Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [10.00]: I join each and every member of this Parliament and, in fact, all Australians in expressing grave concern at the results of last Sunday's tragedy in Port Arthur. The deranged mind of the killer has left us all in a state of shock, with a list of names and families who have been subjected to the unreasonable and unjustified wrath of an insane mind. Words cannot express the tragedy that has befallen the normally very peaceful Apple Isle. The tragedy brings home to us all how susceptible we are to the culture of violence that has swept across Australia over recent years. However, it is not the issue of violence that I will address today; it is the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill, which, regrettably, has been brought into this Chamber to manipulate the situation politically, to put political spin on the gun issue, without seriously considering effective ways in which to address this horrendous problem.

The problem is the attitudes of people towards gun ownership, of political leaders towards saving political face and of the general public, who no doubt are bewildered by the tragedy that beset Tasmania and by previous tragedies, such as the Wade Frankum case and others. A newspaper recently stated correctly that this issue should be above politics. Regrettably, it is not. The move by Premier Bob Carr to introduce the bill into the House is a political exercise. It is an abrogation of responsibilities, buck passing - call it what you will - but it is not a solution to the problem. That has been recognised now by the media and by many other political leaders across the country. I particularly commend to the House the words of John Howard in the Federal Parliament on 1 May. He said:

Those proposals will at a minimum include a proposal for an 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.

Those words encompass the views of many Australians, though difficulties may arise in the practicalities of introducing legislation to establish a national register. The concept of a State ceding powers to the Commonwealth in order to overcome a problem in that State is an unconscionable act that will not achieve anything. I agree, however, with the concept of joint meetings of the States under the Council of Australian Governments arriving at template legislation to produce uniform legislation to control guns - and gun ownership in particular - across the country. Then we will begin to achieve something worth while. Regrettably it has been proved in recent years that the methods of licensing throughout the country are ineffective and that they do not identify those who are placing our community at risk. In that regard uniform legislation is needed to identify those who are inappropriately in possession of firearms so that the firearms can be withdrawn from them. Any law-abiding and understanding person in this country would agree.

Along with many honourable members in this House, I am a father who is concerned about the welfare and future of our children. I express grave concern, as the honourable member for Dubbo did yesterday, about the increasing level of violence in society and the attitude of the media towards violence. Over recent days the media have been on a feeding frenzy, frothing at the mouth over ways in which they believe they can solve the gun law problems facing this country. They are not experts on gun laws, nor is any honourable member. We are learning through tragic experiences, and it would be wise for the media to take the counsel of those who are considering genuine scientific and political arguments for and against firearms registration, registration of owners and the criteria for gun ownership, which need to be examined.

We need to come up with an effective solution. We do not want a whitewash or a politically expedient solution but a solution that will identify the people who should not own a firearm so that their weapons can be withdrawn. If anything is to come out of this debate, it should be that message and the message that the people of Australia do not want further political manipulation, such as this bill, that will abrogate responsibilities. Honourable members in this place and in the other Chamber have a responsibility to address gun laws in this State. They are charged with that task and constitutional responsibility when they become members, and that responsibility should not be handed to someone else for political expediency. That is not the answer.

The Prime Minister has given a lead to us all. The recommendations that he intends to make to the police Ministers conference will set a benchmark for the conference. We need to encourage the police Ministers to investigate all avenues thoroughly so that the owners of firearms can be identified. The licensing system in this State has demonstrated its ineffectiveness. Bernard Lagan, in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 May, pointed out the ineffectiveness of the system in failing to identify owners of firearms and members of the community who should not have firearms' licences. I place on record these wise words of Bernard Lagan:

. . . since June 1992, the number of people in NSW allowed to possess a gun (those issued by the police with a shooter's licence) has fallen from 300,000 to about 150,000; yet there is no evidence that the level of gun ownership is dropping.

It is true that shooter's licences on issue have increased by about 14,000 since Mr Carr announced last September that the $75 licence fee would be waived to encourage more illegal gun owners to get a licence. The waiver expires next month, leaving the 164,000 licensed NSW gun-owners well short of the actual number, estimated by John Tingle, who represents the Shooters Party in the State Upper House, to be as high as 700,000.

It must concern people that of a possible 700,000 firearm owners only 164,000 are licensed in this State. The Prime Minister's statement that an effective national registration of gun ownership is essential is the most accurate and pertinent statement on this issue in the history of this nation. I urge honourable members on the Government benches to consider seriously the hypocrisy of introducing this bill and claiming that the House must sit an extra day in order to pass this legislation when the upper House has been dismissed!

Mr Jeffery: It's a joke.

Mr COCHRAN: The honourable member for Oxley is correct; it is an absolute joke. It is an absolute farce! No doubt the shadow minister for police will speak at length on this issue. It is extraordinary that the Government claims to have some credibility and integrity in this debate when it is prepared to go through the farcical exercise of introducing a piece of legislation to the House, claiming urgency about the matter but abrogating responsibility, and then dismissing the upper House so that the legislation cannot be passed.

Mr Tink: It can't be debated.

Mr COCHRAN: It cannot be debated. The Australasian Police Ministers' Council will have concluded before the legislation is passed by the upper House. That is the most hypocritical move in this Parliament by the Carr Government. It is an absolute joke and honourable members on the Government benches should be ashamed. The Government claims that it will resolve the gun law problems of this State, yet it introduces a bill into the House knowing full well that it will not pass through both Houses before the conclusion of the police Ministers conference. The Government should be damn well ashamed.

Mr Windsor: It's a disgrace.

Mr COCHRAN: It is a disgrace. This is the sort of farcical exercise that the Government engages in. Yesterday the Premier was poncing up and down this Chamber saying, "You can buy machine guns across the counter in Queensland."

[Interruption]

The honourable member would not know one end of a gun from another. It was the Government's hypocritical mate Wayne Goss who introduced laws in Queensland in 1990 and amended them in 1994 to allow machine guns to be sold across the counter. Queensland laws have allowed automatic firearms to find their way to places like Tasmania. You lot should judge your conscience on whether Mr Goss's legislation allowed those firearms to go from Queensland to Tasmania to be used in that offence last Sunday. What a bunch of hypocrites!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Monaro will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr COCHRAN: The problem faced by this crowd on the other side of the Chamber is that their memories are clear about 1988. That is why Goss did not have the guts to introduce appropriate legislation in Queensland. That is why your Premier is accurate when he says -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Monaro will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr COCHRAN: If automatic machine guns are available across the counter in Queensland, it is the fault of Wayne Goss, the former Premier of Queensland. The problem lies with him. The Queensland Government did not have the guts to address the problem, like this lot opposite who are now passing the responsibility to the Federal Government. They too do not have the guts to take on the issue! I challenge the Premier and the Government to take up this issue and address the gun law problem. John Howard has had the courage; it is printed in black and white. He will set the template for legislation. You lot should see if you can develop the intestinal fortitude to introduce it into this Parliament. See if you have the guts. The Premier said he will introduce it to the House. I say that he does not have the guts because he has passed it off to the Federal Government. The Opposition knows that Wayne Goss and Bob Carr had the opportunity and did nothing. The Government has done nothing in the 12 months it has been in office. [Time expired.]

Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [10.15]: I completely support the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill but I regret that such a matter must be debated in this House. Yesterday I listened intently to the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Collins. It was the most wimpish cop-out I had ever heard. It was indicative of his cop-outs when he was health Minister of this State. He destroyed the New South Wales health system and is now destroying a move to introduce uniform legislation in this country to control the use of guns. His performance can only be described as wimpish, and the performance of the Leader of the National Party can only be described as duplicitous.

Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition is hoping that the rage will die down after the death of 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania, and that in a week's time he will be able to sniff out the reaction throughout the State, particularly in rural areas. The bill is not aimed at farmers or those on the land, who obviously need guns; it is not aimed at vermin shooters or at members of sports shooting
Page 793
clubs, pistol clubs or rifle clubs, or at people who have a genuine interest in sports shooting. The bill is aimed at removing from the hands of people dangerous assault weapons that are designed to kill and maim. Weapons should not be in the hands of anybody in the community, especially some of the lunatics who have managed to get hold of them. Tasmania is usually a quiet and peaceful State, but last Sunday everybody was shocked and horrified by the senseless slaughter of 35 citizens, who were mainly holiday-makers visiting Port Arthur.

That feeling of shock and revulsion did not rest only with the people of Tasmania; it spread throughout Australia. Last Sunday's events are in everybody's thoughts. I lived in Tasmania for four years, and I have friends and in-laws there. My brother-in-law and his family live about 15 miles from where this event occurred, and on last Sunday evening we found it impossible to telephone him. I do not know whether the lines were jammed or his phone was out of order; nevertheless, it was a worrisome time, particularly for my wife, who was concerned about the welfare of her brother and his family. Thank God they were not caught up in that terrible incident.

I visited Tasmania only a few months ago and visited Port Arthur with my brother-in-law and his family. We had a nice lunch there and enjoyed looking at the remnants of the penal settlement. It is unthinkable that people enjoying a holiday in Australia should worry about being gunned down mercilessly. We hear about such things in Beirut, but Australia has always been regarded as a safe tourist destination. This is the end of the age of innocence, although this is not the first such atrocity. The honourable member for Monaro said that the media are starting to oppose the Government's proposal, but he must be reading different newspapers from me. The editorial in today's Daily Telegraph reads in part:

Premier Bob Carr's legislation to hand over NSW's gun control powers to the Federal Government provides a mechanism at last by which effective and uniform weapons laws may be enacted.

The editorial is particularly scathing in its comments about Mr Armstrong; it states:

The suspicion is that Mr Armstrong is leaving his options open until he is able to gauge the response of his rural constituents to new gun control laws; until he is able to assess the degree to which his party could exploit the legislation.

It is absolutely shameful that political leaders in this country should be sitting on their hands waiting to see whether political advantage can be found in the murder of 35 people.

Mr Jeffery: On a point of order. Standing orders refer to newspaper and other media reports in the following manner:

In broad generality members should not quote editorials from newspapers in Parliament, because by so doing, newspapers are given a voice in Parliament.

I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to this reference in the standing orders.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand the member to be quoting from Decisions from the Chair. It has been a general practice that members may quote from newspapers, as long as the quotes do not constitute the major portion of the speech. On this occasion the honourable member is quoting only in a cursory manner.

Mr HARRISON: I was not going to refer to that editorial further. Obviously, such media comment is hurting members opposite. Earlier in debate the honourable member for Monaro said that the media was taking a certain position on this proposal, and I wanted to correct that statement. He must be reading different media reports from me. The question of Commonwealth control of gun law is extremely important. It is nothing less than a cop-out to talk about uniform attitudes by the States, because any attempt to make a State like Queensland agree to relinquish or alter its gun law control will fail. Honourable members know that. If we were to rely upon uniform State laws, we would set the lowest common denominator for gun control. This country needs rigid gun control. Weapons of mass murder and destruction must be removed from the hands of irresponsible elements not only in New South Wales but everywhere else in the country.

The Tasmanian incident has galvanised everyone's attitude to gun laws. In reality, it is no more horrific than one housewife being gunned down by a drunken bully of a husband, but this incident grabs one in the gut more because it involves 35 people. However, one murder is a 100 per cent result for the person killed. Women of child-bearing age are most vulnerable, and we must be mindful of that when considering gun control. I was in the Northern Territory in 1987 shortly after the north-end murders. A visitor from overseas was able to buy a number of very deadly weapons in Queensland before he went on a murder rampage in the Northern Territory.

It is nothing new for weapons to be taken out of Queensland. Wayne Goss cannot be blamed for this as he was not in government in 1987. The murderer took the weapons from Queensland into the Northern Territory and shot Australians for sport. He gunned down five Australians. His tactic was to say, "Take your clothes off and run," and then proceed to blow them away. One of his victims was a deputy mayor of a Sydney council. Seven people were murdered at Strathfield in 1991, six died at Terrigal in 1992, six died at Hillcrest and 35 died at Port Arthur in 1996. Increasingly, people are looking at violence as a way to settle their personal disputes or to write themselves into the history books by murdering a significant number of people.

We must consider the credibility of the Opposition on gun control. Earlier speakers referred to the 1988 situation. I make no apologies for the way the Labor Government, of which I was a member, tried to bring the situation under control in 1988. The only thing we did wrong was mishandle our public relations badly, but the intention was completely honourable. Let us now consider some of the statements made by coalition members in 1988 as they adopted an absolutely miserable populist line of the very worst kind. The Sun-Herald of 24 February 1985 quoted Ted Pickering, the then shadow minister for police, as follows:

To restrict access to guns is an infringement of basic liberties in my view.

Hansard of 27 February 1985 contains the following words of John Dowd, the then shadow attorney general:

It is all very well for those who say "Why should people be able to have guns"? Guns are themselves part of this Australian tradition . . . We are a people psychologically predisposed to the freedom that is involved in having our own possessions and doing what we like with them.

When the coalition came to office and introduced gun legislation John Dowd interjected repeatedly and took points of order as honourable members tried to put arguments. As legislators in this country, we must be particularly mindful of people's right to expect safety when on holiday and for women of child-bearing age to expect safety in the home. We must face up to that. The most telling comment of all that emanated from the coalition can be found in the Coffs Harbour Advocate of 6 January 1988. Matt Singleton, the then shadow minister for industrial development and decentralisation, said:

Send your guns to friends in Queensland until we have changed the Government of this State.

Wayne Goss was not in government at that time. However, people were told by members of the then Opposition, "Send your guns to people in Queensland and as soon as we win the election you can bring them back, and we will have open slather all over again." The coalition parties did win the election. In the Sun-Herald of 17 January 1988 the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated:

A future coalition government will never threaten the right of the public to own and use firearms.

This legislation does not threaten the rights of legitimate firearm owners and pistol and rifle club members. The mass murders to which I have referred today were not perpetrated by members of licensed shooting organisations; they were all wildcat events perpetrated by lunatics who managed to get hold of guns. Members of shooting clubs have to observe more stringent rules and regulations than members of other sporting clubs. Shooting is recognised as an Olympic sport. Members of the Government - and I am sure Prime Minister John Howard - are not trying to crack down on the ownership of guns by club members or to take guns out of the hands of farmers or people on the land, who clearly have a use for them.

This proposal is about uniform legislation throughout Australia to ensure that those who have guns in their possession have a legitimate use for them. I hope that the legislation will greatly reduce, and in time eliminate altogether, mass murders of the kind that have occurred - the most recent being in Port Arthur, Tasmania. I support the bill. I condemn the Leader of the Opposition for his wimpishness and in particular I condemn the Leader of the National Party for his duplicity in this matter. The Leader of the National Party is sparring for time.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [10.30]: I express condolences to all those involved in the Port Arthur massacre, a really appalling event. I hope that some good will come out of it. In my view the Government's proposed legislation plainly is not appropriate at this time. The States can achieve uniform gun laws. In 1991 a tragedy of significant proportions happened at Strathfield. As a result, the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, which was established by this Parliament, did some of its best work. A number of changes were made to difficult legislation. At the time the bipartisan support for those changes reflected the maturity of the Parliament. On page 4 of today's Sydney Morning Herald Bernard Lagan said that New South Wales and Western Australia were two States that had the toughest gun laws in the nation. The honourable member for Kiama said earlier that Mr Lagan has more than a passing interest in gun and legal issues. I give great weight to what Mr Lagan said.

This Parliament introduced extremely tough gun control measures. However, we should not rest on our laurels, and I am not suggesting that that is what we should do now. This legislation will give the Commonwealth Government control of these matters. If this legislation is passed we will be washing our hands of our responsibilities. As I have said, in the past we determined these matters in a mature and bipartisan way. It is an extremely serious criminal offence for anyone to be in possession of the sort of weapon that was used in the Port Arthur massacre. Anyone in possession of such a weapon can be sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. Legislation was enacted in this Parliament following the work done by the Joint Committee upon Gun Law Reform.

If we accept the legislation proposed by the Premier we will be putting to one side all the work that has been done on this issue. Another threshold matter about which I am concerned is that the Premier has already skewed debate on this issue. States no longer have to consider what steps they need to take on gun control; they now have to consider what powers they should cede to the Federal Government. It is critical that we do something now to resolve this problem. However, because of the legislation introduced by the Premier all attention is being focused on the Commonwealth-State fight and not on the nitty-gritty changes that need to be made to the law.

I hope the Premier will reconsider his decision, not just because of what members of the Opposition are saying but because the Coalition for Gun Control and Simon Chapman are saying that this is the wrong way to go - a matter that is also reported in today's newspapers. The Coalition for Gun Control is saying to the Premier, "Do not go down this path." This legislation is a red herring; it is deflecting Premiers, police Ministers, the Prime Minister and the Federal Attorney-General away from key issues, such as strengthening the law, and it is focusing attention on this Federal-State donnybrook. In light of what Mr Chapman and the Coalition for Gun Control are saying I ask the Premier to reconsider his decision.

I wish to raise some of the matters that the Leader of the Opposition raised with the Minister for Police and matters that he raised yesterday concerning the difficulties Opposition members are experiencing when they talk to the Minister for Police about anything. A few days ago the Leader of the Opposition and I were to attend a meeting in the office of the Minister for Police. We were met at the door of his office by representatives from Channel 10 and other media organisations. We thought that the meeting was to determine whether or not we could reach agreement on this issue. It was an inauspicious start to our meeting. During the course of the meeting the Leader of the Opposition said, "I hope we do not have the same nonsense occurring as occurred in debate on the euthanasia issue." Debate on the euthanasia issue was supposed to be non-political but the Premier changed tack halfway through discussions. We received an assurance from the Minister for Police that that was not the case - I have with me my notes of the meeting. We were assured that a national and bipartisan approach would be taken and would prevail until the meeting of police Ministers next Friday.

I am not sure whether in true Labor style the Minister for Police was kneecapped after our meeting. I do not know where the truth lies. Within about 48 hours after our meeting all that was said at that meeting counted for nothing. The Leader of the Opposition has subsequently had an identical experience with the Premier. Yesterday's Hansard will show that the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier had a meeting and reached some agreement concerning draft legislation. People in the Premier's office who, no doubt, have the carriage of the Machin and Downy matters, are putting in place damage control at the Independent Commission Against Corruption in the same way as Nixon's plumbers did. At some stage someone got out a red pen and changed everything. Games such as this can be fun, political and nice, but it is tragic when the Leader of the Opposition and I cannot receive, in good faith, undertakings from the Minister for Police. Forty-eight hours after our meeting with the Minister for Police all the undertakings that we were given no longer applied.

When members of the New South Wales Police Service conduct interviews they use video cameras. The day has arrived when we will have to take a video camera with us when we meet the Minister for Police. In light of the nonsense that is occurring at the moment, which passes for bipartisan public interest discussions, in future we will have to take a videotape record of everything that is said. The Premier is offside with the other States, the Opposition, the Coalition for Gun Control and, I suspect, a large section of his backbench in the way he is handling this issue. He is also offside with the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley. I refer honourable members to Mr Beazley's speech in the House of Representatives on 30 April 1996. His remarks are very similar to what was said to the Leader of the Opposition and to me when we met with the Minister for Police. It would be appropriate for Mr Beazley and the police Minister to confer on a joint approach to the issue.

It is a tragedy that the police Minister and the Premier are now in a position of fundamental disagreement with Mr Beazley. They are burning up their goodwill with the Opposition in relation to achieving a bipartisan approach in the public interest. They are also offside with the Coalition for Gun Control and everybody else taking the issue seriously. The bill may have been a one-day wonder in the Daily Telegraph but that newspaper might look at what Mr Chapman is saying today. I think that down the track there will be reconsideration of this matter.

Yesterday was an eventful day in the Legislative Council. It is not every day that the Treasurer orders a cappuccino out on the footpath of Macquarie Street. In a way, the Opposition is grateful to the Treasurer for managing to draw away some of the totally unjustified media coverage that the Premier received about the bill yesterday. Page 36 of the Hansard proof shows that the Legislative Council adjourned at 5.47 p.m. until Tuesday, 14 May 1996, at 2.30 p.m. Is the Government serious? Ministers in the upper House had been instructed to adjourn the Legislative Council until Tuesday week - five days after the police Ministers conference - and in the lower House the Premier was posturing around like a demented hyena saying, "This matter is very serious. It is of the utmost importance. The Parliament must deal with this matter right now." What a farce!

While the Premier was saying in this Chamber that this is an urgent and nationally important matter, steps had been taken in the upper House to ensure that the bill will not be passed by the Parliament in time for the critical meeting next Friday. What sort of a low joke is that? Members can draw no conclusion about these events other than that the exercise was a complete and utter stunt. Clause 3(1)(a) of the bill refers to the sale, transfer and disposal of firearms. The Government's record in this respect is a disgrace. On 18 April in this Chamber the police Minister stated in relation to providing police with new guns - which we support - that the Government was considering trading in 13,000 hand guns. I would not want the incompetence of the Carr Government in the handling of the disposal of police firearms to be an excuse to pass this legislation. The challenge for the Government is to do better.

In my letterbox at home last night I found a notice from the Police Service referring to the guns and knives amnesty. The Government received just over 5,000 firearms from the gun amnesty but it wanted to put 13,000 hand guns back on the market. It was not until I moved to raise the matter urgently a couple of days ago that the police Minister hurriedly issued a press release saying that the hand guns would be melted down, as the Opposition had been suggesting for three weeks. That is the real record of the Government on handling gun-related issues. The Premier talked up a gun amnesty and then contemplated putting back on the market, from police sources, three times as many guns as were handed in. That is an absolute farce.

An even bigger farce is this bill. Yesterday the Premier referred to the ease with which someone could buy a machine gun in Queensland. It is astonishing that the Premier should talk about the Queensland example when such action is made possible under 1990 Labor Party legislation in Queensland. That example was given in this House by Australian Labor Party fellow traveller Bob Carr. It was Goss legislation and it had Australian Labor Party fingerprints all over it. This shows how much the Premier understands about the legislation. The bill is a farce. It cannot be passed by the Parliament because the upper House was specifically adjourned yesterday to avoid that happening. The Coalition for Gun Control, the Opposition and all right-thinking people condemn the stunt that was pulled yesterday.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson) [10.45]: I commence my speech by complying with the request from a constituent from Millers Point who asked that I, as the member for Port Jackson, convey to the people of Port Arthur from the constituents of Port Jackson our sincere condolences in relation to the tragic events over the weekend. I commend both the Premier and the Minister for Police for their courageous and intelligent approach to achieving a bipartisan solution to the problem. I have every confidence that both men have made every attempt to achieve a bipartisan approach with the Opposition in New South Wales.

Mr Phillips: What a joke!

Ms NORI: Yes, you are a joke, and your side of politics is showing itself to be a joke on this issue. I find it depressing that, given the events of Sunday, there is not a higher calling in this Chamber to achieve a result that I hope will prevent the recurrence of such a tragedy. It is a great shame. I cannot believe that the coalition cannot put the greater good of the community ahead of its narrow political interest. From listening to the debate and observing the Opposition during question time in the last day or so I am inclined to believe that the Leader of the Opposition may be genuine in seeking a cooperative approach. It is only an inclination. But after observing the behaviour and body language of the Leader of the National Party at question time yesterday I have no doubt that he is undertaking a most cynical, shameful, base and disgraceful exercise in this sad time. Why is he being silent? Why can he not be pinned down? Is he the one who behind the scenes is vetoing anything that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do? I do not know.

The behaviour of the Opposition in this matter leaves a great deal to be desired. The Leader of the Opposition is a hypocrite. He declared his support for a bipartisan approach simply to get the good headline. The Opposition is with the Government all the way - all the way to the second-last ditch. No-one would want to be in the trenches with Opposition members. The Leader of the Opposition has been exposed as being weak, embarrassed and devious. He made a pathetic attempt yesterday to explain why the Opposition would not support the bill and why he believed that it was wrong. The behaviour of Opposition members is bringing the Parliament and politicians in Australia into grave disrepute. Although they did not think this was the perfect way to go, and gave their reasons for that belief, they should have said that in the interests of solidarity and to put forward a united approach, they would back the Government.

Instead of adopting that approach, the Opposition put up the most spineless argument. They are a bunch of do-nothing politicians. The argument of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday was that the bill is premature. One must ask the obvious question: how many more dead bodies does it take, how many more victims, injuries and deaths must there be before the Opposition will take some action? The Leader of the Opposition also argued that the bill should be deferred until after next week's police Ministers conference. At best that is naive, and at worst it is hypocritical. One cannot escape the observation that perhaps the Opposition is trying to undermine the police Ministers conference. The New South Wales Government has introduced this bill to put pressure on the recalcitrant States that will be represented at that conference. That is a legitimate tactic. As politicians Opposition members should understand that at this type of conference one applies maximum pressure up front in the knowledge that not everyone will give his support. Obviously pressure will have to be applied to Queensland's National Party regime.

Opposition members have argued that the 1990 legislation introduced by former Premier Wayne Goss may have led to the situation that was alluded to by the Premier. I am not sure whether that is so, but if it is and the Queensland legislation needs to be reformed, so be it. That was introduced in 1990 and this is 1996. I do not give a damn who has done what in the past: let bygones be bygones and get on with what must be done now, rather than attempt to resurrect ancient history and score political points. If Goss did the wrong thing in 1990, he has got to wear it. The honourable member for South Coast, who is attempting to interject, was not a member of this House in 1988 when his colleagues did the wrong thing. Mr Barrie Unsworth is one person who can sleep easy.

Mr Smith: This is 1996.

Ms NORI: Yes it is. The honourable member for Bega is a genius. If Opposition members had simply said that passing this legislation was not the best strategy, we could have had a sensible debate. I believe this is the right strategy, because it is important to show leadership. By setting a strong example New South Wales will apply pressure to the other States. That is the right tactic to adopt in the lead-up to this conference. The behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition is undermining and belittling this process. I wonder what threat the Leader of the National Party has made. What have the Nats threatened to do? The Government of New South Wales, the Federal Government, the community and indeed the media are all trying to use this tragedy in a positive way, as an impetus for a bipartisan approach. The time has come to strike a blow in favour of protecting the community. Why does the Opposition baulk? I ask representatives of the media not to let the Opposition get away with this, to look beyond the rhetoric and see the inconsistency. Why has the Leader of the National Party been silent on this issue? The media should find out what he is doing and thinking, as if it is not obvious, and expose once and for all the hypocrisy of the coalition.

The Leader of the National Party hopes that the national approach to gun law will break down and that it will be left to a State Labor Government to show courage and leadership. That is exactly what the National Party wants. Its strategy is to try to win votes in the bush. That is pathetic! I take this opportunity to put on the public record what I told the Sun-Herald by telephone yesterday. Though I understand that the media wants to survey members of Parliament, those so-called easy "yes or no" surveys do not necessarily promote the cause that they are intended to promote. For example, I answered the three questions posed by the Sun-Herald in its survey with a yes. When I rang I said that I was not happy about answering yes to the third question - about storing guns in a vault in a secure place in the city - because that has some obvious drawbacks. The question did not allow me to qualify my concerns.

The danger would be that the press could report that any politician who tried to qualify the answers and make an intelligent contribution had given less than full support for a particular issue. I made it clear that I had responded yes to the three questions, but I did not appreciate having this complex issue reduced to a yes or no choice. I made it clear to the Sun-Herald that if this was Ireland or a place with a stormy political background I would not have answered yes. I would not want a lot of guns to be stored in one place that could be vulnerable to attack.

Mr Ellis: I agree 100 per cent.

Ms NORI: That is a worry; the honourable member for South Coast is agreeing with me. What have I done? It is not surprising that I support national uniform gun laws. There must be solidarity on this issue, and the Labor Party understands all about solidarity; it is consistent with my personal view that there should be compulsory unionism and closed shops. Honourable members know what happens when people scab. The Labor Party is showing leadership on this issue by legislating for uniform national gun laws. It is telling the people of Australia that we must attack this issue together. The Government of New South Wales is asking the waverers to follow its lead. The agenda at next Friday's conference must be set by the determined, not by the cynical or the spineless. Everyone is aware of the weakness of the State by State approach. How can a State government legislate to control the importation of weapons? That matter is clearly one for the Federal Government. [Extension of time agreed to.]

If Australia takes the State-by-State approach, New South Wales might well be stymied and find itself being dictated to by the weakest State, the State most unwilling to take a tough stand. Why should New South Wales suffer because of the National Party Government in Queensland? I support the approach the Government is taking. It is the best way to put pressure on those who will attend the conference next week. If the conference fails and the Federal Government and the Prime Minister go to water, or for whatever reason it is not possible to get decent uniform gun control in Australia, the bill gives us an out: it provides that at any time the ceding of the powers to the Federal Government can be revoked. The bill covers that possibility. New South Wales is willing to give up the relevant powers and some of its authority in the greater interest of Australia and Australians, because the Labor Party believes that to be in the best interest of the State that it now governs. But should that process fail, the bill provides a mechanism for the State to implement its own laws.

That should allay the fears of the Opposition and its concern that the bill will not achieve anything. At the end of the day, if it goes wrong in Canberra, we can come back and deal with it. I am concerned that Opposition members do not understand that. It seems to me that all they want to do is sabotage the conference and minimise its chances of succeeding. Opposition members hide behind that claim and say that the conference will not work; but their day will come. If they are right and the national conference fails - I do not agree that it will fail because of this bill; that idea is hopeless - or if the Prime Minister goes to water, and if the Liberals and Nationals in Canberra go to water, then, as the Premier made clear yesterday, this State will proceed on its own. If that does happen what will the members of the Opposition do then? They will not be able to hide behind the bill; they will not be able to hide behind their cynicism; and they will not be able to hide behind the Leader of the National Party.

Mr Chappell: We will deal with all the issues.

Ms NORI: Yes, I know what the honourable member wants: he wants gun control in New South Wales to be perceived as something emanating from the Government. The Opposition members could then hide behind it and go around the bush before the next election and win votes. That is the bottom line: dead bodies for votes. You make me sick. I do not want to see a United States-style society, where somewhere down the track people who are opposed to guns find themselves wanting to buy a gun because everyone else has one. I do not want to see that spin-off, chain effect. Guns beget guns. I have no problem with people, such as farmers, owning a gun for legitimate reasons. I have absolutely no argument with people in the bush owning guns, but I can think of few good reasons why someone in the city might need a gun.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burrinjuck will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate at the appropriate time.

Ms NORI: I feel uncomfortable with people who have no good reason for owning a gun but seem to need one to prop up their egos. It is almost an exclusively male trait and comes close to being a fairly sick, psycho-sexual response. What I am about to say is a personal view, and I stress that. People applying for a gun licence should have good and cogent reasons. They ought to be able to demonstrate fit and proper character and that they have a psychological profile that makes them suitable people to own a gun. Military personnel are tested as to their psychological profile and it is comforting to know that international pilots have to go through the most strenuous psychological tests to make sure that they have the right personality to fly a plane. I see no reason that that should not apply to people who apply to possess a dangerous weapon.

This debate highlights another problem that society has been facing. I want to stick up for the rights of the community. Sometimes we go too far in saying that the individual has a right; sometimes that right overrides the greater good of the community. I do not accept the line that it is everyone's right to own a gun. It is not a right; it is a privilege if one meets the standards and really needs to own a gun. A gun is not a toy. The greater good of society dictates that we have to look at community needs. There is an assumption that if we protect individual rights, somehow the community as a whole is protected. Unfortunately it is not like synergy - synergy being greater than the sum of its parts. The community is being let down. The interests of the community are sometimes greater than the sum of its parts.

We have to strike a blow for the interests of the community. We are individuals and we have individual rights, but we are also a community that has its own dynamics and its own needs. I feel so strongly about this that I have to say that sometimes the community has to come first. I am concerned that as a consequence of these unfortunate and tragic incidents, a copy-cat element might creep in. So we have to strike now. I have a long-held fear that as society becomes more complex, people become more alienated. I am not a religious person, but I can see how a decline in religion without a concomitant rise in a secular moral code, coupled with a sense of powerlessness, is leading to more disconnectedness. People no longer have a sense that they belong to a community. My understanding of my cursory reading on the nature of mass murderers is that they have an incredible sense of not belonging, of feeling no sense of responsibility toward the community. They are very alienated, disconnected individuals. I am terrified that as society becomes more complex we will see more of this bizarre behaviour in response to people feeling alienated. Having said that we need tight gun control, I also make the plea that we need to look at the psychological aspects of the problem as well.

Mr Chappell: You are 100 per cent right.

Ms NORI: Absolutely. Gun control is necessary but it is not the total answer. It is a mechanistic approach to the problem, but we have to look at the broader issue. I cannot stress this any further, other than to repeat that on the question of gun ownership it is important that governments - and I am proud to be part of a government that is doing this - stand up for the principle that the right of the community is more important than the right of the individual to hold a gun. I have a personal view about the need to ensure that gun owners are fit and proper people. My personal view is that gun ownership should be subject to a character test-psychological clearance. I stress that I recognise that there are people for whom ownership of a gun is valid, legitimate and necessary. Surely, as decent human beings - and I hope all honourable members are that - we can come together and find a solution to this problem. That is why I ask the coalition to work together on this issue. It is too important not to. Not only is the issue itself important, but if we get it right on this we may well set an important pattern, an important example, for other related issues, and once again reassert the right of the community to be protected. [Time expired.]

Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [11.05]: After the devastating tragedy of Port Arthur it comes as no surprise that there are calls throughout the community for tighter uniform gun
Page 799
controls. I feel that as much as anyone, short of the immediate family of those impacted by this dreadful tragedy. I knew Jim Pollard, whose photograph appeared on the top left-hand corner of the Sydney Morning Herald last Wednesday. I knew Jim very well; he lived about three houses from me. I used to get a lift to work with him. We socialised; he was a good bloke. He retired from Armidale several years ago and moved to the coast. He was one of the three who were shot in the car at the toll booth. So I feel this tragedy as much as many people throughout Australia. Everyone in Australia has been touched. It is a watershed event, and it is a further imperative on all of us as legislators to grapple, again, with the issues and to do our best to make sure that we introduce effective, workable gun controls appropriate to this country and appropriate to our culture. We have to protect the community, yet still protect the rights of people who have a valid reason for owning and using appropriate firearms.

It is no surprise that Premier Carr seeks opportunistically to exploit the situation by pulling this stunt of introducing the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill. It is typical of the Premier to pull such a stunt when clearly there is a need and a willingness to grapple with those complex and controversial issues in a bipartisan way, not only within New South Wales but throughout Australia. As the Leader of the Opposition said, he initiated discussions with the Premier about common gun laws and related issues. He offered to seek a bipartisan position in good faith and in recognition of the past controversies which have attended the whole issue.

The Premier, acting hypocritically - as is his habit and style - introduced this bill entirely without notice. When he commenced his delivery in this Chamber, copies of the bill were not available for honourable members to read. This action by the Premier is supposed to attract bipartisan support! He is a hypocrite. The Premier wants to big-note himself by pre-empting the meeting of State police Ministers called by the Prime Minister for the end of next week. He is engaging in shameful political opportunism when what is desperately needed is apolitical, rational debate leading to genuine nationwide laws on firearms. That is, laws that will work. But how can the Premier expect to sustain the lie that he is taking the lead on gun control, showing the way to the rest of Australia, when he is prepared to squib the issue by flick passing the responsibility for gun control to the Commonwealth Government?

Although it may be one of the most difficult and sensitive political issues on the agenda of government in Australia, gun control is properly a matter for State governments. That is not to say that uniform gun control laws are not absolutely necessary; they are. Clearly, restrictions on access to military-style automatic and semiautomatic self-loading firearms are not feasible if different States have different laws. Now is the time for national uniformity. The Opposition entirely supports the principles outlined by the Prime Minister on control of automatic and semiautomatic firearms, and entirely supports the principle of adopting effective national registration of gun ownership. But the method by which those principles are attained requires national consideration, not the quick-fix tricksterism of this cynical opportunist Premier.

To hand over the State's gun laws and responsibilities to the Commonwealth Government is to avoid the issue - to squib it. State police services will have to enforce gun control. The States have databanks and mechanisms for managing gun ownership. They should have the laws and the fortitude to carry out proper gun controls. It is not adequate to flick pass this issue because it is politically dangerous and administratively difficult. Yet that was the basis of the message of the honourable member for Port Jackson when she said the Opposition was trying to force responsibility for this issue back onto the Labor Government so it could beat Labor at the next election. We should have bipartisan nationwide laws that can be made to work. We should have laws across Australia that are effective, enforceable, protective of the community to the highest possible level, and fair to law abiding, bona fide sporting shooters, farmers and others who have a genuine interest in firearms. But most of all we should have laws that will keep guns out of the hands of madmen, and the tightest possible controls over weapons that have no place in Australia.

It is proposed that this bill should set the lead in Australia, but it cannot be passed because upper House members have gone home. The Premier would have us believe that handing over gun control to the Commonwealth Government will stop tragedies like those that have occurred at Port Arthur, Strathfield and Hoddle Street. As the previous speaker said, gun laws are necessary but they are not the total answer; they are but one part of the solution to the problem. Yet yesterday the message was that New South Wales would take the lead by enacting legislation which would put a stop to tragedies like that which occurred in Port Arthur. The message delivered in this Chamber yesterday by the Premier was a joke, a farce and a lie. Uniform gun laws are necessary, and the Opposition will see that they are adopted in Australia.

The appropriate mechanism for that is the meeting of police Ministers in Canberra next week, which will specify benchmarks and establish a platform from which the States can enact legislation for their administration of gun laws. If the States and politicians around Australia, together with the community and the media, have the spirit of the time - as I am sure they have - effective laws can be enacted. The understanding of the management of this issue is effectively -

Mr McBride: Put it on the record.

Mr CHAPPELL: I am putting it on the record, you goose. You will have your say later
on. At the State level we need to develop appropriate mechanisms to license firearm owners and shooters; regulations that will work. Clearly, the present laws do not work. A relatively small proportion of gun owners and users in New South Wales are licensed. That has to be fixed, and it can be fixed. It is the responsibility of this State, in a bipartisan way, to fix it. It is appropriate to introduce laws and regulations, and to enforce them. The appropriate time for all the States to do this urgently but rationally is after next Friday, after the Prime Minister and the State police Ministers have laid down national benchmarks for the registration of gun ownership and a ban on automatic and semiautomatic firearms. As legislators, we should read all the editorials, and I refer members to the editorial in today's Daily Telegraph.

Mr McBride: Are you going to vote for this bill or not?

Mr CHAPPELL: Be quiet. You will get your go later on.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for The Entrance will have an opportunity to speak in the debate at the appropriate time.

Mr CHAPPELL: Honourable members should read the editorial in today's Sydney Morning Herald, which poses the question of whether Carr's proposal is the way to go. The Coalition for Gun Control -

Mr McBride: Haven't you got the guts to answer the question? How are you going to vote?

Mr CHAPPELL: I will answer the question.

Mr McBride: Good. When?

Mr CHAPPELL: Be quiet.

Mr McBride: When are you going to answer it?

Mr CHAPPELL: Mr Deputy-Speaker, will you shut him up.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for The Entrance will cease interjecting.

Mr CHAPPELL: The Coalition for Gun Control has described Carr's proposals as buck-passing. The Newcastle Herald states:

No consideration had been given to what might happen if other States did not want to hand over their powers in the same way.

That is the issue that we are grappling with. The bill does not provide for that; it assumes. The State Labor caucus approved the bill. But the Newcastle Herald continues:

At Tuesdays ALP Caucus meeting, Mr Gaudry was one of several Left backbenchers who spoke for a motion for special NSW legislation to have all firearms registered.

The motion was defeated after the Minister for Police, Mr Whelan, said it was `politically unachievable' and would leave Labor vulnerable to a National Party-led backlash.

Mr Whelan's stance was supported by Mr Stan Neilly, MLA Cessnock, who lost his seat in 1988 amid anger in rural areas over the Unsworth Government's proposed gun laws.

People who are genuinely concerned about this issue, including the Coalition for Gun Control, are questioning whether the proposal of the Premier and the Government is the right approach. We are united on what we want to achieve. We are querying whether the way the Government is proposing to go is the right way. We say no, that this is a Carr stunt, a trick. It is not going to achieve a single thing.

Mr McBride: You are going to vote against it, are you?

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Northern Tablelands address his remarks through the Chair and ignore the interjections.

Mr CHAPPELL: Bernard Lagan states in today's Sydney Morning Herald:

Mr Carr's action was also strongly criticised by the main anti-gun lobby group, the Coalition for Gun Control . . .

Genuine people who have the same concerns as those expressed by honourable members are saying this proposal will not work. We clearly and actively support the principles outlined by the Prime Minister on effective national registration of gun ownership, and on automatic and semiautomatic weapons. We believe that the fastest, most effective means of achieving uniform gun laws is for every parliament in Australia to introduce template legislation. We are not the only people saying that; many responsible people are saying it. That is what this debate is about. We should have a rational debate and we in this Parliament should fulfil our responsibility. We should do the job that we have to do and not become involved in the Premier's political tricksterism of trying to do a hospital pass off to Canberra. We should not say, "If they can sort it out we will not have the worry any longer", because we will have the worry; we will continue to have the worry in this State because this approach will not fix the problem.

One of the issues to be addressed is identification of the nut cases and others in society who should never have access to a firearm. This legislation will not deal with that issue, and it will not deal with the classifications and capacities of different firearms or those who have a valid reason for owning them. Honourable members have been down this path before. The firearms laws in this State do not work because the majority of gun owners, or a very large number of them, are probably not licensed. Honourable members should debate that problem rationally and on a bipartisan basis and find a solution to it. It is our responsibility to do that. Flick passing the problem to Canberra is not the right approach. The bill cannot be finalised, because members of the upper House have gone home. Honourable members know that this approach will not work and the community has
Page 801
already voiced the opinion that this is not the way to go.

[Interruption]]

I have told the honourable member many times. How can I be more specific? The Opposition agrees with the benchmarks that have been set, and will work in a bipartisan way to adopt real grassroots regulations and controls that will work. That is the Opposition's responsibility and it will do it, but the Opposition is not going to play political games and flick pass this issue to Canberra. As was admitted by the honourable member for Port Jackson, the Government does not want to have this critical issue bandied around at the next election, because it is fearful of having to carry the can for having introduced tough laws that some members of the community may not like. That is what really underpins all of this: the desire to flick pass the issue to Canberra and avoid responsibility for it. It is the responsibility of members of this Parliament, just as it is the responsibility of members of other Australian parliaments, to carry the can in respect of this issue, to do the hard work, to put in the hard yards and to enact legislation and make regulations that will work, and to protect the community - whilst enabling those who have a genuine reason to own firearms to continue to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [11.20]: I join with other speakers in extending my sincere condolences to the families and friends of the victims and those who have been affected by the massacre in Tasmania. I know from personal experience that although people express condolences at times of loss, no-one can appreciate the pain that the individuals concerned are suffering. On ABC radio this morning reference was made to a comment made by Barrie Unsworth, a former Premier of New South Wales, following the Strathfield massacre in August 1991, to the effect that it would take a massacre of similar proportions in Tasmania before anything would be done about gun laws throughout Australia. In answer to the reporter this morning about his prophetic comments in 1991 Mr Unsworth - who, coincidentally, was on Strathfield railway station waiting to catch a train - said, "I did not anticipate this sort of thing happening."

That sums up this debate. In 1991 Barrie Unsworth said that nothing would be done by politicians and governments until something of the magnitude of what happened at Strathfield happened again. The simple fact is that it has now happened, but on a scale that no-one could have imagined. The radio reporter referred to a church service held in Sydney at which 35 young school children walked up the aisle, each carrying a rose. He said he had not realised that 35 people made up such a large group. That remark really touched a nerve. We can think of 35 as just a number but if we actually see 35 individuals, each carrying a rose, walking up the aisle of a church, it registers that that is a huge number of people to be killed in such a senseless way. The community has had enough and is demanding that something be done. The tragedy at Port Arthur was the final straw so far as the community is concerned, and I believe it should be the final straw for all politicians and all parliaments. We have reached the stage at which governments cannot just stand by and do nothing.

Honourable members have no doubt read or listened to reports in the media generally. A common thread that runs through those reports is that politicians do not have the guts to do anything about gun laws. In 1991 seven people were killed at Strathfield, in 1992 six people were killed at Terrigal on the central coast, in 1996 six people died at Hillcrest, and five people died at the Top End. Honourable members will recall the tragedies at Hoddle Street and Queen Street in Melbourne and the bikie shoot-out at Milperra. Now, in 1996 at Port Arthur in Tasmania, 35 people have been killed. Members of the community are asking their elected representatives how many people have to be killed in these senseless tragedies before politicians do something. That is the question that really bothers me.

The local community was shocked by what happened at Terrigal on the central coast in 1992. It had the same effect that such an incident would have on a country town. At that time the central coast was like a retirement village. Although it has changed somewhat since, it still has the ambience and attitude of a country town. People do not lock their doors, they are friendly to strangers in the street. The local people have the sort of openness that one finds in rural Australia. The sense of disbelief was enormous. We on the central coast thought that such things only happened in the city, that they did not happen on the central coast. At the time of the tragedy I asked a radio journalist, a former police roundsman, if such a thing had ever happened before on the central coast. He was born on the central coast, was about the same age as I am, and had been a journalist working on the central coast for 25 years. He said that to his knowledge nothing of that magnitude had ever happened before.

The current laws do not work and will never work. There has to be a national solution if a similar tragedy is to be prevented in the future. It is a question of leadership. Are we fair dinkum? Are we committed to doing something or are we just going to let this issue drift away as it has on previous occasions? When such tragedies occur there is shock and outrage, a media frenzy, and fury about doing something, but it eventually just drifts away. The media moves on to something else and the tragedy goes off the political boiling point. This occasion represents an opportunity for politicians throughout the nation to do something. It is an opportunity to show leadership on this issue. I believe it is an opportunity for the Parliament to take the initiative and put pressure on every other State in Australia, and on the Prime Minister and the Federal Government, to take action that will benefit the whole of the nation.

Now is the time to enact national laws and to provide a uniform standard for the whole of Australia. As I have pointed out, the current legislation does not work. The Leader of the National Party wants to delay the decision. He wants something done later when the matter goes off the boil and community unrest is not so strong. His position is totally duplicitous. He knows that nothing will happen if that approach is taken and action is not taken now. He knows that nothing will happen if a national approach is not taken to this issue. If no action is taken, the issue will fall into a black hole and the lowest common denominator will determine the outcome.

Recently in the House the Leader of the National Party talked about other issues such as videos, movies and violence in the community. Everyone realises those matters are important issues. However, this debate is about guns and the damage they can do. No-one can deny that. I feel strongly about the level of violence shown in the media and elsewhere. That should be of concern to the whole community. But we are not confronted with the issue of guns. The Government is saying something should be done about the use of guns as a means of killing people. People will be violent, no matter what happens, but guns allow people to seek violence on an unprecedented scale.

I heard the comment that Australia has had guns since 1788. My response is, "So what?" In 1788 Australia was only a small settlement in what was thought to be a hostile land, and the guns consisted of ball and powder. I understand that the success rate of hitting someone with such guns was one in three, and the kill rate was probably lower still. Today we are not talking about sporting weapons or weapons designed for competition; we are talking about lethal human killing devices. These weapons fire 10 rounds in 10 seconds and are designed to mutilate, kill and destroy. The events in Tasmania demonstrated to the whole community the efficiency of the killing potential of these weapons. That killing potential must be removed.

While there are violent people in the community - and everyone acknowledges that there are - the availability of these weapons must somehow be restricted. In what circumstances can the possession of such weapons be justified? People in rural areas claim they need such weapons to shoot vermin and disabled animals, and that the weapons are necessary for sporting purposes. However, the weapons specifically designed to kill people are not needed to fulfil any of those goals. An animal can be killed with a hammer gun, and that is done in abattoirs. Automatic and semiautomatic guns are not needed to kill vermin and animals. If the initiatives of the Government are not pursued, the nation will end up with the situation foreshadowed by the former Premier of Victoria, John Cain. An article in the Daily Telegraph on 2 May stated:

In Victoria, Mr Cain said efforts to tighten legislation would be defeated by a combination of factors.

The Federal Government would be distracted by other issues and would face the combined fervour of sections of the conservative rural vote to maintain access to firearms, and the gun lobby.

"I would be very surprised if the determination that has been expressed in the last few days doesn't dissolve over the next few months," he said.

That is why the National Party does not want to proceed with this proposal now. The article continued:

"I don't think there is any desire on the part of conservative governments [to reform gun laws] because of the rural factor."

Mr Cain said the gun lobby had bluffed key political players in the past and had been instrumental in frustrating his government's attempts to curtail gun ownerships. That goes to the heart of this debate. The simple fact is that the National Party throughout Australia wants to delay debate on this issue and to let the issue disappear into the morass of a Federal-State debate. Automatic and semiautomatic weapons must be removed from society. The person responsible for the killings in Tasmania did not have a gun licence but he went to where he knew a gun was kept. That raises the issue of the volume of these weapons of destruction. Possession of automatic and semiautomatic long-barrel weapons should be illegal, except for those who can prove justifiable grounds for them. I cannot understand how there can be any justification for possession of these weapons. What meaning do expressions of condolence or concern have when we in this Parliament are not prepared to take action, to up the ante in terms of the Federal Government's commitment to reform gun laws? The bill presents an opportunity for the New South Wales Parliament to take action.

A national approach is the only process that will work, and such an approach can be achieved in a number of ways. New South Wales is giving the lead to other States by taking up the opportunity offered by the Prime Minister to reform gun laws. At the meeting of police Ministers on 10 May the Prime Minister will push strongly for uniform national gun laws and the registration of all gun owners. But it must be more than that. Australians want increased gun control now. Both the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales have declared that they want increased gun control now. It is up to the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party, and the New South Wales Parliament to say that they want increased gun control now. The bill provides the House with a window of opportunity to do what the public claims politicians do not have the guts to do. I shall be interested to hear what the next speaker, the honourable member for Burrinjuck, whom I know and respect, has to say on this issue. The community wants action now. [Time expired.]

Mr SCHULTZ (Burrinjuck) [11.35]: I have chosen to speak on the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill because, like the honourable member for Kiama, I have suffered anguish about what happened at Port Arthur a week or so ago. The honourable member said that he remembered his visit to Port Arthur about a month ago. I was in Port Arthur on Easter Sunday with my wife, and we had lunch at the Broad Arrow cafe. When I heard about the disaster through the media my heart reached out to the relatives and friends of the victims. I immediately remembered sitting down having a meal with my wife and thought that we could possibly have been confronted with that dreadful experience of people's lives being at the whim of someone with a heavy calibre automatic weapon. I remembered the structural fit out of the shop and its narrow access doors. I remembered also the platform outside, on which some people ate under canopies. Extending from the platform was the layout of the whole Port Arthur area, which I described to my wife as an open killing field, because there was no cover for people to take.

Like many Australians, I have very strong views about the availability of heavy calibre weapons in particular. It saddens me to think that the Tasmanian authorities did not take the appropriate action against the individual concerned before last weekend's tragedy. A number of incidents leading up to that tragic event indicate that more action should have been taken. I know that is history now and that there is nothing that can be done. However, the tragedy is an illustration of the need for concise action on critical issues by governments and authorities such as the police force to ensure that those who are not suited to owning firearms do not have the opportunity to do so.

I am at times emotionally concerned about issues that come before the Parliament. I am particularly concerned when the issue is one of men, women and children being mown down in the most horrific way imaginable. The massacre of 35 people over the weekend is one of the most heart-rending incidents I have known. Like the previous speaker, I send my condolences and my deepest sympathy to the families and friends of all of those people who lost their lives on that dreadful day in Australia's history. It is all very well to posture in the House on matters that are seen to present an opportunity to make cheap political mileage. I was heartened yesterday to hear the Leader of the Opposition get to the crux of the matter. Some of his comments bear repetition, and I repeat them:

The Australasian Police Ministers' Council represents a unique opportunity for Australian politicians in all States and Territories of the Commonwealth to establish national standards for gun control and uniformity of gun laws throughout Australia.

I compliment and praise the Prime Minister for the initiative he has taken in that direction. National gun control initiatives are a must. We as politicians can no longer abrogate our responsibilities to the people we represent by moving away from those issues that are seen to be too politically sensitive for a decision to be made. I for one believe that under the present system the gun laws of any State are only as effective as the laws of the weakest State. States right across this country must accept responsibility for gun laws and enact uniform gun legislation and national gun legislation. Next week's Australasian Police Ministers' Council is the most positive initiative undertaken by any government since I have been a resident of New South Wales. Given the terrible massacre of last weekend, I have absolutely no doubt that each and every one of the police Ministers at the council of 10 May will have deep and committed views on the issue of national gun laws.

It is imperative that the momentum is maintained to ensure that a positive and constructive decision is made. It is long past the point at which we can play politics with this issue - which is, I believe, what is behind the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill, which was introduced by the Premier yesterday at short notice. It is sad to hear media reports today that other State government leaders have rejected what has been proposed here in New South Wales and are quite adamant that the answer is a national agreement on gun laws in general. It is sad that the most important priorities on issues such as this are not uppermost in the minds of the leaders of this country. The honourable member for Port Jackson spoke of her concerns about the way in which society has gone, and I have no doubt that her concerns are genuine. She alluded to governments and politicians of all persuasions seeking to satisfy the minority view at the expense of the majority.

Since being elected to the Parliament in 1988 I have on many and varied issues argued against such an approach. I find it interesting today that Government members should make such comments when in the past they have been party to votes that give privileges to minority groups against the wishes of the mainstream community. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. It is important to take a consistent approach if we as politicians are to have any credibility in the community - and goodness knows the credibility we hold is nothing short of disgraceful, because of the way in which we have approached politics for generations. I do not direct that statement at Labor Party politicians only; it is directed at politicians in general: on this side of the House, in the Independent arena and in the Labor Party. It is time for us to stop playing political games and to consider seriously the need for us to work together to overcome the problems in society that need to be addressed, problems which we were elected to address.

Much has been said about people's rights to own guns. I once again refer to comments made by the honourable member for Port Jackson, who said that those who own firearms must be fit and proper people to have them. She is absolutely right. The question of semiautomatic and automatic weapons of low calibre is an issue that will be difficult to overcome, as it has been in the past. When one lives in rural New South Wales, as I do, one has to take account of bushfires. There were bushfires around Cootamundra in 1992, and I recall talking to a farmer who was covered in ash and had tears streaming down his face and a .22 automatic rifle in his hands. He was crying through frustration because he was not able to shoot and bury his 15,000 sheep that were dying in agony from burns because he was unable to kill them quickly enough. In such circumstances automatic weapons are needed. I have no doubt that that issue will be the subject of discussion at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council on 10 May.

I do not resile from that position. Responsible people in the community have the right to possess such weapons. I have no argument at all with the total banning of heavy calibre automatic weapons and the restriction or banning of heavy calibre ammunition. As a politician I find it difficult to know where to draw the line, but I know in my heart that if we, as human beings, talk rationally about these issues a realistic national approach to gun control can be achieved. Each and every State and Territory in this great land of ours must be committed to such an approach. But a national approach will not be achieved if politicians play games such as the one that has been played in this House in the past 24 hours. The Premier has sought to take advantage of a political opportunity which, unfortunately for him, has backfired in the last 8 to 10 hours.

Not only have the States and Territories said they will not hand over gun legislation rights to the Commonwealth - they believe that is a State responsibility - but they are totally united in their desire to ensure that weaknesses in the legislation throughout the country are tightened and made uniform. That is the issue that needs to be addressed. The availability of weapons to unsuitable people has to be addressed and should be uppermost in the minds of the Ministers who attend the council meeting. The animal who perpetrated this disgraceful and repugnant crime was not a licensed shooter. He held weapons that were not his. I understand from media reports that he either stole them or obtained them illegally. If the media are sincere in their attitude towards violence in our society they should think seriously about the types of violence they allow to be broadcast on television and published in newspapers. The depiction of such violence tends to stimulate mad acts by people who are not of sound mind. I thank the House for allowing me to make these comments. [Time expired.]

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [11.50]: I take part in this debate with a profound sense of sadness, failure and depression. I feel a sense of sadness for the victims at Port Arthur, for their families and for the communities from which they came. I feel a sense of personal sadness because a constituent of mine, Mr Phillip Pollard, lost his father in the tragedy. Yesterday when I rang to speak to him he had travelled to Tasmania to positively identify his father. Family members of all of the victims also had to go through that trauma. I have no doubt that honourable members would feel that same sense of sadness and the impact of the tragedy. I am sure all honourable members will join me in extending condolences to the families of all of the victims and, in particular, to the family of my constituent. I feel a sense of failure because, despite Hoddle Street, Queen Street, Strathfield, Milperra, Terrigal and Hillcrest, 35 defenceless people have been slaughtered in Tasmania by a military-style, rapid-fire weapon.

I feel a sense of depression because we have failed in the time encompassed by the killings to which I have referred, and we are still failing, to achieve a bipartisan approach that puts the safety of the community above politics. That is reflected in today's debate. Instead of agreeing to give the Federal Government the overriding power to set up a system to determine the style of weapons that should be available, their control and their safety, we have allowed the debate on the legislation to degenerate into a debate about which party or group has the right approach. Surely the correct approach is that we need to act rapidly to give that power to the Federal Government. We must insist that the Commonwealth invokes the strongest possible gun controls based on safety for the community and the legitimate rights of individuals to take part in sporting and recreational shooting activities using safe weapons that do not have the potential for mass slaughter.

I should like to speak about different types of weapons, the fear induced by weapons within families, and safety. There is no doubt if a national approach had been adopted that mirrored approaches taken in other States that have banned automatic and semiautomatic weapons, particularly rapid-fire, military-style weapons, the tragedy in Port Arthur could not have occurred. As other speakers have said, it is the capacity to fire 10 shots in 10 seconds that renders people absolutely helpless. Had the perpetrator of the crime been armed with a less potent weapon he may have been overcome - and I emphasise the word "may" - by the sheer number of people in the area. Obviously the sight of people falling in rapid succession strikes enormous fear into others, and it is well known that in such a situation people will be slaughtered. Military-style weapons, rapid-fire weapons and automatic and semiautomatic weapons are not necessary either in this State or anywhere else in this country. The previous speaker referred to difficulties in rural areas. Those difficulties have to be discussed. I am sure it is possible to achieve the result he sought without everyone in rural areas arguing that they should have rapid-fire, semiautomatic weapons in their grasp. That is not a necessary adjunct to the farming community.

I want to speak about the fear that must have been felt by those drawn into the tragedy in Tasmania. My heart - and I am sure the hearts of all honourable members - goes out to the survivors, to the ambulance personnel, the paramedics, the hospital staff and, indeed, to everyone who had to confront the horror of what occurred. I wish to speak also of the fear that guns create in normal families, and I shall refer to personal experience in this regard. I grew up in a family, like thousands of families across the State, where a gun was part of the sporting interests of the household. A gun, however, can also be a weapon of fear and control. When those impulses are mixed with alcohol use, as happened in my household, a gun can become a weapon of total control and fear for the women and children in a household.

I have cowered in fear with my mother and other members of my family when my father - whom I loved, and loved dearly till his death - affected by alcohol would take the weapon and with it terrify family members. That issue is germane to many people in our community and must be addressed. Not only should fear of the weapon and its potential to kill be addressed, but also its power as a control mechanism in relationships and over families and the impact that weapon control exerts on the growth and development of people within those families. We are all concerned not just about weapons but about the society in which we live and about the many damaged people and dysfunctional families in it. It has been said that weapons cannot be put in the hands of mentally unstable people. A flaw in that argument is that many people who own weapons could not be classified as being unstable or mentally deranged; they are, however, often subject to stress. We live in a stress-filled society and often a weapon is used against family or other members because of drug or alcohol abuse. That issue also needs to be examined.

I wish to refer to the issue of safety and, particularly, community safety. The honourable member for Port Jackson and the honourable member for Burrinjuck referred to the right of the community to feel safe. I shall refer again to a personal experience. My next-door neighbour lost a six-year-old grandson. The grandson was invited to a circus function and to then spend the night with his little friend. The next morning the family received a phone call telling them that the small child and his friend, in all innocence, had found a single-shot rifle and ammunition and the little boy had been killed. Legislation at the Commonwealth level must take into account the safety issue. Within the last two years Dali Handmar-Plechet, a beautiful young lady, was accidentally shot by young friends, who thought that they were only pointing a rifle and having a game. That sad incident once again demonstrates the overriding need for weapons to be stored in a safe place and for those who are registered or licensed to use weapons to undergo rigorous safety procedures. [Extension of time agreed to.]

There has been a great outpouring of feeling in our constituencies and the media in response to the tragedy in Tasmania. There is a window of opportunity for States to sit down with the Federal Government and to do what is proposed in this bill, that is, to cede power. There is an opportunity to cooperate to ensure that the ridiculous and untenable mail order practice that enables weapons to move from States which have lax laws into States where stronger laws are in place does not continue. The right to own military-style automatic, semiautomatic, or rapid fire centre pin type weapons should be removed throughout Australia. We should move to introduce uniform strict firearms registration laws and a comprehensive licensing system that takes into account the psychological competence of people who seek licences and also the value to the community of them owning a gun.

We should insist on safe weapon storage so that fewer needless tragedies occur. I am not suggesting that those tragedies will be totally eliminated or that laws will eradicate illegitimate use of firearms and weapons to murder. However, such measures will make it more difficult for firearms - the means of murder - to fall into the hands of people who should not have, under any circumstances, the right to own and use a weapon. I am sure that responsible gun owners and gun clubs will agree on the need for a sensible and ordered approach to gun ownership for target shooting or recreational sporting purposes. That approach will ensure that people who want to participate in those activities may do so after passing through licensing and instruction systems that are more than adequate. It is an absolute disgrace that a person can purchase and fire a weapon without satisfying a comprehensive test of capacity to own it and competence to use it.

The bill will cede power to the Commonwealth. The Premier has assured all honourable members that if the power is ceded but comprehensive legislation is not introduced markedly improving the present situation, a repeal process will be available. Our constituents are demanding action to make our communities safe, and they are demanding that action be taken now. The tragedy in Tasmania has embedded in the minds of everyone the need to finally take action to remove access to semiautomatic and automatic weapons, and to develop a comprehensive and enforceable registration and licensing system for weapons and owners. To those who say there are many weapons in the community, I say that the owners are irresponsible. Those owners must be brought in by community pressure. We need to create a safe environment in our homes for women, children and all family members so that we can all live in a society that is relatively free from the fear of guns.

Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [12.10]: Like every honourable member of this House, I certainly want to do all that is possible to ensure that never again will a tragedy occur like that at Port Arthur in Tasmania. I am concerned about the families and friends of the victims of that tragedy and the dreadful memories that will remain with them for the rest of their lives. I felt absolutely sick at heart
when I read the tragic stories, looked at the photographs in the newspapers and saw the images on television. If I allowed my mind to dwell on what happened there I would become more and more depressed about the enormous problem society faces with the misuse of firearms. I agree that military style automatic firearms designed simply to kill should not be freely available in the hands of citizens of this or any other country. Such weapons, if misused, can be the cause of great suffering and death.

People like the young man accused of this dreadful crime in Tasmania should never have an opportunity to get hold of weapons of any kind. Everything should be done to ensure that such tragic events never occur again. I, too, am concerned about the increasing level of violence in our society. Not long ago in the relaxed, placid atmosphere of the country town of Albury a young woman was murdered in a violent manner - her throat was cut - close to the main street. No-one ever expected or imagined such a violent death would occur in a place like Albury. I believe it is all due to the lack of personal discipline in our society, lack of respect for other people and lack of respect for human life. As responsible people, we should consider the reason violence in the community is constantly increasing.

Violence must be linked to the images people see each night in their living rooms on television, at the movies or on videos that they can so easily gain access to that depict the most violent and dreadful things being done by one human being to another. Society is rapidly going down the drain and is heading for chaos. Firearms do have genuine uses, but the law must be strong and must send a signal to the community that access to firearms must be for legitimate and useful purposes. I am concerned that the Premier is trying to place responsibility into the hands of the Commonwealth to introduce practical, sensible and workable laws. That responsibility belongs in the realm of the States, where it presently rests. If the Premier had been genuine, he could easily have spoken with all State Premiers before introducing the bill to seek their support and agreement to hand over State rights to the Commonwealth.

Queensland and Western Australia, for instance, are unlikely to abrogate responsibility on this issue and hand it to the Commonwealth. I can only come to the conclusion that the New South Wales Government wants to flick responsibility to the Commonwealth so that if things go wrong in the future it can glibly say, "It is not our responsibility. You should chase up the Commonwealth about this. We handed responsibility to it." That is not a responsible approach to the matter. New South Wales should take the initiative and act responsibly. I do not want to spend much time on the matter because much has been said and many other honourable members wish to speak, but I register my concern about the way the matter is shaping. The Premier said in his second reading speech that if the other States do not agree and the Commonwealth is not able to take up the matter, New South Wales will do something about it. However, he did not spell out what New South Wales would do. I would be much happier had he clearly stated what action New South Wales would take if this matter could not be handed to the Commonwealth.

The Premier is simply ducking the issue, trying to wriggle out from under it by handing it to someone else. The New South Wales Government does not have any firm plans to deal with what the community views as an important issue. I strongly support what the Prime Minister is trying to do. As a civilised society we need to take into account the legitimate need and use for firearms, but we need practical, sensible and workable controls so that tragedies like Port Arthur are less likely to happen. The Government is trying to wriggle out from underneath a difficult problem and pass the buck to someone else. It should not be doing that.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [12.15]: Before addressing the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill I should like to make some introductory comments that reinforce the remarks I made earlier this week by expressing condolences to the people of Tasmania and to the relatives and friends of the victims who horrendously lost their lives five days ago. Also before addressing the bill I should like to highlight the absolutely outrageous games being played in this House. In the darkest hour of this nation the three leaders in this House, the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party, have totally failed us. The nation, which is in mourning five days after this disaster and massacre, sees politicians bickering. This debate is an extension of what has happened for many years.

If ever there was a time for unity, cooperation and political courage, surely this is it. The prime tragedy occurred five days ago; in a sense, the second tragedy is the lack of political courage and unity being shown in this debate. Mr Carr, Mr Collins and Mr Armstrong have not made any clear statements about the outcome of this procedure; they have only squabbled over the process. The political process has failed us previously and continues to fail us. It can be sheeted home to this sick, adversarial political system that is based on point scoring, lack of cooperation and a reluctance to work together. If there is a difficulty dealing with these sorts of matters publicly, deal with them in private. If necessary, use the services of a mediator. I suggest that Sir Laurence Street act as mediator to put the political parties together in a room to reach agreement on the issue.

For goodness sake, stop these games. The reluctance of politicians to make a stand because of their adversarial political system is an absolute sham. I know the games which are being played. The Premier appears to want to be seen as doing something - he is doing nothing. His actions are linked to the marginal seats. One could assume that Labor seats like Broken Hill and Bathurst have been taken into account in the Premier's reluctance to come out strongly and indicate what he wants to be done with gun laws. Instead, he talks about uniformity and so on. If the Leader of the Opposition really cares, why has he not stated his position on gun control? I looked at his speech made to the House yesterday and it makes no mention - unlike some honourable members on both sides - of what he wants. There is no indication that he will pledge certain gun controls, such as registration, banning of weapons, the tightening up of licences or storage issues. Mr Collins has failed us as well. The closest he came to such a pledge was when he said:

I make it clear to the people of this State, and to this House, that I endorse to the letter every word that the Prime Minister has said on the gun control issue, and so do members of the coalition.

How pathetic! Why did the Leader of the Opposition not say, "Look, the Prime Minister has spoken about registration and the banning of weapons, and I absolutely endorse that, and that is the position of my party"? He also has failed us. I suggest that the Liberal Party go it alone. It should get rid of the Nationals, as they are clearly holding it back. The Liberals should get strong on this issue. The people of New South Wales are begging for political leadership, and they are not getting it. I say to the Liberal Party: go it alone. One can afford to have arguments in a marriage every now and again, and this is the time for one. I thought things were bad with Mr Collins' speech, but they are worse when one considers what Mr Armstrong did not have to say. His contribution was so weak, uninformed and pathetic on an issue so important as gun laws that it was almost unbelievable. He even has the hide to make comments as follows:

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 . . .

What a lot of nonsense! We are a nation grieving about the fact that 35 people have lost their lives, and the best that the Leader of the National Party can do is talk in that way, referring to videos, pornography and other sources of violence, misdemeanour and misbehaviour. These are certainly important, but that is not what this debate is about. This Parliament, community, State and nation are looking for a clear statement of outcomes from the leaders of all States, particularly the three leaders in this place. They have failed us, and Mr Armstrong is absolutely condemned for that.

It is time to act. The Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition and senior people in the coalition should act now and fear the gun lobby no more. I shall refer now to the gun lobby as I feel strongly about this aspect. The gun lobby is a scary lot. After Strathfield, both political parties were not prepared to take any political risks. Some good outcomes could have resulted from the committee of inquiry, but this did not occur. Why? Because of the gun lobby. The Independents received some pretty horrendous letters - which I still have on file - from the pro-gun lobby people. They were intimidatory and threatening. Those letters are testimony to the fact that the very people who should not own guns are those who are part of the gun lobby. Talk can be heard around town that we should be fearing people with mental illness. That is nonsense. The most dangerous people are the sort who wrote letters to me following the Strathfield incident suggesting that we should not toughen up gun laws.

The Shooters Party is behind much of this, and it has a lot to answer for. That party is a front for the firearm and weapon industry. Members should look at that party's funding. If we believe half of the reports in the media today in this regard, it is really frightening. That party's champion, John Tingle, a member of the other place, made a major blunder this week. He spoke about Tasmania having the most lax gun laws in Australia. I tell John Tingle that he is finished politically because this is the first time that he has linked gun deaths and gun control. For years we have been told that no such link exists - it does. The Shooters Party has denied this link for years, and finally the champion of the gun lobby has admitted that link. Indeed, Tasmania has lax laws, and that contributes to gun deaths.

I am inclined to support the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill, and I shall refer to my conditional support in a moment. I am prepared to support the bill on the basis that some elements of it are correct. Firstly, Commonwealth gun laws are needed to deal with a number of issues, such as importation, interstate trading, the policing of wharves, customs, taxes and tariffs and so on. Secondly, Commonwealth gun laws will provide the uniformity about which everyone is talking. However, that requires the other States to cede necessary power, which is an area of great uncertainty. We need Commonwealth gun laws to deal with mail order; otherwise States with weak gun laws become the weak link in the chain. We need Commonwealth gun laws because of gun running operations between the States. Also, Commonwealth legislation would be unambiguous and would remain in perpetuity - it could not be undone.

I understand that Mr Howard has indicated that he wants national registration and the banning of automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Let us see him do that. Let New South Wales set the example as being the first State to cede power to the Commonwealth. There is no risk in doing that. It will call Howard's bluff, in a sense. Leaving this matter to the States will probably never lead to uniformity. Ceding power to the Commonwealth is worth a try. If all the States do not cede that power, we will come back and enact tough State legislation as the Premier has indicated. The other disadvantage in relying on State legislation is that at any time States can revoke laws, particularly under a rogue government dominated by rural and National members which would revoke good gun laws.

The alternative to ceding power to the Commonwealth to enact national legislation is to hold a constitutional referendum. Currently sections 51 and 52 of the Australian Constitution, which stipulates the specific legislative powers of the Federal Parliament, do not allow the Commonwealth to enact firearms legislation overriding State law. If we could hold a constitutional referendum - I understand that the Democrats have been discussing this in the Senate - the difficulty we have with uniformity would be overcome. One difficulty is that organising a referendum will take months and some momentum may be lost. Nevertheless, it is an alternative. I want to hear the Premier talk about this issue. Will he support a constitutional referendum if all States will not hand over power to the Commonwealth? The Premier indicated that he will strengthen New South Wales gun laws if the national approach fails. That pledge needs to be specific and watertight.

My support for the bill is conditional on the following grounds: I want a clear and unequivocal statement by the Premier indicating that he supports and will actively lobby for gun registration and the banning of automatic and semiautomatic weapons. I do not want any nonsense about uniformity and giving powers to the Commonwealth. I want a clear statement in his reply. If I do not get it, I will not support the legislation. Frankly, if the Premier is not prepared to stand up and be counted five days after an absolute disaster, it is a charade. If he does not have the guts to say that he supports registration and the banning of those weapons - and state that if it cannot happen at the Commonwealth level, it will be done at the State level - he will not be meeting the wishes of the people of New South Wales. [Extension of time agreed to.]

My message to the Premier is this: I want a clear and unequivocal statement. If the Premier cannot get that assurance from the Commonwealth Government he must enact State laws. The Premier has claimed - and this is where I want to call his bluff - that this bill will give Mr Howard the power to do the things to which I have referred. I have had conversations with the Leader of the House and he has confirmed that Mr Howard talked about the registration and banning of weapons. The Premier is prepared to give Mr Howard the power to do that but I want some accountability in this process. The Premier should not hesitate to give that undertaking in this House. If he does that, he will have my vote in this matter. However, he has to make that clear and unequivocal statement.

At State level I will be pushing for more than that which will be provided for in this legislation. In my view it is not enough. I want some clarity concerning the Premier's commitment. I put on the public record that I do not believe gun registration and the banning of automatic and semiautomatic weapons is enough. We need to go further. As I understand it, licensing and the toughening up of licensing laws are contained in a private member's bill, notice of which has already been given by the honourable member for Bligh. We have to deal with two matters in the licensing area: first, the annual renewal of licences and, second, a tighter focus on the need to own guns. At present, if I wanted to obtain a licence to own a weapon I would have to go to a police station - in my case, Manly police station - and fill out a form. I would be asked to tick one of the boxes on the form to indicate whether I required the gun to eliminate vermin or for sporting reasons. I would then be able to own a weapon.

People do not have the right to own weapons, certainly not in urban areas. We must toughen up the licensing process - a matter to which I will refer when the private member's bill is introduced in this House. Another area with which we must deal is gun storage. It is important that guns are stored appropriately. It is not necessary for the gun to be stored away from the home; the bolt or other bits should be removed and stored at a police station or an armoury. Such storage away from homes is important; it removes the likelihood of intuitive or reflex behaviour. Honourable members from metropolitan areas should speak to people in their electorates to determine whether their constituents believe that those in the city should own guns and keep them in their homes. I am sure that 92 per cent to 93 per cent of those who were asked would say no. Let us get into line with the views of the community.

I wish to reinforce a point I made earlier. This legislation has merit but I do not believe the reasons advanced by the Premier for introducing it. Basically, the Premier is trying to look tough; he does not really want to do anything. However, in principle I believe it is right for us to give our powers to the Commonwealth in an attempt to obtain uniform Commonwealth legislation. It appears as though other States will not go along with this proposal, in which case it will not work. However, New South Wales should support the proposal and set an example. If the Premier does not make it clear in reply that he supports the very things he says he is giving Mr Howard the power to do - that is, registration and banning of automatic weapons - I will not support the bill.

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [12.34]: I will speak only briefly in debate on this matter. I do not think the honourable member for Manly will get an opportunity to vote on this legislation; I do not think the question will be determined today. I am disappointed with the Premier. This is just a political stunt. I think there are better ways of discussing this most important issue. The Premier introduced legislation which cannot be voted on before the meeting of the police Ministers next week. However, this legislation gives us an opportunity to make comments on gun legislation generally. It also forms part of the grieving process following the Port Arthur massacre.

I knew one of the Port Arthur victims who was killed. My brother operates a medical practice not far from Port Arthur. He knew four of the victims fairly well and he knows one of the survivors. He said when talking to me on the telephone that we should pay tribute to the way in which some of the survivors have conducted themselves. I believe that members of the press should not publicise in great detail incidents such as the Port Arthur massacre. They should give survivors of such a traumatic event an opportunity to come to grips with their lives. This important legislation gives us an opportunity to express our sympathy and to comment on what changes we believe should occur in relation to gun legislation. I support a national approach to firearm legislation, which may seem somewhat strange coming from someone who spoke against changes to the legislation in 1992. I still have the concerns that I had then.

Some people suggested that I was opposed to changes to gun legislation. I was not; I was opposed to putting in place legislation that created more criminals than it stopped. That highlights an important issue that must be addressed in this debate. Legislation that is put in place, whether it is national uniform legislation or anything else, has to be workable. If that legislation is purely a political implement to get us off the hook it will not achieve what we want, that is, a safer community. It will not prevent madmen, such as the one at Port Arthur, from having access to firearms. There has been an emotional reaction to events at Port Arthur. Many people are making suggestions that are not workable. I have had messages sent to me by the press - I am sure all other honourable members have - to which I have not yet replied. However, I am prepared to reply to them today as I have an a opportunity to qualify my answers.

As I said earlier, I support a national approach to this matter. I do not believe that a total ban on semiautomatic weapons is workable. A total ban on semiautomatic centre-fire assault rifles is probably workable, with exemptions for professional use in strictly supervised circumstances. Many people do not understand the differences in firearms. If we ban semiautomatic .22 rifles - there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in Australia - they will not be handed in or surrendered. After events at Port Arthur, people in the community have a much greater understanding of the damage that can be caused by semiautomatic SKS assault rifles or Armalite military equipment - which effectively is what was used at Port Arthur. Most people believe that those weapons should not be available to members of the community.

I ask the Minister for Police to accept that a blanket ban on semiautomatic weapons would not be workable. A national register of ownership of rifles could work because we would be dealing with individuals and not the guns. There would be great difficulty in making registration of firearms mandatory. Legislators can take such action, and I do not have a problem with it as an individual, but the matter gets down to whether we want the legislation to work within the community and to achieve the ends we are talking about. Registration of the owner of the rifle is the important issue. We must look closely, as the honourable member for Manly suggested, at the storage of firearms. In the speeches of members this morning there almost seems to be an argument - it is slightly contradictory to what I have just said - for country and city use of firearms to be treated differently.

Perhaps uniform legislation could be flexible in relation to where firearms are stored. There is general recognition that farmers and people using firearms for sport and vermin control should have access to firearms. Therefore, storage of firearms in the country, particularly in the farming community, could be treated differently from storage in major metropolitan areas. That issue should be looked at. I caution the Minister for Police and the Premier that they should address the issue as non-politically as possible. A disappointing aspect of the introduction of the bill is that the upper House is not available to vote on it. This sends a signal to the community that political games are being played again on the issue of firearms.

Division is creeping into the debate in Parliament. The Premier has done a disservice in the way he has trivialised what could have been a genuine debate to address gun laws - treating the matter superficially by ceding the power to the Commonwealth, making it its problem. He has exacerbated the situation and should apologise to the House in his reply for making the statement yesterday about machine guns coming across the border. It is very damaging, it is incorrect and it will not assist in solving this issue. The bill does nothing other than give New South Wales politicians an opportunity to make points on an important issue, as the upper House will not be able to pass the bill before the police Ministers meet next week.

Many members have spoken about why people are committing gun-related crimes. No legislation will completely eradicate such crimes. If some can be stopped, that is a positive step. We have a violent society. The honourable member for Manly was critical of the Leader of the National Party. In his speech he mentioned aspects of modern life that create pressures on people that can drive them to pick up an implement of war and do damage to others. As a Parliament we must get serious about the liberties some people think they have in relation to the material they can peddle and the material they and their families can legally view.

Mr Acting-Speaker, I take on board your very important comments in relation to drugs in our community and their interaction with firearms and other weapons. The impact of violent videos and pornography should also be considered. We must think of personal responsibility and the way in which we as individuals conduct ourselves and the family members with whom we associate conduct themselves. I take on board the comments of the honourable member for Port Jackson about psychological testing of people in relation to access to firearms. That needs to be thought through very carefully.

I disagree with the honourable member for Manly in rejecting suggestions that we look closely at the mental health problems in the community. Within a fortnight a person in my electorate could be back on the street because of the complications of the criminal law and the Mental Health Act. He has almost killed a person and badly injured another but because of the confusion of the law he could be back out on the street and able to do what the Port Arthur madman did last Sunday. When acts of violence are committed many members of Parliament come out on the side of the perpetrator, suggesting that something that happened in his youth or early life means that we should err on the side of rehabilitation. I am all for rehabilitation where it can do some good but in many circumstances the wrong signals are given to the community by this approach. [Extension of time agreed to.]

It would be opportunistic in the circumstances to raise the issue of the death penalty in this debate but we should consider present sentencing provisions. In conclusion I support the initiative taken to have this matter discussed at the meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council next week. However, I will not support the legislation. In fact, I do not believe it will come to a vote today. However, having this debate today gives honourable members the opportunity to express their views on some of the possible legislative changes that could result from the consultative process. The honourable member for Monaro referred to the effectiveness of previous legislation. In hindsight that legislation has not been successful, even though the State tightened the licensing laws relating to gun ownership.

For legislation to be effective it must be workable and not introduced merely to get politicians off the hook. Whatever happens in relation to uniform legislation, many more issues must be addressed if we want to solve the difficulties facing our society today. Within 30 minutes of leaving this place I or any other member of this place could very easily obtain an illegal pistol in Sydney - for a price - even though those weapons have been banned from civilian use since 1927. For God's sake, when we legislate at a national level let us do so with legislation that will work and will have community support. Let us not adopt a political approach that gets us off the hook.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [12.51]: I am pleased to contribute to this debate on the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill. The House is debating this issue today following the tragedy last weekend at Port Arthur. It took so little time to take so many lives through the action of madness. For the families of those who lost one so dear the horror of that brief action will live on for the rest of their lives. How cruel, how unfair and how inhumane! We all feel so much for the families of the 35 innocent people of all ages who are no longer alive, and now there is hurt and sadness for those near and dear to them. Australia is a country that has generally been blessed - free from wars - yet tragedies occur and have always been an element with which to contend. Usually those tragedies are natural disasters and the community always rallies to support those in need. But, alas, the weekend episode at Port Arthur in Tasmania - a senseless and cruel slaughter - was against all principles of human nature.

Australians are a peace-loving people who usually show enormous respect to and affection for their communities. All Australian governments have a responsibility to enact uniform gun licensing legislation in order to control violence in the community and those who abuse the system. I am sure all honourable members of this Parliament share in the hurt that loved ones have felt over the loss of family members and friends in the Tasmanian tragedy. We should be working to find ways and means of amending firearms control legislation to ensure that such a circumstance does not occur again. But perhaps our response should not be immediate. If I have to deal with a constituent who is angry about something, or angry with me for something I have done, I have learnt the lesson that it is wiser to have a cooling-off period - perhaps 24 hours or a week - before responding. That cooling-off period gives one time to be able to see both sides of the issue and, hopefully, to give a more considered response to the issue than would have been given at the time the matter was raised.

As members of Parliament we have a responsibility to our constituents to ensure that the State enacts legislation that conforms with the community's wish to stop violence. All the laws that are introduced in New South Wales or elsewhere within the Commonwealth of Australia will not stop acts that are uncontrollable. Unfortunately there will always be people over whom we have no control. There will always be those who will not abide by the regulations relating to the licensing and registration of guns and rifles. Unfortunately we can only do our very best as we are endeavouring to do now. I totally endorse and support the introduction of uniform national gun laws. It is an essential step and I am sure it is supported by honourable members from both sides of the House. In times of war Australia rallied to help its allies around the world, as it would expect them to help if Australia were in trouble.

The present tragedy, with all the hurt that it involves, unites the community. It has brought the States together and has brought the Commonwealth Government to the position of encouraging the States to work together. From that point of view I am sure we are heading in the right direction, but the big question is how we do it. I disagree with some of my colleagues in that I do not believe it is necessary for New South Wales to cede its powers to the Commonwealth. New South Wales has strong gun laws but, as the honourable member for Tamworth and the honourable member for Monaro said, those laws do not clearly identify all gun owners, and that is the problem with the current legislation. An enormous number of people in my electorate have gun licences. They have gone through the application and testing processes and many of them are associated with sporting clubs and associations. Although the system has its problems, it has worked extremely well.

This State has a responsibility to make laws for its citizens, and it has done so. I would like to think that individual States and Territories can enact complementary legislation so that there is uniformity throughout Australia. I do not believe we should hand power to the Commonwealth to make the laws. As State members of Parliament we have a responsibility to our constituents, and it is a cop-out to abrogate that responsibility. We have a responsibility to cooperate with other States and with the Commonwealth Government.

Military weapons should never be allowed to get into the hands of those for whom they were not designed. Military weapons should be available for defence purposes only. Unfortunately, these weapons have found their way into the hands of others and in some parts of Australia they are legal weapons. That matter must be addressed also. In my view it is not right for honourable members to be concerned only about gun laws; we should be concerned about the law as it relates to weapons. Whatever we do to improve gun laws - to save people's lives or to stop people using guns against other people - will not prevent people from using other weapons against one another. Unfortunately, there are few laws that prevent the use of weapons as such - apart from some types of knives. Legislation limiting the use of firearms should also encompass other weapons.

Honourable members may not agree that the issue I am about to raise is relevant to this debate. My view is that it is. I believe strongly that X-rated videos have an influence on people and their use of guns. New South Wales and the other States have enacted legislation banning X-rated videos. I have written to two former Attorneys General of this State over the past 10 years seeking that X-rated videos be banned. All Australian Attorneys General agree that such material should not be available. The problem is that X-rated videos are not banned in the Australian Capital Territory; indeed, the ACT Government derives income from the sale of such videos. That is disgraceful. The videos are transported throughout Australia and their availability cannot be controlled by the States. Similarly, too many violent movies are getting past the censors.

It may not be necessary to debate gun laws if people were not being influenced by violent videos and films in the privacy of homes and elsewhere. I suggest that this issue should be addressed at the same time as we seek to revise our gun and weapon laws. My electorate is a large agricultural area. Consequently the need for vermin control is obvious. About 45 per cent of the people I represent earn their living from the land or from fishing. Undoubtedly automatic weapons should be banned - absolutely - but semiautomatic guns such as .22 pea rifles or five-shot shotguns are used for duck control and by licensed kangaroo hunters and many primary producers to control vermin. I suggest that any legislation should contain provisions that identify those who have a legitimate reason to use semiautomatic weapons. Generally speaking, reports of gun-related violence do not come from rural areas.

I realise that violence can and does erupt anywhere and at any time, but I cannot recall an occasion when a primary producer has been the offender in incidents such as those we have heard about in Victoria or Tasmania. Certainly there has been the occasional suicide or family incident, and they too are tragic. But I have not heard of an occasion when someone who earns his living using a semiautomatic gun for vermin control, or as a security guard or police officer, has taken the lives of a number of people. I have no objection to the establishment of a national register for firearms. That is the way to go. Registering a person who owns a firearm does not register the firearm or firearms he has. Gun owners will be covered by Commonwealth or State legislation. I congratulate the Prime Minister, John Howard, and those working with him on endeavouring to introduce legislation that will protect human lives. Of course a problem does arise with the mental health issue.

Unfortunately no-one can prejudge what another person will do. We can only try to be sensible and realistic about, and at the same time loving and caring towards, the mentally ill. I look forward to the meeting that will take place next Friday between the police Ministers. I understand that the Prime Minister and the Premiers may attend. I hope uniform agreement is reached. People who live in urban areas would probably question the need for people in sparsely populated rural areas to have guns. And it is right that such questions are raised. People who live in the country may have good reasons for owning a gun. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to the bill. I do not believe that the State should hand its powers to the Commonwealth. Rather it should work with the Commonwealth and the other States to achieve uniform gun laws.

Mr STEWART (Lakemba) [1.06]: I offer my condolences, along with those of my constituents in the Lakemba electorate, to the families and friends of the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre. I support the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill. The object of the bill is clear and simple: that is, to allow New South Wales to refer to the Parliament of the Commonwealth power to enact legislation relating to firearms. This approach demonstrates the sincerity of the Carr Labor Government in its absolute commitment to tangibly and realistically supporting adequate gun control measures that are governed by a national focus and are, importantly, uniform in their approach and application. Yesterday the Premier in his second reading speech indicated that the present situation with regard to State-based gun control measures throughout Australia is ad hoc, not uniform, and sadly highly deficient in Queensland and Tasmania.

To highlight the tragedy of this approach the Premier indicated that the gun used at the Strathfield massacre in 1992, an incident in which seven people were killed, was purchased legally outside New South Wales. That is a ridiculous situation. It is ridiculous because despite New South Wales currently having relatively tough gun laws it is still possible for any potential murderer or killer to simply hop into a car, travel over the border into Queensland, and gain access to a deadly automatic, high-powered, military gun. These weapons are imported and current import control measures over them are highly inadequate. Clearly no matter how tough this State becomes in terms of gun control legislation and approach, the practical application of this legislation will always be dangerously flawed when other States still allow the wholesale provision of and access to deadly military-style automatic weapons which are designed for only one purpose: to kill people in great numbers.

The type of gun used in the Strathfield massacre of 1992, and one of the guns used in the tragic Port Arthur massacre, was a Chinese built SKS semiautomatic 7.62 millimetre combat assault rifle. This weapon is designed for only one purpose: combat assault and killing people. This gun is capable of firing 40 bullets as quickly as its user can pull the trigger. It fires bullets at 3,000 feet per second, full jacketed bullets that are capable of travelling through solid steel. This gun, which is illegal in New South Wales, can be purchased in Queensland, Tasmania or South Australia. Hundreds of similar weapons are being legally imported into Australia by Fuller Firearms Group Pty Limited and other gun dealers in this country.

The only way to achieve adequate and tough gun control is through Federal legislation which forces all States to have uniform laws. The Prime Minister has strongly stated on the public record his desire to achieve national uniformity of gun control laws. This bill will give the Federal Government the power to make laws for this State covering all major aspects of firearms, in particular guns that can be legally used, and a national gun register if that is deemed appropriate. The bill is aimed at helping the Prime Minister implement uniform gun laws. The various standards that apply in different States weaken gun control and provide legal opportunities for potential murderers and mass murderers to purchase deadly firearms, with tragic consequences.

I am sickened and sad as I stand in this House today in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre. I cannot believe that so many Opposition members have spoken against the legislation. The Opposition is attempting to avoid conformity through Federal gun control legislation. It seems apparent that at the police Ministers meeting next week the States will present different gun control agendas. History has demonstrated that there is more chance of finding rocking horse droppings than of achieving uniform consensus amongst States for gun control legislation. The only way to achieve proper and meaningful gun control is through Commonwealth legislation. I am proud to be part of a government which is leading the way, through legislation, to cede State powers to the Commonwealth Government. It is shameful that the Opposition today refuses to cooperate with the Government in its efforts to meaningfully address gun control.

The Leader of the National Party was quoted as saying he will leave his options open on this issue. Honourable members, as elected community representatives, can no longer afford to put their heads in the sand and avoid the need for strong uniform gun control measures, which can only work if enacted through the Commonwealth. The Opposition has been given the chance to show courage by uniting in a bipartisan way with this Government to pass the legislation and allow New South Wales to lead the way in giving the Commonwealth control over gun laws. It is shameful that the Government does not have bipartisan support on this important issue and that the Opposition is copping out and showing its redneck mentality. In the space of four short years we have witnessed the massacre of seven people at Strathfield, six at Terrigal, six at Hillcrest and, most recently, 35 at Port Arthur. How long do we have to wait and what do we have to do to convince the Opposition and others that the time has come to enact tough gun legislation, and that the only way to do it is through national control under Commonwealth legislation?

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [1.13]: I reflect the comments of my Leader and of the shadow minister for police. Like most of my constituents and, I suspect, many honourable members of this Chamber, I have never owned, possessed, handled or fired a gun, nor have I ever desired to do so. But like all Australians I viewed the events of last Sunday with horror, anguish and bewilderment. I recognise, and have since I was elected, that if my electorate were polled it would strongly support the introduction of tougher gun laws. Their views reflect mine. Why do people need to own or to use guns? Members of my electorate understand why, regrettably, police must bear arms; they understand why farmers must on occasions have access to guns. They do not understand, however, why people living and working in a city like Sydney need to own guns.

I am honest enough to admit that despite this community's sentiment, which I believe extends to the majority of citizens across this State, many of us remain uncertain of what tougher workable laws should be sought. I still cannot answer that question with any confidence. I do know, however, that Sunday's events and the reaction of the community have provided an opportunity to definitively answer that question once and for all. The community is demanding of all governments, Federal and State, that the issue be resolved. The Howard Government is responding to those demands. John Howard is leading the debate and tackling the tough issues head-on, as I and millions of other Australians knew he would when we voted for him on 2 March. Regrettably, the Premier is locked into the past. He has been given the opportunity to resolve this issue once and for all, but he has taken the typical knee-jerk, 1987 Unsworth-style New South Wales Right response and declared, prophet-like, that he has all the answers.

Over the past 70 years this Parliament has had two select committees on guns and has considered legislation on this issue on 10 occasions, yet no-one would dare suggest that we have yet got it right. It is typical of the Premier to think he alone has the answers. The Premier, that great follower of Abraham Lincoln, was offered the chance to meet with representatives of all Federal and State governments to thrash out a uniform response, bringing with them the best advice available around the country. Yet he seeks to divide and not unify the country. The Premier knows that government resolve on this issue is fragile in certain parts of Australia. He understands that in a Federation one out means all out, and that can thwart uniform action; but for partisan reasons, in an attempt to divert attention from his Government's woes and the pressures on his leadership, he has decided to grandstand, to set high hurdles and inevitably to destroy the chance of a definitive national response.

On the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program A.M., the Premier was asked about his motivation. His response was unconvincing. The real reasons are contained in this week's Bulletin, in the poll conducted by the Sydney Morning Herald last week, in the many meetings of backbenchers around this House, in the renewed energies of the honourable member for Heffron, and in the increasingly stylish performance of the Minister for Police. The Premier must be under pressure. If he is not, why did he not positively respond when the Hon. Ann Symonds raised this matter with caucus on 26 March? The media described Mrs Symonds as a lone voice inside Labor on the issue. It was reported that at the subsequent caucus meeting, when Mrs Symonds attempted to gain support for the re-establishment of a parliamentary firearms committee, she was defeated after the Premier spoke against it. He argued that the public did not want changes to gun laws. Action then would have given a lie to my charges today that the Premier is a hypocrite.

National approaches do work, as I witnessed when I worked for a former Minister for transport and roads, when the national uniform blood alcohol and points demerit system were implemented. That system was achieved despite great opposition from some of the smaller States, some of which were represented by Labor governments - and some by Liberal governments - who feared the loss of independence. That measure has led to a documented reduction in the loss of life on the nation's roads. Until yesterday I had hoped for a similar approach to the meeting of police Ministers on 10 May. The editorials in Tuesday's Australian and in today's Daily Telegraph state that we run the risk that some governments may falter when confronted by the powerful lobbies which have resisted real reform in this area in the past. History has demonstrated that the risk crosses party lines. Governments of all political persuasions have, in the past, regrettably backed away when action was required.

Instead of raising high hurdles for those governments, as this bill clearly does, efforts should have been directed at bolstering, encouraging and protecting those governments in the lead up to 10 May. The irony is that the passage of this bill will almost certainly set back the cause of a genuine, effective, national, uniform approach to guns because some States will not be able to meet the target. Today's media reflects that fact. The responses of other State governments confirm it. Even the Federal Opposition is on record as preferring the Howard approach to the Carr tactic we have before us. In a week during which we remembered Henry Parkes - a man who cooperatively achieved the greatest ever intergovernmental agreement in our history - it is ironic that his successor in the office of New South Wales Premier is set to wreck a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to secure uniformity on this issue.

Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [1.20]: I am in favour of the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill. The object of the bill is to refer to the Parliament of the Commonwealth power to enact legislation relating to firearms. The reference will be made under section 51(37) of the Commonwealth Constitution. It is also important to note that should the proposal not come to fruition, the termination of this reference will be facilitated in the bill. This has become a matter of public concern because of the tragedy that occurred at Port Arthur on Sunday, 28 April. I have listened to what other speakers have had to say, particularly those who enumerated a variety of reasons why the bill is not acceptable.

I am always mindful of people who engage in a particular form of procrastination that I find very irritating. They suggest that because so many issues are involved and it is such a big matter, if we try to tinker with one little point, it will all be to no avail. In some respects that summarises the comments of the previous speaker. On Wednesday, 1 May, the Sydney Morning Herald published photographs of 21 of the 35 victims of the Port Arthur tragedy, together with a description of each. If I put a name to some of those who lost their lives it may give the issue a personal aspect. The captions under the photographs read as follows:

JIM POLLARD, 72, retired university administrator, Brunswick Heads, NSW. On holidays. Shot dead in car at tollbooth and body dragged into car park.

JASON WINTER, 29, winemaker from NZ working in Hobart. Shot dead in cafe after throwing himself in front of wife and son to shield them. They survived.

ROBERT SALZMANN, 54, carpenter, Ocean Shores, NSW. On holidays with wife. Shot dead in car at tollbooth and body dragged into car park.

HELENE SALZMANN, 50, gardener, Ocean Shores, NSW. On holidays with husband. Shot dead in car at tollbooth and body dragged into car park.

Of course, this tragedy resulted from the actions of a person who, although he might be regarded as dysfunctional, was certainly not mentally ill. This is another point that needs to be borne in mind: demonise the perpetrator of the crime and make it seem as though it normally would not happen because such people are few in the community. The newspaper list continued:

WALTER BENNETT: 66, retired, from Diamond Creek in Victoria. Holidaying with golfing friends from Kilmore. Shot in cafe as he sat with friends.

The list goes on but I will not read any more of the names. There are a number of stories of the victims related in the newspaper, for example, that of Ms Zoe Hall a 28-year-old solicitor who worked for Minter Ellison in Sydney. She lived at Kangaroo Point, near Sylvania, with her mother. She and a companion went to Tasmania for a three-day break. She was to attend the thirtieth birthday party of Tanya Pears, the sister of her companion Glen Pears. They attended the party in Hobart on Saturday night and then took a day trip to Port Arthur. She was killed in the driver's seat of a white Corolla hatchback as she tried to escape from the bullets fired by the killer. Mr Pears was forced into the boot of the BMW being driven by the killer and taken hostage. He was killed in the fire at Seascape. I find it very difficult to describe this tragedy.

These were ordinary people doing ordinary things on what was a relatively ordinary Sunday. Their lives were terminated by someone who, for whatever reason, decided that he had weapons that he was entitled to use in the way that he chose to use them. The weapons were of a type that can still be purchased in this country. One was an Armalite AR-15, a version of the M-16 rifle used by many armed forces around the world and until recently the standard-issue weapon for the Australian Army. It is light and easy to operate; it fires a 5.56mm cartridge and can be fitted with a magazine that will hold up to 30 rounds. The other weapon was an SKS assault rifle, a Chinese copy of the Soviet Simonov rifle, which fires a 7.62mm cartridge at 735 metres per second.

Why would anyone have such rifles? They are designed to immobilise, to use American terminology, and to kill opposing armed forces outright or to maim them in such a way that it is impossible for them to get back into the battle. The weapons are available in our community for anyone to buy - not in New South Wales but in Tasmania and Queensland. Anyone from New South Wales could buy them in those States. There is no reason that Martin Bryant could not have put his rifles in a bag, boarded a plane for Sydney, hired a car and driven to Kiama where he could have done precisely what he did in Tasmania. That is an horrendous state of affairs. We witness such tragedies not once or twice but time and time again. On 27 October 1992 on the central coast six people were shot dead and one was wounded. On 30 August 1990 five people were shot dead in Surry Hills. On 17 August 1991 six people were shot and a teenage girl was stabbed at the Strathfield shopping mall.

On 8 December 1987 eight people were killed and 10 wounded in the Telecom and Australia Post offices in Queen Street, Melbourne. On 9 August 1987 seven people were killed and 19 injured in Hoddle Street, Melbourne. And honourable members are arguing about what motivated the Premier! Why is the Legislative Council not sitting today? I suppose one reason is that history was made yesterday when a senior Minister was tossed out of the Legislative Council by a group of people who are presumably not prepared to accept the conventions of the Westminster system. I understand that shortly legal action will commence in respect of that matter. Obviously, the Legislative Council would not sit while legal action was under way to determine exactly what powers the Chamber had to do what was done yesterday. But, of course, that has been forgotten. That is the line that the Opposition has taken because it does not want this legislation dealt with before next week.

Honourable members will see the absurdity in that proposition. Honourable members have reacted in different ways to the killing of 35 people in one afternoon. The latest figures available from the Australian Institute of Criminology are set out in its bulletin entitled "Homicides in Australia 1992-93", which deals with trends and issues in crime and criminal justice. Those figures indicate that in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory in 1992-93, 34 people were killed with firearms. Thirty-one per cent of all people killed in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory were killed by firearms. I get the impression from the Opposition that it is all right if only one or two people are killed in one spot on one day. It is time to make the decision that something must be done. Some say that if legislation required the registration of all firearms and made it illegal to buy and possess certain firearms in New South Wales, people would ignore that.

If governments had taken that attitude in the past, they would not have bothered even to license car drivers. Is it suggested that because some people ignore the 60 kilometres an hour speed limit, legislation should not govern speed limits? Such an argument is a hollow, phoney excuse. Surely the weakness of the argument is apparent to all of us. Different standards of gun laws apply in the various States. I am impressed by the standards in Western Australia, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, where all firearms must be registered. In South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory it is compulsory to have photographs on firearm licences. In New South Wales the level of responsibility of those who own and/or control firearms must be increased. The editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 April stated:

A cool look at gun laws

The time for excuses has passed. Now it is time for action. The private ownership of certain types of weapons should not only be made illegal but practically impossible, even outside the law. And the laws for licensing gun owners should be given real effect by strict, complementary laws for the registration of their guns. Ideally, such action to tighten gun control laws should be uniform throughout the States and territories. But, if immediate uniformity is impossible, that should not be an excuse for further inaction.

This bill will give form to that expressed wish. All honourable members are horrified by the gun lobby slogan "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". I may be a bit slow and I may not know the niceties and nuances of some things, having been raised in the bush, but I have yet to hear of a person being shot by someone who did not have a gun. I am waiting for a story to appear in a newspaper, "Man shot by man who didn't have a gun". It is obvious and elementary that one cannot shoot someone if one does not have a gun. I remind honourable members that 31 per cent of all deaths in New South Wales in the last year for which figures are available, 1992-93, were caused by firearms. The provisions of this bill have a good chance of reducing by one-third the number of murders in this State.

That points the finger at those who say the States should not be forced to come together on the issue, that it is too proscriptive, that the Premier has not said exactly what he wants, and so on. The legislation is a good initiative that should have the unqualified support of the House. It will become the basis on which others will react, come on board, accept and support. The Premier said that if that does not happen, the Government will introduce stricter controls in New South Wales. I acknowledge that that will not be as effective as if all the States worked together and uniform legislation, by way of delegation of that responsibility to the Federal Government or by common agreement, was put into place. I support the bill.

Mr WATKINS (Gladesville) [1.35]: I have been a member of this Parliament for just over 12 months. In that time many important issues have been debated, but none of them has engendered the same level of community concern as this issue. The tragedy at Port Arthur clearly touches us all and lays a deep responsibility on us. The tragedy is the reason for the Government Powers (Firearms) Bill, and it is the reason that we must embrace a future free from the fear of guns. The legislation introduced by the Premier yesterday allows the ideal of uniform national gun laws to become a reality, and means that a national register of weapons can be achieved. It will ensure that a ban on automatic and semiautomatic weapons throughout Australia can be secured. It can result in bans on importation, in safe storage of arms and in an end to the insidious practice of mail-order purchasing of weapons.

By ceding powers to the Commonwealth in the present climate, New South Wales is declaring that the safety of human beings should be the overriding principle in the gun debate, and is giving the Commonwealth a unique and rare chance to take decisive action. In this regard New South Wales is providing real leadership that I hope and believe will be embraced by the Commonwealth and other States. But the Premier has made it clear that if this hope is not realised at the national level, New South Wales will enact its own rigorous laws. I speak in this debate with some trepidation. Over the past week I have wondered whether this is the right time to speak out on the matter. I thought that it might be better to stand in silent witness with the people of Australia who have been touched by this tragedy. I was wary of this solemn experience being sullied by political debate. As the week passed, the web of pain from Port Arthur reached out across the nation, affecting men, women and children in the furthest corners of every State, in every home in every electorate.

Finally I was convinced of the need to speak out when children from every primary school in my electorate, who were sitting in the gallery at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, stood in silence in the memory of those slain in Tasmania. That convinced me that it was important for me as a local member, and for all honourable members, to speak out and to take real, effective action. I was convinced to speak out against the evil that happened last Sunday, to speak out against the nonsensical view that the citizens of New South Wales have a right - supreme, it seems, over all others - to own high-powered rifles and other weapons of human destruction, and to speak out clearly and loudly in this forum against the forces of denial and deliberate inaction.

I was convinced to speak out against the selfish, life-denying forces that suggest, even in the face of such unutterable human pain, that guns do not kill people but people kill people, and the more insidious sidestepping by intelligent people who should know better, such as honourable members opposite who spoke against the legislation. I was astounded and deeply distressed to read in the Sydney Morning Herald only one day after the tragedy the lame excuses, obfuscation and obscene denial by proponents of the gun lobby. As the rest of Australia was trying to come to terms with the enormity of what had happened and trying to see a way through the pain and shock, these stupid, selfish, heartless, life-denying ideologues were already mobilising their forces in the shooting lobby. Even in the face of so much innocent suffering and death they were organising to ensure that nothing would be done. Their guns and their precious rights were supreme. Even the brutal, obscenely violent deaths of small children could not shake them from their antiquated, small-minded view of gun ownership.

Anyone who has ever doubted whether evil exists in the world need only look to Tasmania last Sunday and to the thousands of life-denying excuses and reasons for doing nothing put up since then by the gun lobby. Unfortunately, yesterday I had to listen to those excuses in the House. They tumbled out of the mouths of several members opposite. Some honourable members presented the excuses cleverly, some laughed in the midst of them and some may even have believed one or two of them. Honourable members heard excuses such as: it is the fault of the Mental Health Act; it is a knee-jerk reaction; it is not necessary at this stage; it is the fault of a soft and wimpish response by the courts; what if we get an irrational Federal government; farmers need their weapons; the news media have given it undue attention.

Those are stupid, obscene excuses that attempt to, but cannot, hide the enormity of the need and the urgency required. Disappointingly, the Leader of the Opposition took a position that gave credence to those excuses. I think that in his heart he is in favour of real gun control. The problem is that he has the National Party to deal with and does not have the political strength to stand National Party members up and make them see the new reality around them. He does not have the political will to ensure conservative support for real gun control that will bring safety to the citizens of New South Wales, especially our women and children.

It is disappointing that the only real argument presented by the Leader of the Opposition was that we should wait until the end of next week, when the police Ministers have met. For that reason the Leader of the Opposition suggested yesterday there would be opposition to the bill. The Opposition's response to avoid making a stance is based on the belief that the further we move away from the tragedy the more the impetus for change will fade and the time for opponents of gun law reform to organise and spread their lies will grow. The Leader of the Opposition surely knows that if there is no action now it is highly likely that action will not be taken.

In their opposition to these steps, Opposition members are turning their back on a great opportunity for a bipartisan approach on this terrible social problem. I can only hope that members opposite will hear the outcry, even from country electorates, for action and that they will listen, discuss the matter in their party rooms, and change their life-denying response. This is a debate of great certainties. Most aspects of it are clear and definite. Dramatic tightening of the gun laws is necessary throughout this nation. Clearly, this must be a national priority. If that cannot be achieved because of recalcitrant States, it is certain that the people of New South Wales demand action and require us to go alone. The Premier has indicated that New South Wales will do so. It is absolutely certain to me that this is what the electorate demands. Surveys reveal overwhelming support for the changes. It is clear that the people of my electorate of Gladesville are seeking direction from the State Parliament. They have spoken to me about their hopes and expectations. Yesterday I received a letter that in part stated:

Like the great majority of Australians I am totally sick of the spinelessness of politicians both Liberal & Labor, State & Federal on the issue of gun control. I hope that you can find it in your heart to fight for the abolition of gun ownership in this country.

If you will fight I suggest you keep before your eyes the vision of the lady at Port Arthur shot down while picnicking with her young daughters aged six and three who were then butchered in cold blood. A horror such as this should not occur in this country. It is absolutely essential that your family and my family should be able to go about their business without the fear of being slaughtered.

I will support this legislation with vigour, certain that it begins the process of protecting our citizens. I challenge members opposite, and especially those in urban seats like mine, to similarly represent the views of their electorates. In particular, I challenge the honourable member for Eastwood, the honourable member for Ermington, the honourable member for Lane Cove and the honourable member for Northcott, whose electorates surround mine, to support this positive action now. Their constituents are very much like mine: they demand action. Please do not let them down.

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [1.43]: There is little doubt that the great majority of Australians support tighter control on gun ownership and usage - a 1995 North Sydney municipal referendum put the figure at 93 per cent and a Department of Health survey indicated 92 per cent support in the cities and 83 per cent support in rural areas. Most licensed shooters and rural land-holders owning guns are solid, law-abiding citizens and would support laws designed to make it harder for people to possess guns, and to outlaw certain categories of guns which no citizen should possess. The Carr Government is abrogating its responsibility on gun control by rushing to hand over gun laws to the Commonwealth. That move is an ill-considered, politically motivated, cynical, publicity-seeking stunt that is set to backfire on the Government. Even the main anti-gun lobby group, the Coalition for Gun Control, stated last night:

New South Wales is buck passing to the Commonwealth its responsibilities.

As the Leader of the Opposition has said:

Tougher uniform gun control laws must be owned and enacted by each Australian State and Territory - it is this course of action which offers the best chance of successful gun law reform.

The best hope for reform rests on the success of continuing Federal-State negotiations to be formally commenced next Friday, 10 May, at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council. That was the agreed position between the coalition and the Government as of Wednesday night. But - surprise, surprise and true to form - here is yet another Carr Government broken promise. This broken promise will ensure that the Government's popularity continues to slide down the slippery slope to oblivion in the opinion polls. If a single State or Territory refuses to hand over gun control then the entire national approach to reform will be undermined. Surrender of the New South Wales law-making powers would make sense only if all other States and Territories followed suit.

Next Friday's police Ministers council represents a unique opportunity for Australian politicians in all States and Territories and the Commonwealth to establish national standards of gun control and uniformity of gun laws throughout Australia. Such uniform legislation should then be introduced in each State jurisdiction. All governments have a responsibility to approach the Australasian Police Ministers' Council prepared to examine their own legislation and the way in which it can be improved. They need to show leadership and commitment - qualities that the Carr Government does not display, as evidenced in the opinion polls. To consider giving responsibility to the Federal Government without any attempt to discuss State laws at the police Ministers council is a monumental cop-out and the New South Wales electors will recognise it as such.

Today's press informs us not only that Queensland is refusing to follow Carr's folly but that South Australia and Tasmania will do likewise. How many more States will be included in that group by the close of today's business? This legislation, or rather abrogation of legislative responsibility, threatens to jeopardise the national approach put forward by Prime Minister Howard this week - an approach that is widely supported by all Australians. It would be too easy for the Carr Government to give up the fight, wringing its hands in despair because of so-called recalcitrant States. This is in fact the latest political manoeuvre to distance the Carr Government from the sensitive issue of gun control, the issue that allegedly brought down the Unsworth Government and has intimidated politicians ever since.

The public wants the New South Wales Government to bring in gun law reform with its own legislative programs and powers. It is by this process that New South Wales can then bring strong pressure to bear on the so-called recalcitrant States to bring them into line. Under the Constitution, State governments have the power to legislate on the ownership and use of weapons. The Commonwealth, no matter how urgent it sees the need, cannot simply pass a law that overrides State laws. The final resort for the Federal Government should the States refuse uniform national laws is a referendum. That could pose the direct question of whether the Commonwealth should have control over the use and ownership of guns, and if the result were in the affirmative the power would be taken from the States.

Though we all feel a sense of frustration about gun control, we should keep in mind that as recently as 1987 most State governments did not have any laws covering the registration or use of firearms apart from pistols. In the wake of recent tragic shootings, especially that at Port Arthur, all States are now heading in this direction, and 35 lives will not have been lost in vain. Suitable time frames are needed to encourage illegal gun owners who are not registered to come forward under the amnesty and register their firearms. Ultimate fines for non-compliance with such an amnesty should be substantial to ensure compliance. Country people have nothing to fear from the proposal for stricter gun control. If they have a valid reason to use firearms, they will have no difficulty in obtaining them. The support of the National party for the initiative of the Prime Minister is evidence of this. Noisy minorities will have little influence when major political parties unite over matters of principle, such as gun control.

Ms HALL (Swansea) [1.50]: I express my sincere sympathy to the friends and families of those who were killed at Port Arthur on Sunday and those who were present. I congratulate the Government on sending trauma counsellors to Tasmania to help in the healing process, which will be long and hard not only for the people who were at the scene but for the people of Tasmania and this nation. I congratulate the Premier on introducing the legislation. National legislation is the only way to achieve reformed gun control. The Prime Minister said that as a minimum requirement he favoured a total ban throughout Australia of automatic and semiautomatic weapons, and the establishment of a national register. Therefore, New South Wales can be confident that by ceding its powers to the Commonwealth it is doing the right thing. The tragedy at Port Arthur was caused by guns, nothing else. It was not people with deranged minds, as the honourable member for Monaro said; it was guns. It was not lunatics, madmen or criminals, as the honourable member for Dubbo said; it was guns. It was not a nut case, as the honourable member for Tamworth said; it was guns.

The deaths at Port Arthur were caused by guns and inadequate State and Territory gun laws. Australia needs uniform gun legislation, not a national approach. Yesterday, quoting the latest statistics from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, the Leader of the National Party stated that 57 per cent of crimes of violence do not involve guns. Therefore 43 per cent of crimes of violence do involve guns. That is horrendous. The New South Wales Government will not walk away from its responsibility to legislate to ensure that guns are used responsibly in our community. Recently a woman was shot on the steps of Wyong court. Police officers have been murdered at Crescent Head. Six people were killed on the central coast. They were all crimes of violence involving guns. Gun laws are only as good as those of the weakest State. Under a national approach it took eight years to develop credit laws and 30 years to develop family laws.

The United States has State gun laws and, in some cases, county gun laws. Last year my daughter was staying with a family in Phoenix in the United States. From talking to teenagers there she learned that they were nervous about going to parties. If a party gets a bit out of hand in Australia a fist fight might result, but in the United States invariably such a party ends in a gunfight. A young athlete in the school my daughter was visiting was killed by another young person with a gun. Similar incidents can be prevented from happening in Australia if national gun laws are introduced. The Premier has been most courageous in ceding the powers of New South Wales to the Federal Government. The people want action. When I arrived at my electorate office on Monday the first thing I did was take a phone call from a man living in the electorate who said, "What are you going to do about this? We are sick of politicians not listening to what the people want. We want you to do something about it." Similar phone calls and comments continued throughout the day. I take the opportunity to read one of the many letters I have received, this one from Peter and Judy Carles of Caves Beach, which stated:

I am writing to you in the hope that you might be able to do something about our ridiculous gun laws. I presume that you would not be in favour of the average Australian owning guns specifically designed to kill people. Why do people need guns? Is a persons hobby worth the terrible consequences?

Are you going to be intimidated by the so called Gun Lobby or would you consider throwing your considerable influence behind a move to rid this country of Automatic and Semi-automatic weapons? What can the silent majority do? Like the people in my family and all of my friends who agree that people should not need guns. The Port Arthur massacre could not have happened without a gun. It's as simple as that.

A number of honourable members made similar comments this morning. The letter continued:

Are you going to ask Mr Carr to encourage John Howard to stand by his pledge to make better gun laws or will you let him weasel out of it as peoples memories fade?

We will not let John Howard weasel out of it. New South Wales is handing over its powers and telling John Howard that this State is 100 per cent behind him, that this State wants national gun laws - not a national approach to gun laws, but national gun laws. The letter further stated:

Will you make sure that they are good laws, that make it impossible for average people to have guns?

The New South Wales Government is not saying that the average sporting shooter cannot have a gun, but that proper standards must be put in place. The letter concluded:

Is there a possibility that the opposition and government, both State and Federal, will stand together on this issue and do what is right and decent? I don't believe that the Gun Lobby is so strong that our elected leaders have to let them get away with murder, do you?

I am disappointed that the major political parties in this State are not united on this initiative aimed at changing our gun laws nationally I should also like to put on record a letter I received from Roland Davies of Marks Point, which stated:

I am a past National Service Infantryman, past rifle club member and a past licensed gun owner. I therefore am qualified to comment on gun reform. There is NO PLACE in our society for people to indulge themselves by claiming a RIGHT to gun ownership. Only professional hunters have a need for SEMI AUTOMATIC weapons.

Only farmers and strictly licensed amateur hunters have a claim for the use of BOLT ACTION rifles. Farmers rifles should be kept only in a government supplied and regularly inspected steel locking device. Amateur hunters rifles should be kept only at a central repository WITH ABSOLUTELY STRINGENT CONDITIONS.

This issue crosses all political boundaries. Now is the time for you to show what you are made of and to combine with the other major parties to make this state free of guns. It is also time to think a great deal less of criminals rights with greater penalties. Our legal system and the short length of jail terms are considered a joke by the general community.

The people want politicians to act and to have the courage to urge the Federal Government to legislate nationally for gun control. I support the bill and urge those sitting on the Opposition benches to do the same. I urge the National Party to come onside, to be fair dinkum about gun law reforms and to accept a national approach.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [2.00]: We are having yet another firearms debate following the most recent Australian massacre. Under current law that massacre could recur in any of our electorates, today, tomorrow or this weekend. How many more senseless killings will it take? How much blood must be spilt before responsible firearms reform with bipartisan political support is enacted in this State and in our nation? The Premier's bill refers power to the Commonwealth to make laws regarding firearms. Constitutionally, New South Wales cannot direct how this power is used. The reference of gun control powers will come into effect only when the bill is proclaimed, and presumably when other States agree to a similar reference.

The Governor, on the advice of the Government, will be able to terminate the reference of powers to the Commonwealth at any time. It is important not to use this bill as a substitute for New South Wales enacting its own strong gun control laws in the meantime. I also call upon the Premier, when speaking in reply, to outline the gun control measures he will introduce if a national approach fails, and until national laws or uniform State laws are enacted. Today we should be simultaneously debating strong new State laws and a reference of gun laws to the Commonwealth, particularly as the House has this extra day's sitting.

I support the need for a national approach and I commend the Prime Minister for his willingness to seek it. Failure to get agreement from the States should not stop his attempts to get a national approach. I call upon the Commonwealth Parliament to seek the power to make national laws on guns through a constitutional referendum under section 128 of the Constitution. A referendum could be held at any time; we do not have to wait until the next election. There are plenty of examples of stand-alone referendums having been held on important issues in the past 30 years. A constitutional referendum would give the people of Australia a direct opportunity to express their views on gun control. It would enable the people to tell their politicians that they want national gun law reform. A constitutional referendum might also focus the minds of some State governments and State Premiers to act because they risk losing power to make laws in some areas and because people in their States may vote for national gun laws, and in so doing may reveal how out of step politicians are on this issue.

There is no doubt that there is growing support for gun law reform throughout the community. A 1995 survey of the Department of Health revealed that over 92 per cent of respondents who lived in urban areas and over 80 per cent of rural inhabitants supported compulsory annual firearms registration. It is a tragedy that we need the horrific reality of other Australian mass murders to reinforce the need for immediate reform. I remind honourable members of the 1991 Strathfield massacre, where seven people were killed and six were injured; the devastating Hoddle Street and Queen Street slaughters, which left a total of 15 people killed and 29 injured; and my five constituents who were gunned down in their homes in Surry Hills at the Northcott Department of Housing estate in 1990.

I became involved with gun law reform following the Surry Hills and Strathfield massacres. In 1991 I was the Independent representative on the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, which led to some reforms but did not go nearly far enough. That was because politicians across the spectrum feared an electoral backlash. In 1994 the Independents were approached by Ken Marslew after the slaying of his son at Jannali. It was at his request that I introduced a bill before the 1995 election which provided an opportunity for the community to vote, through a referendum at that election, on whether a registration system should be introduced and whether guns should be removed from homes in urban areas. Sadly, neither major party was prepared to let that private member's bill pass, and that golden opportunity to depoliticise this issue and to have long overdue reforms introduced in this State was lost.

This week I gave notice of the introduction of the Firearms Amendment (Community Safety) Bill, which calls for a comprehensive registration system, the removal of guns from homes in urban areas, and other measures that I included after discussion with the Coalition for Gun Control. They include providing a reason why a shooter should have a firearm when applying for a licence, and renewing licences on a regular basis. The bill also includes a ban on all semiautomatic and military-type weapons in New South Wales. This legislation does not call for a ban on guns. Such legislation will not remove all forms of danger from the community, but it will reduce the potential harm that can be caused by these weapons. I again call upon the Premier in reply to undertake to support the legislation or to introduce legislation that incorporates these reforms. I also call upon the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party to publicly support these much needed reforms.

It is salutary to look at other countries to see the result of the introduction of such reforms. Canada is a good example because it is similar to Australia. Canada introduced extensive gun control reforms in 1977, including the registration of firearms and increased penalties for firearms offences. After a three-year evaluation the proportion of violent crimes declined, along with accidents and suicides involving firearms. In 1992 in New South Wales, with a population of approximately six million, 40 homicides were committed with guns. In the same year in England and Wales, countries with stricter laws and a combined population of 49 million, only 35 homicides were committed with guns. However, in the United States of America, with a population of 249 million, 15,800 homicides were committed with guns, 10 times the rate in New South Wales. Citizens living in the United States have a constitutional right to bear arms. However, their homicide rate is 10 times that of New South Wales. I ask the House: does Australia want to follow this path?

It has been argued to the contrary that there are countries with high rates of gun ownership and low rates of homicide, such as Switzerland. However, the Swiss are armed in the cause of civil defence, with all the training and retraining that is entailed. Safe storage is emphasised and draconian measures are invoked for misuse. However, in 1986 Switzerland was second only to the United States in the rate of suicide by firearms. Each year more than 600 Australians die from gunshot wounds. New South Wales accounts for one-third of those, with 200 deaths. The death rate is equivalent to one-third of the road toll, with 80 per cent of the deaths being by suicide, 16 per cent through homicide and 4 per cent by accidents.

Australians do not have the constitutional right to possess firearms - that is a privilege - and possession should be kept under close supervision. That is not an invasion of privacy. There are responsible shooters, but people have the right to feel safe within their community and to be protected from the misuse of firearms. Our job as politicians is to protect the public from criminal and irresponsible use of firearms, but so far we have failed. There are approximately 3.5 million firearms in Australia, of which approximately 1.4 million are in New South Wales, that is, there is one weapon for every four people. On that ratio the police are outnumbered 10 to one. Police are responsible for enforcing the law, yet the public possess more weapons. That is a gross imbalance and must be rectified if social order is to be maintained.

Since June 1992 the number of people in New South Wales that hold a shooter's licence has fallen from 300,000 to about 150,000. However, there is no evidence that the rate of gun ownership has fallen. Last year the Premier announced an amnesty on weapons, and 5,300 weapons were handed over to the authorities. Interestingly, that figure seems to keep changing. On radio this morning the Premier spoke of 7,000, which is an increase of 2,000 in the last 24 hours. The success of the amnesty was due to incentives to gun owners whereby they sold their firearms to dealers, and licences were free for 12 months. The number of shooters' licences on issue has increased by about 14,000 since the Premier announced last September that the $75 licence fee would be waived. This waiver expires next month. The 164,000 licensed gun owners is well short of the 700,000 shooters estimated by John Tingle - yet New South Wales has 1.4 million guns. Honourable members should take the time to mull over those figures.

The Government and the Opposition argue that the success of the amnesty overrides the need for compulsory registration. Amnesties are offered infrequently and do not solve long-term concerns. The Government and the Opposition used amnesties as a justification for not amending the Firearms Act. It is important to consider why guns should be stored outside the home in urban areas. Guns are used in approximately 40 per cent of all Australian homicides. Women are more likely to be the victims. Between 1968 and 1981 nearly one-third of all Australian homicides took place in New South Wales. Most were committed by family members and friends or acquaintances of the victim. One homicide in every nine was followed by the suicide or attempted suicide of the alleged offender. Homicide is rarely the result of random attacks by deranged, pathological individuals. Shooting is the most common method because it is a quick, effortless and lethal means of disposing of another human being. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Suicide is a growing national concern. An astounding number of young men are committing suicide. Two years ago suicide overtook road accidents as the leading cause of death. Young men from rural areas are now killing themselves at a rate 13 times higher than in the 1960s. Perhaps National Party members should dwell upon those statistics. In 1994 in New South Wales 80 per cent of gun-related deaths resulted from suicide. I shall now refer to domestic violence, and the information I have is from a document recently produced by the Redfern Legal Centre. Domestic violence predominantly affects women and children. In 1994 more than 23,000 women in New South Wales applied for protection against domestic violence. New South Wales has 70 refuges catering for approximately 400 children and women. These people have the right to feel safe in their homes and in the community.

The vast majority of homicides occur during heated situations, such as domestic arguments. If guns were not so accessible, there might be fewer deaths and fewer serious injuries. Earlier this year Jean Majdalawi was gunned down outside the Parramatta Family Court by her estranged husband. Although an apprehended violence order had been taken out against her husband, police were unaware that he possessed a firearm. This killing raised concerns about the safety of women and children who are involved in domestic problems. Mrs Majdalawi stayed at various refuges, but her husband always managed to locate her. That murder has created anxiety in many domestic violence victims because they fear a similar fate.

Few perpetrators of gun violence have a record of mental illness, despite what has been said in this House and by the gun lobby. The National Committee on Violence noted that a relationship between mental illness and violence is rare. The Schizophrenia Fellowship of New South Wales maintains that there is no statistical evidence to suggest that those who develop a severe mental illness and suffer a psychiatric disability are a threat to the community or commit crimes of violence. I should like to refer to some other myths that have been voiced in this House and in the community in recent years. The first myth is that guns do not kill, people do. If there is ready access to firearms, death and injury rates increase. The reforms that I have called upon the Premier to enact would reduce accessibility to firearms, which in turn would reduce potential harm. People with guns kill more efficiently and more often than those without them.

Another myth: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Outlaws already own guns. If firearms were less numerous and harder to obtain through legal means, fewer criminals would have them. The next myth: tighter control would only restrict law-abiding shooters. This is simply not the case. The reforms I propose in my private member's bill would ensure that firearms would more likely be used in a safe and controlled environment. No-one can deny that there are responsible shooters within the community, and amendments to the Firearms Act should not punish those who obey the law. Rather, the bill seeks to remove surplus firearms from the community and to ensure the appropriateness of firearms ownership. The next myth: tighter control is unenforceable. I acknowledge that enforcement of legislation and the reduction of firearms in the community takes time. However, it requires a starting point and adequate resources to implement effective amendments. This is what the community wants the Parliament to do. No system ever achieves complete compliance. However, a significant and growing compliance would reduce firearm-related violence.

The next myth: registration and storage of firearms is unnecessary and unworkable. Registration of all firearms will provide the community and law enforcement agencies with necessary information that could assist in unstable situations, such as domestic arguments. Initially many firearms will remain unregistered, but this will improve with effective enforcement measures. Storage of firearms is vital for the safety of the community and to ensure a lower rate of accidental and irresponsible shooting. The select committee of which I was a member received overwhelming evidence that storage of firearms outside the home in urban areas and registration of all firearms are key elements of reform.

Sadly, that committee was not prepared to recommend those reforms to the Parliament, and the Parliament was not prepared to enact them. Registration of firearms would allow a greater degree of accountability, reduce the number of firearms and accessibility to them, provide information, and remove guns from unsuitable people. It is essential to limit the number of weapons that a licensed shooter may possess. Under current legislation a licensed shooter is not restricted to the number of firearms he or she can possess. Therefore, an unlimited number of firearms is permitted - with the exception of pistols, for which the maximum is 15. Other important issues are storage of firearms and appropriate licensing, which I mentioned previously.

In conclusion, I again call upon the Premier in his reply to undertake to introduce legislation that will at least establish a comprehensive registration system and ban all semiautomatic weapons. Ideally, it should include the other reforms that are part of my private member's bill, that is, proof of reason for possessing a firearm to be provided when applying for a licence, a licence becomes renewable on a regular basis, and storage of guns to be outside the home in urban areas. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party to publicly support these reforms and show that they are not gutless politicians, that they put principle above expediency and are prepared to put community safety above their political careers.

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [2.20]: I support the bill and express sympathy to the families of the victims of the Port Arthur massacre. As recently as last Wednesday a further death was caused by a semiautomatic weapon at Point Clare. I thank the honourable member for Peats for drawing that matter to my attention. It is appropriate that we note it at this stage. It reinforces the point that this debate concerns not just multiple deaths or massacres; it concerns guns generally and their use in personal violence. Prior to becoming a member of Parliament I was a solicitor and, among other things, I acted for one of the banking unions. For a long time I have been horrified by the free and easy availability of guns of various sorts. On many occasions I have had to act for people who have been the victims of armed hold-ups.

The reactionary side to this debate is that people, not guns, kill and that there is no need for stricter regulation of the ownership of guns. That is a disgraceful argument! Whether we like it or not, people are killed by guns. If we take guns away, we will dramatically reduce the number of people who die. In 1992, 40 homicides were committed with guns in New South Wales, which has a population of approximately six million. England and Wales have a population of approximately 49 million but, because of less widespread gun ownership, only 35 homicides were committed. If that rate were the same as the rate in New South Wales, one would have expected 240 homicides to have been committed. The death rate by guns in England and Wales is about one-seventh the rate in New South Wales, and obviously that is related to the density of gun ownership here.

In 1992 in the United States of America - that nirvana for the gun lobby - which has a population of approximately 249 million, 15,800 homicides were committed using firearms. The population in the United States of America is more than 40 times the population in New South Wales, but there is a much higher gun ownership rate. In the United States of America the rate of homicides caused by guns in that gun-saturated society was 10 times the rate of homicides caused by guns in New South Wales. The mere presence of firearms increases the likelihood of murder because the vast majority of homicides are committed by assailants who are known to the victims. In the period 1968 to 1986 only 17 per cent of homicide victims were killed by strangers. The majority of homicides involve crimes of passion and moments of atrocious brutality, without premeditation, where an assailant uses a firearm without planning to do so. He or she is able to use a firearm only because it happens to be available.

There is support for that argument in the commonsense proposition that the likely result of an assault involving a firearm is far more serious than an assault not involving a firearm. Statistics suggest that people assaulted with a gun are 12 times more likely to die than if their attacker used other means. Guns are the most common weapons used in homicides. In 1993, 34 per cent of all homicides in New South Wales were caused by guns. If we take away guns, far fewer people will be killed. It is not surprising, in light of what I have said and in light of what has been reported in the media, that a broad groundswell is developing behind the coalition to enforce stricter gun controls. A health promotion survey revealed that 90 per cent of urban residents and 80 per cent of rural residents supported tougher gun controls.

There is a common mythology that gun reform is too hard. The gun lobby has argued that the Labor Party cannot and should not pursue such reform because of electoral consequences. That is an extraordinarily weak argument at this point in time. No doubt the gun lobby hopes that the current furore will subside and an opportunist lethargy will overtake the Labor movement and governments in general. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and role of the Labor movement and Labor governments. J. F. Cairns once said in what is now regarded as a highly unfashionable quote, "The purpose of Labor is not to make governments but to make better social conditions." Whilst that comment causes terror in the hearts of some in the Labor Party there is some truth in it. The historic role of Labor is to change and improve and to make the lives of ordinary people better. It is hard to imagine an objective that fits more closely with the Labor tradition than making it safer for people who vote for the Labor Party to live and preventing them from being shot and killed.

There is considerable mythology concerning the impact of proposed gun law changes on the 1988 State election result, a matter which was adverted to in debate by the honourable member for Georges River. The view of more mature commentators ranging from Antony Green to Milton Cockburn is that it is nonsense to say that Labor lost office in 1988 because of gun law reforms. Generally, it is inaccurate for people to say that the gun lobby's alleged wave of support is overwhelming. My colleague in another place the Hon. Ann Symonds has delight in pointing out that the Hon. J. S. Tingle gets less electoral support than Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. No reputable political force in this State talks seriously of stopping homosexual law reform programs because of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. The Australian Labor Party owes the Hon. Ann Symonds a debt of gratitude for being such a strong advocate on these issues for so long.

It is interesting to note that the first reference in clause 3(1)(a) of the bill is to the registration of firearms. The gun lobby consistently argues against that. It says that that is not a panacea and it is not an overwhelming solution. It may not be a panacea but it is absurd to say that people should not register guns, when they have to register dogs. Registration is essential if we are to have a limit on the number of guns held by any person. If a registration system had been in place in 1992, authorities would have been aware that a seventh gun was involved in the Terrigal incident and the death of a life could have been avoided. One of the arguments that is used by the gun lobby is that guns should be maintained in the home for the purposes of self-defence. That argument is an absolute disgrace! In the United States of America a gun is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. The problems we are facing are national problems. If necessary, they have to be resolved on a State-by-State basis. But the logical, rational argument is that this must be done on a national basis to avoid the obvious border hopping that has been referred to in debate.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [2.27]: Since the carnage at Port Arthur we have heard stories of pure terror and great courage. We have heard of the terror of an armed maniac with 3,000 rounds of ammunition - triple the armament of a soldier in Vietnam - killing innocent people. We have heard of deeds of great courage like the courage of the people at the Broad Arrow cafe, whose brave actions clearly saved the lives of others. We have all found it traumatic. Everyone has been deeply affected. I feel a strong sense of loss. Two of my constituents, Mr Tony Kistan, a Salvation Army volunteer, and Mr Andrew Mills, lost their lives last Sunday. As we come to terms with our grief we must act to address its causes. We must confront this national tragedy with a national response. The Prime Minister said that at next Friday's special conference of police Ministers he will put forward proposals on behalf of the Commonwealth Government. He said:

These proposals will at a minimum include a proposal for an effective national registration of gun ownership in this country. They will also include a total ban throughout Australia on all automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

We must have national laws and national standards. If the Commonwealth or the other States do not have the courage to protect other Australians, we will not abandon our responsibilities. Yesterday the Premier said:

Clearly, if the national approach fails and the Commonwealth is not prepared to use the comprehensive national powers the New South Wales Government is prepared to give to it, we will return to this Parliament with a package of measures agreed to between this Government, the Commonwealth and, I hope, the coalition.

I will be going to the Australasian Police Ministers' Council with an open mind about all the issues. Three days ago the Leader of the Opposition told me that he would favourably consider national laws if the Commonwealth did so. A day later he told this House that shooter licensing was the same as firearm licensing. Yesterday he argued against national laws. The Leader of the Opposition is either confused or devious. Perhaps he is confused like his spokesman on police, who today told us that it is illegal for people to own a weapon such as those that the killer had in Tasmania. He is wrong. Regrettably, in New South Wales a prohibited weapon permit - a stringent amalgam of a shooter's license and firearm registration - enables people to own such weapons. The Carr Government has a strong commitment, notwithstanding the Opposition's stance, to continue its bipartisan approach. For the first time a coalition Government in Canberra is willing to offer a national, bipartisan approach to achieving national standards and laws. In fact, the Commonwealth Parliament is united in its support for change. On the Mike Carlton program on 29 April Prime Minister Howard said:

I will do everything humanly possible and the Federal Government will do everything humanly possible to get an effective tightening of the gun control situation in this country.

He said:

I will not retreat an inch from the national responsibilities I have in relation to this issue . . . I will do everything in my political and constitutional capacity.

His minimum standards are "at a minimum a proposal for an effective national registration of gun ownership in this country, including a total ban throughout Australia on all automatic and semiautomatic weapons". On national television that evening Mr Howard said:

There are certain responsibilities of the Federal Government in an area like this. They relate largely to importation and there are also very heavy responsibilities for State Governments.

The Federal Attorney-General, Mr Williams, has said he wants a national approach and has explained why. He warned against the weakest States being allowed to dictate standards for the rest of the nation. Clearly, he recognises the problems in the approach adopted by the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition. The Federal Labor leader, Kim Beazley, said that he would support the New South Wales Premier in handing over State powers on guns. The Federal shadow attorney-general, Nick Bolkus, said, "The Government needs to ensure bipartisan support for any outcome." One of the most evil myths pursued by the coalition is that ceding powers represents an abrogation of responsibility. It does not. To achieve meaningful change a single national law is needed.

As the Federal Attorney-General has pointed out, the protection of all Australians is not an issue that can be left to individual States. Firearms regulations are only as strong as the lowest common denominator: one weak link in the chain and the whole system is doomed to failure. A uniform nation law will ensure that the rest of us are not vulnerable to the laws of the weakest State. As the killers and the unscrupulous know only too well, the loopholes in differing laws are easily exploited. That is why ceding power is such a persuasive option. Ceding power to the Commonwealth provides a simple, practical approach to reform. Rather than agreement on details, this approach merely requires agreement on the process. Once powers are ceded, it will be up to the Commonwealth to enact a standard - one Australiawide standard - to control guns.

There is a world of difference between the Opposition's preference for uniform laws and a national approach with a single law for all Australians. Uniform laws only require all the States to agree and then pass their own legislation. Making uniform laws does not need Commonwealth involvement, as the coalition would have us believe. In fact, as the coalition knows, uniform laws on guns have been debated for decades and still nothing has been agreed upon. In fact, in government the coalition debated uniform laws for four years but failed to achieve a result. In 1991, following the Strathfield massacre, the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform was established. That committee gave an opportunity to all parties to put forward honest submissions on the need for new firearm laws on a bipartisan basis. And did we not have some motivation following the massacre at Strathfield to achieve a bipartisan approach to gun law reform in New South Wales!

The committee was exalted as an example of a bipartisan approach on the serious issue of gun control. The coalition cheated. Former police Minister Ted Pickering gagged former police commissioner Lauer when he appeared before the committee. Pickering stood over him and emasculated the Police Service submission. No wonder tensions ran high. Knowing the commissioner was obligated to follow the Minister's direction, Pickering muzzled Lauer. He denied all police officers in New South Wales the right to have their professional views heard. Regrettably, the Police Service submission to that committee was corrupted by the coalition. With the coalition's commitment to the Prime Minister's proposals for firearms registration and bans on semiautomatic and automatic weapons, bipartisan agreement to improvements in firearms laws should present no difficulty. He has our support.

There is already a great deal the Commonwealth could do within its existing powers. The power over customs could be used to ban the importation of semiautomatic and automatic weapons and ammunition. The Corporations Law could be used to regulate incorporated gun sellers and provide uniformity across a broad range of issues. The power to regulate the postage service could be used to stamp out the mail-order trade in guns. The trade and commerce power could be used to regulate the sale and distribution of guns across State borders. And there is always the power to hold a referendum on gun law power.

The bill refers powers over certain matters relating to firearms to the Commonwealth. They include: registration, possession, use, purchase, acquisition, sale, disposal, storage, manufacture, assembly inspection and seizure of firearms. Other matters covered include licensing, prohibition of the possession and use of certain firearms, and exemptions relating to the above. Not only will the Government not abrogate responsibility for firearms laws; it will ensure New South Wales laws are not weakened by a national approach. For example, the Government could not allow New South Wales laws on mail-order sales to be downgraded. I am advised that the proposal to be put to the Australasian Police Ministers' Council is to enact State laws based on previous negotiations, with the addition of the registration of guns and the banning of certain types of weapons.

We must ensure that the old standard is improved. We need laws of a higher standard than those which currently exist in many States. If we are to speak about a national bipartisan approach, all of the issues must be discussed. For example, what licensing standards are required? Should all licences bear the photograph of the holder? What form should any "genuine reason" test take? How do we establish whether a person is "fit and proper"? Should there be a single national standard for firearms training and who should provide it? What safeguards are needed to ensure safe storage? Are penalties for improper use tough enough? What powers does the Commonwealth have to control the flow of weapons into Australia? Should the mail-order trade in guns be banned? If so, by whom and how? What sort of registration system is proposed and what is required? What do we do about dangerous weapons which are already in the community?

We cannot rely on all members of the community to simply hand them in. The Premier had advocated a federally funded national buy-back scheme. It is a national problem which needs a national solution. We also need a national amnesty modelled on the very successful New South Wales amnesty. I also see an expanded role for the national exchange of police information - NEPI. It was established in 1991 so that police could electronically exchange information on a national basis. I will put a proposal to the police Ministers meeting to give NEPI a role in coordinating firearms information and laws. Independent State laws on guns should be consigned to history. There has been movement but a uniform approach is yet to arrive. It is clear that a national approach is needed to resolve the multiplicity of issues surrounding gun control. The bill provides impetus to next week's meeting. When I go to the Australasian Police Ministers' Council I want it known that I will not weaken New South Wales laws.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [2.38], in reply: I thank all members from both sides of the House who have contributed to this very important debate which is a response to terrible events that claimed the lives of innocent people. No-one in this country could be untouched by the tragedy at Port Arthur. We conduct the debate in the context of genuine leadership by the Prime Minister of Australia. I again place on record my appreciation of what John Howard has done in not only listing matters for discussion at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council next Friday but continuing over several days to insist that those matters should and must be debated. We are talking today about saving lives, about minimising the chance that there could ever be more massacres such as those at Port Arthur, Hoddle Street and Strathfield. That is the focus of this debate.

I am certain it is something that sincerely motivates members on both sides of the House, and so it should. If there is one issue that should be above party political bickering and interstate and State-Federal rivalries, it is gun law reform. The key test is whether a solution can be arrived at that minimises the chances of another tragedy and whether legislation can be introduced that reduces the prospect of people being gunned down. When arguing the case for the introduction of uniform national gun laws it is worth reviewing the progress since 1980 of State-based uniformity. Critics of the Government's proposal have said the States should work out a common approach and enact separate legislation. But the events of the past 15 years do not reflect well on the progress of any government or any major political party towards constructive, workable gun law reform.

The Australasian Police Ministers' Council first began meeting in 1980. In 1981 it first began discussing firearm laws. Since 1981 attempts have been made to get each State to agree on common reforms and to advance those reforms in their six separate State parliaments and two Territory parliaments. The council has met on 29 occasions and discussed gun control 20 times, but there are still no uniform State-based gun laws. A person can drive for seven hours, buy a fully automatic weapon over the counter in Queensland and bring it back to this State. So much for the attempts to get each State and Territory to agree on a common statute to be enacted by each State Parliament! That history provides the logic for giving the Commonwealth Government power to legislate common gun laws that will be applicable right around this country.

If there was ever an argument for a single national standard for gun laws, that is it. Fifteen years have been spent discussing gun laws and we continue to wait for uniformity. Nine years ago, following the Hoddle Street and Queen Street massacres, a national committee on violence was established to consider, among other things, the country's gun laws. In 1990 the national committee on violence specifically recommended the enactment of uniform gun legislation throughout Australia. In 1991 a meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council was held to discuss gun control measures. A target date for uniform gun laws was set down for July 1995, but in 1993 the APMC did not consider the issue. In 1994 the council met on two occasions but there were no discussions on uniformity. In 1995 the council released a working paper on the subject and agreed to establish a consultation team.

Until the Port Arthur massacre, and the subsequent statements made by the Prime Minister, nothing of substance relating to uniform gun laws had been achieved. The subject has been discussed at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council, but no progress has been made. That is the logic for the national Parliament having all the powers required to effect increased community protection. It is not an exaggeration to suggest the States will never reach agreement or, if they do, the agreement will be only to adopt a minimum national standard. Already, five days after the massacre at Port Arthur, the indications are that Queensland will not support reform. I support what John Howard is doing. I back John Howard, but I suspect that in a week's time in Canberra Queenslanders will not be a part of the reform process, and perhaps other States will hold out as well.

Dr Macdonald: Do you support registration?

Mr CARR: I have said repeatedly that I support registration of gun ownership, as proposed by Prime Minister Howard. I say to the honourable member for Manly that if the Government's approach fails we will come back from the council meeting with agreement from the other State Premiers on a common approach and put that approach to our Parliament so that it can be given effect to by State law. The meeting in Canberra must achieve national uniformity, and that uniformity must have bipartisan support in this Chamber. For all the reasons I have outlined, the most effective approach by far is a national law. If the national Parliament should have power to legislate on anything, it should be to control the use of guns: a matter of life and death, of saving the lives of innocent men, women and children. The Commonwealth Government should have the power to force the weak States to move beyond our standards. What is wrong with that? That is the proposition the Government has put in this Parliament. For the benefit of the honourable member for Manly I repeat that if the Government cannot get support for this proposition in Canberra, we will come back to this Parliament with a package of our own measures -

Dr Macdonald: Including registration?

Mr CARR: I said earlier that I support registration of gun ownership as proposed by Prime Minister Howard. Since 1980 there have been 29 meetings between police Ministers; there have been 20 discussions in an attempt to reach uniform gun laws. Those discussions have failed, hence my argument for a single national law. Do honourable members want to have another 15 years of discussion and another 20 meetings in an attempt to get uniform State laws, or do we give John Howard the power to do what he wants to do and what we want him to do? That is a superior approach, an approach that will increase the chance of saving lives. My approach offers greater certainty that there will not be another Port Arthur.

My approach of a common, strong, national law tells the innocent men, women and children of this community that the chance of being gunned down by a madman are minimised, and that the law-makers of this country will do everything they can to minimise the chance of a Port Arthur massacre recurring. The best way to do that is to give effect to the proposition the Government has brought before the Parliament in the last 24 hours. Bearing in mind the failures of the past, the time has come for a new approach. In response to a demand from the people to save lives, in response to terrible events, and in the context of the Prime Minister's correct and appropriate statements, the Government has brought forward this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.