Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo) [5.00]: In my view this bill is one of the most disgraceful cop-outs I have witnessed in my 15 years in Parliament. It is no more than a callous and cynical stunt by the Premier in a desperate attempt to regain some of the popularity he has lost. One has to ask why it was necessary for the Government to introduce this legislation and force it through the House today and tomorrow. Has the Prime Minister asked for a ceding of powers? I think not. I say it is a cop-out because the law relating to the control of weapons in New South Wales has been a vexed problem for all State Governments over a long period, but tomorrow week all State Ministers for Police will attend a conference at which discussions on uniform laws will be had in some considerable depth.

Only a madman would oppose uniform gun laws throughout Australia. That is not the question here, however; it is a question of methodology. Taking this precipitate action now, when it has not been requested and is totally unnecessary, will have the possible effect of putting a number of States off side in the discussions, because some States guard State powers very jealously. As I said earlier, gun control laws have always been a vexed problem in the State of New South Wales, but if tomorrow we were to ban guns of all types in private ownership and give ourselves a warm inner glow about it, if we were to increase the penalties for the possession of firearms, it would not take weapons out of the hands of criminals, people who are deranged and those who have a reason to retain their weapons.

What will happen is that honest and law-abiding citizens will obey the law as they always have done. They will hand in their guns, but others will not. As parliamentarians, as sensible, sane, rational people, we have to consider ways and means of preventing horrible crimes such as that which took place at Port Arthur last Sunday. I must say that my heart goes out to those who have been left bereaved by that terrible tragedy. Everyone would be saddened and would weep on hearing that two little children were shot down in cold blood. It is a terrible crime; it is a crime which has generated an intense emotional reaction within the State of New South Wales and throughout the country. People cannot understand why a madman, or anyone for that matter, would commit such a terrible crime. I believe that the Premier has introduced legislation at this time to capitalise on the horror, bereavement and emotions of people. If that is his motivation, it is a cruel and callous thing to do. As well as examining the gun laws and seeking uniformity, and ways and means of keeping guns out of the hands of those who are totally irresponsible or insane, the Government has to have regard to the sources of violence in our society.

Mr E. T. Page: Are you going to give yours up?

Mr PEACOCKE: I will give them up to the honourable member in a different way, in a moment. This is not a joking matter; it is deadly serious and important. I have not heard many members of this House make reference to the sources of violence in the community. For instance, how is it possible that a man who struck a three-year-old boy in the stomach, ruptured his intestines and allowed him to die a horrible death, could be charged, convicted and released on a bond? How could such a thing happen?

Mr E. T. Page: You should ask the judge.

Mr PEACOCKE: That is what I would like to do. Someone ought to ask the judge how a man in my electorate who discharged a weapon through the window of a shop and might have killed someone - it was only by good fortune that he did not - received a gaol term of only three months when convicted of that offence. Why is it that hoodlums who attack people in the streets and assault them or attack people and occasion them actual bodily harm are released on bonds? Why are husbands who attack their wives in the most brutal fashion not dealt with harshly? There are many facets to this horrible problem that we have to think about rationally, carefully and seriously. These are issues that should be above party politics; they should be above politics in general. Society has become conditioned to violence.

Many people have been desensitised as a consequence of the use of television, computers, films, constant violence in our midst and the very soft, miserable and wimpish reaction of the courts in the early stages of violence which often leads to serious violence later on. There is another aspect to the legislation which I dislike. If powers to control weapons are ceded to the Commonwealth, what will happen down the track if an irrational government is in office and wants to ban all weapons? It would probably be all right if a rational coalition government was in office and it would probably be all right with a rational Labor government in office; perhaps there is no such thing. But if down the track there is an irrational government in office and it wants to ban all weapons -

Mr E. T. Page: If the Left gets control.

Mr PEACOCKE: Yes, exactly. That would be equally disastrous for the country. A number of people have a responsible, necessary use for firearms - farmers who have to kill vermin and who can be prosecuted if they do not; people who enjoy shooting in a responsible fashion, target shooting for instance; and a number of others who have a good reason, if not a definite need, to possess firearms. If firearms are banned innocent people, responsible people, will suffer. I take the view that if ultimately there is no other way to achieve responsibility and uniformity in respect of gun control laws, we would have to seriously consider a ceding of powers to the Commonwealth. In the meantime a multitude of precedents exist for uniformity without ceding of power.

A typical example is financial institutions: the State acknowledged that it needed uniformity but did not need to cede its powers. Each State has identical powers in respect of financial institutions other than banks, and that arrangement works well. Every Government in the Commonwealth, including the Federal Government, meets regularly on a wide range of issues that are of concern to us all. We have achieved remarkable uniformity in a number of ways. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier in this debate, there is no reason why that route could not be taken and a desirable result achieved in that method.

I suppose because of the view that I have taken of this legislation I will be called a redneck or other names that people who consider themselves politically correct can think up. But let me say to the whitenecks, who are not thinking about the issue but rely on the distress and emotions of people to score cheap political points, who put up arguments which in retrospect will not stand close scrutiny later on, that they are the people who will let down the citizens of this country. This is not a problem which can be solved solely by toughening up our gun laws. It is a problem which has a huge number of facets, and a problem which the people of this State and country are saying needs to be resolved and must be resolved quickly in all its aspects.

People are sick and tired of violence. They are sick of men, women and children being attacked in the street, and of reading every day in the press of shootings and knifings and of people being battered to death with baseball bats. The people are demanding that the Government and the Parliament ensure that proper penalties be paid by those who commit these offences and that violence is addressed early, before it graduates to more serious violence. They are demanding that the courts take a much tougher stand. They are demanding that the Parliament ensures that that happens. They are demanding that there be uniform gun laws for the whole of the State, the matter we have just discussed. But, above all, the people are demanding a rational reappraisal of the way of life of the people of this State and this country.

I conclude by saying how distressed I am by the extent of the coverage by the press and other media of the tragic incident in Tasmania. Yesterday's edition of the Daily Telegraph devoted the first 11 pages to that matter. Today the Sydney Morning Herald has a huge amount of matter about that tragedy. Every paper has. The television coverage was not as extensive but it still featured considerable matter on Port Arthur. Monday morning last on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation I heard this matter mentioned at length on five occasions within a space of two hours. It is one thing to report crimes of this nature; it is proper for the media to report them. But we must ask ourselves: is it proper that the whole of the events be reported chapter and verse, day after day, ad nauseam? Is it proper for the media to extract every last ounce from this horrible story? Is it proper that the media gives to any lunatic, madman or criminal in the community in which we live a road map on how to become famous by killing innocent men, women and children?

Mr McBride: Famous is hardly the correct term.

Mr PEACOCKE: That is what such people seem to think. I suspect that the extensive reporting of the horrible massacre in Scotland was part of the reason for the triggering of the Port Arthur incident. We must consider what needs to be done about the reporting of such incidents. What needs to be done about the disgraceful extent to which every possible aspect of the tragedy is developed by the press, with even people who are in shock and grief being interviewed merely to gain the last column inch. I oppose the legislation at this time. If ultimately it proves to be the only answer, that is when my opposition will be withdrawn.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [5.14]: After listening to the speeches of the honourable member for Dubbo and the Leader of the Opposition I am convinced that the Opposition is opposed outright to the bill. The Leader of the Opposition concluded his remarks by arguing that the debate on the bill should be deferred. Opposition members do not mean that. They are opposed to the bill. They do not want it to progress any further than debate in this Chamber. That is why they are reacting so much this afternoon to this measure. The honourable member for Dubbo asked why the bill had to be dealt with urgently today, why the matter could not be deferred. There is very good reason for that. It is that this Parliament will not meet next week. Indeed, the last people who would want to meet in this Chamber next week are members of the National Party. Only this afternoon, when it was suggested that the House sit tomorrow, the first reaction came from National Party members.

Mr Jeffery: On a point of order. This debate is on the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill, not about the days and hours of sittings of this House. I ask that the honourable member be brought back to the leave of the bill.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rogan): Order! The leave of the bill is limited, but it has always been the practice to permit honourable members to make introductory comments before addressing the subject matter under discussion. The honourable member is in order, but I ask him to return to the leave of the bill.

Mr MOSS: It is absolutely necessary that this motion be adopted today because the Parliament will recess after tomorrow and will not sit again until after the police Ministers conference on Friday week, and the Government wants to take a clear statement to that conference. Members of the Opposition might not like the fact that the only Labor State in Australia is determined to take a positive proposal to that conference, which has been convened by the Federal coalition Government. Honourable members opposite do not like it, but that is why the Government wants this legislation passed now - so that when we go to Canberra it will not be just to talk about what should be done, but to put proposals to the delegates to that conference.

Mr Jeffery: Come back next week. We have no worries about that.

Mr MOSS: Come back next week? You were the first to react about honourable members returning here tomorrow.

Mr Jeffery: I am happy to come back any day.

Mr MOSS: The performance of Opposition members so far in this debate has been very weak. All we have heard is an argument for uniform laws. That is their great catchcry - not national laws, but uniform laws. Why are they so keen on uniform laws and so violently opposed to national laws? I
Page 779
suggest there are a number of good reasons. The first is that they are probably scared that laws controlled by a Federal government may turn out to be tougher than laws that honourable members opposite would like enacted in this State. Another reason for their opposition to national laws is their jealousy that a State Labor government is taking the initiative in supporting a proposal of the Federal coalition Government. If I am right, then I am sorry, but honourable members opposite still have not got over the fact that Labor is in power in New South Wales and calls the shots here.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! All honourable members will have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Though some interjection encourages vigorous debate, I ask those who have been interjecting to conduct themselves with decorum in the Chamber.

Mr MOSS: The main reason that Opposition members are opposed to the measures that the Government wants to introduce is that they do not want their gun-slinging mates to lose the right to own an automatic or semi-automatic gun. Furthermore, they do not want their gun-slinging mates to lose the right to jump a border, go to Queensland - as we heard from the Premier earlier today - buy a machine-gun and then bring it back across the border into New South Wales. National laws would prevent that.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Monaro will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate at the appropriate time. Should he do so, I will ensure that he is afforded the same protection as I am now affording the honourable member for Canterbury.

Mr MOSS: I am appalled, as are most Government members, that even before the 35 Port Arthur victims are buried the New South Wales Parliament is backing away from the all-important issue of controlling guns by the imposition of national gun laws. That backing away will have the effect of not protecting innocent and vulnerable people who may be victims of gun violence in the future. The Opposition stands condemned for that. The Government favours national laws, as opposed to uniform laws, for a very good reason. In Australia we have one national government, half a dozen State governments and two Territory governments - a total of nine governing bodies.

If the Opposition argument for so-called uniform laws were taken to its logical conclusion and the nine governing bodies agreed on uniform laws, it could happen that no sooner does the agreement come into force than there is a change of government in one State. In that event the new government could fall out of kilter with the other eight in relation to the agreement, and the agreement would break down. That could easily happen. In fact, I can readily think of an example. One had only to see on television in the past few days the demonstration of the mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy attitude of the Queensland Government to realise how a uniform agreement could break down. It is only a few years ago that the National Party held power in Queensland in its own right.

If there were uniform laws, as opposed to a national law, and the Queensland National Party were to once again gain office in its own right, it is very likely that a National Party government would not agree to uniform laws to control guns to prevent the sale and distribution of automatic and semiautomatic guns. One has only to witness the attitude of National Party members now, straight after the Hobart massacre. It is ridiculous to talk about uniform laws. If we are to get tough on guns, we have to have a national law. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government was giving away State powers to the Commonwealth. He was very annoyed about that. It is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition is not familiar with the legislation. The bill does not seek power outright. There is a provision that the reference has effect until terminated by proclamation. Clause 4(2) states:

The Governor may, at any time, fix by proclamation a day as the day on which the reference terminates.

It is only natural to include such a clause in the bill. The Labor Government in New South Wales would not be so stupid as to cede its powers to a national coalition government without a means by which it could pull out if it wanted to. That measure is included in case the Federal Government introduces something that we do not consider to be strong enough. The Leader of the Opposition has it wrong when he talks about New South Wales losing control of any power over guns for time immemorial. That is not right. Now is the time to act on gun laws. It is not the time to just talk about this. National laws are the way to go to place greater restriction and control on the sale and importation of lethal weapons such as automatic and semiautomatic guns. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [5.25]: I draw the attention of the House to what I would suggest is the impropriety of this debate today. As this debate proceeds, a memorial service is taking place for the 35 victims of the tragic shooting at Port Arthur in Tasmania. I find it abhorrent to be forced into a political debate while that is occurring. The bottom line is, however, that I am prepared and the National Party is prepared to debate with the Government at any time the good welfare of the people of New South Wales. I find it abhorrent that the last speaker chose to make a political speech on this issue in this week of national sorrow.

There is no secret about my attitude, and I related this to the Minister for Police some three days ago. I believe that this is the week when the nation should be allowed to grieve and should be allowed to consider its position on violence. A gun is one of a number of tools used occasionally to perpetrate crimes of extreme viciousness and violence. To talk about guns in isolation from other acts of violence is to short-circuit and short-suit one of the most important questions for individuals, families, the nation and government. The Government's rush to introduce legislation, to flick its responsibilities to the Commonwealth, is premature, ill-timed and politically shoddy. The most shoddy thing to occur today - and I cannot let it pass - is that the Premier told two lies when he introduced the bill. He first attributed statements to me that were simply not true. Then he went on to talk about the ability to purchase machine-guns in Queensland. That was another deliberate and direct lie.

I have a statement from the Inspector of Weapons and Licensing, Queensland police, Mr John McCombes, that the Queensland Weapons Act 1990 categorises weapons in three categories. Schedule 1 prohibits the sale of machine-guns. The only licences that can be obtained for machine-guns are restricted licences for collectors' items, which must be inoperable, and theatrical supplies, which can fire blanks only. He advises that one cannot legally buy machine-guns over the counter in Queensland and that no licensed dealer in Queensland deals in machine guns. Let us put that lie in the record, because that places anything else that the Premier may have to say on the matter of guns into total disrepute - he shoots himself in the foot. I would also like to have recorded in Hansard the statement made by me, as Leader of the National Party, and the Leader of the Opposition on national gun control initiatives. The statement reads:

•The Police Minister's Council represents a unique opportunity for politicians from all States and Territories and the Commonwealth to establish national standards for gun control and uniformity of gun laws throughout Australia.

•It is crucial that all government representatives attending the conference do so with determination to achieve an effective national approach on gun control.

•The primary objective of the meeting should be to expedite a national approach.

•Under the present system the gun laws of any State are only as effective as those of the weakest State.

•Any uniform gun laws should not be based on the weakest laws in any given State.

•There was a tightening of gun laws in New South Wales with bi-partisan support following the Strathfield massacre.

•We recognise that bi-partisanship is crucial to Parliamentary consideration of these issues.

That is the most important statement that has been made in the entire discussions that have erupted this week as a result of last weekend's tragedy. As the Government has decided to turn this into a political debate, one must be clear as to policy. In 1992 the coalition Government introduced the toughest gun laws in Australia.

Mr E. T. Page: That is not true. Western Australia has the toughest gun laws, you goose.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rogan): Order! The Minister will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr ARMSTRONG: The Premier and other Government members made much about Queensland gun laws, which were introduced and presided over by the Queensland Labor Goss Government. The Premier has repeatedly advocated an attitude on gun laws that is different from that which he has espoused today. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 July 1995 Bernard Lagan reported:

But Carr has a problem: before the 1991 State election he clearly ruled out any further tightening of gun controls, under any Government he formed, saying: "Oh well, first of all I think guns is dead as an issue in NSW. There's no bipartisanship on it: there'll be no change in the gun laws under a Carr Labor Government."

This Premier has performed a charade, a theatrical act, in saying that he cares. Nathan Vass, in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 11 July 1995, reported:

Three years later, in 1991, the then Opposition Leader, Mr Carr, echoed Mr Easson when he said: "There'll be no change in the gun laws under a Carr Labor Government."

Following the tragic shooting last year of the two constables at Crescent Head, Adrian Bradley and Jonathon Porter wrote an article in the Australian of 11 July 1995 which stated:

As condolences for the families of the dead policemen flooded in, the Premier, Mr Carr, revealed the coroner would examine whether tighter gun laws or bullet-proof vests would have saved the lives of Senior Constables Peter Addison and Robert Spears.

The Premier well knows that the State Coroner is due to bring down his report on the coronial inquiry next week. He has instructed him to report back on those two aspects. Should he not at least take advice on the report he commissioned from the Coroner? Should he not at least have respect for his own program? The Premier has decided to play penny-ante politics. He has seen this as an opportunity to flick the responsibility to the Commonwealth, to get rid of it, because for a long time he has considered gun laws a hot potato.

In the rhetoric this week from the Premier and Government members no reference has been made to the broader question of violence in the community. Latest statistics from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show that 57 per cent of crime involving violence is by methods other than guns. Also, no direct reference has been made about the effect of television programs or videos on children and adults. It is short-circuiting any real endeavours to reduce violence and the trauma associated with it to debate this in isolation and discuss reducing violence in New South Wales without making reference to broader issues and using guns as the scapegoat.

The Prime Minister has given a lead to every State government, and the Leader of the Opposition stated this afternoon that the Opposition entirely supports the principles espoused yesterday by the Prime Minister. The State Opposition will endeavour to comply with the principles he espoused. However, I am not prepared to allow the debate to be curtailed or wound up, with the Government washing its hands of the matter by flicking the issue to the Commonwealth. I call on the New South Wales Government to honour its responsibilities for the monitoring of videos. The censorship of videos is the responsibility of the Commonwealth, but the administration of the Act is the responsibility of the New South Wales Police Service. What action is the Government taking to ensure that children and susceptible, gullible adults are not exposed to the extreme violence that researchers in recent times have highlighted as having a detrimental effect on young people and society?

The Government has misread the intelligence of the people of New South Wales, who will not be hoodwinked. The Leader of the Opposition and I will ensure that we make precise representations as these issues are debated over coming days and weeks. The honourable member for Monaro, who has done considerable work on this issue, will articulate some of the detail. The timing of the debate is premature; the debate should not have been held for at least another week so that a balanced perspective could be achieved and so the people of New South Wales could come to grips with the enormity of what was perpetrated last Sunday.

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [5.37]: I speak tonight with a saddened heart and wish first to convey my sincere sorrow to the people of Tasmania and to the families of the 35 people who were killed unnecessarily in recent days. I say that not only as a member of Parliament but as a father who usually sees his children nightly and is constantly reminded that in this day and age and in this country it is possible that my children could become victims of a callous crime.

I did not want this debate to be political, and I intended to speak as one who many years ago was trained in the use of military weapons. The point that has been lost in this debate thus far is that these weapons are not sporting weapons or weapons used by farmers on vermin; they are weaponry designed specifically to maim, mutilate and kill other human beings. Yesterday, even the Prime Minister in his speech to Parliament acknowledged that this type of weapon has no use. It has been said before, and I will say again, that I am disappointed that the honourable member for Dubbo made political capital out of this debate. He termed this bill as a cop-out by the Carr Labor Government. The people of New South Wales will see it as exactly the opposite. Today the Premier has put everyone on notice that this State has had enough, it has had a gutful, and something must be done.

Yesterday the honourable member for Manly pointed out his concern and shame that politicians throughout Australia have allowed this problem to perpetuate. We have had Hoddle Street, Strathfield and now Tasmania, yet very little has been done in the way of national registration. The only way to achieve rational gun laws in this country is to place them under the umbrella of the Federal Government, which has the ability to establish national gun registration. Also, through customs it can police and ensure that guns do not come into the country illegally, and the post office can ensure that people are afforded protection through various means. The States are not geared for that type of work. It might be fine to regulate a gun shop, but we have no way of protecting our children from the onslaught of guns entering the country.

In recent hours I have received a number of questionnaires from the media. I indicated the Government's stance to the Sydney Morning Herald, and I received a questionnaire from the Daily Telegraph, to which I shall allude. It asks three questions, and I will indicate my answers to them. The first question asked whether I supported Prime Minister John Howard's proposal for an effective national registration of gun ownership. I answered that I supported the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday. In that question "national" is the key word; it is national uniform registration, and members opposite want to bring that control back to the State.

The second question asked whether I supported Prime Minister John Howard's proposal on a total ban throughout Australia on all automatic and semiautomatic weapons. My answer to this question was that I support the statement of the Prime Minister of yesterday. I have the Hansard of the Prime Minister's statement, and the Liberal-National coalition should listen to two aspects of the speech. He said that he hoped that in a small way members can demonstrate cross-party expressions of solidarity and concern. We have already lost that. Here we have an opportunity to send a message to the Prime Minister that we support what he is trying to do, and we want to protect the people of our State. He also said:

There is a proposal for effective national registration of gun ownership in this country. They will also include a total ban throughout Australia on all automatic and semi- automatic weapons.

I hope that the Prime Minister has given a clear message to his charges in New South Wales in the Liberal-National coalition on this issue. National Party credibility in this place would be questioned if its members did not answer the questionnaire, or provided answers that were at odds with the Prime Minister. That is why this legislation is so important. As a result of the division between the Liberal Party and the National Party on this issue, it is imperative that the Government ensures that the Prime Minister and his Government understand that the New South Wales Parliament supports a proposal to ensure the safety of its citizens, and that we want other States to follow that lead. Also, the Government has acted on this legislation because we know that the National Party in Queensland does not support the Prime Minister's proposal. The party in Queensland will head down the same track as the mob opposite. It will do everything in its power to
Page 782
ensure that the gun laws it wants remain, and it does not want the redneck gun lobby on its tail again. That is what it is all about.

Mr Cochran: Is Wayne Goss a redneck? It is his legislation.

Mr McMANUS: It is not Wayne Goss's - he has gone. The opportunity exists for the Queensland police Minister to speak strongly in support of changing Goss's legislation, but he will not do so. Instead, Cooper is on television every night telling the people of this country that he does not support John Howard. Honourable members opposite have been given their riding orders in defending Cooper, but this will not work. Even John Howard knows that the people of this country have had enough; they are sick of seeing their children killed. The kids of this country have a right to have a picnic without being mowed down by weaponry not designed for recreation or sport.

The Premier has clearly indicated to the Federal Government, without politics, that he wants to support the Prime Minister. On Friday, 10 May the Premier wants to take an agenda to the meeting with the Prime Minister. He wants to say, "We have thought long and hard in our Parliament about this issue, and we make suggestions to you which you can expect to get the ball rolling." I do not again want to speak in this House about another Strathfield, Hoddle Street, or Tasmanian massacre. It is time that the States were brought together under the umbrella of the Federal Government on this matter. I do not suggest that every time we have a problem we throw it to the Federal Government. We have tried to deal with this issue on a State basis, but it has simply not worked. This bill will provide an opportunity for the Federal Government to ensure that certain action can be taken. If the Federal Government pulls out and goes to water on this issue, we will take the powers back and do something about this problem.

I will be interested to see the actions of the National Party as I have been hearing that they have been changing horses midstream. Rather than talking about the destruction which guns and rifles cause, they have been talking about domestic violence. That has nothing to do with this bill. The Hon. Ron Dyer has taken action on domestic violence, and the Government will provide 650 extra police on the beat within the next couple of years. That is something which members opposite did nothing about for seven years. They allowed police numbers to be reduced, allowed domestic violence to go unchecked, allowed violent videos to be available and allowed violence to continue on television. Members opposite now condone weapons which kill and maim in New South Wales. Members opposite are on the wrong track. The honourable member for Cronulla should be careful. The people of Cronulla will not be impressed if he votes the wrong way on this issue; if he does, I will make sure that they know about it.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Cochran.