be used to tell a pistol owner how much the Government is prepared to pay in compensation?
The situation is further confused because the office of the Federal Minister for Justice issued to the print media this week a list of about 4,000 handguns with their wholesale and retail valuations, and this was duly published in various Sydney newspapers as a supposed list of guns to be banned. It was nothing of the sort. It was an incomplete list, part of a proposed listing of every pistol known to be in circulation in Australia, with various levels of valuation for each pistol. The idea was that the list would cover every contingency, including legal guns, in case some pistol shooters, disgusted at their continual victimisation, decided to give up pistol shooting altogether and accepted the Prime Minister's offer to buy back their legal guns. However, the list is not only incomplete but, in addition, I am told there has been no final agreement on compensation. So it is incomplete and very possibly misleading. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile made the point that some shooters might in fact make a profit on the original price they paid for their guns, but since this compensation list is not accurate we do not know whether that will happen. I, for one, would find it very unusual if it happened.
So, with all those factors, nobody knows what this surrender of firearms is going to cost. But, if compensation is fair—and we have no firm reason to believe it will be—then even at the quite mythical figure of 21,000 guns to be surrendered, the surrender could cost anywhere between $20 million and $35 million in New South Wales. Again, it is an open cheque. And what will the final decision be on compensation for equipment that the shooter could use only with that particular gun? The many people who will lose the right to use calibres above.38 inches —popular and widely used calibres such as.40 inches and.45 inches—will have on hand perhaps many hundreds of rounds of ammunition for those guns. They will not be able to use that ammunition in any of the guns that they are allowed to hold legally. What are they supposed to do with it?
The Government says it does not want live ammunition being taken to the buyback vans. That makes sense, I suppose, at a location where a lot of guns are being handled, but what is the licensed pistol owner supposed to do with the ammunition? He or she can hardly throw it away, or put it in the garbage tin! If the Government does not buy back that ammunition, the shooter could be left open to charges under the Firearms Act relating to possession of ammunition for a gun which he or she does not have, and which he or she is not allowed to own. What of the loading dies for those calibres—costly equipment that will not be able to be used to reload ammunition for any other gun the shooter owns?
Bear in mind that none of this is really a buyback. The so-called "sellers" have absolutely no wish to sell to the people who are doing the buying, but they are being given no choice. They are being forced by mindless, totalitarian legislation, to surrender legally owned property, and to accept whatever price the so-called "buyer" is prepared to pay. If they are also refused payment for other equipment that is specific to any gun that has to be surrendered, then they are being doubly penalised. But then we know, do we not, that in the mind of the Prime Minister, we shooters deserve to be punished for being such evil people as to have bought a gun, legally available, legally owned and legally used—until now.
But those are not the only things we do not know as we debate this bill. There are all sorts of other things that we are told are still being worked out. So we are asked to vote on this bill without having any idea of what much of the final detail will be. There is a very-much-alive argument going on about what matches will be recognised as requiring shooters to have pistols with a calibre greater than.38. John Howard is refusing to accept that the International Practical Shooting Match should be included in this list, even though it is one of the fastest-growing disciplines in the world, and is heading towards being accepted as an Olympic event—despite the best efforts of the "anti's" to portray it as a dangerous combat-type match, which it is not.
When there are 700 competitors taking part in the world championship of this one discipline it is big enough and important enough to be recognised as an event where higher calibre pistols are justified. In this regard Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said that he was concerned about the use of higher calibres and the fact that participants were shooting at moving targets. That is pretty typical of the way the media has misrepresented the discipline. The targets do not move, the shooters do. That is the way the match is portrayed. But, like so many other things, that remains in limbo.
What about the effects of the bill? It will deprive many decent, law-abiding people of legally owned property. It will not stop gun crime in the streets. The Prime Minister and other apologists for this bill and this grab-back have said it will be important in getting a lot of handguns off the street. That is an outright, blatant and damnable lie. These pistols have never been on the streets. They have been either locked up in police-inspected, police-approved safes in their owners' homes, or they have been in use at an approved pistol range, taking part in approved target-shooting matches under the control and supervision of officers of approved and licensed pistol clubs.
Contrary to the deliberate mistruths put about by the anti-gun mob, and referred to by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, pistol club members may not carry their pistols about with them on the streets. The Firearms Act has always stipulated that these pistols can be removed from their owner's safe only to be taken to a range for a match, to a police station for inspection or other purpose, or to a gunsmith for repair. They may not be loaded at any time except when the owner is on the range under the control of the range officer in charge of the match, and the order to load is given. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans suggested that people might get used to carrying guns because they have participated in the International Practical Shooting Match. Obviously, that is not right because they cannot carry their guns even if they want to.
So these are not the firearms being used in street crime, and confiscating them from their legal owners will not take any guns off the streets. It is a little far-fetched to suggest that the criminals who have neither a pistol licence nor a registered pistol will hand them in. They have paid a great deal of money for the illegal, smuggled pistols, and they see them as essential to their survival and their competitiveness in the drug scene, to which they are so closely allied. The tired old suggestion made by the anti-gun mob that most of the guns used in crime have been stolen from legitimate owners is argued away by the Australian Institute of Criminology in its topics and issues paper No. 230, in which researcher Jenny Moutzos reports that there has been a marked decline in firearms theft since secure storage requirements were stepped up in 1996, and that, in any case, handguns are by far the least likely guns to be stolen.
There was a serious problem with unscrupulous people, including some dealers, reactivating pistols that had been approved as having been deactivated, but with the arrest of a number of people that source has been largely shut off. In fact, there are object lessons to be learnt in places where private ownership of guns, including handguns, has been severely limited, or prohibited. Britain is the classic example. Tony Blair banned private ownership of handguns almost as soon as he came to power in 1997. Has that reduced gun crime on the streets of Britain? Not at all. On the contrary, Britain is now in the grip of the worst, constantly rising wave of street gun crime in its history. Gun crime in Britain started to rise immediately after private ownership of guns was banned, and it has continued to rise ever since. Between 2001 and 2002 alone, the number of firearm crimes in Britain rose by 35 per cent to almost 10,000. The Home Office reported that in 2002 robberies involving guns rose by 34 per cent, 97 people were killed by firearms, and 558 people were seriously injured. In fact, gun crime has doubled since the British Labour Government came to power and banned the legal ownership of guns. As a result, the British Police Federation conference in May saw more than half of Britain's policemen vote in favour of British police being routinely armed—an astonishing departure from tradition and a complete reversal of the result when the British Police Federation last voted on this issue just eight years ago.
Since the private ownership of handguns is totally prohibited in Britain, even the anti-gun mob cannot claim that legally owned guns are being used in crime, or stolen from legal owners. The other side of this story is that the buyback will not significantly reduce the number of legally owned pistols in the community. Every pistol shooter I have spoken to—and I know a few—has told me that they will use the compensation money they get for any pistols surrendered to replace them with pistols that are legal in barrel length, calibre, and magazine. This is not just defiance, born of a totally justified anger at the way we are being treated; it is a necessity, because if they are to continue to shoot in the matches in which they have been competing—in some cases, for many years—pistol owners will have to replace the pistols they surrender.
Given the likely level of compensation paid, pistol owners will incur considerable expense, but their options are to replace their guns or give up their sport, which is probably precisely the option that John Howard wanted. Obviously, the whole intention of this silly legislation is to try to force as many law-abiding, compliant, licensed pistol owners as possible out of the sport. And that intention, shared equally by the Prime Minister and the anti-gun mob—the Coalition for Gun Control, the Greens, the Australian Democrats, and to some extent the State Government—puts some very curious and unexpected fellows into a very tumbled bed!
From any point of view this legislation has to be seen as pointless, expensive, and misguided. It is more than mildly irritating to hear it referred to as "reform". "Reform" implies some sort of improvement or advance on the present, and because the effects of this bill are all negative, "reform" is hardly the word to use! I said earlier that there is no statistical justification for the bill. The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics report has the most up-to-date statistics. It shows that in the last statistical year, 49 people were killed with firearms—not just handguns, but firearms of all types.
Those figures include people killed in criminal acts by unregistered firearms and they include suicides and accidents. I repeat: 49 people were killed with firearms in Australia. That is less than the number of people who died in swimming pools, less than the number who died on beaches, or in boats, and infinitely fewer than died on our roads. On 2GB on 17 June the prominent radio commentator Alan Jones encapsulated what a lot of people are wondering about this weird push to buy handguns back from legitimate owners. He said:
I can tell you, there is positive outrage at what the Prime Minister is trying to do in relation to another handgun buyback from July 1.
Police vans will be touring the countryside, seizing and destroying handguns, and paying compensation to owners, and, with the money in compensation, owners will just buy another gun of an approved barrel length.
But this involves a phenomenal amount of taxpayers' money that could be spent elsewhere.
No-one who writes to me seems to be able to understand why we have buy-backs when the only people handing in the guns are the people who aren't breaking the law.
No-one has ever seen a criminal queuing to hand in their weapons.
He further stated:
At a time when there is no money for the disabled, the mentally ill, or to improve the quality of aged care, the Government has spent over $500-million in the Port Arthur buyback, and now, more than $100-million is proposed to be spent from July onwards on a gun buy-back that will do nothing to reduce the incidence of crime.
This is madness.
Alan Jones could hardly be described as a gun fanatic. His general posture has always been that he is critical of gun use and particularly of gun crime, and he was supportive of the 1997 buyback. But he has seen the empty folly of this proposal and has campaigned heavily against it. He is absolutely correct in saying that pistol owners who are compensated for legal pistols, which suddenly become illegal, will use that money to buy another gun, of legal barrel length. As a pistol shooter of 25 years, I will certainly do that, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop me. Let me put it in a rather different light. John Howard will use a huge amount of taxpayers' money to re-arm the pistol shooters of Australia with bigger and probably more accurate handguns.
There is another aspect of this that has not been addressed, and that is the curious method of gathering the guns, which will suddenly become illegal and will have to be surrendered. NSW Police are preparing two mobile vans, equipped with special crushing machines, which I understand are to be towed in trailers. They will tour the State visiting pistol clubs, staying at each club for a few days and waiting for local pistol owners to bring in all their legally owned pistols to be measured and assessed. When a pistol is declared illegal, a cheque will be issued for compensation and the pistol will be crushed. If an owner disputes the level of compensation, the pistol will be held for adjudication by an expert panel. It will not be crushed, but kept in custody, as it were.
There are a couple of curiosities about this method of collection. First, it will take much longer than the six months suggested by NSW Police to the Minister for Police to visit all the pistol clubs in the State—more than 250 of them—and to remain at each club for long enough to give people time to bring in their pistols and measure them. If, as has been suggested, each mobile van stays at each club for seven days, it will take considerably more than two years to cover the whole State, without allowing for travelling time between clubs, days off for those manning the buyback vans, and other down times.
Another interesting thing is that the dates, times and locations of the mobile buyback units will be posted on the police web site, and letters will be sent to licensed pistol owners, advising them of those dates. Having been to a large proportion of the pistol clubs in this State, I take the liberty to point out that many of them are, by design, in remote spots, well away from built-up areas, and often at the end of long, narrow bush tracks. What a great opportunity and great location for criminals to ambush licensed pistol owners on their way to the buyback vans and harvest a lot of guns for the black market! What security will the Government provide to stop armed criminals bailing up a whole group of pistol owners, queued up obediently at a buyback van, waiting obediently to have their guns inspected?
I have had difficulty finding out about this, but I gather that the buyback units will be operated by civilian employees, and that there will be only one armed policeman with each buyback van. Brilliant, isn't it? This legislation has been a confusing nonsense ever since the Prime Minister seized the chance to work out his hatred of guns. It is an expensive nonsense, and it will accomplish nothing. It also raises what, for me, is an important question: Who really runs the sovereign State of New South Wales—the State Government or the Prime Minister? Having no constitutional power to legislate for firearm ownership and use, the Prime Minister has used economic pressure—a threatened sharp tug on the purse strings—to override that limitation and force the States and Territories to bend to his totally personal attitude on guns. I see that as an abuse of position.
I find it appalling that the New South Wales Labor Government can so readily roll over to this sort of standover tactic and introduce legislation that it must know is flawed in concept and execution. It is sacrificing thousands of its citizens, who are blameless, and meekly doing the Prime Minister's bidding to deprive those citizens of their legally owned property. We are shooters, and to this Government, and to John Howard, we are dispensable. We have been constantly attacked, demonised, criminalised, harassed, and increasingly restricted by a series of State and Federal governments since 1988. In my history of almost 50 years in the media and eight years in this place, I am unaware of any other instance in which a group of people who have committed no offence and have tried very hard to comply with an ever-growing labyrinth of heavy-handed laws have been singled out in this manner for repeated punishment. It is unjust, selective and disgraceful. We have done nothing wrong, but we are being punished just the same.
We will not forget this. It is rampant injustice, a monumental waste of time, money and police resources, and a shameful caving in to a bullyboy in Canberra. Trying to reduce illegal gun crime by confiscating legal guns is about as smart as trying to tackle the illegal drug trade by banning prescription medicine. It will fail and it will hurt more people than it helps. I oppose this bill utterly.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [3.58 p.m.]: The objectives of the Firearms Amendment (Prohibited Pistols) Bill are to reduce the number of pistols in the community and to strengthen control over access to pistols that are used for target sports and target shooting. The bill seeks to restrict the type of pistols used for sport target shooting, to impose additional requirements, including licences, to prohibit the use of magazines containing more than 10 rounds, to impose additional requirements for pistol collectors, and to provide for a gun buyback scheme.
The Government has introduced the bill largely in response to the terrible events that occurred at Monash University at the hands of a licensed pistol owner who fired on a crowd of students, killing two, wounding five, and traumatising many more. Those circumstances were exceptional. Although it is entirely understandable to seek to remedy the tragic loss of innocent human lives, we must first seek to understand the philosophy behind the bill and examine its logical consistency, or lack thereof, to determine whether the delivery of the stated objectives will deliver the ultimate purpose of firearm regulation. The issue at stake, and the ultimate purpose of regulating the use and ownership of firearms, is to protect the community from those who seek to do harm with firearms. According to an Australian Criminal Institute report, there is powerful evidence about the significance of firearm use in homicide. However, since 1997 licensed firearms have not been responsible for 90 per cent of firearms-related offences, hence my point about the Monash killer being the exception rather than the rule. In fact, he had permits for seven guns.
More than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, and their owners were not licensed. According to these figures, the introduction of tough laws that build tighter regulations for licensed gun owners are needless and illogical. The figures relating to killings with guns show that in nine out of 10 deaths the guns do not come from licensed gun owners, but 25 per cent of all homicide victims are killed with firearms. The Australian Institute of Criminology reports that, of the 117 offenders who killed with firearms between 1997 and 1999, only 11 were licensed gun owners who had permits for their weapons. According to the figures, licensed firearms owners are not responsible for the vast majority of the deaths from firearms.
There is no evidence to suggest that strengthening the legislation in relation to licensed gun owners will prevent gun deaths, as unlicensed firearms are involved in more than 90 per cent of gun deaths. Bob Carr agrees. In October 2002 in the Australian he is quoted as saying that the vast majority of crimes with handguns were committed with guns imported illegally, and the editorial said that our borders are much too porous. As Federal Opposition spokesperson Mark Latham said, a properly funded coastguard must be equipped to tackle the illegal importation of handguns as a necessary complement to the handguns buyback. Peter Beattie holds a similar view.
The politics of gun control are deeply emotional issues in the wake of killings, particularly Port Arthur. There is a tendency for governments to rush to the Legislature and adopt some expedient measure, but that falls short of a logical approach to achieving the objective, which is to diminish deaths from firearms. While I may not think that gun sports are necessary or even a good idea, I do not believe that this bill will fix the ills in our society. It may be a complete buyout, but it will not solve the problem. It is more correct to say that changes to weapons control should focus on border control via the creation of a coastguard to improve the detection of smuggling illegal firearms. But even then, according to the New South Wales Director of Crime Statistics, Don Weatherburn, the number of illegal handguns in circulation is unknown.
Illegal weapons seized will invariably have had their serial numbers filed off, so their ownership cannot be traced. According to Mr Weatherburn, the police issue Glock sells on the black market for about $2,000, so there is a lucrative market for greedy and dishonest dealers. The causes of crime need to be addressed if murders with or without firearms are to be avoided. This bill will not stop people from killing one another if that is their wish. Would it be appropriate to regulate against the purchase of fine gauge picture wire, for example, because it makes an effective murder weapon? That makes no sense at all.
The Chairwoman of the National Coalition for Gun Control, Samantha Lee, makes the interesting point that the massacres at Port Arthur, Dunblane and Erfurt, where a total of 90 people were killed or injured, were committed by previously law-abiding citizens who were all licensed to have weapons. She argues that it only takes one person armed with a semiautomatic or fully automatic weapon to cause a massacre.
I suppose one way to prevent gun owners from committing violence with guns is to legislate that they should undergo mental health screening and a regular review that would include testing for drug addiction, which has proven to be a definite factor in the homicide rate. However, even at this point with medical and psychological assessments, the experts fail to produce any good suggestions that can be implemented objectively, fairly and effectively. In summary, I do not oppose the bill, but I have genuine doubts that it will achieve its objectives.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [4.04 p.m.]: I understand that in many respects this bill is not a Government initiative. While I will not go so far as to absolve the Government of responsibility for introducing this mostly ill-founded legislation that is based on a dishonest premise, I acknowledge that it is John Howard's bill and that he is the real architect of the attack on law-abiding shooters. The basis of this legislation being dishonest is clear insomuch as there is a false belief that this attack on the rights of licensed law-abiding shooters is a result of some widespread illegal activity by licensed pistol shooters. It is not. The bill itself is dishonest because, by its nature, it supports the belief that prohibiting legal access to firearms will reduce crime. That is wrong today, just as it has been categorically proven to be wrong in every country of the world right throughout history.
Laws are for the law-abiding. People who break laws pay no attention to laws, whether they are old, current or new. Criminals conduct their activities regardless of the law. It is by virtue of such lawless character that they are labelled "criminals". When this nonsense legislation was first suggested I publicly and privately made it plain that I was disturbed by John Howard's illogical and unsustainable assault on licensed gun ownership. There are many things John Howard has done that have been very much in Australia's interests, and I have never been backward in supporting the Prime Minister at those times. However, John Howard's illegitimate forays into all things firearms is unfair, a tragedy, and a matter of great personal disappointment.
I am encouraged by the significant work done by the Prime Minister to strengthen our important relationship with America, but I suggest to John Howard that what he has done, and is doing, to law-abiding firearms owners would be soundly condemned by his new friend the President of the United States of America. In saying that, I expect the ignorant to pipe up with calls such as, "We do not want to go down the American path." or "Let's not have a gun culture like the United States."
The Hon. Henry Tsang: Is that why the President is not coming to Australia?
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: Later in this speech I will detail how much misinformation is bandied about with regard to America. The Hon. Henry Tsang has asked why the President is not coming to Australia. There are so few guns in Australia that perhaps the President would not feel safe here. I also made the point that while John Howard is happy to take away all our guns he is also happy to be surrounded by men carrying guns to protect him. It is simple to blame guns. Indeed, only the very simple would blame guns. The fact is that guns do not kill people: people kill people. That is the case here, in America, and everywhere else.
Any evaluation of figures on murders or attempted murders will show that if someone wants to kill you they will do so with whatever means available, and that has always been the case. People were murdered before guns existed, and it would continue if guns were completely removed from society. If there were no guns, the same number of people would be murdered through other means. Knives are very popular as murder implements, as are blunt instruments, and in recent times fire has been employed to great effect. Indeed, more than four times as many people are murdered with weapons other than guns than are murdered with guns.
Guns do not kill people. Knives do not kill people. Blunt instruments do not kill people. People kill people—and it does not matter what they use, the result is still murder. It does not matter what people do with guns: the same or an increasing number of people will be murdered unless there are serious societal changes. This legislation specifically targets licensed pistol shooters. All evidence makes it clear that those who make up this law-abiding disciplined group are not even slightly part of the problem.
Some of the mindless who are willing to concoct and conjure a form of argument will try to convince people that large numbers of pistols are stolen from individual law-abiding enthusiasts. That is dishonest in the extreme. Very few pistols are stolen from shooters. The security requirements for owning a pistol in New South Wales are considerable. Licensed pistol shooters do not simply leave their guns lying around; they are secured in floor- and wall-mounted six-millimetre thick steel safes of a kind that are not likely to be accessible to the common burglar.
Two years ago that most dishonest and flea ridden organisation, the so-called Coalition for Gun Control, mounted a frighteningly crooked campaign that claimed 500 pistols in New South Wales had been stolen in the previous 12 months. Official correspondence I have from Bryce Gaudrey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Police of the day, states categorically that the number stolen in that period was not 500 but 81. The Coalition for Gun Control has no interest in the truth; indeed, it is difficult to find a single statement from that organisation that is not a distortion, a lie of omission, or just a straight out lie. I reiterate: very few pistols are stolen from individual shooters.
On the other hand, pistols have been readily stolen from the police and security companies, and a seriously embarrassing variety of firearms have been stolen from the military. For example, just to name a few in the past couple of years, more than 50 semiautomatic handguns and two military-style rifles were stolen from the military supply centre at Moorebank. Four pistols, including semiautomatics, disappeared from an Army-operated museum, along with an M203 grenade launcher, an M16 assault rifle, four AK47 assault rifles, 11 other assorted rifles and another grenade launcher. Four pistols, multiple grenade launchers and assault rifles were taken from another Army museum. Fourteen Glock semiautomatic pistols and two revolvers have been stolen from Police. One Glock semiautomatic pistol was stolen from a police vehicle, one Glock semiautomatic pistol has been stolen from an airport, and five handguns were stolen from a security firm in Sydney
It is fair to note that some guns are stolen from gun shops, usually by armed, dangerous criminals. But without doubt, the easiest way to access an illegal firearm is to purchase one on the black market from the large pool of illegal guns already in circulation—a pool that is continually growing due to an endless supply of illegally imported guns. Federal Government checks on containers entering Australia are essentially ineffective—most containers that enter Australia do so without any check at all.
This legislation unjustly accuses sport shooters of being a problem and punishes them without reason and without results. This legislation does not do anything to impact any of the major sources of illegal firearms. Licensed pistol shooters, including me, are being persecuted because we are identifiable and because we can be used to pretend to the uninformed public that something is being done about guns. However, the only effective measure to do something about guns would be the disarming of the criminal population, not of the law-abiding population. In an interview last month with Alan Jones, an American Professor of History, Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm, was asked why, with regards to guns, governments behave in contradiction of established research. Professor Malcolm responded:
It's easier to pass a law that will affect law-abiding people and very much more difficult to actually figure out how to stop potential criminals from getting weapons and using them, but the trouble is, that when you disarm law-abiding citizens, then you make them much more tempting targets for a potential criminal.
There is said to be evidence that the last gun buyback contributed to a reduction in Australia's murder rate. A thorough examination of murder statistics before and after the gun buyback proves that suggestion to be completely wrong. When properly considered, the last gun buyback was a failure: the removal of some 640,000 firearms from Australian society has arguably had no positive effect on gun crime. Most gun crime is at the same level it was before the buyback, while the use of a gun for kidnapping or abduction has actually increased nearly 250 per cent since the gun buyback. Criminals do not turn in their guns. Some $500 million was spent on the last gun buyback and it could be sustainably and statistically argued that not a single life has been saved as a consequence.
This of course prompts the question of how many lives may have been saved in true areas of need in the Australian community if that $500 million of taxpayers money had been spent where it would have made an impact. It is more than likely that that $500 million would have produced a more positive impact on society if it had been spent on more nurses, better roads, more police, suicide prevention, cancer research, or public health education about smoking and drug abuse.
Smoking is a favourite hobby horse of mine and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. I ask the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans to consider how many lives could be saved if all this money that has made no impact at all on guns, crime or murder, had been spent trying to reduce the level of smoking. It is more than likely that $500 million would have produced a more positive impact on society if it had been spent in any of those areas.
Many people are falsely of the understanding that America is a violent place because of high gun ownership. That is not so. The level of violence in America, the same as in Australia, has no relationship to the level of legal gun ownership. Violence in America and Australia is strictly related to the type of society that exists in both countries. One would get the impression from the earlier debate that gun ownership is at an all-time high and that there are many more dangerous guns in society. That is perhaps one of the greatest frauds that we could have heard today.
In 1976 I remember walking into a gun shop in George Street with my shooters licence—it was $2 a year but I had paid $6 for three years—and buying over the counter without any problem an M1 military-style semiautomatic carbine, which is.30 calibre, as the Hon. John Tingle is pointing out to me. I purchased a couple of extra 30-round magazines to go with it.
The Hon. Henry Tsang: How many guns did you have?
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: I had quite a lot of guns over the years but this was my first serious gun purchase as a youngster, as opposed to the.22 calibre rifles I had prior to that. The owner of the shop was kind enough to throw in a carry bag for me. I walked out, put it in my car, having fortunately found a parking spot right out the front of the store, and drove back to work. In those days those sorts of firearms were everywhere. It was common for people to have M1s, M14s and M1 garands as well as M1 carbines. There were all manner of semiautomatic, military-style firearms. In the late 1980s the SKKs and the SKSs were introduced. Through the 1960s and the 1970s, and in the early 1980s, there was such a proliferation in Australia of these deadly firearms, as they are often referred to.
The Greens often refer to anything semiautomatic as a weapon of mass destruction, which is not right. I suggest they look at the atomic bomb on the Internet: that is a weapon of mass destruction. There has been reference to massacres, which is apparently the term used when more than one person is killed. Two people were killed at Monash, and it is being referred to as the Monash massacre; and apparently guns that fire a few bullets at a time are now called weapons of mass destruction. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s there was a huge proliferation of military-style firearms, yet there were no massacres in Australia and there was no great increase in crime. Australia was then a different place, even that short time ago.
I come back to my point that the crux of the matter is not the level of gun ownership, especially legal ownership, but the type of society that owns guns. Switzerland has the highest level of firearm possession in the world—almost every Swiss household has fully automatic military assault rifles and associated ammunition. Many Swiss homes also have pistols. In fact, shooting is a national pastime in Switzerland and it is not uncommon to see people walking down the street with a rifle or shotgun slung over their shoulder. Indeed, in Switzerland, many more people shoot than play golf, yet Switzerland has very low crime rates. As I said before, violence has nothing to do with the level of gun ownership; it is all about the type of society we live in. When compared with countries ignorantly considered to be relatively safe, America actually looks pretty good, mainly because so many people legally own guns. Canada and Britain have tough gun controls.
In Britain you cannot legally own a pistol, yet almost half of all burglaries are "hot" burglaries or home invasions, as we like to call them. That is, the resident is at home when the burglar strikes—a terrifying experience for helpless unprepared and unarmed citizens. However, in America, where legal firearm ownership is high, hot burglaries or home invasions account for only 13 per cent of all break-ins, or about a quarter of the level experienced in the United Kingdom and Canada. Criminal lowlifes in America know that the innocent occupants of homes are armed and ready, whereas their counterparts in the United Kingdom and Canada know their victims to be most likely helpless and unprepared. Surveys of convicted American felons disclose that they are much more worried about armed victims than about running into the police. So they should be, as figures from America show that hundreds of thousands of crimes are foiled each year by firearm-bearing, law-abiding American citizens.
Research in America has shown conclusively that increasing firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens has actually reduced crime. Increasing firearm ownership has been shown to be directly related to decreasing crime in all categories including murder. While I am not suggesting that we go down the path of prolific concealed firearm licensing, it is worth noting that in America the States with the most free concealed firearm carry laws have the lowest rates of violent crime. Those States without free concealed carry laws suffer a general 81 per cent higher rate of crime and, in the specific case of murder, those States suffer a rate 127 per cent higher than States with concealed carry laws. When it comes to attempts to relate high levels of legal gun ownership to high levels of violent crime, the facts are very clear and indisputable: high levels of legal gun ownership do not lead to high levels of violent crime; indeed, the reverse is the case. That can be seen from examples in England and America or any country one cares to pick. Even here in Australia it will be seen to be more so the case than now.
Perhaps the best recent example that can be used to demonstrate the pointless and dishonest activity of confiscating pistols from licensed shooters can be found by examining the experiences in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom banned private ownership of pistols six years ago. Yet, although there is no legal private ownership of pistols, the United Kingdom has suffered incredible increases in pistol-related crime. The United Kingdom authorities removed nearly 300,000 pistols that had been the property of licensed, law-abiding enthusiasts. The Hon. John Tingle is right to point out that this is not really a buyback; it is a confiscation with perhaps minimal compensation. The Government might be able to compensate people financially to a degree but it cannot compensate them for the loss of their pastime and the acute loss of a particular firearm they may have fondly possessed and astutely used for many years. Despite the ban and mass confiscation, in the United Kingdom overall offences with pistols have increased more than 25 per cent. Some offences in the United Kingdom have gone up by nearly 100 per cent. The latest figures that I have seen, 1999-2000, showed that the United Kingdom suffered 3,685 pistol-related crimes in that period—pistol related, not merely firearms related. In one 12-month period 3,685 crimes were committed with the use of pistols in a country where private ownership of pistols is banned and had been banned for some years by that time. So much for banning pistols! Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them. We have heard that many times and it is still true.
This bill is a fraud on the people of New South Wales. It will have no impact on crime; its only impact will be on citizens who are licensed pistol shooters. While I do not accept this legislation or in any way support it, there are many aspects that need serious amendment. I am hopeful that the amendments will at least go some way towards fairly compensating, at least in a financial sense, the bill's victims: licensed, law-abiding pistol owners and those who work in the firearms industry. The bill is merely another part of the ongoing agenda to remove all legal firearms from society. It will have no impact on criminals and no impact on crime except perhaps to increase crime. Australia will never be gun free as criminals will always have guns. In coming to the end of this address I quote mafia member Sammy Grevano, who said:
Gun control, it is the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters—I want you to have nothing—I'm a bad guy, I'm always going to have a gun.
The former East Germany had the toughest gun laws in the world. A private citizen simply could not legally own a gun. Yet East Germany had a murder rates three times that of America. No criminal will ever hand in a gun. The only way to take a gun from a criminal is at gun point.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [4.25 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who have supported the bill, and I commend the bill to the House.
Question¯That this bill be now read a second time¯put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 26
Mr Burke
Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Clarke
Mr Cohen
Ms Cusack
Ms Fazio
Mrs Forsythe | Mr Gallacher
Ms Griffin
Ms Hale
Mr Harwin
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Lynn
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Mr Obeid | Ms Parker
Mr Pearce
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Robertson
Mr Ryan
Mr Tsang
Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Mr West |
Noes, 5
 | Mr Gay
Mr Jones
Mr Oldfield
Tellers,
Ms Pavey
Mr Tingle | |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.36 p.m.]: I move:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1, lines 5 to 15. Omit all words on those lines.
This amendment paves the way for a later amendment dealing with the establishment of the committee that I referred to in my second reading speech. The committee will involve community representatives, medical professionals, shooting representatives and gun control representatives in an endeavour to ensure that the legislation works as effectively as possible. In particular, the amendment provides that Olympic shooting sports are not affected. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.39 p.m.]: I seek clarification. Ms Lee Rhiannon said the amendment removes the definition of "barrel length" so that a committee dealing with the Olympic Games can be set up. However, the words to be removed have nothing to do with the Olympic Games; they simply refer to barrel length. The term "barrel length" is used throughout the bill, and the definition is needed so that we understand what the term means.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.40 p.m.]: Certainly it is a technical amendment. The Greens do not propose to gut the entire bill, but removing the definition is in line with our proposal concerning the committee. The amendment allows for technical aspects, so that people are able to retain handguns that fit into sporting categories covered by the Olympics. On the advice we have received, the amendment can still be permitted.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [4.41 p.m.]: The Government does not support the Greens amendment, which would ban all revolvers and self-loading pistols other than air pistols, except for those used in Olympic and Commonwealth Games competitions. The amendment is inconsistent with the National Handgun Control Agreement, which the State is committed to implementing.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [4.41 p.m.]: I move Shooters Party amendment No. 1:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], lines 13 to 15. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
and in either case includes the length of:
(c) any feed ramp or other similar protuberance that is forged with, and is integral to, the barrel, and
(d) an alteration of a kind approved by the Commissioner that has been permanently attached to the barrel of the pistol.
The amendment differs in intent and scope from the Greens amendment. The purpose of my amendment is to explain that the method of measurement proposed in the buyback is simply wrong. Measuring the barrel from the muzzle to the closed breech face does not measure the full length of the barrel. The barrel is forged in one piece, and includes the ramp that feeds the round into the chamber. The barrel cannot function as part of a semiautomatic or self-loading pistol without the ramp, which is properly seen as the inner end of the barrel. The measurement proposed under the buyback is a measurement of only part of the barrel, and therefore it is not an accurate way of determining whether the barrel complies with the 120-millimetre length provided for semiautomatic handguns or the 100-millimetre length provided for revolvers. Therefore, we believe the bill should be amended in the manner indicated.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [4.42 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment, because it is not in accordance with the National Handgun Control Agreement, which New South Wales is committed to implementing.
Greens amendment No. 1 negatived.
Shooters Party amendment No. 1 negatived.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.45 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 2:
No. 2 Pages 3 and 4, schedule 1, line 31 on page 3 to line 5 on page 4. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(1) In this Act, prohibited pistol means a revolver or any self-loading pistol other than an air pistol.
The amendment tightens the definition of prohibited weapons, in the context of the establishment of a committee, so that the only handguns to be permitted are those used for sporting events, as I outlined earlier.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [4.46 p.m.]: I strongly oppose the amendment, which is an absolute nonsense in the first degree. There are many other adjectives I would like to use, but I will not do so as Ms Lee Rhiannon and other female members are in the Chamber. It must be understood that the overall agenda of the Greens is to remove every conceivable firearm from society—and, strangely enough, even from police. We know that the Greens policy documents clearly indicate that they wish to also remove firearms from police. I wonder whether Ms Lee Rhiannon is able to tell us whether she advocates allowing the police to have air pistols. I am sure the police association and every police officer in the State would be interested to hear her answer. More importantly, every criminal in the State would like to know if all they need to be concerned about now is a slow-moving piece of lead out of an air pistol. I ask Ms Lee Rhiannon to articulate the Greens policy with regard to the further removal of pistols from everyone, including police, and whether she wants police to continue to have air pistols. Perhaps they will be able to have semiautomatic air pistols—
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: They can have water guns.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: It has been suggested that police might be able to have water pistols. The Greens amendment is absolutely ridiculous. It simply discloses the Greens agenda with regard to firearms in general: that they want firearms of all types, including those used by police, to be removed from society. This is just the beginning, but it is a big beginning.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [4.48 p.m.]: Obviously, the Shooters Party does not support Greens amendment No. 2, which seeks to make every pistol a prohibited pistol. That goes way beyond the agreement between the Commonwealth and States, and it takes the Council of Australian Governments criteria to a ridiculous height. In fact, if the amendment were to be passed it would probably make this legislation entirely irrelevant and redundant, because virtually nobody would be able to have a pistol, the buyback would not happen, and the whole thing would simply collapse in a screaming heap. As the Hon. David Oldfield said—and I totally endorse his remarks—it is indicative of the ultimate agenda of the Greens, which is to disarm everybody.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.49 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party also opposes Greens amendment No. 2, because, as has been said, it would ban all revolvers and self-loading pistols. This points out the reason why we voted for the bill in the first place. The Prime Minister is seeking to put in place a moderate piece of legislation, in both the Federal and State jurisdictions. If such legislation were not put in place, extremists such as the Greens and others would mount a campaign for the introduction of legislation banning all guns. That is the whole point of trying to find a middle way, which is what the Christian Democratic Party is seeking to do in supporting the bill and opposing this amendment.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.50 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes Greens amendment No. 2, which defines "prohibited pistol" as "any revolver or self-loading pistol other than an air pistol", which in effect prohibits all pistols. Greens amendment No. 3, however—which Ms Lee Rhiannon wanted to move in globo with this amendment—allows certain pistols to be used in Commonwealth Games and Olympic Games events. That illustrates the irony and the sheer stupidity of this group of amendments.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [4.52 p.m.]: I move Shooters Party amendment No. 2:
No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [2], line 2. Omit "120 mm". Insert instead "115 mm".
As I mentioned in my contribution to the second reading debate, semiautomatic pistols conventionally fall into two basic sizes in manufacture and competition, and are referred to in the shooting fraternity as either four inch or five inch pistols. The measurements proposed by the bill, which we have been referred to in media releases, discussions and interviews with various proponents of this bill, have referred also to four inch and five inch pistols. But the measurements proposed by this bill roughly equate to the 120 millimetre minimum barrel proviso to the five inch pistol, even though it is five millimetres short of five inches. In fact, a large proportion of apparently five inch barrels do not reach the 120 millimetre requirement. For example, some models of the most common and most copied of semiautomatic pistols, the Colt 1911—which are regarded as being five inch pistols by everybody—in fact have barrels measuring only 118 millimetres. These would be caught by the 120 millimetres minimum, failing by two millimetres to be recognised as five inch barrels.
The result would be a very large number of pistols having to be compensated for when, to all intents and purposes and in the spirit, I believe, of the buyback proposals, they are 120 millimetre or five inch pistols and are compliant with the intention of the legislation by being less concealable. I would add by way of comment that the fact that the buyback and the legislation have been framed this way indicates once again the characteristic of the anti-gun movement and, indeed, of those who framed this legislation. Their great characteristic is that they know absolutely nothing about firearms and have never attempted to find out. If they ever did, they would become dangerous.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [4.52 p.m.]: Both these proposals are opposed by the Government. They are inconsistent with the national framework and we cannot support them.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.52 p.m.]: The Shooters Party amendment No. 2 has a lot to recommend it. The Hon. John Tingle said that he thought the provision was deliberately included by people who do not understand pistol shooting or the weapons involved. I suspect, however, that it may have been accidental. A requirement of 120 millimetres was arrived at as the most common size by people who gave no thought about some weapons that would miss by two millimetres. I believe they were trying to do the right thing but they did not take account of the small difference and did not realise what that small difference would mean for many law-abiding and decent people.
I have absolutely no problem supporting this amendment because the difference of two millimetres in this instance will impinge on many people. Had people actually listened to what the Hon. John Tingle had to say about this matter before setting down the rules, I believe the Government could have quite easily supported the amendment because it fits comfortably within the philosophy and the feeling that was detailed in Canberra. It highlights that in one instance there is a two millimetre difference.
Greens amendment No. 2 negatived.
Shooters Party amendment No. 2 negatived.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [4.55 p.m.], by leave: I move Shooters Party amendment No. 3:
No. 3 Page 4, schedule 1 [2], lines 14 to 16. Omit "(being something that, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is not in accordance with the recognised specifications for that pistol)". Insert instead "that, in the opinion of the Commissioner, has substantially altered the function, size or category of that pistol".
The great flaw in this part of the legislation is that it makes absolutely no sense. It relies on recognised specifications for a particular pistol, specifications that simply do not exist. As drafted, it depends on recognised specifications for a particular pistol, but in fact there is no such thing as an unmistakable, unarguable, recognised specification for any particular model of any particular make of pistol. Manufacturers' specifications are vague at the least.
The question also arises as to who is actually the manufacturer of any given pistol. The great majority of pistols are customised, adapted, modified or substantially changed by gunsmiths to match the particular requirements of the owner or user, and of the match for which it will be used. This happens all the time. Pistols are often re-barrelled by gunsmiths—the calibres and barrel lengths not envisaged by the original manufacturer. When it happens, technically the gunsmith becomes the manufacturer of that pistol, and it is impossible to find a generic, recognised specification for models of pistols. This leads me to suggest that if this proposal is carried forward, the confusion that will arise about what specification is supposed to match the pistol will make it probably impossible to adequately categorise or identify that pistol.
The amendment seeks to cope with this by providing as a benchmark the usual function and generic size and category of the pistol. These things are recognisable and certainly can be identified clearly. These characteristics can be defined for assessment of an individual pistol. In fact, we believe that the amendment would clarify and make much more sense of this particular part of the legislation, which at the moment makes no sense whatsoever.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [4.57 p.m.]: Whilst the Government accepts that the proposed amendment represents a minor drafting change, it cannot support the amendment for the reason given: it is inconsistent with the national handgun control agreement.
Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 5
| Mr Gay
Mr Oldfield
Ms Pavey
Tellers,
Mr Jones
Mr Tingle | |
Noes, 2
Dr Burgmann
Mr Burke
Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Clarke
Mr Cohen
Ms Cusack
Mrs Forsythe | Mr Gallacher
Ms Griffin
Ms Hale
Mr Harwin
Mr Lynn
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mr Pearce | Ms Rhiannon
Ms Robertson
Mr Ryan
Mr Tsang
Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Mr West |
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.06 p.m.], by leave: I move Shooters Party amendments Nos 4, 5 and 6 in globo:
No. 4 Page 5, schedule 1 [6], line 21. Insert "or the equivalent of a category H (sport/target shooting) licence issued under the law in force in another State or Territory" after "licence".
No. 5 Page 5, schedule 1 [7]. Insert after line 27:
(2) Section 11 (2) does not apply in relation to a probationary pistol licence.
No. 6 Page 6, schedule 1 [7], lines 3 to 7. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(b) the licensee must, by the end of that 6-month period, have completed to the satisfaction of secretary or other relevant office holder of the pistol shooting club of which the licensee is a member a firearms training and safety course conducted by that club.
Amendment No. 4 deals with a category H sport-target shooting licence issued for various purposes, including a probationary pistol licence. It appears to me that the provisions in the bill argue with themselves. At present the bill does not allow for an H category licence for a target-shooting pistol issued in another State to be recognised in this State. Given the fact that the intention of the present law is for it to be supposedly both national and uniform, subsection (3) of proposed section 16 should make it clear that subsection (2) does not apply in relation to a person if the person has previously held a category H licence, other than a probationary pistol licence, in any jurisdiction in Australia.
Amendment 5 relates to probationary pistol licences. I point out that on first issue the probationary pistol licence does not permit the licensee to own a pistol and should, therefore, not be subject to section 11 (2) of the Firearms Act. The original purpose of the so-called cooling-off period was to stop a person acquiring a firearm immediately in case he or she intended to use it to harm another. The probationary licence does not allow ownership of a firearm and, therefore, the waiting period is irrelevant. Requiring a waiting or cooling-off period for a first probationary licence would achieve nothing, but it would provide a significant deterrent to a person seeking to take up target pistol shooting. I have a feeling that under the proposals of the Act that may very well be the purpose of it.
Amendment No. 6, which deals with the safety training of a probationary person, seeks to bring the proposals in the legislation into line with what the practice has always been, which has worked very well. Until now, new pistol shooters have completed whatever safety training is required by their club to qualify for their licence, and the commissioner has not been involved. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the commissioner as such could be involved. The commissioner has no way of knowing whether the new member has completed an approved course in a satisfactory manner unless the club so certifies that to the commissioner. This system has proved entirely satisfactory since the club is required to endorse the new member to the police as a safe and responsible person to handle firearms. Clubs have been careful to achieve high standards of training and responsible behaviour. This is in their own interests. Replacing "commissioner" with "club" would continue the current system and, indeed, make this section workable.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.10 p.m.]: Amendment No. 4 represents a minor drafting change and is not supported by the Government. I am advised that the drafting of this clause is in line with the current provisions in the Firearms Act. Similarly, amendment No. 5 is inconsistent with the terms of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement, and is not supported by the Government. Amendment No. 6 is the second proposed amendment to new section 16A. It is a current requirement of the Firearms Act that all new licence applicants must have completed a safety training course to the commissioner's satisfaction. This element of the law is retained in relation to the probationary pistol scheme.
Amendments negatived.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.11 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 3, 4 and 5 in globo:
No. 3 Page 6, schedule 1, lines 20 to 36. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
16B Possession and use of pistols for purposes of Olympic and Commonwealth Games shooting competitions
(1) In this section:
accredited person means a person who is for the time being accredited by the Committee under this section.
approved pistol means a pistol of a kind approved by the Committee under this section.
Committee means the Olympic and Commonwealth Games Shooting Regulation Committee established by the Commissioner under section 81A.
(2) A person may apply to the Committee to be accredited as a person who requires an approved pistol in order to train for, and participate in, an Olympic or Commonwealth Games shooting competition. The Committee may refuse or grant any such application.
(3) A person's accreditation under this section is subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the Committee and may be revoked by the Committee at any time for such reasons as the Committee thinks fit.
(4) The Committee may, subject to the regulations, approve of certain kinds of pistols for the purposes of this section. Any such approval may be revoked by the Committee at any time for such reasons as the Committee thinks fit.
(5) The Commissioner may issue a category H (sport/target shooting) licence (a special pistol licence) authorising an accredited person to possess and use an approved pistol but only for the purposes of training for, and participating in, an Olympic or Commonwealth Games shooting competition.
No. 4 Page 13, schedule 1. Insert after line 34:
[24] Section 81A
Insert after section 81:
81A Olympic and Commonwealth Games Shooting Regulation Committee
(1) The Commissioner is to establish a Committee known as the Olympic and Commonwealth Games Shooting Regulation Committee.
(2) The Committee is to consist of one representative of each of the following:
(a) the Australian Olympic Committee,
(b) the Australian Commonwealth Games Association,
(c) the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation,
(d) the National Coalition for Gun Control,
(e) the Australian Medical Association,
(f) the Teachers Federation,
(g) the Domestic Violence Advisory Service,
(h) the Australian Shooting Association.
(3) The procedure for meetings of the Committee is to be determined by the Commissioner.
(4) A decision by the Committee has no effect unless it is a consensus decision.
No. 5 Page 15, schedule 1, lines 26 to 32. Omit all words on those lines.
These amendments, if passed, would result in the formation of an Olympic and Commonwealth shooting regulation committee under the auspices of the Commissioner of Police. The committee would invite nominated representatives of the Australian Olympic Committee, the Australian Commonwealth Games Association, the Australian Shooting Association, the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, the National Coalition for Gun Control, the Australian Medical Association, the Teachers Federation and the Domestic Violence Advisory Service to join this body. It is important to have health and community representatives on the committee alongside shooting and sporting representatives. The Australian Medical Association has a clear position on the relationship between health and firearms. I read from some of its material:
Firearm ownership and use are public health issues. The AMA supports legislation restricting access to firearms. Such legislation reduces morbidity and mortality associated with firearm use. No person other than military and police personnel specifically authorised to carry such weapons should be permitted to use automatic and semiautomatic weapons, including machine guns.
I put it to members that this is the safest course for us as we consider this legislation, because people have acknowledged that some members of the public have a legitimate interest in firearms shooting as a sport. Equally, we are arguing that we need to have safer communities. By adopting these amendments, the committee could be put in place to oversee this matter so that we can bring safety to homes, streets and communities across New South Wales. The legislation as it stands contains enormous loopholes, it would be largely unworkable, and it would cost taxpayers a packet.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.14 p.m.]: Before I say anything else about amendment No. 4 I point out that it contains a fatal flaw. The amendment suggests that one of the bodies to be appointed to the committee is the Australian Shooting Association. That body is a national body and is not represented in New South Wales, except by the New South Wales Shooting Association. So it is not an appropriate body to be included in this group. Aside from the real agenda, these amendments overlook entirely the fact that the possession and use of pistols and the type of pistols used in Olympic and Commonwealth shooting competitions is already laid down by the bodies that control the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games. They decide what kind of pistols may be used in competition, because the competitions are for particular types of pistols in particular categories and for the medals that those categories provide.
Therefore, the introduction of another separate body to, as it were, second-guess the Australian Olympic Committee and the International Olympic committee, which this would do, would confuse the issue enormously. The suggestion is that this particular committee should be a committee that decides what pistols are suitable to be used. I wonder what qualifications to make such decisions reside in the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, the National Coalition for Gun Control, which I imagine would be a bit like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank, and the Australian Medical Association, which certainly has a position on this but is not an expert body that knows anything about the finer workings of Olympic and Commonwealth competitions or the pistols to be used in them.
I do not understand how the Teachers Federation fits into this. The Domestic Violence Advisory Service being represented on such a committee would presuppose that the sort of pistols which might or might not be used in Olympic and Commonwealth competitions would be the sort of pistols that might be used in domestic violence. Even if the committee had any real raison d'etre, which I do not believe it does, it would be so clumsily constituted that it would simply make the situation much worse. With some of these bodies on the committee, we would probably end up with people saying, "We do not really need any pistols for Olympic and Commonwealth pistol competitions. Let us ban them all." Indeed, as I see it, that is probably the ultimate intention of these amendments. I do not believe the amendments can be supported because they would introduce something that is already covered but does not need to be covered by anything else.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.16 p.m.]: To add to the honourable John Tingle's comments, the whole concept of this committee presumes that there is a problem. With regard to the shooters who are involved here, there is no problem. There are no incidents. There is no evidence. There is nothing to suggest that people who are legitimate law-abiding pistol owners in this State need anyone from the Domestic Violence Advisory Service, the Teachers Federation or any of these other groups to have any control over them at any time. There is simply no relationship between any of these people and crimes committed with firearms in this State.
I think Ms Lee Rhiannon completely misses or ignores the point that very few people in Australia are killed by guns. If we narrow it down to New South Wales, there is a much smaller number of people, and these people are involved in criminal activities or are the victims of criminals using guns. There is no relationship in this State with regard to licensed law-abiding legitimate pistol owners, members of clubs, and crime.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.18 p.m.]: These amendments are absurd, particularly the amendment relating to this proposed committee, which would have representatives of every group bar the United Nations, including the Teachers Federation. I do not understand the logic of this. I think the amendments speak for themselves. The amendments are about Commonwealth Games and Olympic Games regulation. Amendment No. 4, which is ludicrous, would provide for the establishment of a committee to regulate guns for Commonwealth and Olympic pistol events. The honourable member has put everyone else on the committee. This legislation has nothing to do with the Olympic Games or the Commonwealth Games.
Amendments negatived.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.18 p.m.]: I move Shooters Party amendment No. 7:
No. 7 Page 6, schedule 1 [7]. Insert after line 36:
(3) The Commissioner is not to make any decision (or exercise any other function) under this section except on the advice of the Pistol Sub-committee of the Firearms Licence Holders Working Party established by the Minister.
In contrast to the committee proposed by the Greens, I advocate an expert committee. That committee has been set up especially to advise the Minister on matters relating to pistols. There is a basic flaw in the bill in that it has the effect of allowing the commissioner to decide which pistol a licensee may use for given events. That is similar to telling a golfer which clubs to use on a particular golf course or in a particular event. Although it is accepted that the commissioner should have some power to regulate in this area, my amendment provides that the commissioner should consult people who are in a position to advise on the suitability of particular pistols for given events.
The previous police Minister established a firearm licence holders working party to advise him on a review of the general legislation. When the current proposals for specific pistol legislative changes eventuated, the current Minister established a pistol subcommittee of that working party to advise him on the new proposals. That subcommittee includes representatives of the New South Wales Amateur Pistol Association, the Sporting Shooters Association, the Firearm Dealers Association, and collectors associations. Its overall expertise in pistols and their use is unequalled. To avoid unintentional injustices in the issuing of licences for specialised target pistols, it is suggested that the subcommittee be consulted, as its combined expertise should be invaluable in any legislative or administrative matters relating to pistols. This is an attempt to give the commissioner the sort of advice he ought to have before he makes decisions of the kind proposed in this part of the legislation.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.21 p.m.]: The amendment to new section 16B is not supported by the Government. While the commissioner may from time to time take advice on matters relating to firearms licensing, there should be no compulsion on him to do so.
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.21 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 8:
No. 8 Page 7, schedule 1 [7]. Insert after line 5:
(4) However, section 11 (2) does not apply in relation to a special pistol licence.
It should be evident that the 28-day waiting period should not be applied where an existing category of pistol licence, which would have been subject to that period when it was first issued, is simply replaced by a special pistol licence. The cooling-off period, the checking-up period, has already been satisfied, and simply replacing one licence with another licence of the same type should not require the applicant to go through that 28-day period again.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.22 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment. It is unnecessary, because NSW Police is not proposing to issue a new licence for the users of highly specialised target pistols. Their registration details will simply be changed to reflect the type of firearm they own.
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.23 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 9:
No. 9 Page 8, schedule 1 [14], line 34. Insert "or is likely to be" after "is".
This relates to the requirement for a pistol club to certify to the commissioner, when supporting a person's application for a licence, what match the licence is to be used for. The words "likely to be used for" spring to mind automatically, because an individual member of a pistol club may take part in a large number of different shooting events in several disciplines. He may use the same pistol for all events or he may use different pistols at different clubs.
His own club, which is required to specify "the shooting activities to which the pistol is required" at the time the member applies for the permit may in the future decide to stage different shooting competitions in disciplines that the club did not engage in at the time the member applied for the permit but for which the member may be able to use a particular pistol. Technically, a member who participated in a new event that the club had not specified in its endorsement of his application would be guilty of illegally using the pistol. Therefore, the requirement should be widened to allow for future changes.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.24 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment to section 31. The current drafting reflects the national handgun control agreement that New South Wales is committed to implementing.
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.24 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 10:
No. 10 Page 8, schedule 1 [14]. Insert after line 35:
(3B) For the purposes of confirming that a person has adequate storage arrangements in relation to the safe keeping of a pistol, the secretary or other relevant office holder of the pistol shooting club may rely on a statutory declaration to that effect provided by the person.
I know the Minister will again say that this does not fit in with the Commonwealth agreement, and I am sure it does not. However, in its current form the provision is impossible to implement. It is quite unreasonable to require a pistol club or its officers to inspect an individual member's secure storage arrangements or be qualified to accurately assess them. The onus for this should be placed on the club member by way of a statutory declaration that he or she understands the storage requirements and will comply with them. It should be noted that the member would have had to make that declaration when he or she submitted an application for a permit to acquire a pistol.
In the normal course of events the police would have checked that secure storage and approved it or required it to be upgraded. A number of police officers find it very difficult to be sure whether a storage is secure. If they have trouble, how will a pistol club official be able to do it? The new provision is basically unnecessary, except to confirm that the member has complied.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.26 p.m.]: For the same reasons that I gave in relation to Shooters Party amendment No. 9, the Government is unable to support this amendment.
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.27 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 11:
No. 11 Page 9, schedule 1 [15], line 27. Omit "14 years". Insert instead "12 months".
This amendment relates to the penalty that would apply to somebody in possession of a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, which would become, under the provisions of this Act, a prohibited weapon. I understand that it is important to have adequate deterrent penalties for people who have prohibited weapons. I do not argue with that. The real problem here is the possession or use of the magazine, not the possession or use of the pistol. To suggest that a magazine is itself necessarily a weapon beggars the imagination. A magazine is of no value and is not dangerous when it is not fitted to a pistol, particularly if the owner of the magazine does not have a pistol in which the magazine can be used.
This should fall into quite a different category from possessing a prohibited pistol or a prohibited weapon. Therefore, a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 14 years for possessing a magazine only—which is what we are really talking about—is excessive. The amendment reflects my belief that a term of imprisonment of 12 months would be more than adequate, especially where the owner of the magazine does not have a pistol to which the magazine could be fitted.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.28 p.m.]: I have supported most of the amendments of the Hon. John Tingle, because I think they have been sensibly correcting what are probably drafting errors. However, I am disappointed that the honourable member has moved this amendment, which is completely out of character with the other amendments he has moved. They proposed sensible measures to correct mistakes and did not alter the intent of the bill. But this amendment is silly. It goes way beyond the others, and I cannot support it. Although I have been persuaded to support the others, I do not buy the line that there is nothing wrong with having a magazine only.
Any shooter that has a magazine that holds more than 10 cartridges has it deliberately. There is no argument on that. It is deliberately breaching the rules. The shooters that are abiding by the law know the law. They are professionals. That is the way the argument is being sold in the shooting community. I accept the argument. I cannot accept the argument that these so-called professionals can have a magazine that goes beyond 10. It just does not wash with me. Whilst I like the arguments of the Hon. John Tingle on the other amendments, I am really disappointed that this amendment has been moved, because I think it is a wacko amendment.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.31 p.m.]: I completely agree with the Hon. John Tingle and completely disagree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Whilst it may be a breach of the law, surely when looking at penalties one must consider the dangers involved.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: These are professional people. They should know.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: They are not professional people in many senses. They may be professionals who as a pastime are shooters. The point is that if you are going to impose penalties on people those penalties should be relevant to the danger to society that the act involves. Yes, it would be illegal to still have a magazine of that capacity, but there would be absolutely no danger to society whatsoever. A rock would be more dangerous as a weapon than a pistol magazine of more than 10 rounds. I once again make the point that penalties should be directly relevant to the danger that is posed to society, and with this offence there is no danger of any kind posed to society. It is a breach of the law—we all accept that—but there is no danger posed to society by a person accidentally or intentionally keeping a magazine of a prohibited size.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.32 p.m.]: The Government does not support the proposed amendments to section 51E. The 14-year penalty is consistent with the current penalty under section 7 of the Act for illegal possession of a pistol and is consistent with the Government's serious approach in respect of newly banned guns.
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.32 p.m.], by leave: I move One Nation amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:
No. 1 Page 11, schedule 1 [20]. Insert after line 2:
(3) A person is entitled to be paid compensation by the State for any prohibited pistol that is being held on the person's behalf by the holder of a firearms dealer licence if:
(a) the person handed the pistol over to the dealer before the start of the buyback period, and
(b) the person was, but is no longer, authorised to possess the pistol, and
(c) the pistol is surrendered by the dealer on the person's behalf to a police officer or other member of NSW Police during the buyback period.
No. 2 Page 11, schedule 1 [20], line 6. Insert "(other than a pistol that is being held on behalf of another person)" after "possession".
There are people who have determined from media reports, through different shooting organisations, from scuttlebutt, from gossip and so on that they will simply not be able to retain ownership of a pistol of the type that they have. Rather than continue with the renewal of their licence they have already passed their pistol over to a licensed dealer and let their licence lapse. Those people should not be penalised for essentially giving up their pistols earlier than others. A person who no longer is licensed to have a pistol but for all practical purposes technically owns a pistol that is legally being held by a dealer should not be prosecuted and should not be paid less compensation than people who have chosen to hold their pistol all the way through to the point of finally having to give them up.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.34 p.m.]: The Commonwealth Government is adamant that it is a condition of the national agreement that compensation will only be paid for registered firearms held under a licence or other such authorisation. A person who is not authorised to possess a handgun cannot collect compensation for it. Under the national agreement dealers may collect compensation on prohibited pistols that are lawfully held by them.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.35 p.m.]: I appreciate the Minister's answer and I understand the intention of that part of the legislation but unfortunately the licensed dealers who will be holding the pistols that are in many respects still owned but not able to be legally held by those who have already given up their licence will not receive the same compensation. The dealers will be able to hand in those pistols on their behalf but the price paid will be less than that to which a person who had kept the pistol and kept the licence up to the point of handing it in would be entitled.
Amendments negatived.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.38 p.m.]: I move One Nation amendment No. 3:
No. 3 Page 12, schedule 1 [21]. Insert after line 32:
(d) ammunition, and components for producing ammunition, in relation to prohibited pistols,
I understand that the Shooters Party has an amendment in very similar terms. My only concern with the Shooters Party amendment, which in essence has the same intention as my amendment, is that it could be construed not to have provision for compensation for components for making ammunition beyond the dyes themselves. I refer to cases, projectiles and percussion caps, if I could call them that. Those things could potentially be construed as not being covered by the Shooters Party amendment. That is why I have specifically included the words "and components for producing ammunition". By draconian legislation the Government is clearly confiscating pistols. There is no value to the owners of the confiscated pistols now to keep ammunition that can only be used in those pistols. Some shooters will have a large amount of ammunition and componentry in stock—perhaps a couple of thousand cases, a couple of thousand caps or primers and a couple of thousand projectiles. That would not be uncommon. I do not seek this compensation on my own behalf for the few dollars that would be involved, but I use my case as an example. I would have 3,000 to 4,000 projectiles, a similar number of primers and at least a similar number or very close to it of empty shell casings. That is in addition to the already loaded ammunition that would run into the area of 2,000 or 3,000 rounds. A person who is being forced to give up the use of the firearm that the ammunition is for at least should be reasonably compensated for the ammunition and components that can no longer be used.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.39 p.m.]: I believe the Hon. David Oldfield has a good point. In favour of his amendment I will not move my amendment No. 12.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.39 p.m.]: The Government cannot support this amendment. The Commonwealth Government has advised that there is no compensation available for ammunition possessed by individual shooters or for components for producing ammunition.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.39 p.m.]: I support the amendment. While I thought the previous amendment was ludicrous, I think this one is sensible and should be supported by the Government. Its effect is to remove ammunition from the community. This legislation is designed to make the community safer. Surely something that removes ammunition, albeit excess ammunition, is laudable. This is an incentive for people to hand in weapons. Why not support it?
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.40 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 13:
No. 13 Page 13, schedule 1 [22], lines 18 to 24. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
health professional means a medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist, nurse or social worker.
I am not clear why psychiatrists are not included in this group of health professionals, given that they are at least as likely as psychologists to encounter persons with problems that might make it undesirable for them to have access to a firearm. It is contended that the list of health professionals who might inform the Commissioner of a person's unsuitability to have access to a firearm is too broad and includes some categories that might not be appropriately qualified or experienced to form a view about a person's unsuitability.
New section 79 (3) (b), which relates to a person who provides professional counselling services, is questionable, given the relative medical or even health qualifications that are required for operatives listed in that category. Subsection (3) (c), which provides for other persons, leaves room for too wide a definition of so-called health professionals and could be extended to include categories such as chiropractors, iridologists, or even palm readers, and similar otherwise reputable practitioners whose qualifications to make such a judgment about what is essentially a client's mental state could be called into question.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.43 p.m.]: The Government does not support this amendment. In line with the 1996 National Firearms Agreement, section 79 (3) reflects the current status of the law, with the addition of social workers as required in the handgun control agreement. The removal of such groups from the legislation would contradict the National Firearms Agreement.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.44 p.m.]: I support this amendment. Let us forget that the Hon. John Tingle has moved it and consider its intent. Once again, it would make the State a safer place. The honourable member is trying to tighten the legislation.
Amendment negatived.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.47 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 6:
No. 6 Page 18, schedule 2, lines 4 to 31. Omit all words on those lines.
We are getting close to passing this bill. We have had the spectacle of the Shooters Party, One Nation, the National Party and at times the Labor Party competing for the shooters' vote. It is not a pretty sight. More people will die because the major parties have wimped out on this legislation. Calls have been made for years for limits on the use of firearms, but they have gone unheeded. The National Coalition for Gun Control, the Greens and community groups were ignored. Then the Port Arthur massacre occurred and the laws were changed. I urge honourable members to reflect on that event. Unfortunately pro-shooting lobbies have tried to airbrush that incident out of history or to distort what happened. They must accept that it happened.
Many people can remember exactly what they were doing when they heard the news of the Port Arthur massacre. We can all cite incidents that have so profoundly shocked us that we can remember the details of hearing about it. People often say they can remember where they were when they heard the news that President Kennedy had been assassinated. Many people can also remember where they were when the news broke about the Port Arthur massacre. Overnight our political leaders started talking about the need for gun control. Prime Minister Howard gave the lead and some changes were made, including the banning of semi-automatic long arms. However, a major loophole emerged in respect of semi-automatic handguns. That was a tragedy because many people who do not make the headlines have died.
When the Monash University shootings occurred, the gun control issue was back on the political agenda, but the changes that have been made have not gone far enough. This is pathetic legislation. Honourable members must remember that there is no doubt that men, women and children will die because politicians have again failed to pass legislation that would make the community safer. This is ironic, because the major parties that are supporting the legislation constantly refer to the law and order debate and tell us how we must prevent lawbreaking and make our community safer. Yet they are creating a huge loophole that will allow people to retain semi-automatic handguns.
Handguns are much easier to hide than long arms. Banning semi-automatic long arms was a step in the right direction. It is obviously not easy to hide them, but it is easy to hide handguns, which will be legal weapons. This is tragic. Honourable members have joked that although only two people died, it is called a massacre. A massacre does normally involve a large number of people. People have been killed at Strathfield, Surry Hills, Hoddle Street, Monash University and Port Arthur, and I agree that that is only a few massacres. However, in real terms a massacre occurs every week in Australia, because individuals die as a result of the misuse of guns. Obviously the figures vary from year to year, but about 300 people die each year as a result of that misuse. Effectively, there is a massacre every week in this country. What we are doing here tonight means that more people will die.
[Consideration interrupted.]
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:25:23 : Update this page