Firearms Bill

Debate resumed from 19 June.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [9.01]: The coalition will support this historic legislation, which broadly embraces the agreement reached at the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council on 10 May 1996. We will look back on 10 May as a compelling moment in Australian history. It was on that day that we as a nation took the step towards uniform national gun laws - tighter gun controls covering the length and breadth of Australia. We must never forget the terrible images that precipitated this legislation, the awful and fortunately unique tragedy that is Port Arthur. We must never forget the images that confronted us after 28 April 1996 of a father clutching his slain daughter’s headbands, an exhausted doctor weeping in the arms of the Prime Minister and the stark photos staring out of newspapers of people who should be alive today and are not.

We must never forget the knot of emotions that followed Port Arthur - the shock that the world’s largest shooting massacre had occurred on our front doorstep, the collective grief of a nation, the outrage at the random taking of life and the determination that this must never happen again. We must never forget the visionary leadership shown by the Prime Minister, John Howard, who, confronted by these images, demanded change in every Australian jurisdiction. It is testimony to his leadership that we are in a position to debate and pass this legislation. Without the strength of John Howard’s leadership, the idea of uniform national gun laws could not have been countenanced - and was not countenanced by any Prime Minister before him.

Few political leaders have the opportunity or the courage to ensure that a moment of possibility is translated into reality. John Howard had the opportunity and he had the courage to grasp it. One of his most enduring legacies to Australian society will be the passage of this legislation. Why do we need tighter gun laws? At the heart of this legislation is the firm belief that a drastic reduction in the number of automatic and semiautomatic weapons in the Australian community will be in the collective national interest, that it will produce powerful benefits for individual Australians and their families. To qualify what I just said, it must be recognised that automatic weapons have never been available on the Australian market. That point has been lost in most of the debate to date.

I come to this debate with, I suspect, qualifications that may be rare in this Chamber. I have been extensively instructed, and indeed I have instructed others, in the use of automatic and semiautomatic weapons through a 32-year association with the Australian Defence Forces. As an infantry instructor 30 years ago I used a wide range of automatic and semiautomatic weapons, and I am aware of their lethal capability. Events in countries around the world directly connect the volume of high-powered and rapid-fire weapons and their public usage in an unpredictable, random and threatening way. International statistics provide a compelling argument for the support of tighter gun laws. For example, the United States of America is renowned for its high levels of gun ownership. Indeed it embraces in its Constitution - I think, most regrettably - the right to bear arms, which is a residue of the American War of Independence. Out of a population of 254 million, 38,000 people are shot dead each year in the United States. That roughly equates to the population of a large New South Wales country town. Country towns such as Tamworth, Dubbo, Orange, Tweed Heads and Ballina have populations of more than 30,000.

In the United States each year, the equivalent of the population of each of those towns is shot dead by firearms. Honourable members should think about that, because we must make the statement with this legislation that we are not the United States; we are not the fifty-first State of the United States. We are Australians and we choose to take a different course. At the other extreme is Japan, with a population of 125 million and the world’s strictest gun laws. Japan has only 300 gun
Page 3407
deaths a year. Australia, with a population of 18 million, has 620 gun deaths a year, 200 of them in New South Wales. In other words, a country with seven times the population of our country has just half the number of gun deaths. This legislation is a straightforward, direct response to the spread and availability of guns in our community. It follows a string of events in which semiautomatic weapons have produced the unacceptable and unreasonable in today’s Australia. Port Arthur, Hoddle Street and Strathfield are only the most visible signs of the sickness that the widespread availability of semiautomatic weapons has produced. It is interesting to look at the history of weapons availability in this country. As a child I do not recall the widespread availability of military-style semiautomatic weapons.

Many people in this Chamber might recall the availability in their childhood of semiautomatic .22 rifles, but not of semiautomatic military-style hardware. My recollection is that those weapons became available in the period roughly equating to the Vietnam War and its aftermath and that there was an influx of semiautomatic weapons in this country from the 1970s onwards when sporting goods stores and department stores were able to advertise freely the sale to anyone of a semiautomatic rifle with a military capability at a very affordable price. Where did those weapons come from? They did not come from the only small-arms manufacturer that I am aware of in this country, the small arms factory at Lithgow, which has produced military weapons for the Australian Defence Forces since the turn of the century. It has produced .303 rifles, Bren guns, and Owen guns during the Second World War - they were semiautomatic weapons but prohibited weapons at all times, never available for sale - and more recently the 7.62 millimetre self-loading rifle and now the Steyr rifle for the Australian Army. That is the range of semiautomatic weapons produced in this country with a military-style capability.

Where did semiautomatic military-style weapons come from? They were imported into this country. Therefore, successive Federal governments allowed their import into our society from the late 1960s. Prior to that, to the best of my knowledge, their availability was extremely limited. This influx occurred because successive Federal governments - and I do not point a partisan finger at any particular government - allowed these weapons to be imported into Australia and to be made freely available in gun shops and sporting goods stores. I think that honourable members will hear more about that in this debate. Indeed, the Federal Parliament has to accept and shoulder its share of responsibility for the transformation of gun ownership in this country during the 1970s and onwards.

Added to the regular usage of semiautomatic weapons and the threat of guns in workplace settings is the increasing number of domestic violence situations involving guns, and the many other disputes that do not make the evening news, that go unreported but are real everyday events. The number of people killed by guns in Australia each year is marginally higher than the 504 Australians killed during the entire Vietnam war. Of those gun deaths 80 per cent are suicides. Indeed, guns are the most common method used in the rural youth suicide epidemic in this country. That is a matter of deep concern. At this stage I acknowledge the contribution made to the public debate by the Coalition for Gun Control and place its set of statistics on the public record. The document from the Coalition for Gun Control stated:

There are an estimated 4 million guns in private ownership in Australia. This means guns in private hands outnumber police weapons by over 10 to 1.

In an average year 600-700 Australians die by gunshot, ie 20 times the death toll at Port Arthur. By comparison, 504 Australians were killed in the entire Vietnam War.

80% of all gun deaths are suicides. Guns are the most common suicide method in the rural youth suicide epidemic.

The largest single category of homicides is domestic. Guns are even more commonly used in domestic killings that in homicides in general. Three-quarters of all female homicide victims are killed by family members or sexual partners.

Guns are frequently used by domestic violence offenders, either to threaten women and children directly or as a "warning", for example by shooting the family dog.

Last year more than 780 bank tellers were threatened, taken hostage or injured in armed attacks. This figure does not include the building society or credit union staff victimised in such attacks.

People assaulted with a gun are 12 times more likely to die than if they were assaulted by another means.

Acquiring a gun for self-defence is both dangerous and illegal. In households which have a gun, the most likely gunshot victim will be a member of the family. In fact, it is statistically more likely that all members of the family will shoot each other dead before an outside intruder is shot.

The vast majority of gun violence involves the most common and least regulated guns - ordinary rifles and shotguns. The type of guns which are most restricted, hand guns, cause the fewest deaths.

I commend the Coalition for Gun Control for its rational contribution to the public debate to date. As the Minister foreshadowed, there will need to be extensive public debate and consultation. I return to the issue of threat. The pervasiveness of the threat, the menace of weapons today, is felt by many ordinary Australians in average everyday settings. This is our chance to say, as a Parliament, as a society: we are not the United States of America. We do not want the pervasive gun culture, the idea that guns are either a necessity or a right, to take hold in this country. We do not want Sydney to become another New York, Los Angeles or Atlanta. That is why we must ensure that the legacy of Port Arthur produces far-reaching and effective legislation that becomes the model for sensible gun control. That objective is utterly beyond the reach of the average American citizen and is an opportunity lost for all time in the United States.


Page 3408
I am concerned that in some public debate so far American concepts, such as American gun language, has been used to try to hold up the gun controls which we are debating today. I put on the record that there is no constitutional right in this country to bear arms. Those who decide to ignore the laws that are being introduced by Australian parliaments, like these laws, must understand that there is no constitutional right in this country to bear arms. I trust that those who decide to avoid the law, when apprehended, do not try to plead the Fifth Amendment. It will not work. Australia has to make sure that it gets effective legislation on the books. That is why we have to seize this moment to make sure that the events at Port Arthur are not repeated through inactivity, indecision, or political cowardice. At some point in the future we must not regret that our laws were too lax, or too full of loopholes. That is what the people of Australia have demanded in the wake of Port Arthur. That is what we must deliver in the legislation we pass.

I should like now to refer to the uniform approach. The key concern of the coalition in assessing the legislation was to ensure that it reflected the historic agreement of the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council held in Canberra on 10 May. The Federal Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, QC, appears to have provided those assurances in his recent letter released by the Minister for Police this week indicating that the New South Wales legislation complies with the intent of the police Ministers conference. Given those assurances, the Opposition is pleased to support the legislation. However, it is the belief of the Opposition that the quickest and most efficient route to uniform national gun laws is through template legislation, which should have been drafted by the Commonwealth and circulated to all States. The Opposition is concerned that the Commonwealth, having put the stake in the ground and pointed out the direction we should take, has not drafted uniform legislation to provide precisely the same starting point for every Australian State and Territory parliament. It has been left to individual governments to interpret the recommendations of the police Ministers of 10 May; therefore, the legislation coming before Australian parliaments will vary widely.

I consider that approach questionable political management of an exceptionally complex social issue. As the Minister for Police well knows, I vehemently opposed the ceding of powers to the Commonwealth as proposed by the Carr Government, but I equally vehemently endorsed the idea of the Commonwealth preparing template legislation rather than requiring each State and Territory to produce its own version. Honourable members on this side of the Chamber, and I believe every member of this Parliament, can take some heart from the fact that the Federal Attorney-General has said that this legislation, as he reads it, roughly equates to what was agreed to at the police Ministers conference of 10 May. The Opposition is concerned that the Commonwealth did not follow through with template legislation. My fear, and I suspect I speak on behalf of all members of this Chamber, is that ultimately laws introduced by the different States and Territories will vary widely, which is a considerable straying from the historic agreement reached on 10 May.

Template legislation would have guaranteed truly national legislation, while at the same time embracing all politicians in the process and the ownership of the gun laws we are now debating. But instead we are left to make our own way with our own interpretation. It is to the singular disappointment of the Opposition that the States have been asked to draft and enact their own legislation as they see fit. Discrepancies are already emerging between the States. There is no guarantee that the New South Wales legislation will be precisely replicated in other States and Territories. It already differs from other State legislation in a series of themes, emphasis, length and scope. The Prime Minister has foreshadowed a referendum should any States fail to enact, through legislation, the 10 May agreement. The New South Wales coalition strongly supports such a move. If any State or Territory provides a weak link in the chain whereby the tough laws of other States, including these tough laws, are voided the Commonwealth Government should consider closing by referendum any such loopholes identified.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Australian people would overwhelmingly support and carry such a referendum, which would result in the introduction across Australia of even stronger gun laws than are contemplated today. I therefore believe that political management should receive airing in this debate, to which about 60 members will contribute. With the demonstrated electorate support behind tougher gun laws, I have no doubt that the referendum would be carried. Such a referendum would ensure that the will of the people is given the legislative support that all honourable members seek to guarantee. It is critical that each State, Territory and Australian jurisdiction embrace the call for tighter gun laws and own the legislation. I refer to the point I made in an earlier debate when the Minister for Police tried to cede powers to the Commonwealth, a power that the Commonwealth did not seek and that no other State offered. That impractical suggestion was unsuccessful. If these gun laws are unsuccessful, if the legislation of any Australian State or Territory has a loophole, the Commonwealth should consider a referendum. That is why the coalition opposed the call of the Premier to cede gun law powers to the Commonwealth.

In recent weeks all politicians have been under a great deal of pressure. The terrible images of Port Arthur have been overtaken by those of an open revolt at the laws we are embracing today. Many have stood in the Prime Minister’s way. The pundits and the onlookers have predicted defeat on a number of occasions for his valiant attempt to
Page 3409
introduce national gun laws. He has not been deterred, nor has he been deflected by the various suggestions, threats, abuse or diversions put in his path in the weeks since Port Arthur. I particularly mention the Deputy Prime Minister for his steadfast resolve in his support for this national initiative. Pressures have also been felt by members of this House representing country areas across the State, be they members of the National Party, the Liberal Party or, as we understand from recent publicity, the Labor Party. I would particularly like to commend all honourable members who stood up to those pressures to support the legislation. I recognise that it has not been easy. Pressure on individual members of Parliament has been quite intense.

I want particularly to praise and commend all my colleagues, and I mean that in the broadest sense, for their resolve in pursuing what the Australian nation demands. Together the parliaments and political parties of Australia are seeking to achieve a significant reduction in the likelihood of public outrage involving semiautomatics ever occurring again. We know that we cannot stop similar events from ever happening again, but we can decisively break the nexus between the increasing volume of guns and the increasing use of guns in violent settings; we can restrict the likelihood of an outrage; we can close down the possibilities; we can begin to isolate the would-be abusers who should never have guns and who are likely to strike at the innocent. The Carr Government legislation, introduced as a result of the national firearms agreement, and following on from the resolution of the police Ministers council has a series of significant themes: the prohibition of automatic and semiautomatic weapons, except in special detailed circumstances; the registration of all firearms; the licensing of firearms, as well as owners, for the first time; strict requirements on the licensing and acquisition of firearms; strict conditions on firearms storage; and the payment of compensation for firearms surrendered during an amnesty.

The key points of the legislation seek to expand themes of control, registration of weapons and compensation, but allow shooters with real needs to continue to use their weapons under stricter conditions. Genuine primary industry needs must be acknowledged to ensure that farmers and people whose occupations rely on shooting can retain their guns. The Howard initiative strikes the right balance between the needs of farmers and the desires of most Australians. It broadly protects the interests of individuals who have a legitimate need for gun ownership. That initiative sought not to punish farmers or primary producers for owning guns or for crimes they did not commit. These groups will continue to have access to guns as they always have. Likewise, sporting groups and Olympic athletes have sensible allowances made for them to continue competing.

There is no legitimate reason for ordinary Australians to be exposed to or be allowed unfettered access to semiautomatic weapons. They are weapons better left to the military. They are not weapons for the untrained or for those with no need to have them. All categories of shooter are folded into the register of guns that will now exist side by side with the licensing of guns. The gun lobby is right in saying that guns alone do not kill people. It is the combination of guns and people that kills, and both need to be licensed. This bill achieves that end. The five licence categories are widely drawn to ensure that legitimate shooters and gun owners who wish to pursue their sport are allowed to. The category of allowed guns ensures that sporting shooters will be able to continue their quiet enjoyment, as they have done for many years. Genuine reasons for gun ownership include recreational hunting, sport shooting, business or employment, pest control and collections. The key change in the legislation is to ensure that licensees must be fit and proper people who have completed firearms training and safety courses.

Every member of the Parliament knows that the threat of firearms, the menace and shadow of violence and the uncertainly of evil linked to guns in the wrong hands, is strongly felt by individual members of the community right around Australia. On its own this bill will not guarantee a totally secure environment. It does not promise the unachievable; it cannot end all violence. Instead, this legislation seeks to decisively shift the balance away from the violent, the threatening and the terrible, towards a safer and more secure Australia in line with the resolution carried in Canberra on 10 May. It would be remiss of me not to say that Opposition members query the process outlined by the Government. It will be remembered that in the Parliament last week the Opposition tried to introduce a short period of consultation prior to this debate. Even a short period of consultation would have enabled some opportunity for those who want to express their views formally to their local members of Parliament or to individual parties, so that concerns can be raised formally in debate. That opportunity has not occurred before this debate. The period of consultation will now occur after the legislation has passed through the Parliament.

I am aware that the Minister for Police has announced that there will be a period of public consultation after the passage of the legislation and that the period of consultation will occur in July. He has said that there will be some opportunity then for the consideration of further amendments. Without wishing to in any way take away from the important initiative being followed with this legislation, it is highly unusual - I would think almost unprecedented - for the period of consultation on legislation to follow rather than precede parliamentary debate. I make that point now, and I am sure that it will be referred to by other speakers in the debate.

Page 3410

Individual members of the Opposition have a wide range of concerns that remain unresolved. Indeed, I am sure that crossbenchers have some views on matters that are not yet fully resolved. They will express their points of view and the points of view that their constituents have put to them through the course of this lengthy debate, which will involve more than 60 members. Honourable members who wish to air issues have that right. It is important to have as full and extensive a debate as the Government will allow over the next couple of days. However, at the end of the debate the Opposition will support this legislation. After airing the many points raised by interested parties around this State and by individual members of Parliament who have spotted faults in the legislation, the Opposition will support this bill.

The Opposition supports the firm direction mandated by the Australian people. This bill, despite whatever faults it may embody because of the process that has been followed, still offers the people of Australia a path away from a culture of violence. We know that the legislation offers a fresh start in that sense. I think I speak on behalf of all honourable members - including, I suspect, the Minister for Police - in saying that it is recognised that not every loophole may have been discovered and not every defect may have been eliminated, but this legislation is a substantial first step for the Parliament to take in changing the gun culture of Australia and making this State and Australia a safer place to live. For that reason, I commend the legislation to the House.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [9.36]: I am proud to participate in this historic debate as a member of this House, as a member of this Government and as a member of the Australian community at a time when the Parliament is taking a magnificent decision on the importance of community safety and on the fact that community safety overrides the right of people to have weapons. I commend the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for the courage and the strength of their convictions from the immediate aftermath of Port Arthur right through until the present. I commend the Premier and the Minister for Police for their prompt action in drafting the legislation and introducing it. I also commend the Leader of the Opposition.

I hope that by the end of this debate I will be able to commend every member in the Parliament for their support for the legislation. This is landmark, blueprint legislation. It is to be hoped that at the end of the process all States in Australia will bring into effect legislation that mirrors the legislation in New South Wales. Certainly that is my hope, because the Leader of the Opposition in one slight move away from unanimity of direction obviously proposes that we should move towards a national referendum. If that occurs, the people of Australia may seek much stronger controls than the controls proposed in this bill - perhaps moving towards a ban on weapons.

The bill represents the view of the majority of the community in New South Wales; the majority of people in all electorates of this State. It represents a dramatic change in direction - as stated by the Minister for Police and the Leader of the Opposition - away from the American pattern that is unfortunately developing and towards a pattern much in keeping with the Australian community: safe communities, safe families and a recognition of the rights of responsible shooters. There is no doubt that amongst the political representatives of Australia there has been a decade of timidity and vacillation about gun laws and gun control. It took the terrible events at Port Arthur to provide the spark that has brought this legislation forward.

This legislation came out of that terrible tragedy and I believe it is important that we remember those people who gave their lives at Port Arthur and who have, in effect, sacrificed their lives for this change in direction in Australia. With respect and sadness I read into Hansard the names of those people: Zoe Hall, Helene Salzmann, Janet Quin, Mary Nixon, Elizabeth Howard, Sarah Loughton, Ron Jary, Anthony Nightingale, Glen Pears, Jim Pollard, Nannette Mikac, David Martin, Walter Bennett, Mervyn Howard, Pauline Masters, Kate Scott, Tony Kistan, Andrew Mills, Alannah Mikac, Sally Martin, Kevin Sharp, Mary Howard, Elva Gaylard, Winifred Aplin, Robert Salzmann, Royce Thompson, Madeline Mikac, Jason Winter, Raymond Sharp, Dennis Lever, Peter Nash, Gwenda Neander, Ng Moh Yee William, Chung Soo Leng and Nicole Burgess.

We should remember those people for the sacrifice that they made and for the untimeliness of their deaths. This legislation - and, hopefully, the national legislation - will remind us always of that terrible event and the price that they paid. I entered this debate on the issue of community safety and the fact that for so many families across this State the gun is not only a weapon but also a means of fear and control within families. That issue has been dealt with in this legislation; gun ownership will be responsible gun ownership. It will be gun ownership that takes into account the right of gun owners to responsible use of weapons. There will be a licensing and registration system, and a system of oversight that means that irresponsible people will not have long-term access to weapons.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, the legislation will not prevent such tragedies. But it will, firstly, prevent the sort of tragedy that occurred at Port Arthur and, secondly, greatly strengthen the safety of people within the community. To emphasise just how much impact gun ownership has on the community and the way in which it touches people, I shall read into Hansard a letter from Dr Aidan Foy that was published in the Newcastle Herald on Wednesday, 19 June. The letter, under the heading "Tragedy of Gun Ownership", stated:

Some years ago an old friend who lived in a country town, was a respected community figure and a "perfect example of a responsible shooter", invited me to go

Page 3411
shooting for the day.

We went to another friend’s property and there, in complete safety, had a most enjoyable afternoon. The targets were clay pigeons, not live animals, and the whole thing was tremendous fun. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I was quite good with a shotgun.

Six years later my friend killed his wife, child and himself with a weapon similar to that being fondled on the front page of The Herald (11/5/96) by Peter Blackmore.

That letter emphasises the fact that the gun that is a sporting implement can also, in the tragic circumstances that can occur within families, be a weapon of death and destruction. This legislation examines that issue and couches gun ownership in a structure of responsibility. Registration, licensing, purpose and rights of ownership are put within a framework that has regard more for the safety of the community and less for the wrongful view that there is a right to bear arms in this country. The Leader of the House, and Minister for Police in his second reading speech and the Leader of the Opposition in his contribution have comprehensively dealt with the clauses in the bill. Their views mirror the views expressed at the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council meeting on 10 May. In the period since that date widespread consultation has taken place. Members of the community and organisations have had an opportunity to voice their concerns and, as the Leader of the Opposition said, to marshal themselves together, to bring forward submissions, to register their protest and to place pressure upon members of Parliament.

Honourable members entered this debate with a full knowledge of those concerns and, in my view, with a strong community feeling that the time has come to introduce this comprehensive legislation. Of those constituents who have contacted me, the majority have said that this is the right direction to take; that we must have a safe community. People have a right to responsible gun ownership, but it must be within that context. In my electorate - as has occurred in many other electorates - members of the Shooters Party and of the Sporting Shooters Association have expressed concern about the right to bear arms. It has been comprehensively proved that such a right does not exist under our Constitution. It is a privilege to have the ownership of a weapon; not a right. Concerns have also been expressed to me that people will lose their weapons, but that is not the case. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The Minister’s second reading speech indicated that some people will have genuine reasons for possessing or using a firearm. They are not unduly restrictive and include sport or target shooting, recreational hunting and vermin control and other uses. There has been extensive discussion about the right to possess weapons - by primary producers, for recreational use and for vermin and feral animal control; for business or employment; for occupational requirements; by members of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or animal welfare officers; and for firearms collections. There is a broad range of genuine reasons for possessing firearms, which is comprehensively dealt with in the legislation.

There was concern about whether minors would have the right to participate in shooting. As the Minister for Police said in his speech, minors will retain the right to use long arms or target pistols under the personal supervision and instruction of an correctly registered and licensed shooter and, in the case of target pistols, to participate in approved sport-shooting events. That is as it should be. Australian rifle club members, who participate in shooting activities, were concerned that the Commonwealth was rapidly repealing club regulations. That matter was brought to my attention and, I am sure, to the attention of many other honourable members. The Minister has made it quite clear that he will take up that issue with the Commonwealth and will urge the Commonwealth to provide for a long lead time for the appropriate transfer, so that rifle club members can continue to participate in legitimate shooting activities. Provision is being made for adequate consultation. The Minister has said that when the legislation comes into effect there will be a consultation period until 31 July, when the Minister will again attend the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council.

This is an historic day for the Parliament. I am sure that all honourable members have given this legislation an enormous amount of thought and have had the opportunity to discuss the issue with their constituents. It is my hope that at the end of this debate we will be able to leave the Parliament proud of the fact that as New South Wales legislators we have listened to our community and have examined the overriding need in New South Wales and in Australia for the community to feel safe. People need to be able to feel that they are not going to be controlled or threatened by the fear of weapons; that they can participate in legitimate recreational shooting activity; that they can own a weapon as long as they comply with the licensing, safe storage and registration stipulations of the bill; and that they can continue to act responsibly both in their occupation or recreation as a shooter. And, even more important, they need to acknowledge the requirement to act responsibly and safely within the family and community. This is legislation that we all should be proud of and it is legislation that no lawful person, who respects the rights and laws of this country, need fear. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [9.54]: I lead on behalf of the National Party, the second partner in the coalition in the New South Wales Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Newcastle have articulated opening views and have made reference to the national tragedy at Port Arthur. The National Party and I support their sentiments and acknowledge there is no doubt that the Port Arthur tragedy was the catalyst that jerked governments, oppositions and the broad population
Page 3412
of Australia to the realisation that the time had come to review concepts on guns and their ownership and to improve the general management of violence that can result from their inappropriate use.

Following a number of shootings in recent times, there was an increasing community belief that the laws in most States were inadequate and had to be improved. I point out that often it takes a tragedy to act as a catalyst for action. How often do we hear that the dangers at a level crossing had been pointed out time and time again and there had perhaps been a number of accidents but it took someone’s death to instigate action? That is what has occurred in relation to gun law reform. Every cloud has a silver lining, and there is no doubt the debate of recent weeks has pulled Australians together as only Australians are capable of pulling together when there is a real need and a real issue. We are a great nation. We have demonstrated that we are able to debate many aspects of the ideals and focus of legislation such as this and still have reason prevail and achieve the objectives of the majority of the people.

I record my appreciation of the initiatives of John Howard and Tim Fischer and of their conviction of the need to ensure that gun management is improved. They have been outstanding in their focus and in the clarity of their aims. All governments have been extremely tardy, though, in articulating the intention of the gun legislation to the general public. That tardiness has enabled various individuals and minority groups to take advantage, for their own political purposes, of a set of circumstances that need not necessarily have given them that advantage if the concept, reasoning and detail of the template legislation had been better advertised and articulated to the broader public.

I make it clear it is not too late to give the public more information on the legislation. I believe that when debate in the Parliament on this bill is concluded - be that today, tomorrow or Sunday - the bill will receive the unanimous support of this House. Certainly it will have the support of the National Party. It is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that every New South Welshman has a reasonable opportunity to understand the legislation and have it presented clearly. The general public of New South Wales and Australia cannot be expected to accept and work within legislation unless they know what that legislation provides. It is all very well for members of Parliament to debate the bill for one, two or three days - and I suspect that there will be considerable detail at various times - but the legislation must be presented clearly to the public.

Reference has been made to the possibility of referenda. Such suggestion has come from some of the minority political parties, from individuals and, I believe, from the Prime Minister. Indeed, this morning the Leader of the Opposition mentioned a referendum, although I do not know in which context. We have had a referendum over the last few weeks, and there is no doubt about the result of it: the great, convincing majority of Australians - whether the figure be 75, 85 or 90 per cent; I know that it is much greater than 50 per cent plus one, which is a majority - want reforms in this area. That is one of the reasons that we, as elected members, are reflecting those views.

I congratulate the parliamentary draftsman for his use in the bill of common language. The bill is readable; it tells a story; and it is easy to understand. I welcome the presentation and the articulation of the bill. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, it is absolutely necessary that every State of Australia have true template legislation. A vacuum has undoubtedly been left in the process because of the lack of template legislation. When States, or indviduals for that matter, are left to make their own interpretation of any type of plan, total uniformity is never achieved because the plan is always subject to different opinions. The Government has been more than hasty in trying to have legislation passed in New South Wales without insisting on template legislation. Although the Opposition has said that the Government must introduce legislation so that the people of New South Wales know what they are debating, that legislation must be template. The Opposition expects a guarantee from the Government during the debate that the legislation will be template in that it will be totally complementary to legislation in every other State of Australia. Each State should not have its own variation of the legislation.

Some of the stunts embarked upon by the Government have not been in the best interests of the spirit of the legislation or, indeed, the acceptance by the public of it. The Government’s stunt of trying to flick responsibility to the Commonwealth was politics at its worst. The Government’s stunt of trying to claim that the bill is the first such legislation in Australia demeans the spirit of the legislation, because the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria are undoubtedly well in advance of New South Wales. It does not matter much which State is first, as long as the process gets under way. If the Government cuts out the stunts and sticks to the script it will have the support of the people. The people want to support reform, but inflicting stunts on them is a cheap trick.

I refer particularly to the stunt of some 24 hours ago. A walkout was staged in front of the television cameras; it was an attempt by the Government to cover its political backside in the bush. That staged walkout was a stunt, but it did not work. The parliamentary staff in the corridors and everyone else realised it was a stunt. Those in the parliamentary gallery laughed at it. Those connected with country newspapers laughed at it, because they knew it was a cheap stunt. The stunts should stop and the members of this House should get on with trying to implement the legislation. That is the reason the House is sitting on a Friday. I want to repeat the statement I made in this House
Page 3413
on 11 June about the National Party’s attitude. I repeat what I said at that time:

I wish to make it patently clear that the National Party - in line with its support for gun law reform - will not oppose template legislation in the area of registration. In the meantime, the National Party would be remiss not to pursue the party’s views on this matter. It is up to the Carr Labor Government to introduce national template legislation into New South Wales, and it will be on the Government’s shoulders to make it work. Australia has possibly a one-off opportunity to get it right on guns, and the National Party will not resile from that responsibility.

Again I repeat that the National Party will not be captured by the extremists in this debate who are spreading misinformation. At the completion of the debate the National Party will support the bill. The core of the bill is the same as legislation introduced by the Liberal and National parties in previous governments. The National Party welcomes the Government’s recognition that the core of the legislation is satisfactory and that it has been able to build on it. I welcome the recognition of the specific needs of farmers, sporting shooters and recreational shooters. Since day one the National Party has consistently acknowledged that the responsible needs of those people must be recognised. The Government has recognised those needs, and that recognition is appreciated. Other National Party speakers will articulate the detail of expert opinion in a number of areas.

I have two fundamental questions to put before the Minister. If they are answered in the early part of the debate, confusion will be avoided and time may well be saved down the track. The first question relates to recommendations on the storage of firearms and the definition of "hardwood". I ask the Minister to explain whether the word "hardwood" is used as a technical term describing timber, or whether it is used to refer to core and composite boards. The second question relates to licences. If a shooter who is licensed in category A or category B possesses category C firearms will that person need to have three licences, that is, a licence in each of those categories? Other speakers will no doubt highlight other provisions in the bill, but those are the two most common questions asked. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Members of the National Party and other members of this House have difficulty with the proposed system of gun registration as opposed to a national register of gun ownership. The National Party opposes the registration of firearms for the following reasons. The system will not work because the register will never contain details of all firearms in Australia. The system will not work because it is simply not practical. The system will not reduce the number of firearms in Australia, but will have the reverse effect of driving both legal and prohibited firearms underground. The system seeks to set up a costly and unwieldy bureaucracy that the National Party believes will ultimately founder. The National Party has always supported, and still supports, a national register of firearms owners, for the simple reason that it is more likely to work.

A national register of firearm owners will achieve all of the things that the proponents of a register of firearms claim that that register will achieve. The current system of licensing shooters should therefore be extended to incorporate information about whether registered shooters are also firearms owners, but should not include information as to the number or category of firearms. The licence application or renewal form should contain a simply question: "Are you a firearm owner?" For reasons of confidentiality the answer should be contained on a magnetic strip on the shooter’s licence. This information will not only be of great benefit to the Police Service and other law enforcement agencies, but it will also address the many concerns about a firearms register that I will deal with shortly. To encourage the maximum number of shooters to register, such registration should be at low cost, or at even no cost, to shooters.

Instead of viewing that registration system as an additional revenue source, or an attempt to recover some of the enormous costs inherent in the agreed scheme, the Government must do everything it can to encourage full registration of gun owners. To achieve that an ongoing education campaign should be launched, and at some later stage incentives could be offered to gun owners to complete the ownership register. Before the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council agreed on 10 May to the register of firearms, the Federal Attorney-General circulated a proposal that outlined the rationale for it. He said:

By linking licence and firearms databases in every jurisdiction in Australia, police will have access to much valuable information which will help to protect members of the public and police officers in many circumstances. Failure to provide this access leaves members of the public and police officers subject to needless risk.

An intelligent reading of that statement demonstrates that this is no more a rationale for a firearms register than it is a rationale for a firearm owners register. Of those two, the National Party supports the one that will work. Experience in other jurisdictions shows clearly that a national register of firearms does not work. Every member speaking on this bill ought to be familiar with evidence given to the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, which was set up as a result of another shooting tragedy, this time only a half-hour drive from here, in Strathfield. Academic research was presented to that committee. Mr David Fine, in his 1988 paper "Gun Laws - Proposals for Reform" found:

There appears to be no evidence whatsoever that the cost of administering any type of registration scheme might achieve any commensurate reduction in the criminal misuse of firearms, or any increase whatsoever in the frequency with which criminals are apprehended by police . . . long gun registration, in those Australian jurisdictions in which it has been in recent years does not appear to be achieving a meaningful reduction in the number of firearms held (often without proper safe keeping facilities) by private persons who have no real use or strong attachment to these firearms. Registration does not appear to be a strategy particularly well calculated to reduce the availability of firearms to criminals, through a diminution

Page 3414
in the number of firearms likely to be lost through burglary.

In further evidence presented to the committee the experiences of New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada were examined. It was found in each of those countries that the registration of firearms did not achieve its stated objectives. It is important that we appreciate that whatever we do has to work. If any proposal is to work it must have the confidence of gun owners across the State. We might make a law, but unless there is common participation of those at whom the law is targeted, the law simply will not work. I reinforce that the National Party will support the bill in its final form. So far the Government has totally failed to heed the comments about community violence made by John Howard subsequent to the meeting of police Ministers.

Although debate today will focus almost entirely on the gun legislation, which is as it should be, I would be remiss if I did not make reference in Hansard to the Prime Minister’s comments regarding violence depicted in videos and television and through computer technology. It is incumbent upon this Government and Parliament to ensure that not only are gun controls improved but that at the same time attempts are made to change community attitudes. This is a one-off opportunity to improve gun laws; let us take that opportunity to address community violence and community attitudes to violence. I have had enough of community violence in good suburbs and country towns right across New South Wales. Those communities are being destroyed because of a small element of violence that is fuelled every day and every night by access to extremes of violence on television and videos, and now computer technology. That is simply wrong.

The challenge to the Government is to deal with not only guns but with community attitudes to violence in our suburbs and country towns. Although this legislation mentions youth training - and the National Party totally supports that - I suggest that this provision needs careful consideration. There is nothing more foolish than parents teaching their own children to drive, because they learn all the parents’ bad habits. Although the bill refers to training our youth in safety, attitude must also be taken into the assessment. I remember clearly the first time I shot an animal. It was the pony on which my father learned to ride. That was a difficult thing to do because I had to look the animal in the eye. Every kid should look someone in the eye before they first fire a gun at something they intend to shoot, and they should think about what they are doing.

Attitude is so important in regard to licences to fly aeroplanes and drive motor cars, and it must be important in regard to being licensed to have a gun. In the minute I have left I wish to ask the Government one or two questions. The Minister for Police refuses to reveal police numbers. Who will administer this legislation? The New South Wales Police Service. It is incumbent upon the Government to tell the House where the police will come from to enforce these measures. What resources is the Government prepared to give police to enforce these new laws? What budget supplementation is to be made by the Government for that purpose? What support is the Government prepared to give police if police are to be charged with the responsibility of making this legislation work? The Government cannot from this weekend walk away - [Time expired.]

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [10.14]: Because this legislation is historic and controversial I have studied it carefully. I am concerned to try to understand just why this issue seems to have basically divided the people of this nation into two groups. It seems to me that members of the community are either for or against gun control. In the eyes of most people, there are no ifs or buts about the issue: they are either for control of firearms or against control of firearms. I have no doubt that attempts will be made to amend this bill despite the community’s black and white attitude to it. Those attempts to amend the bill will no doubt be made in the upper House in particular.

If I had my way, I too would try to amend the bill to introduce even tougher measures on the control of firearms. But I realise I would have no chance of achieving that aim at this stage, particularly as the bill derives from a meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council. The bill is an excellent measure. I am by no means opposed to it, because I consider it to be a big leap forward towards the control of firearms. It is necessary to emphasise that this legislation is more about the control of firearms than anything else. However, the opponents of the bill are of the view that this legislation is all about banning firearms. I do not believe that is so.

The legislation is directed primarily at controlling rather than banning firearms. I say that because, as I see it, there are only four individual groups of persons who stand to lose out by not being able to legally acquire firearms because of this measure. In the first group are the criminals who use guns to threaten for the purpose of robbery, or with the intention to kill if they do not get their own way. No-one should object to the denial of firearms to those persons. In another category are the psychopaths who own guns and are likely to use them to murder. The licensing and registration provisions of this bill will curb their opportunities to acquire guns in future.

In the third category of persons who would lose out from this measure are the tragic reactionaries who keep guns in their homes in case someone breaks in. In future those people will have to make their homes more secure or buy a dog. I call them tragic reactionaries because people who keep guns in their homes usually build homes like Fort Knox and also have an Alsatian and/or a Rottweiler in the backyard. But they are not happy with that; they somehow feel a need to have a gun under the bed for their protection. The tragedy is
Page 3415
that that sort of mentality results in the high incidence of shooting accidents and suicides occurring in homes around this country. The legislation is targeted at restricting that type of use. In the fourth group to lose out as a result of this bill are the shooters who are not aligned with any organised gun sport or who are not associated with any gun club. That type of person enjoys target shooting for recreational purposes or shooting animals, which is termed a sport.

Bearing in mind those four categories of persons, it is little wonder that the majority of Australians want much tougher gun laws. Why do those rallying against gun control make so much fuss about the issue? Although a majority of those opposing gun control may have to surrender some of their guns, they will still be able to keep some guns, but those guns will be under much stricter control in the future. Most people currently owning guns will be able to continue to do so. Although the catchcry of those who oppose tougher controls is "They are taking away our guns", the main opposition of the gun lobby is to the imposition of tougher controls. That is because members of the gun lobby believe that they are cautious and responsible gun owners and that guns are safe in their hands. I concede that probably correct as it relates to each individual. Most gun owners probably are responsible, but the collective statistics show a much different and a much darker picture. The statistics show that in Australia gun fatalities resulting from accidents, violence and suicide are extraordinarily high. That is why stricter gun controls are needed and why this legislation is necessary.

Probably the most important provision in the bill is that in future before a licence is obtained an applicant must state the reason he or she requires such a licence. Genuine reasons for owning or possessing a firearm must be presented. The bill also spells out the reasons that applicants must give. If an applicant cannot satisfy a particular reason specified within the bill, the licence will not be granted. In summary those reasons are restricted to sport and target shooting, and applicants must be members of sporting clubs; vermin control by owners or occupiers of rural land or other persons provided that permission to shoot on such land is produced; a professional contract shooter engaged in controlling pest animals or employed or authorised by government to control pest animals; and for business or employment purposes the applicant must demonstrate that the business or employment necessitates the possession of a gun.

Category C weapons are the most lethal and dangerous range of weapons readily available to the community. I refer to semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump-action shotguns. That is a prohibiting category and very few people will be able to acquire these types of guns. The only applications that will be entertained are those from primary producers who must show good reasons for requiring a category C licence. In the long term sporting shooters may receive some concessions within this category, but that has not yet been determined. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, primary producers who will be able to obtain a category C licence must live on the land and must be able to argue a special need for such guns. More importantly, they will only be able to have one rifle or one shotgun as specified within that category.

That is why the gun lobby claims that the Government is taking its guns away. But that claim infers that the gun lobby will lose all of its guns. I believe the statement that the Government is taking away the gun lobby’s guns is false. The correct interpretation is that the Government is taking away some guns to control the use of firearms. I want to refer briefly to other aspects of the legislation. The storage of firearms is important. The bill contains extremely strict measures about the storage of guns. One important aspect is that ammunition must be stored separately from the firearm. That makes a great deal of sense. Ammunition will be available only after the production of a licence, and the ammunition will only be available for those weapons for which licences are issued. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The bill also provides that a separate permit must be issued for each gun, and that there must be a permit for each type of gun. The issuing of the permit can be delayed for a period of 28 days for security reasons. During that time persons may be investigated before such permits are granted. All first-time users must undergo a safety course to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Police. I am sure no-one would argue against that provision. The bill covers every reason for cancelling or refusing a licence. The bill also sets out every type of undesirable person that can be refused a licence. The bill is thorough in that regard. I am pleased that the bill includes a provision that licences will be issued for no more than five years. That is an excellent security check.

Some in the community argue that restricting the availability of guns will not stop deaths from guns because guns do not kill, people kill. That is another distorted argument. So far as I am concerned, accidental deaths involving guns are caused by guns, not by people. If fewer guns are available, fewer deaths will result, because so many fatalities result from accidents with guns. Some also argue that restricting the availability of guns does not have a drastic effect on fatalities caused by guns. That is not so. Japan, a nation of 125 million people, has the toughest gun laws in the world. Last year in Japan the total number of deaths caused by guns was 34. In Australia, which has only 14 per cent of the population of Japan, approximately 500 deaths occur each year as a result of the use of firearms. In Japan the gaol sentence for a person possessing an illegal weapon is 15 years; the gaol sentence for a person firing a gun in a public place is life.


Page 3416
Fewer deaths occur through the use of firearms in Japan annually than occur in the United States every day. More Japanese citizens are killed by firearms overseas than are killed by firearms within their own country. The Japanese Government has implemented strict gun control measures. Japanese people have forfeited some personal rights, such as the possession of firearms, to enable them to live in a safe society. I congratulate the Minister for Police on the way he has handled this matter. The Commonwealth Attorney-General recently wrote to the Minister for Police to inform him that all the proposals contained in the resolutions agreed to by the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council held on 10 May were covered in this legislation. That demonstrates the quick and thorough attention given to this matter by the Minister for Police. This Government is prepared to stick to its resolve to introduce firearm controls to create a much safer and less volatile society.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! I take this opportunity to welcome to the Parliament secondary school captains from the school districts of Griffith, Deniliquin, Wagga Wagga, Albury, Wollongong, Shellharbour, St George and Sutherland, who are participating in a leadership program. In welcoming these school captains I advise them that today we are engaged in an historic debate on the Firearms Bill. The House is sitting extended hours to debate this important bill.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [10.33]: Mr Acting-Speaker, I join you in welcoming the school captains. I am sure that in due course some of them will end up in this Chamber, but I hope that does not occur before we have completed our careers. I, and I believe the overwhelming majority of people in the Eastwood electorate, strongly support the bill. Approximately 85 per cent of my electorate falls within the Bennelong electorate - the electorate of the Prime Minister, John Howard. I believe from the sentiments expressed by our mutual constituents that Mr Howard has a great deal of support for his proposals. I know as shadow police minister that the Police Service of New South Wales and individual rank and file police officers are concerned about this issue. A few weeks ago the Minister for Police, the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and I were in Wollongong for the biennial Australasian Police Ministers’ Council. It is important to put on the record what Mr Phil Tunchon, President of the Police Association, said:

The historic decision taken this month by the State and Federal Governments to establish a national register of firearms and to ban automatic and semi-automatic firearms will go a long way towards improving the safety of police in this State and across the nation.

Again it is an indictment on politicians of all persuasions that it took the massacre at Port Arthur to give them the courage to make a stand on this issue. We hope that the necessary legislative changes will be swiftly enacted.

The Leader of the National Party rightly pointed out that a significant load will be placed on the Police Service in administering these new laws. The first duty of the Minister for Police, who has carriage of this legislation, is to ensure that sufficient resources are provided to make this legislation effective. In fairness to the Minister I note that this and other matters will be the subject of further discussions with the Commonwealth, in particular, the gun register and the information network across the country. An overwhelming number of police officers in this State have expressed strong views about this matter. Given that the Minister for Police devoted most of his time to the detail of the bill, I believe that I should say something on their behalf. I am sure that the Minister will support what I have to say.

Since 1980 the police officers who have been murdered by gunfire in their line of duty are: Sergeant Keith Haydon, Constable Pashalls Katsivelas, Sergeant Paul Quinn, Constable Allan McQueen, Senior Constable Peter Addison and Senior Constable Robert Spears. It is important to remind the House of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Senior Constable Spears and Senior Constable Addison, the police officers most recently murdered by gunfire. Most honourable members would be aware that, at about 1.20 on the morning that these two police officers were murdered, they were called to a domestic dispute in Crescent Head. Police in the electorate of Eastwood, in the electorates of the school captains present in the gallery, or in other State electorates would respond to such a call. The Coroner, Mr Hand, described what happened as follows:

Both Constables approached the house and were confronted by McGowan dressed in a military style camouflage outfit and holding a Ruger rifle. He also had a knife in a pouch on his belt. The Constables retreated to the front of the police van, which had been parked with the front facing out of the driveway. They called on McGowan to drop the gun but instead he fired some shots and hit Spears in the head, apparently killing him instantly.

Constable Addison made a radio call to Port Macquarie station calling for urgent assistance. Further shots were fired by McGowan and were returned by Constable Addison. Constable Addison then ran across the road into a house, apparently looking for a telephone. None was available and he then came out of the house and it was in between it and another house, occupied by Mr Barnett. Apparently, in trying to reload his service revolver, the speed trip containing his live bullets fell to the ground . . .

John McGowan knelt down on one knee, aimed and fired a shot hitting the Constable in the left side of the chest.

Any police officer in this State could be confronted by such a situation. I believe that is what Phil Tunchon and many others had in mind when calling for this legislation to be enacted as speedily as possible. The statistics speak for themselves. In relatively recent times six police officers have been murdered by gunfire and, as I understand it, in the 1980s another 20 were wounded. Police woundings as well as fatalities should be considered. I refer to an event which occurred a few years ago as an example of the type of events that could occur at
Page 3417
any time and in any place in the State to any police officer. The Sydney Morning Herald of 13 June 1990 recorded events which occurred on Bexley Road. It stated:

The police car, with sirens and lights on, had chased the Commodore into nearby Proctor Avenue.

Sergeant Shaw said the police then saw two flashes from the Commodore.

He said a bullet struck the road in front of the police car, sending up sparks. A second bullet had smashed the police car window and shattered on the dashboard.

Sergeant Shaw said a large fragment hit the driver Probationary Constable Glen Shaw . . . in the neck.

Smaller fragments had hit Senior Constable John Martin . . . who was sitting in the front passenger seat, and Trainee Constable Nathan Maxwell . . . who was in the back.

As the Commodore raced away, Probationary Constable Shaw, who also had a serious eye injury from flying glass, tried to continue the chase, driving another 200 metres into Homer Street . . .

I make no apology for taking up the time of the House by referring to a notorious fatal shooting and incidents which may not have the impact of killings. Incidents involving gunshot wounds can be horrific. A significant number of people have concerns about the legislation. Like the Prime Minister, I respect their right to hold their views. However, as shadow minister for police - I am sure the Minister would support me 100 per cent - I point out that a huge number of people connected with the Police Service take a different view. There are approximately 13,000 police officers in New South Wales at the moment - today is not the time to quibble about that figure - so, together with their friends, immediate family and loved ones, 100,000 people would be involved. Police put their life on the line every day and they are at significant risk from guns. In the August 1995 edition of New South Wales Police News Tanya McAlister of Cambridge Park, under the heading "A Police Wife writes . . .", in response to the murders of Addison and Spears, stated:

Dear Editor,

My heart skipped a beat today as I heard on the radio that two senior constables had been killed while attending a domestic. My husband was on duty at Parkes at the time, and as I told my children to be quiet so I could hear the radio, I felt sick with fear that it was him and his mate.

As the news revealed the names of the officers, my relief turned to sadness and dismay for their wives and children. I had an empty feeling in my stomach that this had happened. I wanted to send a card of sympathy to the families of Snr Const. Peter Addison and Snr Const. Bob Spears, but I just didn’t know what to write in it.

As shadow minister - and representing the Minister, if I may be so bold as to say that - I put on the record in this debate the views of the overwhelming number of police officers in this State. They have been the strongest advocates, with successive governments, for major gun law reform and their views should be given appropriate weight. It is not for nothing that the police Minister has carriage of this sort of legislation. The Leader of the National Party made the important point that without careful allocation of police resources there will be a draining of police from the fight against crime as they become involved in the bureaucratic side of enforcing the legislation, and this could lead to ineffective gun laws.

Matters which have not been clarified in the Minister’s second reading speech include whether special need is to be shown by licence category B applicants, how the national safety training proposal will be implemented, access to category C firearms by other nominated groups such as sports shooters participating in certain events and professional contract shooters, the lower age limit for minors with shooting permits, the amount of ammunition that can be purchased in any given period, how to deal with firearms received as gifts or as an inheritance, other purposes apart from sports shooting which will be grounds for recognition of interstate licences, the commercial transport of firearms and ammunition, compensation details, and whether collectors will be dealt with in a slightly different and more expansive way. A significant number of representations have been made on this issue. The Minister has undertaken that no firearms of historical value will be destroyed if they are surrendered as part of the amnesty pending whatever steps may be taken in relation to collectors’ licences. A number of matters are still to be resolved by the Commonwealth. [Extension of time agreed to.]

One is compensation, under clause 78, which is a huge issue. Further matters relate to medical practitioners, clause 79. I note that the word "thinks" is used in relation to doctors being given protection in cases in which they refer material to the Commissioner of Police if they have concerns about the mental stability of a person who is under their care. Perhaps the words "opinion" or "reasonable opinion" would sit more neatly. I flag this for further consideration down the track. The Minister has stated that registration will commence only when proper administrative arrangements are in place and the Commonwealth has provided appropriate funding for the national exchange of police information. This is a fundamental issue. Many honourable members are concerned about the workability of gun registration. I have carefully noted what the Minister has said in this regard. Obviously there is a great deal of work to be done on administrative aspects. I also support comments made by the Leader of the Opposition earlier. It would have been better and more workable had the Commonwealth introduced template legislation. This may have been difficult because the States had different starting points but the exercise should have been persevered with and I regret that it was not.

Though I regret that template legislation has not been pursued I do not want to take anything away from the Prime Minister who I am proud to say is my Federal local member. He has shown tremendous leadership and has done an outstanding
Page 3418
job in very difficult circumstances. I implore all members not to forget the important stakeholders, the members of the Police Service of New South Wales and their immediate dependents and families. While others are exercising their democratic rights to express their points of view the police are getting on with the job. They should not be forgotten. I implore honourable members to bear in mind when debating this bill that the police, more than anyone else in New South Wales, are likely to be confronted with someone threatening to shoot them.

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [10.51]: I also extend a welcome to the school captains of Griffith, Deniliquin, Wagga Wagga, Albury, Wollongong, Shellharbour, St George and Sutherland schools. I believe that the gun issue was responsible for my defeat in the 1988 general election. I have learned some lessons from that. This legislation has my absolute support. I am pleased that after private discussions with the Minister for Police and the Premier the concerns of my colleagues the honourable member for Broken Hill and the honourable member for Cessnock have been resolved. The needs of country people are a little different from those in suburban areas. This morning I received an interesting document entitled, "The Bill of Rights: A Users Guide" which refers to the second amendment of the American Constitution. Over many years the American gun lobby has stated that Americans have the right to bear arms. Some Australians claim that they have the same right to bear arms in self-defence or to defend their country. That is not the case.

The "Bill of Rights: A Users Guide" refers to the fact that the second amendment protects the right of people to keep and bear arms. The explanatory note to the second amendment states that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Does this phrase mean that people are allowed to bear arms only if they are part of a militia or defending their country? Can guns be used for national defence but not for self-defence? It has long been argued by the gun lobby that Americans have an undoubted right to bear arms. That is not the case. The American Constitution provided for state militia to be established in the early days of the American union. In many instances state militia were established to protect the States from intrusion by the American Federal Government. That is no longer necessary. Americans now have a substitute force called the National Guard, which is similar to the Australian Army Reserve.

There is no doubt in the minds of all Australians that the supply and use of firearms should be regulated. Various tragedies have occurred throughout Australia in recent years through the use of semiautomatic weapons, yet governments have continued to allow those weapons to be purchased. I support the proposal by the Prime Minister. Though people in rural areas fear that their needs will not be met, I trust that there will be no watering down of the provisions with regard to the availability of automatic and semiautomatic firearms. I assure those people living in the country that they have nothing to fear from this legislation. Provisions in the legislation will enable each application for a firearm licence to be determined on its merits. The possession of firearms might be restricted. I do not see why farmers cannot use a single shot rifle to shoot vermin or to destroy stock in times of drought. People wishing to eradicate feral animals can apply to the Commissioner of Police for an automatic or semiautomatic firearm licence. In my opinion there is no need for people living in the suburbs of Sydney or in urban areas of New South Wales to have access to automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

I have been a shooter since I was about 18 years old but I have not used a rifle for the last 20 years. Over a period of 20 years I was an active member of a rifle club. In my day .303 military-style single-round rifles were used. The rifle was loaded, one fired at the target, the rifle was reloaded and one fired again at the target. Basically that was the extent of rifle club shooting. There is no valid argument for the average person to possess an automatic or a semiautomatic firearm. This morning Senator Kernot of the Australian Democrats called upon the Prime Minister for a referendum on this question. I cannot think of a more sensible approach than to let people speak for themselves. We should have a referendum and settle this question once and for all. Licence categories in the legislation are wide ranging. There are even categories for those requiring pistol licences.

Similarly, the various firearms categories are straightforward and, I believe, reasonable. Automatic firearms will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed. The weapons are gas operated; when a round is spent, gas is expelled, sending the working parts to the rear. As long as the trigger is depressed, rounds continue to move forward. Semiautomatic weapons are also gas operated but the trigger must be depressed on each occasion. Years ago the Australian Army was equipped with the Bren light machine-gun, which was a multi-purpose machine-gun that could be adapted to automatic or single-shot operation. During my long period of service in the Australian Army Reserve I considered myself to be an expert Bren gunner. It was a very accurate, light machine-gun, but it also had the capacity to fire as a single-shot automatic. I mention that matter because that type of weapon had a specific use. Today, the Bren gun is outmoded; it has been replaced in civilian service by weapons that have much greater capacity and killing power.

Today, we are looking at withdrawing from the use of public weapons that are capable of being fired automatically. When a person walks into a crowded restaurant with an automatic or semiautomatic rifle or shotgun, as happened at Port Arthur, the carnage that can result is almost beyond
Page 3419
belief. There is no escape from someone with an automatic or semiautomatic shotgun in a confined space. There is no way of stopping a person from firing an automatic or semiautomatic weapon in circumstances such as those at Port Arthur. There is no need for such firearms to be readily available. This bill and the legislation that will be introduced in the Commonwealth Parliament accord with the wishes of the people.

Many have said that country people have a different opinion to that of Sydney people. That is incorrect. People in country areas, particularly women, are scared about the proliferation of high-powered, rapid-fire weapons. They are worried that they and their children are under constant threat from the weapons which are freely available today. A person firing a single shot must work the bolt each time to inject a round; in such cases there is a chance of overcoming the person before there is what can only be described as a massacre. The Port Arthur tragedy brought home to all of us that parliaments cannot legislate to control madness. I agree with that but we can legislate to prevent people affected by mental disorder from obtaining weapons, by restricting their supply and use. I have no problems with the legislation; it is good legislation.

I shall now comment on the gun lobby, gun rallies and so on. Rallies have been held in my electorate and have been attended by 700 or 800 people. At one rally in Bathurst I received a fairly warm reception when I stood to speak; and when I thanked the people for their warm reception, they gave me another round of applause. The gun lobby has members in all sectors of the community. If my former colleague and former Minister for Sport and Recreation, Michael Cleary, were here, he would describe it as rent-a-crowd. The gun lobby transports its members from point to point by bus. It puts pressure on members of Parliament, saying that if they do not support the gun lobby its members will vote against them. I have been through that once. I have no problem with accepting the threat posed to me by the gun lobby, particularly as this is probably my last term in the Parliament.

The question before the House is not that of making a decision on the basis that we might win or lose seats; the question is whether people need protection from semiautomatic rifles and shotguns which are so readily available throughout Australia today. There has been much cavilling. I read in a newspaper this morning that the Prime Minister is thinking about varying his legislation. Obviously pressure is being placed on him by members of the National Party, whose supporters have protested against the legislation. I trust that the Prime Minister will not bow to the pressure being exerted on him. I congratulate the Premier and the Minister for Police on having the courage to proceed with this legislation.

The Australian rifle clubs were established in the early 1920s, after the First World War, under a Commonwealth Defence Act regulation with a view to providing a reservoir of trained riflemen who could be inducted into the Australian Army on the occasion of war. They have long since fulfilled that role and today they are an effective and responsible sporting group. I sincerely trust that the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council on 4 July will argue that the Defence Act regulations not be repealed - that they continue to acknowledge the Australian rifle clubs. The people who belong to the clubs are honourable and responsible. They deserve the support of not only the State Parliament but also the Federal Parliament. The commonsense approach adopted by the Prime Minister and the Premier is much appreciated.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.06]: During my 12-plus years of parliamentary life there has not been a bill that I have supported more vehemently than this bill. In saying that, I understand that people who possess firearms legally and without malice for genuine purposes such as their work, sporting pursuits or as gun collectors and who will never offend, are concerned about this type of legislation. This bill is not aimed at hurting those people. It will be inconvenient; it will place restrictions on those people. They will have to give up some of their freedom, but the sacrifice that they are being asked to make comes home vividly when one examines the reasons for such legislation. I make no apology to those people who legally use firearms for recreation or for work purposes for the sacrifice that they must make for the good of the community overall.

For me, the gun debate has been going on for some time, but it came to a head with the Port Arthur massacre. One need only look at the devastation caused and the awakening around Australia that resulted from that disaster. It gave every person in Australia, including politicians, the opportunity to seize the moment and to do something about gun laws. The Port Arthur tragedy came on the back of a number of tragedies that affected the lives of people around Australia. I know that people who use guns for recreational purposes have said, "But it is not our fault. We did not do that."

I strongly believe that the ready availability of guns in the community has an impact on the number of people who are killed or maimed with guns. I mention two statistics, a list of which was given by the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. If honourable members look at these figures they would see that in an average year, between 600 and 700 Australians die by gunshot. That is 20 times the death toll at Port Arthur and compares with the 404 Australians who were killed in the entire Vietnam war. America has 14 times Australia’s population, 64 times our gun deaths, and 312 times our gun homicides. We cannot go down that path; we have to have a restriction, a control on guns. I remind honourable members of the personal tragedy that occurred to the family of young Zoe Anne Hall,
Page 3420
a 28-year-old lawyer with Minter Ellison Morrison Fletcher. Zoe had a master’s degree in law, lived at Kangaroo Point and had previously lived in the Sylvania area all her life. She was killed instantly by two bullets at Port Arthur during her holiday in Tasmania. At the memorial service her sister stated:

All my life I have been taught the value of life. Today my family mourns the loss of my sister: a truly beautiful life. How can I continue to believe?

We owe it to Zoe’s young sister and the families of everyone whose lives were shattered at Port Arthur to do something about gun controls. I shall also relate incidents within my electorate over the last few years. Who could forget Ken Marslew, who today is a fighter against crime. Ken Marslew’s son, Michael, at 18 years of age, was going about his work at the Pizza Hut when his life was blown away by a young man with a weapon. That weapon was later found in the Woronora River: a 12-gauge pump-action Bentley shotgun. I am not sure about that 30-shot figure that the newspaper reported, it seems high to me, but I am no expert on guns. Obviously, it was a multiloading pump-action shotgun. Honourable members owe it to Ken Marslew and his family to do something about gun control.

Who could forget the grief of the husband of Toula Soravia. Toula worked in the family petrol station, also in my electorate, and was on her way to the bank with the day’s takings. She was gunned down, probably with an illegal gun, I am not sure of the detail. Maybe this legislation will not stop that type of event, but we have to do something about reducing the number of guns in society, and so reduce the opportunity for them to be used tragically. We owe it to Toula Soravia’s family to do something about guns. I knew Toula personally. I know the family; her son played soccer with my son. We must do something to support that family for what happened to Toula. We cannot allow the moment to pass.

I have mentioned three people in or near my electorate whose families have been shattered. If honourable members add to that all the suicides and opportunities for young people to take their lives, they would realise that action needs to be taken about the availability of guns. The incidence of suicide by young men through the use of guns is quite tragic. I do not pretend that this legislation will totally stop that occurring but I do fervently believe that over time it will dramatically reduce the availability of guns in society. The legislation will change the gun culture in our society and therefore make New South Wales and Australia a safer place. Every one of us has a responsibility to do that.

Society has the responsibility of supporting people who have been involved in domestic violence or have had a gun pointed at their head in a bank. Society has the responsibility of supporting their families, and parliaments have the responsibility to do something about gun legislation. I have the greatest admiration for John Howard for leading the charge in Australia for national legislation. I am concerned that there are signs of that national support weakening. We must have the same legislation around Australia; what is good enough in one State is good enough in every State. We cannot have a weakening of that position. I appeal to John Howard to stick by his principles and not weaken on this matter. I ask him to deliver a national standard of legislation; that is absolutely vital.

Before I turn to particular parts of the bill I put on the record that I do not believe that this legislation will be the salvation of the ills of society. It is simply one step in the parliaments of Australia reacting to a bad system. As legislators we are applying a bandaid and doing what we can to help with this problem. Honourable members know that this is a multifaceted problem that needs a whole bevy of approaches to solve it. Gun laws are a problem, enforcement is another; there is no use having tough gun laws without strong and proper enforcement. The greatest example of strong enforcement is random breath testing. New South Wales has extremely tough requirements as to the amount of alcohol that can be consumed by drivers. The regulations did not work effectively until people started to believe that they were going to be caught for breaking the law. It is an unfortunate weakness of human beings that if we think we can get away with something, we will continue to do it. Unfortunately we must have strong enforcement of gun controls to ensure that law-abiding people who use guns properly are protected, but that those who illegally hold or use guns should be treated severely.

The third area we must look at is violent videos and television programs. Strong debate is continuing about the effect and impact that violent videos and television programs have on the minds and opportunities of people who may take violent action. That is a difficult area but it must be looked at. The mental health laws need to be reviewed and we must take them into account in considering the protection of society. Honourable members know that I am a strong believer in the current mental health laws but I do not pretend that we need to review them around the edges in order not only to protect people with mental illness but also to protect society where necessary. Community health programs also need to be reviewed. Earlier I spoke about suicides. We need to continue the program of having stronger community mental health programs to solve the high rate of suicide in Australia, particularly amongst young men. We must have greater support for families and family issues. They are but a number of examples of a range of issues we must tackle. Gun laws is only one of many issues. I am concerned about clause 79, dealing with disclosure by doctors of certain information, which states:

(1) If a registered medical practitioner is of the opinion that a patient is an unsuitable person to be in possession of a firearm:

Page 3421

(a) because of the patient’s mental condition, or

(b) because the medical practitioner thinks that the patient might attempt to commit suicide, or would be a threat to public safety, if in possession of a firearm,

nothing prevents the medical practitioner from informing the Commissioner of that opinion.

While I support in principle the involvement of the medical fraternity, clause 79 is too open. If any medical practitioner, perhaps a general practitioner who is not an expert in mental health, reports to the Commissioner of Police that a person is unsuitable to be in possession of a firearm, police officers will be on the doorstep of that person’s home immediately. The clause is open to abuse. I support it, but I ask the Government to consider tightening it up to protect the medical profession and to ensure that it is not used or abused. The registration of guns has been a significant part of the debate, and we have been told that gun registration does not work in either Canada or Victoria. My constituency and others around Australia have said, "Let’s give it a go." I do not believe that either in Canada or Victoria proper practices were in place to enforce the law. Honourable members know that if a law is not enforced it is ignored. We should trial gun registration, which I support, as I support the bill. [Time expired.]

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [11.21]: I am keen to take part in this debate. I have lived all my life in the city and did not grow up with a culture of guns being available or used. I have never had an attachment to owning a rifle, which is obviously a legacy of city living. My only contact with a rifle was as a conscript in the 1950s when one of the Liberal governments decided that conscription was a good idea. It was not the Vietnam era, so I was in no danger of being shot. At that time a gun was a weapon to kill. As a conscript I had to learn to shoot a gun on the basis that at some time I might have to take somebody’s life. My conscript days prejudiced my view of guns and led to my having no association with them. That prejudice does not debar me from speaking in this debate but it allows me to contribute from a direction perspective.

I am sorry that in the national debate a small percentage of people who are in favour of the availability of guns have given legitimate gun owners a bad profile in the community. The people I have seen on television talking about the gun debate have demonstrated a mental capability that should debar them forever from access to any sort of firearms. They do the debate no good whatsoever. I do not wish to attack those individuals to assist my case in support of the bill, but it is unfortunate that they make it difficult for everyone to discuss this matter of considerable concern. Unfortunately, the gun debate did not become a national issue until the Port Arthur massacre; it should have been finalised many years ago. I do not believe in the right to bear firearms. I have no problem with people using firearms for sport, or farmers using them to reduce vermin on their properties, but the use of firearms should be tightly controlled. It should not be suggested that any person in our society has an automatic right to own a firearm.

Massacres occur periodically in Australia, but if firearms were not available, such tragedies could not happen. A large number of suicides, particularly of young people living in the country, are no doubt prompted by easy access to a rifle. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned some figures, which included young people who were probably frustrated with life, who were looking at long-term unemployment and were dissatisfied with the society in which they were growing up. In a fit of depression such young people may decide to commit suicide, and that is made much easier if a firearm is readily accessible. I am firmly of the belief that if a firearm is not available at the crucial time, a young person might resolve the problems with which he or she is confronted.

A number of people have told me of wives being intimidated by their husbands who keep rifles. One would never know what the figures are, but it must be horrific for a woman to be intimidated by a husband who has a rifle in the house. That is a valid reason to restrict the availability of weapons. No great mental effort is required to realise that dramatic action is required to restrict gun ownership. We only need look at other countries to understand the correlation between the availability of weapons and the death rate from their use. The most dramatic example is America, where the bearing of arms is a constitutional right. America, which has a horrific death rate from the use of firearms, has more guns than it has people. In the United Kingdom, where the availability of firearms is not regarded as a right and people traditionally have not had guns, the death rate from the use of firearms is very low.

There is no doubt that adequate information is available to convince me and any fair-minded person that severe restrictions must be placed on the availability of firearms. As politicians we must sanely determine who should have access to firearms. When my son worked in the Commonwealth Bank at Bondi Beach he and other bank officers were held up and a pistol was held to his head for some time. He told me that anyone in that situation who says they are not scared is telling a lie. To quote my son’s words, he said "I was shit scared." It took him a while to get over it. A proposition has been put forward that semiautomatic weapons are required by farmers and that impossible situations will develop in the country because farmers will not have automatic rifles with which to shoot vermin.

During the public debate about gun reform the print media quoted a man who said that he was a professional shooter employed on contract by the
Page 3422
Northern Territory Government to shoot vermin, buffaloes and so on. He said that he used a single-shot rifle and did not need a semiautomatic or an automatic rifle, and those who say they do are either Rambos or cannot shoot. He said that professional shooters do not need semiautomatic or automatic rifles to get rid of vermin on properties. A number of letters on the subject were written to the Sydney Morning Herald. The Marshall family from Holgate said:

Our family has farmed for many years and shot feral animals, and were also target shooters.

No-one in the family ever owned, used, or felt they needed a semi-automatic rifle.

The gun lobby is not speaking for us or for thousands like us, and it’s time we stood up to be counted.

A letter by L. Hudson of Thornleigh stated:

My grandfather, grandmother, father, mother and brother would be surprised that they had apparently all risked their lives for many years because they did not carry a semi-automatic weapon around with them as they went about the many everyday tasks connected with cattle.

I am convinced by those arguments from people involved on the land that there is no basis for the suggestion that farmers need automatic or semiautomatic rifles to eradicate vermin. I am not a latter-day saint in this regard. I have always been concerned about the easy availability of guns in the community. After the Hoddle Street massacre in Victoria the former Labor Government led by Barrie Unsworth legislated for stronger firearm restrictions. At the time of the 1988 elections I placed two advertisements in newspapers which stated:

HE [talking about me] IS 100% IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW SOUTH WALES GUN CONTROLS.

The new gun control measures are necessary to curb the number of firearms in our community. Three very good friends of mine, the Hon. Ann Symonds, Barbara Armitage the Mayor of Waverley, and Jeannette McHugh, the former member for Phillip, circulated a letter on my behalf to all women in the Waverley electorate. This letter, which received my approval, said:

As a member of the NSW Government Ernie Page stands firmly by the new gun laws in line with his consistent stand on a range of social issues.

I did not need to wait for a massacre to occur to be convinced that the use of firearms should be restricted. I have always believed it and I will always support legislation that restricts the use of firearms in our community. It is a fact of political life that tremendous pressure is being brought to bear on the Prime Minister in particular, by groups associated with the use of guns, to try to get him to waiver in his stand on this issue. There have been talks of splits in other State governments and pressure from the National Party on Tim Fischer. To date the Prime Minister has rejected that pressure and has indicated that he will continue with his aim of restricting the use of firearms.

I ask that the Prime Minister continue that stand. He has acted in a responsible manner on this issue and I sincerely hope that he continues to act in that way. I am sure the legislation will be passed by this Chamber, but if legislation ultimately is uniform across Australia, I have no doubt that over a period of time there will be a significant diminution in the loss of lives through firearms. I urge those who possess firearms to abide by the laws once they are passed and not to attempt to circumvent the requirements of the law by not registering guns, by burying them and so on. If those people believe they are responsible citizens - as they are trying to convince us now that they are - they have a moral responsibility to ensure that they comply with the new laws.

I agree with the comment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that there needs to be proper follow-up of the laws to ensure that they are implemented, because it is as much in the interests of those who own guns that the availability of firearms be restricted as it is in the interests of people whom I represent in the seat of Coogee. I commend this legislation and hope that a positive message is sent out into the community, that the legislation is passed unanimously, and that the people of New South Wales know that there is total support in the State arena for this legislation.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Deputy Leader of the National Party) [11.36]: I wish to add my support to that given by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party in declaring that the National Party is committed to workable uniform gun laws across Australia. I congratulate the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, on creating the climate and avenue for an historic uniformity. Port Arthur changed the justification for differential gun laws between the States. Port Arthur has also united the broad population in searching for an answer to the massacre and engendered a community commitment to new uniform gun laws.

This Carr Government legislation in many ways reaffirms existing New South Wales legislation - already, arguably, the leading legislation in Australia today. In other ways this legislation advances the prohibition of certain firearms and creates a regime of tighter licensing procedures, with full rights of legal appeal at a local court; tighter storage security; and a range of compensation - although I am not yet convinced that an equitable system of payment of compensation has been enunciated by either the Federal Government or the Carr Government.

I wish to make three points in this debate. I shall talk about consultation generally, about recreational and sporting shooters, and the registration of firearms. The Carr Government should have provided a period of genuine exposure and consultation prior to debating the legislation. Since the legislation was introduced on Wednesday, members of Parliament have had about 40 hours to
Page 3423
determine their positions and to prepare contributions. This legislation will predictably be passed by this Chamber, but because of the haste and lack of consultation, the Carr Government must firmly accept responsibility for any flaws of principle, errors in drafting, and difficulty of application or administration. Retrospective consultation is a political sham.

I am cognisant of the view, probably of the majority of the population, that a uniform approach is needed, and that the other States of Australia must bring their laws up to the standard and level, at least, of those in New South Wales. The flow of correspondence to me has predominantly shown that genuine, sensible, law-abiding farmers, and sporting and recreational shooters, are expected to bear responsibility for a solution to Port Arthur without sufficient emphasis on ensuring compliance of the large volume of already existing illegal semiautomatics and pistols, and the widespread lack of legislation in other States. Also, I have received representations about the lack of identification of potentially dangerous or unsuitable people who might pose a threat to society. At least one feature of the legislation will provide an avenue for medical practitioners to report such cases to the Commissioner of Police, and I support that proposal.

Numerous representations have been made to me promoting the need for a greater range of penalties for illegal possession and use of firearms. Most of those representations expressed the view that the images of violence, personal assault and abuse depicted on video and television, and in movies and computer programs, are proliferating and almost at saturation level in society. In the first few weeks following the Port Arthur tragedy some television programs were summarily changed; but now it is back to business. The flood of cinematic violence is of particular concern, because of the number of young people who attend movie screenings. The violence depicted on television news footage is also of concern because it is shown at prime time. I urge news editors to curtail those images of death and violence or, if they must be used, to postpone them until the late news bulletins.

During the 40 hours that have elapsed since the legislation was introduced I have received many requests for time to offer constructive comments. They highlight the Carr Government’s error of judgment in rushing this legislation through the House without adequate consultation. Whilst in general the prohibition and restriction of semiautomatic firearms will have a significant impact on farmers and members of sporting clubs, it will have a greater impact on the general recreational, hunting, hobby or casual shooters. They will have a considerable degree of difficulty, given the restrictions on category C licences referred to in clause 14. Perhaps insufficient consideration has been given in this legislation to the recreational sporting shooter. My main objection to this legislation relates to the concept of a register of firearms. Despite the initial pronouncements of principles by the Prime Minister in favour of a register of gun owners, worldwide experience has proved that registration of firearms will not work.

New Zealand considered registration but rejected it; Victoria implemented it, but it has been unsuccessful; and a register of pistols already exists in New South Wales. Honourable members know just how readily available illegal pistols are and how frequently they are used for criminal purposes. By far the greatest objection that I and several of my colleagues have in regard to this legislation is to the provisions regarding registration, although we join with honourable members in expressing general support for the legislation. A philosophical impediment to registration has also been expressed by many members of the community. A register of firearms will not prevent the commission of crimes - that is for sure - but it could well provide a basis of information that will lead ultimately to the prohibition of classes of firearms presently not considered for prohibition. Shooters are looking for a line in the sand and the certainty that this legislation - uniform and workable, if that is possible - will provide a long-term regime for firearms ownership and use. They do not want to see a fresh outbreak of ignorance and calls for even tighter gun laws, in the event that crimes of a similar nature occur in the future.

The bill leaves many questions unanswered. I know that a number of my colleagues will deal at greater length with the technicalities and various aspects of the clauses, but the administration of the compliance remains questionable. The ultimate cost of implementing the legislation has not been defined; the adequacy and immediacy of compensation has not been determined; the legislation contains inconsistencies and contradictions; there is a lack of clarity of definitions; and there has been no consideration of the possibility of implementing irreversible modifications as a means of compliance. Bob Carr is rushing this legislation through unnecessarily, and the whole concept of retrospective consultation is an abhorrence and a sham.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove) [11.44]: I place on record my personal congratulations to the Prime Minister, John Howard. I have known the Prime Minister for more than 20 years and in that time I have observed him always to be a man of courage and conviction, I suspect never more so than on this issue. There have not been too many politicians prepared to face what at times has been an irrational response and intense anger from the crowd, as John Howard has done in recent times. I do not recall seeing a Prime Minister face a crowd, members of which were Sieg Heiling him; nor can I recall too many occasions on which a Prime Minister has been obliged to wear a flak jacket in front of such a crowd. Whilst the crowd was particularly angry and there have been some angry responses to the wearing of that flak jacket, I am
Page 3424
concerned that, in Australia, the Prime Minister considered, on the advice of security officers, that he should wear a flak jacket.

That is an indication of the level of community anger about this issue. But it was also an indication of the Prime Minister’s commitment that he was prepared to face such a crowd to argue his case in spite of those security concerns. The Prime Minister believes, as many people passionately believe, in the need for gun law reform in this country. I also extend congratulations to Tim Fischer who is facing a constituency that is very angry about this legislation. Honourable members know that some members of the community have demonstrated their concerns, but Tim Fischer has stood firm with the Prime Minister on this issue. I congratulate him on his strong and determined stance. A lot of hysteria has surrounded the gun debate, and members from both sides have made statements that have been intended to incite the others. Some remarks from the pro-gun lobby have been over the top and have done little to reassure the wider community that the average gun owner is a responsible, sensible human being.

On the other side of the coin, there have been some less than productive remarks by those who are anti-guns. They have sought to typify every gun owner as a potential murderer. I believe that that sort of remark from either side has done more to harm the debate and encourage hysteria than it has done to resolve the issue. At the outset let me state that I am not a gun owner. I have never shot a gun. The only occasion on which I can recall ever holding a gun was when one was shown to me when I was a member of the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, a committee that was established after the Strathfield massacre. I am the eldest of a family of four girls; I have no brothers and my father obviously did not believe that it was necessary to take his daughters shooting in order to bond with them. I understand that in some shooting families it is quite common for fathers and sons to go away to shoot. That did not happen in our house and I suspect it had a lot to do with the fact that my father probably believed he had shot enough guns in World War II to last him for the rest of his life.

My only experience with shooting occurred when I was a teenager. I stayed on a friend’s property in the country and went "spotlighting" with a couple of the local boys. For honourable members who have not heard that expression it means going out shooting, using a spotlight to stun animals with the light. The boys were shooting foxes and that was the one and only experience I have ever had. I was 13 years old at the time and it was enough to make me realise that I did not ever want to repeat the experience. So, my experience in relation to guns is fairly limited. My views on the issue have been developed as a result of having been a member of the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform established after the Strathfield massacre.

That committee received a great deal of evidence from people on both sides of the debate. It is my view that the legislation before the House can properly be regarded as the next logical step following on from the recommendations of that committee. When that committee met and deliberated, one of its greatest difficulties was that it had to struggle with the idea that there was a lack of uniformity in gun laws within Australia. It was nonsensical that the stricter laws of one State were capable of being undermined by the more lackadaisical attitude of other States on the issue of gun control. The committee was of the view that consistent laws around the country were vital to ensure proper standards of safety for the community. It is tragic that it required the disaster at Port Arthur to provide a catalyst for action. It would be even more tragic if we wasted the opportunity that Port Arthur has given us and failed to act.

In many ways the bill reflects the philosophy of the existing New South Wales firearms law: the emphasis on having good reasons for owning a licence; the ability to suspend the licence of a person subject to an apprehended violence order; the storage requirements; and the prohibition against certain categories of weapons. This legislation goes further than the existing law; for example, more requirements must be met before a licence may be issued. The legislation also requires the registration of all firearms and provides for compensation to be paid to those who surrender prohibited firearms in the amnesty period. I note that the legislation to set up the mechanism by which owners will be compensated by the Federal Government passed through the Senate last night.

These changes to the New South Wales law are being introduced to comply with the resolutions of the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council which was held on 10 May. Like my colleagues, I am 100 per cent committed to the approach taken by the Prime Minister and the police Ministers at that meeting. It is my belief that the bill accurately reflects the resolutions of that council and, as such, I am confident it will be supported not only by this Parliament but by parliaments around Australia. During my involvement in the gun debate five years ago I received some odd calls, the odd irrational letter and some very well reasoned and rational letters from people and organisations on both sides of the debate arguing their case. Whilst I understand there are many in the community who believe this legislation is not balanced, it is my view that there is overwhelming public support for the legislation. The legislation will not solve all our gun problems tomorrow; it will not prevent people from being shot, either as a murder victim or a suicide victim. But it is part of the process of creating a safer society.

Last week my sister was a victim of crime on two occasions within four days. On one occasion she was assaulted in the middle of the day. The perpetrator of the attack ripped her pantyhose and bit her on the leg four times, but he was scared off before he did further harm. Later that week her
Page 3425
home was burgled. As I put my arms around my sister that afternoon she could not stop shaking and she said to me over and over again "Why me?" Why me indeed! Why should anyone have to feel the sense of terror and violation that my sister felt that afternoon? I could not help but feel increasingly angry as I held my sister that afternoon: angry that our society has reached a point where a woman is not safe in a public car park at quarter to four in the afternoon; angry that our homes can be violated in broad daylight; and angry that we are increasingly being intimidated by the threat of violence in our lives.

We are a less safe, less trusting and more violent society than ever before. Guns are not our only problem but they are certainly part of it. Let us hope by enacting this legislation - which must be only part of the process of finding solutions to the ever-increasing crime rates and level of violence in our society - we show a real commitment to the process of reclaiming control of our future and securing a safer environment for all of us. Let us hope that we are committed to ensuring that we will provide a good future for our children. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [11.53]: I support the legislation and do so with considerable pleasure. The primary objective of the bill is to make this a safer society. A more detailed explanation of the bill emerges from the explanatory note as follows:

The underlying principles of the proposed Act are:

(a) to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety; and

(b) to improve public safety by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms, and

(c) to facilitate a national approach to the control of firearms.

The objects of the proposed Act are as follows:

(a) to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns except in special circumstances,

(b) to establish an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms,

(c) to require each person who possesses or uses a firearm under the authority of a licence to prove a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm,

(d) to provide strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to licensing of firearms and the acquisition and sales of firearms,

(e) to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner,

(f) to provide for compensation in respect of, and an amnesty period to enable the surrender of, certain prohibited firearms.

The history of the proposed legislation is tragically only too well known. It is usually referred to in the context of the tragedy at Port Arthur and the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council gun summit on 10 May. It is significant to note that the context of the legislation is not related only to the tragedy at Port Arthur - as significant as that may be - but also to a series of multiple and single murders which have occurred from the use of guns in this State. The ghoulish fascination with multiple homicides should not hide the large number of single homicides caused by firearms that occur each year in this State and country.

We are not, thankfully, in the same situation as the United States, which gives a constitutional guarantee to the right to bear arms. On occasions an absurd argument has been put up by the gun lobby that there is an inherent democratic right for every citizen in this country to own and use a firearm. That argument is based upon the Bill of Rights 1688. On any view it is an absurd argument and, at the very least, is incorrect. Assuming its application to Australia, the Bill of Rights has no more substance or significance than any other piece of legislation and can be amended. In any event, there is no binding substance in its terms to say that forever and a day people are entitled to own guns.

As the overview and the objects of the bill as set out in the explanatory note indicate, ownership and use of firearms are a privilege, not an automatic right and, therefore, can be regulated in the best interests of the community. That is what this legislation seeks to do. The arguments in favour of stricter regulation are overwhelming. The usual furphy that is trotted out is that it is not guns that kill people, it is people who kill people and, therefore, the regulation of guns is not relevant. As most speakers in this debate would agree, that is an argument without substance; an argument that can have no credit or credibility.

Clearly it is the use of guns that causes people to be killed by firearms. If the use of guns is regulated, the opportunities and possibilities for homicide decrease. That can be seen from empirical data on firearm ownership in the United States, in this country and in the United Kingdom. The respective per capita ownership of guns is greatest in the United States, less in Australia, and least in the United Kingdom. The homicide rate decreases in proportion to that scale: the lower the density of gun ownership, the lower the homicide rate on a per capita basis. That is for the very obvious and commonsense reason that guns are an effective way to kill people.

An attack by an assailant using a gun is far more likely to result in death than an attack by an assailant using another weapon. Restricting the use of firearms therefore decreases the homicide rate. That argument is unanswerable. If a gun is present, there is a far greater likelihood of death occurring. The argument is as simple as that. That proposition applies not just to premeditated acts of violence but to other incidences of violence, especially in domestic situations where an unpremeditated incident arising on the spur of the moment and involving the use of a gun might result in a fatality. If a gun were not available a fatality might not
Page 3426
occur.

That is not to say that in every house in which there is a gun there will inevitably be a fatality. What it does say is that the likelihood of fatality is dramatically increased by the presence of guns. Those arguments are recognised by the overwhelming majority of the Australian population. There is no question about the overwhelming degree of public support for that proposition. I have received a number of representations from several bodies in my electorate. A letter which I received from the Hoxton Park Catholic church parish particularly sticks in my mind, as it expressed an eloquent and persuasive argument for following this course. The alternative side of that argument is that if the laws, which are stringent and not draconian, are not adopted and the matter is put to a general referendum - as has been pointed out by a number of honourable members - the gun lobby might face an even starker alternative: its access to guns may be even more limited than in this proposal.

Even if the legislation did not receive overwhelming public support, at the end of the day it is the sort of legislation that ought to be adopted. I suggest that when this matter was last debated in this House even some of my Labor colleagues would have been horrified, including Jim Cairns, who once said that the purpose of the Labor Party is not to form government but to improve social conditions. The legislation will inherently improve the lifestyle conditions of many people in this country. There is no more basic way of looking after a community than reducing the chances of people being shot.

One of the key points in the proposed legislation is the registration of guns and the introduction of a national registration scheme. I have received representations from people in my electorate who have suggested that registration is unnecessary, draconian and that it will not be effective. I have suggested to them that if I have to register my dog, there is no basis for them not to have to register their guns. It is interesting to note that registration of guns has been adopted in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, without the structure of Australian civilisation falling down in those States. This State has had registration of pistols since 1927. The arguments that registration of guns should not be pursued are thoroughly unpersuasive. The only argument against registration with any merit is that it will not be a totally effective way of resolving the problem. Certainly if it were the only measure to be adopted, and if it were to be pursued on the basis that by itself it will solve all potential homicides by use of a gun, one could accept that argument. But that is not the argument that has been put forward.

Whilst it is not the sole panacea to the problem, registration is nevertheless an important step in the direction of regulating the use of guns. It is important in my view to note the fairly strict provisions in the bill about gun storage. Under the Act and the regulations, strict compliance with provisions relating to storage will be required. That is important because it will significantly reduce death by accident, and it will also - and this is particularly relevant for rural Australia - have a positive impact on reducing the possibility of youth suicides. I am particularly pleased about the provisions of clause 12(2), which states:

An applicant does not have a genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm if the applicant intends to possess or use the firearm for any of the following reasons:

(a) personal protection or the protection of any other person,

(b) the protection of property (other than in circumstances constituting a genuine reason as set out in the Table to this section).

One of the least meritorious arguments presented by people wishing to support guns is that they want to have them for reasons of personal protection and self-defence. I have always regarded that argument as a bit of a furphy. It is interesting to note that in the United States of America - where all that is best as far as the gun lobby is concerned occurs, and where there is a high rate of gun ownership - a gun is about 46 times more likely to be used in shooting a family member than it is likely to be used in shooting someone who is intruding into a house. The practical likelihood of a gun being used in self-defence is extremely small, and certainly the use of guns cannot be justified using that argument alone. Much attention has been directed towards the gun lobby since the Port Arthur massacre, and most especially since the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council. Members of the gun lobby have held a number of rallies, by which they have attempted to generate publicity and attention - and they have certainly succeeded in doing that.

It is common knowledge that at the last State election Fred Nile received more support than John Tingle. It is difficult to imagine that Fred Nile represents a massively persuasive group in this community. The gun lobby received even less support than Fred Nile! As time goes by, more and more people who live in country New South Wales are supporting this legislation. I heard the comments of some of those people on radio this morning. Whilst it is true that many people who oppose this legislation are responsible and reasonable members of the community, it is disturbing to note the influence of some of the right-wing paramilitary organisations that seem to be attempting to dominate this debate. In warning against those groups, politicians from both sides of the House have pointed to examples in America: the so-called Freemen and some of the things that happened in Waco. Paramilitary right-wing organisations are not unique to America, and they are not something of which we have had no experience in this country. Anyone who knows anything about Australian history and has studied Australian history between the wars will know of the development of right-wing paramilitary groups in this country.

Page 3427

I direct honourable members’ attention to two books, one written by Michael Cathcart, titled Defending the National Tuckshop, and another written by Andrew Moore, titled The Secret Army and the Premier. These books indicate in considerable historical detail the roles of the Old Guard, the New Guard, the White Army and similar groups. It would be obviously ahistorical and simplistic to make a direct link between those groups and some of the paramilitary groups that are currently active in Australia. Those groups are clearly becoming active in the gun debate. It is worth noting that we have had experience of these groups before, that it is not impossible to say that armies and right-wing paramilitary groups exist in Australia. In some ways the most disturbing aspect is the role of those groups in this debate. If there is one overwhelming argument in favour of far stricter gun control, it is the argument that those groups exist and that they are active in this debate.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson) [12.06]: As honourable members are aware, the aim of the bill is to make Australia, and in particular New South Wales, a safer place - and to do so as quickly as possible. The bill not only will have an impact at a practical level, in terms of dealing with the issue of circulation and availability of firearms in New South Wales, but with what is happening nationally it will have a significant cultural and attitudinal impact on society in Australia. What this bill, the entire movement and the leadership shown by the Prime Minister and the Premier and others have done is to send a very important signal to the whole community - both present and future - about the kinds of parameters that we want to set for the kind of society that we all want to live in. Indeed, this has been a defining issue for the Australian community.

The most important thing we have done is to reject the US model. We have rejected the notion that the number of firearms in the community can be allowed to proliferate. As the American experience shows, if we allow this to happen the number of firearms circulating in the community will reach a critical mass. There will then be a spontaneous increase to that critical mass, in response to the number of guns in the community. The absurd situation will then be reached in which even people who abhor firearms and ownership of them will feel obliged - simply to protect themselves and other gun owners - to purchase guns for themselves. Thankfully, we have rejected that notion. We are today making one of the most significant decisions that we will ever make as a Parliament. In years to come, our children and grandchildren will thank us for the debate that is taking place today. A decision will no doubt be made some time within the next 24 hours. The bill will be useless unless other States follow suit - though I am confident that they will. The bill has the imprimatur of the Federal Government, to the extent that it meets all the requirements of the resolutions that were carried and adopted at the 10 May Australasian Police Ministers’ Council.

Some issues have not yet been finally determined. The question of compensation for those who relinquish their firearms is yet to be debated and decided by the Federal Parliament. Details of the fit and proper person test have not yet been settled. The national training scheme provisions have not yet been worked out. I am confident those questions will be sorted out at the 4 July meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council. The New South Wales bill will be available for public consultation until 31 July. As I have mentioned, the bill is premised on a number of principles expressed in the resolution of the 10 May meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council. The first and most important resolution is to the effect that ownership of a firearm is not a right, it is a privilege. That privilege has to be earned by demonstrating a genuine need.

Resolution 3 of that meeting states that personal protection is specifically excluded as a genuine reason to own, possess or use a firearm. As I said earlier, more guns beget more guns. That creates a feedback loop. Personal protection must be left to the police, the courts and other agencies with responsibility to protect the citizenry from unlawful acts. There have been some hysterical outbursts from extremists in the community who have taken part in this debate. Some of their outbursts have been frightening, but nonetheless illuminating. I had always thought that the people upset about restrictive gun laws were those with a genuine need for a firearm. I now realise that the worst outbursts are not about farmers who need a firearm to cull injured stock or eradicate feral animals; they have more to do with some deep-based fear of the unknown, dressed up as a need to protect wife and family.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect wife and family; that is a most commendable aim. But statistics show that wife and family are in far greater danger from the husband and father who has a gun. The presence of a gun is more likely to lead, in a pressure cooker situation, to its use and result in a homicide. While the desire to protect loved ones is commendable, such protection is really a matter for police. Stalking legislation, apprehended violence legislation and support agencies can help people in difficulties. In fact it is an irony that the fewer guns in the community the less the risk there is of injury or death from firearms. So protection of the family is part of the irrational logic of those who feel they need guns to protect themselves against dangers posed by other individuals.

Another incredibly frightening, but illuminating, line being put at some public meetings is the fear of invasion - that Australia needs to protect itself against all sorts of invaders from the north. That is madness. I would go so far as to say that it is seditious. It is the job of the Australian defence forces to defend Australia and Australians. It is the job and responsibility of the
Page 3428
Federal government of the day to decide if and when the civilian population should be armed in the defence of this nation. That is not a matter for vigilantes. This is dangerous talk. It threatens democracy, in my view. Democracy is based on law and order, on the maintenance of order.

Most in our community are prepared to obey the law, but democracy, good government and a stable society depend on the rule of law and order and the right of governments to make such basic decisions in the defence of our nation. It is not a question of the supremacy of the individual or the right of the individual to take the law into his own hands. There has to be respect for the duty and right of governments to decide these matters in the best interests of the nation, or in this case the best interests of the State. The right of the individual cannot at all costs override the best interests of the community. There are times when individual rights must take second place. In this instance the right of an individual to own a gun is outweighed by the community’s need for safety and stability.

Perhaps tangential to this debate is the principle - perhaps not observed in more recent times, but it deserves to be - that elected governments have the right to make decisions. In a democracy one can oppose the decision or proposal of a government. One can criticise decisions and proposals of government. Individual citizens or groups may not be successful in stopping governments from implementing particular pieces of legislation despite their opposition to that legislation or attempts to amend it. If at the end of the day governments lose the right to make hard political decisions, we will all be worse off. Governments will have to show more and more moral leadership in society, similar to the lead being shown today, to try to direct our society to become more responsible and cohesive and to adopt a more altruistic culture.

There has been talk in the gun debate about disobedience - about burying the guns. I abhor anyone who sets out to promote the breaking of the law. Any law made is capable of being disobeyed by those who are absolutely determined not to obey it. If all this legislation does is stop the increase in the number of firearms in the community which would automatically occur with the effluxion of time but for this legislation, then all I can say is: job well done. But this legislation will do more than that. Anything that contributes to a reduction in the number of firearms in our community ought to be supported.

Having said all that, I acknowledge that the Government is committed to ensuring that those in our community who genuinely need guns will have access to them. A number of categories of persons in genuine need of firearms have been established. In that regard I refer to resolution 3 of the 10 May meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council. Among those categories are sporting shooters with valid membership of an approved club; recreational shooters and hunters who produce proof of permission from a land owner; persons with an occupational requirement, for example primary producers, other rural purposes, security employees and professional shooters for nominated purposes; and bona fide collectors of lawful firearms. Those entitled to possess firearms, above and beyond fitting into those categories, will have to satisfy the genuine reason test. Provision has been made for collectors of firearms.

A register will be introduced. That is a new concept for New South Wales. In keeping with resolution 2 of the council, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania will establish an integrated licence and firearms registration system. This legislation also provides for proper storage of weapons and conditions under which licences will be cancelled, along with the notion of a fit and proper person. The notion of fit and proper person is important, and I want to dwell on that matter for a moment. Resolution 6 of the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council, in the final part of paragraph 2, talks about mental or physical fitness and refers to "reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm."

In regard to the latter point, a balance needs to be struck between the rights of the individual to privacy and fair treatment and the responsibility of authorities on behalf of the community to prevent danger to the individual and the wider community. That is an intelligent and even-handed approach to this issue. The fit and proper person test will be a difficult question. Clearly, someone who has been the subject of an apprehended violence order or domestic violence order within the previous five years, as well as people not of good character or having convictions involving offences of violence in the past years, and so on, are easily determined as persons who are not fit and proper persons to own a firearm. There are court records to establish their unfitness. Though I agree with the need for a fit and proper person test, and it will have to include questions of mental health, let not this test become a vendetta against those with mental illness.

Statistics show that those suffering mental illness are not the cause of the homicides about which we are concerned. Whilst the best interests of the community must be put ahead of those of the individual in these matters, this issue should not become a vendetta against those suffering mental illness. It should not be seized upon by those who argue, "Let us keep the guns, you find the fruit loops." It is not the fruit loops, the people regarded as unstable or with mental illness, that cause the problems; it is those in pressure-cooker situations. I am not concerned about the farmer who needs a gun for the purpose of controlling pest animals, but I am concerned about those males whose ego and self-esteem are somehow wrapped up in their possession of a firearm. They are the ones more likely to snap. People argue that knives can be used
Page 3429
to kill. Of course that is right, but anyone would be flat out trying to kill 35 people in Port Arthur with a knife.

If firearms are removed from the equation, the more likely is it that the number of homicides will be reduced. Those so minded could explode a home-made bomb or crash a car into a group of schoolchildren to create havoc, but those crimes require extra time, extra planning and extra technology. A person in that kind of mental state with access to automatic or semiautomatic firearms - indeed, any firearm - can create far more havoc. This legislation is not a panacea. The level of violence in society will not disappear overnight. But if all the bill does - I know it will do more - is reduce potential homicides, because fewer people will have access to guns once this legislation is passed, that will be terrific. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his steadfast support. I congratulate the Premier and the Minister for Police. Indeed, I congratulate every honourable member of this Chamber who supports the bill. I support the bill.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [12.20]: April 28 was a turning point in the history of our nation - the day when irrevocably we lost our innocence. Nothing prepared Australia for the horror of Port Arthur: not the slaughter of the innocents at Dunblane, not Strathfield, or Queen Street, or Hoddle Street, or Surry Hills, or West Pymble, or Canley Vale, or Milperra. For a week our country stood still. Martin Bryant’s shots echoed around the world. It is hard to believe that one man could so have altered the psyche and political climate of a nation. In the emotion-charged aftermath of Port Arthur the police Ministers met on 10 May. The sceptics - including the Premier, who, on the afternoon of 10 May, took a perverse delight in telling the media that talks had broken down - believed agreement was impossible and that accord was doomed to fail.

The Premier used that excuse to introduce his ill-conceived Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill the week before the police Ministers council. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I was highly critical of this pre-emptive move to the police Ministers council. It was a cynical, political exercise to attempt to make political capital out of the Port Arthur massacre. The Commonwealth had not asked for powers over firearms to be ceded to it. Indeed, the only way that bill could have succeeded would have been if the Commonwealth and all States had fallen into line and accepted a hand-over to the Commonwealth of powers relating to firearms. The Premier also doubted an outcome from the police Ministers council. He reckoned without the courage and determination of John Howard, a Prime Minister who has already cemented his place in Australian history. John Howard’s courage, determination and single-mindedness turned the tide at the police Ministers council. When the bill was stitched up and agreement was reached, he said:

This represents an enormous shift in the culture of this country towards the possession, the use and the ownership of guns. It is an historic agreement. It means that this country, through its governments, has decided not to go down the American path.

Once again the Premier got it wrong. But he is not wrong in believing that the vast majority of Australians, including my constituents, want tougher uniform gun laws in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre. Opinion polls consistently show overwhelming support for the course of action championed by the Prime Minister. Letters to my office have been running 10 to one in favour of the Howard package. Since the Port Arthur tragedy the debate on firearms has raged unabated with comments from extremists on both sides as well as from red-neck elements that believe Australians have a constitutional right to bear arms. There are also those who suggest that there should be no firearms in our community.

Many people seem unaware of existing New South Wales laws, which are among the strictest in the country. Since 1991 military-style weapons have been completely banned. A maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment can be imposed for simply possessing the sorts of weapons that Martin Bryant had at Port Arthur. Indeed, this legislation is similar to the former Government’s 1989 legislation, with two major differences: registration of firearms and a ban on all semiautomatic rifles. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I am critical that the bill is introduced ahead of uniform legislation for all States. In his second reading speech the Minister for Police said that consultation would proceed until the end of July - after the bill becomes law - with possibly some minor changes to the Act as a consequence of that consultation. That is an absurdity! It is clear that the Government is putting the cart before the horse.

The appropriate course of action would be for the Commonwealth to provide template legislation and for this Government, after an appropriate consultation period, to recall Parliament - probably next month. The Minister for Police said the following issues remained to be resolved: how those applying for licences for more dangerous weapons would demonstrate a special need under the new laws; access by target shooters to semiautomatic rifles; age limits for minors; and the amount of ammunition that can be bought in a set period. I shall raise shortly a few more concerns expressed by a constituent of mine, but it is clear from the caucus walkout by the honourable member for Bathurst, the honourable member for Broken Hill and the honourable member for Cessnock that not all issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of country members on both sides of the House nor, indeed, to the complete satisfaction of city members such as myself.

Yesterday in Parliament the Prime Minister said that there could be changes on the basis of representations from the Queensland Government. In the Sydney Morning Herald he said that the Federal Government appeared set to concede ground
Page 3430
based on a Queensland Government plan to give farmers temporary access to high-powered weapons and had not ruled out a backbench proposal to allow some owners to retain outlawed weapons by modifying the magazines. That clearly shows the absurdity of this House debating legislation before those matters have been resolved. This legislation, which will be passed overwhelmingly, will not be identical to the legislation that comes into force in other States. The anomalies that currently exist will be perpetuated. As I mentioned, there are extremists on both sides of the argument. The pro-gun lobby suggests that by passing this important piece of legislation Australia will be disarmed. That lobby harks back to the 1689 Bill of Rights as its rationale for stating that people have a right to bear arms. Article 7 of the Bill of Rights states:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions as allowed by law.

Quite apart from the fact that the Bill of Rights does not apply to Australia, it is clearly absurd in a nation with a large population of non-Protestants that such a tightly defined and restrictive article should be regarded as a reason for owning weapons. I agree with the honourable member for Port Jackson that ownership of firearms is not a right; it is a privilege. Indeed, it is a privilege that must be carefully used. I echo the comments of the Leader of the Opposition about semiautomatic weapons. The proliferation of semiautomatic weapons happened in the 1970s in the latter years of, and after, the Vietnam war. Virtually all jobs in country areas that require the use of a weapon can be done with a bolt-action rifle. Most gun deaths occur in homes where guns are kept, and 80 per cent of them are suicides. Clearly these laws when effected will reduce the death rate from firearms by reducing the number of firearms in the community.

People assaulted by a gun are 12 times as likely to die as those assaulted by other means. Had Martin Bryant had a bolt-action .22 rifle, rather than a couple of military style semiautomatic weapons, I believe another 30 people would be alive today. The other side of the coin is the argument that we do not need any guns, ever, period. Most reasonable Australians acknowledge that this is not so, as does the legislation. The honourable member for Canterbury said that in Japan the homicide rate from gun deaths is very much lower than it is in this country. Japan is a country that is substantially different from Australia. It has a different culture and its requirement for firearms is different from ours.

The legislation recognises eight genuine reasons for owning a firearm and I believe it covers all possible categories. Those reasons as set out in clause 12 are: sport/target shooting; recreational hunting/vermin control; primary production; vertebrate pest animal control; business or employment; occupational requirements relating to rural purposes; animal welfare, and firearms collection. None of those categories gives people the right to own automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Clause 12 specifically rejects personal protection as a reason for having a licence. The two major bones of contention with this legislation seem to be the banning of semiautomatic rifles and gun registration, and I will touch briefly on both those aspects. The vast majority of Australians would endorse the banning of semiautomatic weapons. This morning I listened to an interesting talkback session on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program when a couple of former professional shooters said that there were previously no requirements relating to their use or ownership of semiautomatic weapons. In fact, the broad range of vermin and feral pests can be dispatched with a bolt-action rifle.

The general feeling is that those who profess a need for semiautomatic weapons, far from being Rambos, are very poor marksmen. Coincidentally, I spoke about gun registration four days before the Port Arthur massacre with my local police patrol commander. He convinced me that registration would be beneficial to this country, but not in three, five or seven years; it is a generational thing. He said it may well take 30 or 50 years for the real benefits to be felt by the community, but that is certainly no reason not to act. The registration of pistols in this State has existed since 1927, and deaths related to the use of hand guns are comparatively low, almost all of them associated with the illegal ownership of weapons by criminals. Honourable members would acknowledge that criminals will continue to gain illegal access to guns. I therefore endorse the registration provisions of the bill.

I mention the concerns of a constituent, Mr Rick Landers of Dural. Mr Landers is a firearms collector and a military historian. He owns approximately 120 firearms representing the military aspect of Australia’s way of life for the past 200 years. He stresses that his interest in firearms is purely historical and his collection is highly regarded, yet the proposed laws seek to reduce all firearms in the community by legislation and the imposition of additional fees. He said that several sections of the draft bill concern him. He stated in a letter to me:

Permits to purchase individual firearms will only be issued after applying to the Commissioner, paying a fee and waiting 28 days. As a collector, this will make the purchase of additional items from arms fairs and auctions unworkable and will increase costs . . .

In my case, a licence may be issued for collecting purposes, however any firearm manufactured after 1 January 1946 must be rendered inoperative. This is ludicrous. I have two identical .303 rifles, one manufactured in 1943 and the other in 1953. Am I expected to believe that one is more dangerous than the other or just of less value as an historical item?

As a firearms collector I am not permitted to possess any ammunition for the items in my collection. Yet ammunition forms an integral part of any collection. If I applied for a Category B Licence in order to possess the 1953 rifle mentioned earlier, I would be permitted to own ammunition for it, thus contravening the conditions of my

Page 3431
collector permit.

There are contradictions within the legislation that have not yet been dealt with by either the Commonwealth or the State Government.

Mr Debus: There is more consideration for collectors going on.

Mr RICHARDSON: I am delighted to hear the Minister say that. Mr Landers also said:

Registered gun owners may only buy or sell firearms from or to registered dealers. This means that when I decide to sell my collection I must sell to a dealer who will on sell to another owner at a profit to him and a considerable loss to me. As a self employed person, my collection represents part of my superannuation and this section of the act will mean a loss to me of approximately $40,000.

I ask the Government to take those concerns on board. I have passed Mr Landers’ letter to the Minister for Police and I request that he give it due consideration. Clause 79 deals with the disclosure by doctors of certain information. I was concerned about privacy issues and the legal liability of medical practitioners in relation to passing on that information. [Time expired.]

Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [12.35]: I support this legislation, as most members of this House do. Perhaps the most important aspect of it is that it is totally overdue. Legislation has been talked about in this country for a long time but, unfortunately, we have never had the opportunity - and politicians have never had the guts - to bring in this type of legislation. The legislation is unique because of that feature. The legislation has the support of 85 or 90 per cent of the people of Australia. The passage of this bill will change the culture of generations to come. It has been mentioned many times in this debate today that to have a gun is a right. Well it is not a right; it is a privilege. This legislation will convey to all that it is a privilege to own a gun and gun owners must have proper reasons to possess guns. The most important aspect of this legislation is that it will change the culture about gun ownership in this country. I read a eulogy from Giselle Hall, an eight-year-old girl, who is the sister of Zoe Hall, who was massacred at Port Arthur. She said:

All my life I have been taught the value of life. Today my family mourns the loss of my sister: a truly beautiful life. How can I continue to believe? I believe with Anne Frank who said she believed in the sun even when it was not rising; that she believed in God even when God was silent. I believe that my sister will have died in vain if we stop hoping in the future, if we give up on our hope in each other. I believe that my sister’s beauty will stay with everyone who knew and loved her. I believe in life: Is that too much to believe in?

This bill will give faith to people like Giselle Hall and her family because, as I said before, it will change the culture relating to gun ownership. Australians are guilt-ridden because of the massacres throughout our history. When Tasmania was settled virtually all the Aborigines were killed. Since 1987 mass shootings involving automatic rifles appear to have become more prevalent. We should keep referring to these massacres so that people understand that there has been enough of this type of killing and it must stop. At Hoddle Street, Melbourne, four men and three women were killed and 19 were injured when Julian Knight went berserk - that is the only term for it. He was licensed to own a gun. In his application the reason he gave was hunting. But what he did not say was that one day he would be hunting human beings. In Canley Vale, a suburban part of western Sydney, three men and two women were shot down in 1987 for no reason.

Later in 1987 five women and three men in the Australia Post building in Queen Street, Melbourne, were shot down by Frank Vitkovic when he went berserk. He was a licensed shooter and his reason for having a gun was hunting. He also did not tell anyone that one day he would be hunting people. On 12 August 1991 at Strathfield Plaza six people were fatally shot, one was stabbed, and many more were wounded by Wade Frankum, who shot himself. He also was a licensed shooter and the reason he gave for having a gun was pig shooting. What he did not say was that one day he would be hunting human beings. Australia badly needs this legislation. In Japan the basic rule of weapons possession is that no-one shall possess firearms or swords. What a great rule that is: the result is that in 1996 only three people of Japan’s population of 137 million have died from gunshot wounds.

Some idiots run around saying that it is not guns that kill, it is people. That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. The number of gun killings in Japan in a year is lower than the number in America in a day - because the United States has shoddy gun laws. This type of legislation works in other countries and it will work here. Australia’s population is about 14 per cent of Japan’s. By contrast, the number of guns in Australia is estimated to be about 1,000 per cent higher than the number in Japan. The Japanese have decided to live in a safe society. The cost of this is the forfeiting of some personal rights, and possessing a gun is one of them. The results in Japan speak for themselves. In America between 130 million and 200 million guns are in private ownership - a frightening statistic. The United States has a population 14 times that of Australia and a gun death rate 49 times that of Australia. If this type of legislation is not implemented we will move to the American system.

Britain has stricter gun laws than Australia and in 1995 it had 70 gun-related deaths in a population of 57 million. In contrast, in Australia, with a population nearing 18 million, there were 522 gun-related deaths. These figures cannot be dismissed lightly; they show the need for the legislation. Assault rifles, automatics and semiautomatics are made to kill people. The rednecks who are screaming now have forgotten that it is a privilege to own a gun, not a right as they claim. The doctors who had to deal with the dead and wounded
Page 3432
at Port Arthur called for a ban on automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Martin Bryant massacred 35 people by using SKS and Armalite AR15 rifles. That incident sparked a nationwide debate which has led to the introduction of this legislation. The 31 doctors at Royal Hobart Hospital who tended the 18 people wounded in the tragedy pleaded for Tasmania’s politicians to act immediately over military-style weapons. In a letter to the Hobart Mercury the doctors wrote, "Assault rifles are made for one purpose only: to kill people. They have no other function."

This legislation will make sure that they have no other function. Firearm legislation was first attempted in this country in 1914 but it failed. There have been many attempts since then which also have failed because of the pressure exerted by the gun lobby. Politicians have been prevented by the fear of losing their seats from bringing in legislation which would save people’s lives. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has had the gumption to lead the charge with this legislation. We have the opportunity now to correct the wrongs of the past if we have the guts to do so. The only way the Prime Minister’s proposals can be implemented is by the States doing the hard yards. Following a push by the rednecks in Queensland there is talk that the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister may have to be amended to meet the concerns of the farming sector. But why should farmers have automatic and semiautomatic firearms? It is a nonsense.

Nobody can convince me that a farmer needs an automatic or semiautomatic rifle. I have been connected with the land all my life. A slug gun was about the extent of the firearms we had. Maybe - just maybe - a referendum would teach the rednecks once and for all. If they do not like the legislation being considered at the moment, perhaps the Australian public should be asked at a referendum whether there should be a total ban on private ownership of firearms. This legislation is fair and is supported by the majority of people in Australia. Professor Stuart Rees of the University of Sydney stated in the Australian of 30 April 1996, "The Port Arthur massacre should teach a fundamental lesson about the nature of freedom and the responsibilities of government."

This measure is all about freedom. People should feel free to visit places like Port Arthur and enjoy themselves, not to visit Port Arthur for a picnic but never come home again. The Federal Government’s suggestion of compensation should be spelt out. I am certain that no-one in this country would blink at a 12-month levy of $1.40 to fund the bill for compensation for weapons repayment. The people of Australia will acknowledge that the levy is a small price to pay. A few aspects of the bill concern me but I am certain they will be addressed. One aspect relates to the training of applicants for a gun licence. Who will do the training? If that is to be the responsibility of the New South Wales Police Service, police numbers will need to be strengthened. The resolutions of the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council have been included in this legislation.

I say in all sincerity that I have never needed a gun to protect myself and I am certain that applies to most other people. It is stupid to argue that people need guns to protect their families. A person came to my office one day and said that he needed a gun in case Australia is invaded by a foreign nation, say, by the Indonesians. It would not do much good to take a .22 or a 303 to fight off an invasion. That is the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard. There is a line in a song that says, "Don’t take your gun to town, son." That is basically what this legislation says. This measure will change the culture of young people. Young children will not be taking their guns to town. In America today schoolchildren go to primary schools armed with guns. Gunfights have broken out in primary schools in America, and this legislation will make sure that never happens in this country.

Mr RIXON (Lismore) [12.50]: All Australians were shocked by what happened at Port Arthur on 28 April. Since then there has been much discussion - some emotional and some rational - in the community about how to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again. I have not met anyone who does not believe that the safety of citizens is of utmost importance. The Federal and State government police Ministers met to develop a set of principles for all States and Territories so that the end result will be complementary legislation across Australia. It is important to note that most of those principles are already law in New South Wales, which has some of the most strict and comprehensive gun laws in Australia. The New South Wales laws were reviewed after the Strathfield disaster on 12 August 1991. I believe those laws could have been improved at that time by providing for a more severe penalty for the illegal use of firearms. All responsible people agree that these penalties should act as a real deterrent.

I wonder whether the provisions covered in part 3 of division 2 and in part 6 of the bill really convey that message. People who are mentally or emotionally unstable should not be granted, or allowed to maintain, a shooter’s licence. Clause 79, which deals with protection of people from the unpredictable actions of the mentally or emotionally unstable, is not strong enough. Though the sale, purchase and possession of ammunition has not received great coverage in the media, I believe it is important. Guns, whether obtained illegally or legally, will last for years and can be used time and again, but ammunition can be used only once and has to be replaced. Ammunition should be sold only to people with a shooter’s licence. This would be a much stronger safety measure than any other measure suggested. Experience indicates that it would be a far stronger measure than the registration of all firearms, which is dealt with in part 3 of the bill.


Page 3433
Ownership of pistols has been controlled since the 1930s by registration and strong penalties for offenders, but these guns are still readily available on the black market. A large proportion of robberies and crimes are committed using pistols. It would be a waste of resources to try to police the registration of firearms without improving the safety of Australians. These resources would be better used to encourage all gun owners to apply for a shooter’s licence and to abide by the law. One of the principles in the original paper from the Prime Minister was that people who have apprehended violence orders taken out against them should lose their shooters’ licence for five years. The law in New South Wales is more severe. People who have apprehended violence orders taken out against them lose their licence for 10 years. I am pleased to note that this legislation maintains the 10-year provision.

Clearly if Australia is to become a safer country in which to live, responsible provisions must be included in the legislation. When drawing up complementary legislation for every State the specific needs of specialists such as sporting target shooters should be understood. Just as golfers and other sports people spend thousands of dollars on specialised equipment, so do sporting target shooters. I support this legislation with the exception of the gun registration provision. I support the registration of shooters. The law will soon be in place in New South Wales, but we await complementary laws in other States.

More needs to be done to reduce the incidence of violent behaviour in society. Poverty, violent videos and films, and alcohol and drug abuse all contribute to violent behaviour. It will not be easy to change attitudes that encourage violent behaviour, but we must work towards that end. I express my disappointment at the cynical exercise undertaken by the honourable member for Broken Hill, the honourable member for Bathurst and the honourable member for Cessnock, who claimed that by walking out of the Labor Party meeting they had achieved changes. They claimed that they gained time for public discussion. They achieved no changes and gained no extra time for discussion. They have followed completely the Labor Party line. Theirs was a cynical, political exercise which had no substance whatsoever. I support the bill, but the inclusion of the registration of firearms provisions will weaken the legislation.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Rogan) left the chair at 1.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [2.15]: I am pleased that the Firearms Bill is being debated. When it is passed such matters will be removed from the agenda and an environment of confidence can be established. The underlying principles of the bill, comprising 68 pages, are as follows:

(a) to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety, and

(b) to improve public safety by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms, and

(c) to facilitate a national approach to the control of firearms.

Its objects are as follows:

(a) to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns except in special circumstances,

(b) to establish an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms,

(c) to require each person who possesses or uses a firearm under the authority of a licence to prove a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm,

(d) to provide strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to licensing of firearms and the acquisition and sales of firearms,

(e) to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner,

(f) to provide for compensation in respect of, and an amnesty period to enable the surrender of, certain prohibited firearms.

This bill when enacted will replace the Firearms Act 1989, with specific provisions taking precedence over sections of the Prohibited Weapons Act 1989 and other legislation. When I spoke on 2 May last in debate on the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill, I detailed my thoughts and feelings about the issue of firearms and firearms control. I simply wish to reiterate what I said on that occasion. I draw the attention of honourable members once again to the editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of 30 April entitled "A cool look at gun laws", which stated:

The time for excuses has past. 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.

In my view the suggestions in that editorial about the direction in which we should be heading on this issue are excellent. Indeed, we are now heading in that direction. On 2 May I said that the latest figures available for New South Wales, for 1992-93, showed that 31 per cent of deaths through murder and misadventure were caused by firearms and, therefore, by enacting such legislation as the Firearms Bill we stood a good chance of reducing by one-third the number of such deaths in this State.

I turn now to the specific provisions of the bill which specify the types of firearms that must be licensed and those that will be prohibited. The firearms that must be licensed under category A, which will affect most shooters, are air rifles; repeating rim-fire rifles, not self-loading; and single-barrelled and double-barrelled shotguns. Under licence category B muzzle-loading firearms; single-shot, double-barrelled and repeating centre-fire rifles; and break-action shotgun/centre-fire rifle
Page 3434
combinations will be permitted but only for the purpose established by the licensee as being the genuine reason for possessing or using such firearms. Under licence category C, the following firearms are prohibited except for occupational purposes - for example, use by professional hunters - semi-automatic rim-fire rifles, with 10-shot maximum capacity; semi-automatic shotguns, with five-shot maximum capacity; and pump-action shotguns, with five-shot maximum capacity. Licence category D prohibits, except for official purposes, such as for pest control, military-style, self-loading, centre-fire rifles, already banned; non-military self-loading centre-fire rifles; self-loading shotguns; pump-action shotguns with more than five-shot capacity; and self-loading rim-fire rifles with more than 10-shot capacity.

The licence qualifications under the legislation provide the following genuine reasons for owning a firearm: if one is a current member of a shooting club that conducts competitions; if one is a recreational hunter; however, such a person must have permission to shoot on a property; if one is a farmer who uses weapons solely in farming activities; if one is a professional shooter who controls pests; if one is an animal welfare worker - for example, a veterinarian or a drover who may need to destroy animals; or if one is a firearms collector who is a member of a recognised collectors’ society. The Commonwealth Government, through an increase in the Medicare levy, will fund compensation paid to those who are forced to surrender their firearms. The legislation has been objected to by many people, most of whom have taken part in rallies around the nation. I shall put on record the views of the organisers of those rallies and of some of those who spoke at the rallies in an effort to gain some understanding of the attitude behind the rhetoric. On 14 June an article written by Simon Chapman in the Sydney Morning Herald stated:

The Sporting Shooters Association (SSA) has long promoted a radical agenda to oppose even the mildest gun control laws. Its spokesman, Ted Drain, told the Bulletin in 1992: "It [the US National Rifle Association (NRA)] frightens the s--- out of [US politicians].We want to scare the s--- out of them here, too."

On Lateline in 1992, Keith Tidswell of the SSA said: "We don’t differ a lot from the NRA at all. In fact we’re very close in terms of our overall philosophy. The only differences might be in the way in which we are structured."

If this is the only difference, then Tidswell’s organisation could be relied on to support NRA policies on the widespread availability of military assault rifles to the general population, the availability of armour-piercing "cop killer" bullets and to vehemently oppose even the short cooling off period between gun licence application and getting a gun.

If that is an example of the attitudes and values of those who argue against this legislation, I am horrified. I am pleased to be here to vote for this legislation and support what I believe is rational, sensible and necessary legislation that will make for a better society. This bill and the uniform approach being adopted by the States to enact identical legislation constitute a cultural change and should be applauded. Most of us believe that there is a better way of living one’s life without continually concerning oneself about the use of firearms by people who have no respect for the rights and lives of others but have a fanatical belief that freedom means a right to interfere in the lives of others. Anyone who has a firearm and who holds the view of the NRA is saying, "I have the right to interfere, to threaten, or to harm others" - and I find that objectionable. It gives me great pleasure to support the Minister for Police. The bill is long overdue, and that is no reflection on the Minister, rather it is a reflection on society. In time the bill will be regarded as a major step forward, albeit a step that should have been taken many years ago. It gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of this legislation.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [2.29]: This is important legislation. It should, and I hope it does, represent a fundamental thrust in attitudinal change in Australia’s society with regard to violence and the outcomes of violent actions. Much of the philosophy behind the introduction of the legislation and its social impact have been addressed by other honourable members. I do not intend to go over that ground again. The many shooters in my electorate have been responsible and understanding in my dealings with them on this legislation. However, they have a number of concerns about it and I will endeavour to summarise those concerns today. In all cases I have asked them to await the introduction of the legislation and to structure their concerns on the basis of that legislation.

Shooters in my electorate have three principal concerns. I hasten to add that I also represent a vast number of people who have no interest in guns; they do not own guns, they never want to own guns and they would be perfectly happy if all guns disappeared from the face of the earth. It is my job as the representative of all people in my electorate to balance those viewpoints. The first of the three principal, and I submit valid, concerns of shooters in my electorate relates to the registration of individual firearms. Shooters refer to the impracticality of registering all individual firearms, the worldwide experience of the futility associated with trying to register individual firearms and the likelihood that many firearms will literally disappear into holes in the ground as a result of such a provision. I have heard it said many times in this House that it is important not to enact legislation that is likely to meet with enormous resistance from sections of the community on the basis of inconsistency and impracticality.

There may be better ways to encourage the identification of firearms within the community, for example through the registration of firearm owners and other mechanisms. A number of speakers, including the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, hold great hopes that New South Wales can lead the way
Page 3435
and, as it were, do it better than it has been done before. However, many people in the community have deep concerns. Of equal concern is the definition of genuine need. The Minister for Police conceded in his second reading speech that this aspect of the legislation is still lacking in proper definition and may have to reflect decisions taken in other States. Yet it is a core feature of the bill, and that it still lacks proper definition confirms that this debate is premature.

In the interests of achieving a better, quicker result it may have been preferable had the Government, after introducing the bill, let it remain on the table to allow for community consultation - which will now take place after the passage of the legislation and after consultation with other States. The Minister said that ownership of a firearm is a privilege, not a right. That is perfectly acceptable, and that is how it should be. However, the privilege to own a firearm should not necessarily be restricted to those defined in the section of genuine need. No matter how the definition is worded, genuine need is capable of being manipulated so that those who may not necessarily have genuine need under the intent of the legislation can, nevertheless, demonstrate genuine need for the purposes of the legislation. Conversely, the very honest person who does not meet the genuine need criterion is prevented from owning a firearm.

A law-abiding, responsible citizen who demonstrates no indication that he or she is a threat to society has earned the privilege to own certain property, in this case a firearm. It should be sufficient that such a person is prepared to work within the spirit of the legislation - attend safety awareness courses, secure any firearm and other legislative requirements. Many citizens of my community, not all of whom are shooters but most of whom know a shooter or shooters, strongly believe that if a person is a decent, law-abiding citizen, that person should be able to earn the privilege to have a firearm. Any person who can demonstrate the qualities, character, responsibility, knowledge and experience to meet the criteria provided for in clause 11 is entitled to possess a firearm, should he or she so wish. We should not have the belief that a law-abiding citizen is a potential criminal or is a criminal merely because he or she does not meet the subjective requirements of the term "genuine need". The suitability of a licence holder as a fit and proper person should be the principal criterion.

The third area of concern of shooters in my electorate relates to uniformity. In his second reading speech the Minister said that he hoped the legislation would make New South Wales a safer place in which to live. The corollary of New South Wales being a safer place in which to live is that Australia is a safer place in which to live. Therefore, uniformity of legislation, and consistency of application throughout the States, is essential. With that in mind, one wonders why we are here today, debating legislation in advance of other States considering similar legislation. A more logical approach would have been to draw together progressively legislation from all States so that uniform provisions would be introduced throughout Australia.

Those three concerns have been expressed frequently continually in debates in which I have been involved, and I am constrained to place them before the House during this debate for subsequent consideration. The Minister has indicated that anything in the legislation may be subject to amendment as a result of national consultation and decisions taken by other States. It is therefore important that the views of the community are widely known when finalising this legislation. I should like to address also clause 2, which relates to the commencement provision. The Minister said that the legislation will commence on a variety of dates. This will only confuse the issue with regard to interpretation and compliance. The vast majority of people, and not only those interested in guns, will believe that once the bill has passed through this House it will become law. Obviously that is not correct. The bill will become law only when the legislation is proclaimed.

The Minister is hopeful that the buy-back scheme will be in place by October, but the registration scheme, which is germane to the bill and subject to suitable financial support from the Commonwealth, will not be in place until January next year. There may be a long lead time between when people think the legislation has become law and when it in fact becomes law. It is unfortunate that, because of the timing of the legislation, we are not able to give greater certainty to the community at large about when the bill will pass into law. Many sections of the bill are acceptable. As earlier speakers indicated, much of the legislation is based on existing New South Wales law. It should be borne in mind that New South Wales firearms legislation is the toughest of any other State firearms law. To imply that we are completely rewriting the book, or enacting a whole raft of measures that previously did not exist, is quite wrong.

The bill restates the current law, with appropriate additions. Anyone reading the legislation will be able to grasp its meaning quickly. I have some concerns about clause 18, which relates to the form of the licence. The Minister stated that the register of gun ownership will not be made public, obviously for very good reasons. However, clause 18 provides that the licence will be required to specify the licensee’s address, details of the premises where the firearm is to be kept and details of storage and safekeeping. It is difficult to maintain absolute security of a licence, and should a licence fall into the wrong hands, either by accident or by theft, those important details would immediately pass into the public arena.

Clause 18 should be amended to provide a simple mechanism whereby if a licensee’s conduct
Page 3436
comes into question those details could be accessed quickly through the central register but the details would not be shown on any documentation that could fall into the hands of someone other than the licensee or a responsible person. Similarly, I have concerns with clause 20, relating to special conditions of licences issued for collection purposes. It is provided that any firearm manufactured after 1946 must be rendered inoperable, whereas presumably firearms manufactured before 1946 can remain operable. I am unclear why it has been decided that, in the wrong hands, a firearm manufactured post-1946 is more lethal than a pre-1946 firearm.

With regard to the registration of firearms, I am concerned about the requirement that individual firearms be produced for inspection. That could cause problems. It should not be necessary for firearms to be brought into the public arena as envisaged by the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council - the APMC. Clause 80, which relates to the disposal of surrendered or seized firearms, does not provide a guarantee that seized or surrendered firearms will be destroyed. One of the principal reasons for taking guns from firearm owners is to take them out of circulation. Documented evidence, as well as anecdotal evidence, shows that many surrendered firearms have found their way back into the community through the back door. That is reprehensible.

A guarantee must be given to all owners who surrender their firearms that the weapons will be destroyed and completely taken out of circulation. If that does not happen, the veracity and integrity of the legislation is threatened. I support the legislation and measures to reduce violence in the community. However, I believe that the legislation is the smaller part of the real task, which is to remove from the community those conditions that warp the minds of certain individuals to the extent that they could perpetrate a crime such as that which happened in Tasmania. Until that issue is tackled, we will not get to the root of the problem.

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [2.44]: I support the Firearms Bill. This is the third occasion that I have spoken on this issue since the initiation of debate on firearms legislation by the Minister for Police and the Premier some weeks ago. This country is faced with a change of culture. Politicians in this country have been playing Pontius Pilate. There have now been the serious incidents of Hoddle Street, Strathfield and Tasmania. Each time there has been a disaster the matter has been put in the too-hard basket. The specific targeting of the removal of weapons such as military-style weapons and semiautomatics has been decided to be too difficult.

As I have said previously, I do not come to the debate without experience of guns. In 1963 I was part of the armed forces of this country and was trained in the use of these weapons. I know the destruction that they can cause and I know why they were designed. They were not designed to shoot rabbits and they were not designed to shoot steel targets; they were designed to maim and mutilate human bodies at a time of war. There is no room in this country for those types of weapons, and the sooner our politicians understand that, the better off our constituents will be. The removal of those weapons from our country is being obviated somewhat because the Prime Minister, who is of a different political persuasion from me, has similar views to mine. I congratulate the Prime Minister and his Government on taking steps to ensure that these weapons will be removed from the community.

I take the apolitical step of congratulating also the Premier of New South Wales, who acted almost immediately on the Federal Government acknowledgment that such action must be taken. He gave the Minister for Police the instruction to move quickly to introduce this bill. I was disturbed somewhat, though, by the comment made by the honourable member for Hawkesbury that registration is impractical. That is a defeatist attitude. Police in this State have been calling for the registration of firearms for at least the last decade. The Police Service needs to know that its personnel can attend unknown situations such as a domestic violence dispute in the knowledge that there is not a weapon behind a door. They want to know that police are safe, without the need for officers to wear flak jackets.

The defeatist attitude to registration disturbs me: we must be more positive. It appears that there is agreement between the Liberal Party, the Australian Labor Party and the Independents that measures must be taken. The National Party is beginning to realise that that is a commonsense approach. If we, as members of Parliament, were more positive and showed leadership, the community would have confidence in its politicians - something that has been missing because politicians will not act. I hope that the introduction of this bill will bring forth the fruit that it should, that the Federal Government will take its responsibilities seriously and implement measures for registration and sensible compensation for weapons that have been handed in.

I hope that a set of sensible, decent regulations will be put in train for those who possess weapons for their own purposes, such as farmers who need to remove vermin from their farms. I refer also to commercial fishermen, who have not yet been mentioned in the debate. My sources in the Illawarra tell me that commercial fishermen carry weapons on their boats to repel sharks and for other valid reasons. I hope that the consultation process to take place after the bill is passed will be sensible and that sound, rational, sensible regulations will be devised to protect the interests of farmers and commercial fishermen and, at the same time, protect the people we represent.

Reference has been made of the possibility of guns falling into the hands of irrational people. As all members of Parliament would be aware, we cannot determine who is a rational person. I relate to the House a story about someone who, in 1988, I
Page 3437
thought was a decent, law-abiding citizen. He, like me, was a Vietnam veteran. He was a good father, a good husband and a home owner. He had a good position as a security guard and in 1988 he handed out "how to vote" cards against me because of the gun laws. I was disturbed about that, but he had the right to do so. Within six months that gentleman sat in my office. He wanted a reference to produce at court.

When I asked why he wanted a reference, this law-abiding citizen told me that he had come home intoxicated and had an argument with his wife. He climbed into the loft, took his military-style weapon and threatened his wife and children. There he was, a decent, law-abiding citizen, intoxicated at the wrong time, in the wrong place and with a weapon. Politicians cannot regulate for that; we can only try to defend those members of the community who may be faced with such situations. The gentleman to whom I referred now has no job, no wife, no home and no gun. He lives in a caravan in Queensland and he is a sorry sight. Perhaps Queensland might be the best place for him! He did not get a reference, not because he did not vote for me but because he did the wrong thing by the community.

[Debate interrupted.]