Firearms Bill

[Debate resumed.]

Mr McMANUS: Politicians cannot regulate in respect of weapons that fall into the wrong hands. We can only defend the people we represent. We do not want to go down the American path; we do not want our children at school with guns. I certainly do not want my children to have access to guns. Who regulates violence? What is domestic violence? It does not mean that someone has a rifle and points it at his wife. A man has only to glare and polish his rifle in the presence of his wife. That is a form of domestic violence. We have a responsibility so far as firearms control is concerned. We also have responsibility in regard to mental health, as does the Federal Government. Honourable members will recall the Richmond report, which examined the release of people from various institutions. The report made a number of excellent recommendations but there were no resources to implement them. As a result there are people who are unstable in the community, but there are no resources to help them. Those people must be helped. When the Commonwealth Government introduces this legislation it must realise that it has a secondary responsibility in the protection of members of the community. I support the Firearms Bill and I congratulate the Premier, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Police on the introduction of this legislation.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [2.52]: I unequivocally support the bill, which has been introduced after years of complacency. Port Arthur was the harvest, in a sense, of a society ruled by the gun and ruled by successive parliaments which were unwilling to grapple with the problem of gun control. The history relating to gun control, the lack of gun control and pressure for gun control goes back many years. I have been a member of Parliament since 1991 and my time here has been marked by a number of milestones, which I shall draw to the attention of the House. In 1991 the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform recommended that applicants for a gun licence should show good cause. That recommendation was not implemented.

In 1992 the Police Association wrote to every member of Parliament pleading for a genuine, reasoned provision relating to gun licences and seeking to have the legislation amended. That plea was ignored. At the same time the Coalition for Gun Control, in a letter to all members of Parliament, proposed changes almost identical to those contained within this bill, that is, a review of the licensing process, registration, the banning of automatic and semiautomatic weapons, safe storage and the removal of guns from urban homes. The last item does not form part of this bill. Those recommendations fell on deaf ears. On 29 November 1994 the honourable member for Bligh introduced a firearms bill containing a referendum provision and calling for the registration and safe storage of weapons. That bill was rejected by both major parties. In September 1995, following the Crescent Head murders in July of that year, the Premier announced an amnesty for those who were unlicensed. In fact, that was a deal done with John Tingle of the Shooters Party. On that occasion Mr Carr spoke about having undertaken extensive consultation, but the only person he consulted with was Mr Tingle. He certainly did not consult with the Coalition for Gun Control, as he claimed at that time.

The parents of Dali Handmer-Pleshet, a 15-year-old who was shot dead near Mudgee, called for strong laws based on the registration of guns. That plea also fell on deaf ears. On about 21 September 1995 the results of the North Sydney Council elections indicated 93.1 per cent support for registration. It was clear that there was a strong call from the community for amendments to toughen up gun laws. That also fell on deaf ears. During a media conference held at about that time, Mr Carr was asked about the need for registration and he waved the journalist away with the remark, "We’ve been through all that." That attitude may well have accounted for a terrible massacre. In any event, in
Page 3438
February of this year the Hon. A. G. Corbett in another place, introduced a bill. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 27 February, Michael Sharp wrote:

The Premier, Mr Carr, said that it [registration] would not work and that there were better non-punitive alternatives, such as gun-amnesties, which had the support of recreational shooters.

Honourable members will note that this happened only four months ago. The article continued:

The Opposition Leader, Mr Collins, said ‘any proposed changes to gun laws would require extensive and thorough debate in the party room after examining the fine print of the legislation. It would then require further debate in the Parliament.’ and Mr John Tingle of the Shooters’ Party, dismissed the bill as a ‘pathetic piece of publicity-seeking nonsense’.

This is how far we have come in less than four months. Sadly, it took the tragedy at Port Arthur to bring some politicians to today’s position. The important issue is community safety. Specific strategies for reform were recommended by the National Committee on Violence including, firstly, a recommendation that we reduce the number and availability of guns within society and, secondly, that we improve the licensing and control of shooters, and enforce safe storage provisions. Those are the two pillars of any reform of gun laws. Comparative data is available. Communities which minimise access to firearms have fewer gun-related violent incidents than countries in which guns are more accessible. In America between 130 million and 200 million guns are in private ownership, more than one for every two people. With a population 14 times that of Australia, America has a gun death rate 49 times that of Australia. In Britain, which has stricter gun laws than Australia, in 1995 there were only 70 gun-related deaths among a population of 57 million. In contrast, in Australia, which has a population of 18 million, there were 522 gun-related deaths.

The jury is no longer out on the question of whether accessibility to guns is related to the incidence of violence. The most probable perpetrator of gun violence is not a criminal or a crazed person who has run amok; it is a previously quite normal gun owner who kills himself and/or people close to him. In 1991 the Australian Medical Journal examined the coronial reports of 587 firearm deaths in Brisbane in the years 1980 to 1989. Seventy-six per cent were suicides and 18 per cent were murders. Of the 18 per cent firearm murders, 71 per cent of the victims were killed by someone they knew, such as a spouse or an ex-boyfriend. The claim made by the gun lobby that the abuse and violence is committed by loonies and convicted criminals is quite wrong. The gun lobby also argues that law-abiding, peaceful citizens should have free access to weapons. That is a furphy. We need to get guns out of our society.

Licensing is to be based on a genuine reason test. That is the first threshold, and licence categories would follow. I have already brought to the attention of the House the position held by the Police Association for many years. I am disappointed that the honourable member for Hawkesbury does not support that position. I see no logic in his argument that a law-abiding decent person should have a right to own a gun. Guns are lethal weapons. What could be more logical than exercising caution in the determination of who should own guns? Under the bill there is no right to own a gun; one has to qualify under certain genuine reason tests. I support that.

Time and again we hear the gun lobby argument that ownership of guns is a right. Impositions and regulations on law-abiding citizens designed to safeguard and benefit the whole community are acceptable. We have regulations in respect to driving and security issues. I have no difficulty with the concept that law-abiding citizens need to be regulated in certain situations. Those law-abiding citizens who wish to own a gun must be subject to licensing, registration and storage regulations. Honourable members should make no mistake: the community is behind Parliament on this issue. The State Coroner, Mr Hand, sent me a copy of recommendations made following the shootings at Crescent Head. He and staff of the State Crown Solicitors Office carried out research on the issue. The document stated:

The overwhelming consensus was that something should be done about the tightening of gun laws not only in New South Wales but also in the rest of Australia and such should begin with the registration of all firearms in a National Registry. A number of submissions also called for the banning of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

That is what we are doing here today. The report also referred to the need for additional licensing provisions, and stated:

I would expect that in tightening up this area that it would deter persons other than genuine applicants from applying and it would form a link with the proposed new system of registration.

Other specific recommendations relate to the need for documentary evidence to be furnished by those applying for licences, the term of the licence, et cetera. Those recommendations are picked up in this bill. Various surveys and election results indicate that the community is behind this move. In the North Sydney local government elections in September 1995 the question was asked: should there be tougher gun control legislation in New South Wales, including gun registration? There were 93.1 per cent of people in favour of tougher gun control. In the Federal elections on 2 March this year only 2 per cent of people in New South Wales voted for the Shooters Party. So what support does that party have? On 3 and 5 May, a few days after the tragedy at Port Arthur, a national phone poll by AGB McNair asked: do you support or oppose a ban on all automatic and semiautomatic guns? The national response was 90 per cent in favour and the New South Wales response was 91 per cent in favour. The same company conducted a national poll with the question: do you support or oppose a register of all guns? The response was 95
Page 3439
per cent in favour nationally and for New South Wales.

The community is behind us. Any parliamentarian who has doubts about the support for this legislation only needs to be reminded of the figures to which I have just referred. The Morgan national poll in June asked: do you agree or disagree with John Howard’s new gun control laws? Eighty per cent of those polled agreed. Another Morgan national poll conducted at the same time asked: would you vote against a political candidate if advised so to do by a gun group? The result was: yes, 4 per cent, and no, 96 per cent. So much for the influence of the gun lobby, a gun lobby that apparently terrorised generations of politicians.

The Shooters Party is merely a front for the firearms and weapons industry. John Tingle in another place has been totally discredited following his remarks in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 May this year when he said, "I have criticised the Tasmanian gun laws as a national disgrace." He is the person who has been running around town saying that we do not need gun laws, we do not need gun control. Yet following the tragedy at Port Arthur he says that the Tasmanian gun laws are a disgrace. That is an implicit admission that tough gun laws do work.

The gun lobby regularly boasts in its publications about the way in which it has derailed gun law reform in Australia. Part of its proud record of success was to keep the Tasmanian Government from changing the very laws that allowed Martin Bryant to have access to the sort of weapon he allegedly used. How fit is Ian McNiven to own a gun? He is the lobbyist who thundered about the need for blood to be spilled in the streets. What about Ron Owens, who runs the Lock Stock and Barrel publication, 50 pages of instructions on "how to kill"? One wonders how close they are to the National Rifle Association in the United States of America, which holds America hostage in terms of gun law reform. This is excellent legislation, a triumph for the New South Wales Parliament and for Prime Minister John Howard.

I commend and pay tribute to the Coalition for Gun Control members, Rebecca Peters and Jeff Derrick of the Finance Sector Union of Australia, and many volunteers of the coalition, Simon Chapman and Professor Charles Watson, the Dean of Health Sciences at the University of Wollongong. This bill meets the goals of reducing availability, stricter controls and ownership. I shall make a couple of specific references in regard to the bill. The bill contains provision for safe storage. I seek a response from the Minister for Police on the need for a comprehensive inspection process. Safe storage away from the home is not provided for in the bill. That is an issue that should be examined in the future. It is a concept that will be more practical because of the narrower licensing qualifications.

Club shooters, hunters and occupational shooters could well store their weapons away from home without any inconvenience. I acknowledge that in the case of firearms held for rural use the idea of storage away from home is not so practical and in that situation safe storage must be subject to enforcement and inspection. I ask the Minister to consider provision for safe storage away from the home. Finally, the role of medical practitioners, as specified under clause 79, is a vexed one. Michael Epstein of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists has spoken of competing ethical interests. I support that provision and I support the bill in its totality.

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [3.07]: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to place on record my support for the bill. I welcome the unified support for the bill by the major parties and Independent members. As I said last month, it is marvellous that we have the opportunity to take a bipartisan stand on a vital issue and, as the Minister said when introducing the bill, indicate our intentions to make New South Wales a safer place to live in. That is what this is all about. Most speakers in the debate have proffered their congratulations to those responsible for the legislation. I repeat my congratulations to the Prime Minister, the Federal-Attorney General and the Premiers and police Ministers from the States and Territories, who have responded to the Prime Minister’s leadership for a national initiative and support the agreed national principles from the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council meeting on 10 May.

I know that in the future the people of Australia will look back on this legislation and legislation that will follow in other jurisdictions as landmark legislation. I will not repeat many of the points that have been made by earlier speakers. I remind the House that the bill has been shown to the Federal Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. I quote briefly from a letter written by the Hon. Daryl Williams, the Federal Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, to Paul Whelan, Minister for Police:

Thank you for providing me with a copy of the Bill . . .

As you are aware, Officers of the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Board and my Department have been consulted on the Bill during the drafting stage. Those Officers have advised me that the Bill covers and implements the proposals contained in the resolutions agreed by Ministers at the Special Meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council on 10 May 1996.

It is important to remember that the bill implements the proposal contained in the police Ministers’ resolution. Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition expressed his disappointment at the lack of template legislation from the Federal Government. I agree with him. About five years ago the States and the Commonwealth agreed on uniform national companies and securities legislation. At that time the Federal Labor Government organised template so that the words in the legislation enacted by each State and Territory
Page 3440
government and by the Commonwealth Government were the same. That meant that down the track the lawyers and the smart people in companies and so on were not able to play off one State jurisdiction against another or against the Commonwealth. There was genuine uniformity. I hope that as this process proceeds, both here and in other States, agreement can be reached on individual words. Perhaps part of the New South Wales legislation will be used by other States as a template, and I would certainly encourage that.

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that this process might have been more efficient if the Federal Government had introduced template legislation. Like most honourable members, I have received correspondence on this matter. I want to quote from one or two of the letters I have received to indicate the kind of personal interactions that are occurring between members of Parliament and their constituents. To protect the privacy of some of the people who have taken certain positions in relation to the legislation, I will not reveal their names. However, I will name those who have made public statements. I have received a number of simple straightforward letters, such as this one from Lakelands, which is in the Wallsend electorate:

Dear Mr Mills

Re: Gun Control Law

I support the proposed gun control laws and also the buy back scheme.

Legislation concerning violent videos and video games is also important.

Another letter I received was written by Dr Helen Tolhurst, the Chair of the Hunter Rural Division of General Practice Limited, which is based at the Wallsend health campus. Dr Tolhurst wrote:

Dear Mr Mills

On behalf of the Board of the Hunter Rural Division of General Practice I wish to express our concern about the ready availability of guns in New South Wales and Australia.

We believe that the sale and use of automatic and semi-automatic guns in Australia should be banned and that in the interests of the safety of the communities which we serve, laws to restrict the sale and use of automatic and semi-automatic guns should be enacted as soon as possible.

A letter written by a constituent of mine, Aidan Foy, a medical practitioner of New Lambton, was published in the Newcastle Herald on 19 June. The letter, which appeared under the headline "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 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.

The letter shows the personal grief and the personal contact that so many Australians have with the disasters that occur from inappropriate use of firearms. The object of the legislation is to remove as many as possible of these instruments of mass killing from our community. A few weeks ago I conducted an interview in my electorate office with a gentleman who was opposed to the proposed gun laws. That gentleman was one of only two people opposed to the gun laws who have sought interviews with me on the issue. In fact, I had an interview appointment with the other gentleman this afternoon. I have had to defer that appointment but I will see him soon. The gentleman whom I interviewed asked me, "Have you got a mind of your own, or do you slavishly follow your party’s platform and view on this issue?" I advised him that my own views coincided with the Labor Party’s desire for safer communities. Some interesting matters emerged from the interview. The gentleman opposed the proposed laws because he claimed they are unenforceable. Knowing his occupation, I have to respect that opinion. He also said:

Just about every engineering shop in the private sector is making guns, including automatic and semiautomatic weapons, based on easily obtainable plans and drawings.

I draw that comment to the attention of the Minister for Police because it scares me. I am not sure whether the bill specifically bans the manufacture of such weapons. They could possibly be manufactured in any engineering shop using modern computer-driven lathes and laser-type manufacturing techniques. If it is not too difficult to make these weapons in that way, the police should keep an eye on that sort of activity. The community should be made aware that it is possible to obtain such weapons made all round the country. The question is whether the manufacture of those weapons is legal. Possession of such a weapon would certainly not be legal. My constituent refused to tell me how many weapons he owned, but he listed five different calibres plus a pump-action shotgun. The fellow told me that he often goes to Cobar to shoot feral animals. He said that of all the weapons he owns of the five different calibres, only a pump-action shotgun would be illegal under the new laws. That brings me to another concept that the gun lobby is promoting: this mass taking away of weapons from the community. Of all the weapons that this fellow, who is a regular shooter, owns, only one will become illegal under the new laws. The others are all bolt-action and single-shot type weapons.

I do not think that the scare tactics of the gun lobby are justified. The man I interviewed was a good example of the fact that most people who participate in the shooting of feral animals do so with weapons that will continue to be legal after this bill becomes law. As part of the communication process we should tell the people of New South Wales that the gun lobby is running scare tactics, and that most genuine shooters do not need to use
Page 3441
semiautomatic weapons. I refer to a couple of cases that I quoted in my address to the Parliament on 14 May. Individuals and, indeed, some newspaper stories have referred to the fact that real feral animal shooters believe that to avoid unnecessarily hurting animals they should kill feral animals with just one shot, and that the good shooters are trained to do just that. This week a pamphlet headed "Gun Use. How it Affects You." became available from Federal members of Parliament. A couple of matters that appear in the pamphlet have also been raised with me. For example, the pamphlet stated:

. . . the Commonwealth . . . will also amend the Australian Rifle Club Regulations to ensure that everyone is subject to the firearms laws of the jurisdiction in which they shoot.

Regarding the purchase of ammunition the pamphlet states:

You will be restricted to purchasing ammunition for firearms for which you hold a valid licence, and limits may be placed on the quantity of ammunition to be purchased in a given period.

Some resolutions of the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council related to issues contained in the existing New South Wales law, but the provisions in the bill are more strict than those in the resolutions. For example, the bill provides that licences must not be issued to applicants who have been convicted of prescribed offences, which are essentially drug offences or offences involving violence and firearms, or have been the subject of apprehended violence orders within the last 10 years. The APMC resolution set that time limit at five years. The bill allows the Commissioner of Police to issue permits for the possession or use of firearms by minors or in other circumstances that may be prescribed in the regulations. These permits also cover possession of prohibited firearms by theatre groups or film production companies, or the use of legal firearms by overseas shooters. Finally, the registration scheme will require the registration of all firearms purchased or otherwise acquired. The comments of Senator Bruce Childs that appear in the Senate Hansard of 22 May are interesting. He said:

Much of the recent commentary about the Tasmanian tragedy has focused on the link between the modern cult of the individual and the incidence of mass murder in Australia. Dr Rod Milton, a senior forensic psychiatrist, wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald:

I suspect that in the current wish for self-expression and personal fulfilment, we have reduced the need for individuals to be concerned about the effects of their behaviour on others . . . Our society’s obsession with the individual rather than the good of the community, is a major contributing factor to these crimes.

This legislation considers as a matter of the first order the safety of the community. I have great pleasure in supporting the bill.

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [3.21]: This bill will undoubtedly prove to be defining legislation for this Parliament. I certainly welcome the opportunity to put on the record my unqualified support for the bill. The legislation is comprehensive and well drafted, as many speakers have noted. The clarity of the legislation will assist in public review of the bill. No doubt there is considerable confusion amongst pro-gun and anti-gun groups about the exact contents of the bill. When they are given the opportunity to read the bill, many will embrace it. The legislation adds to laws that were introduced after the Strathfield massacre. Many times today honourable members have acknowledged that New South Wales already has better laws than most other States, but all honourable members acknowledge that to be effective gun laws must be national.

I welcome the move across Australia to bring gun laws into line. I acknowledge that that line may not be perfectly straight, but public pressure must continue on other States to ensure uniform national legislation. Even New South Wales remains uncertain about when the bill will become law. I hope that will be as soon as possible without further political games by the Premier. Like many in this Parliament, I grew up using air rifles to shoot at anything and everything: trees, cans and paper targets. I enjoyed the development of skill associated with that sport. However, as with most young men using air rifles, I went on to kill a selection of birds from sparrows to larger species. I quickly regretted that action. In my time in the navy I used an assortment of weapons from pistols to anti-aircraft guns. I have great respect for those weapons, which were designed to effectively kill people.

At that time the standard short-range weapon on the patrol boats I was serving on was the F1 submachine gun. Self-loading rifles were also used. I used these weapons in training and saw the horrific damage they inflicted on targets. I will not forget the magnitude of that damage. I will also never forget one training exercise in which, along with others, I acted as a fugitive crewman on a hostile ship. The ship was to be searched and we were to be rounded up at gunpoint. Being herded around by people with F1 submachine guns pointed at you is a sobering experience. I knew the weapons were not loaded, but I will never forget that experience.

I remember visiting Port Hedland in Western Australia during my navy years and having the opportunity to go duck shooting. I remember contrasting the extraordinary beauty of the landscape in the wilds of Western Australia with the horrific damage caused to the birds by the shotgun blasts. In recent years I have also used guns on rural properties to control vermin: pigs, rabbits and foxes. There is no doubt in my mind that the damage caused by those introduced species warrants control action. Given my personal history, I have no doubt that farmers need access to appropriate weapons to control vermin and to dispose of injured animals. The legislation makes adequate provision for suitable weapons for rural producers.

Hunting is another matter. Hunting for pleasure is abhorrent to me, but I acknowledge that
Page 3442
many people do not agree with me and that that sport will continue. In relation to military-style weapons I do not understand why Australian society needs automatic or semiautomatic military assault weapons in the hands of anyone other than armed services personnel or police. I am firmly opposed to weapons of war being available to anyone other than service personnel. I applaud the tightening up across Australia of access to those sorts of weapons. Over the years those weapons of war will gradually be removed from the community. I acknowledge the many people who use weapons at established sporting clubs. I agree that Australian society generally has no problem with sport shooting. I acknowledge also the hobby of legitimate gun collectors.

The legislation is historic and I join all honourable members in congratulating John Howard and Tim Fischer on showing historic leadership on this issue. Similarly, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party have worked together to deliver coalition support for this bill. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier today, the bill presents an opportunity to move away from a culture of violence. It provides our society with a fresh start. The Premier has also shown leadership and I applaud him for that, but I cannot move on without saying that he saw an opportunity to hang on to the Prime Minister’s coat-tails on this issue to boost his own popularity. I for one am thankful that the Premier decided to do that.

However, to keep that particular aspect in context, I do not congratulate Bob Carr on politicising as many aspects of this legislation and the debate as he could. He sought every opportunity to score cheap political points. He is not a man to be trusted. This morning the Leader of the National Party described the stunts of the Premier. I agree that it is a cheap trick to inflict stunts on the people of New South Wales in relation to gun law reform or any other issue. The Port Arthur tragedy provided a one-off opportunity for generational change. That senseless slaughter has focused community anger on the need for more responsible gun laws. Like many other members of this House, I have spoken to many people who are concerned about the manner in which these gun reform proposals have been introduced. I have listened to the criticism that we as parliamentarians have responded to the latest tragedy in a knee-jerk reaction to the latest tragedy.

That sort of response from the gun lobby and from other angry but genuine people is too simplistic by half. This legislation is a response to the call of the overwhelming majority of Australians. Most Australians are behind us, whether they reside in cities or in the country. Honourable members acknowledge that they may not be voting on legislation that is perfect, but they are acting to reflect the mood of the community and trying to achieve a generational change in this country. Considerable success will be achieved across Australia this year, but far greater change will be achieved over the next five to 10 years, or perhaps the next 15 years, as the practicalities of this legislation are slowly implemented in all States and as society’s conscience evolves further. The overview of the bill includes the following words:

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 . . .

The bill then refers to the detailed objectives of a national approach to firearms control. Australian society overwhelmingly agrees that the ownership of firearms is not a right. I endorse that view. Society is willing to allow responsible gun users access to appropriate weapons, but gun ownership is not a right. I stress the words "appropriate weapons" and return to my previous comments about military-style weapons. Having used military weapons, I cannot comprehend any argument that those weapons should be available to anyone in Australia other than police and service personnel.

To my mind, this legislation is generous to responsible gun users. I have no doubt it will be tightened up by future parliaments. We are all struggling to come to grips with a series of tragic massacres that have occurred across this nation over many years. This bill, which will be reflected in each State, is an honest attempt to build a new era out of the carnage. I support the gun registration and licensing provisions of this legislation. The bill is not perfect, but it is better than the existing law. I do not agree with those who say that a register of guns should not be included as part of this package because such a register will not work. We must try to make it work to achieve more effective control.

The lunatic fringe gun fanatics must be kept in context. The extreme gun fanatics are a small minority, but they will always be with us. A few of their spokesmen will always be wheeled out to offer simplistic excuses for their morbid fascination with death and destruction, sadistic indulgences and rabid rhetoric. In our minds, these fanatics must be kept separate from the many responsible target shooters, collectors and rural producers who use guns. It is up to all sections of the shooting fraternity to ensure that the fringe gun groups are alienated by responsible shooters.

It is all very well for us as parliamentarians, today and indeed tomorrow, to feel good about passing this legislation, which includes categories of genuine reasons, but I pray and hope that the governments of Australia will implement this and similar legislation properly, with commitment and adequate resources. We will all be watching the police Minister of each State to see how this legislation is implemented. It is fine to get a warm feeling from rushing this legislation through the House, but heaven help the police Minister and the
Page 3443
new police commissioner if they do not live up to the spirit of this legislation. All of us must also be mindful of the need to address other aspects of violence in our community, both law and order generally and the violent images and material promoted to the community. Many areas are in need of reform. Several members have referred to other aspects of violence in our society. Reform of those areas is long overdue, and I would welcome a bipartisan approach to those other issues.

In the two minutes remaining I want to mention two other points of concern to me. I have just come from a lunch with John Howard at the Sydney Town Hall, where a large number of people congratulated him on his first hundred days in office. But I was disturbed by a story told at my table by a gentleman who said that he will be handing in his shotgun. He said that in the past few weeks he had gone into a gun shop to find a weapon that is both appropriate to his needs and legal under the new legislation. The gun shop owner, instead of selling him a new weapon, spent considerable time trying to talk him out of buying a new weapon. The gun shop owner suggested that he should keep the weapon that will be prohibited under the new legislation and hide it. If that type of attitude is widespread, as I suspect it might be, that should be a matter of concern for all of us. I am very concerned that a person in a position of such power should adopt that sort of approach.

One other minor matter remains of concern to me. Some weeks ago the Opposition had some success in convincing the police Minister that he should not trade in the 13,000 hand guns that will become surplus because of the upgrading of police weapons over the next few years. Having put to the police Minister the proposition that he should ensure that those hand guns are melted down, the Opposition perceived some movement in his position. I think he acknowledged that the surplus hand guns should not be made available for resale. However, I understand that it is his intention to have those weapons handed to gun dealers.

I again put the police Minister on notice that the community is looking to him to ensure that those 13,000 hand guns, as they are replaced, are melted down in this State under the control of the Government. I suggest that the Auditor-General be involved in that procedure. I for one will be watching to see what happens with those hand guns as the police Minister upgrades Police Service weapons. I support the bill. I congratulate all politicians and community groups who have worked so hard to have this legislation presented to the Parliament.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [3.35]: It has taken a number of tragedies in this State and, indeed, this nation to reach the point at which this State now has before it a bill to introduce significant laws to control weapons of destruction, and in particular weapons designed to kill human beings. In the Terrigal area of the central coast there was a major tragedy in 1991. The tragedy at Port Arthur has acted as a catalyst to galvanise politicians and the nation into action to achieve better gun controls. The tragic incidents have resulted in national bipartisan support for uniform gun laws so that something can be done about the major tragedies that occur all too often.

I commend the new Prime Minister, John Howard, for his courage in taking up this issue. I commend the Federal Leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer, for his commitment to these measures. I say that in full knowledge of the tremendous pressure that he has been placed under recently. One concern I have had, and I have expressed it in both of the speeches I have made on gun laws, is that there was always the opportunity for backsliding on this issue. The question was whether when the pressure was applied, given the general opinion that gun laws were a deciding factor in the outcome of the 1988 election in this State, some politicians would seek to water down the proposals that resulted from the goodwill and bipartisan support of politicians and governments generally. I was pleased that we in this Parliament decided to lift the ante and put considerable pressure on the Federal and other parliaments of this nation by introducing legislation to cede to the Commonwealth the State’s powers in relation to control and management of guns.

It was evident throughout the community that supporters of gun ownership were applying considerable pressure to try to get major concessions in relation to legislation that was being proposed by the Prime Minister. As the meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council proceeded considerable pressure was applied. That pressure was reflected in the media. As a result, a number of States were looking at options available to back away from the commitments made by the Prime Minister. It was this Parliament, by passing a bill in the lower House to up the ante, that kept pressure on the whole of the nation to pursue the tightening of gun laws throughout our nation.

To me a turning point in our society was signalled when the Prime Minister accepted advice that he should wear a bulletproof vest to address a meeting of Australian people. That was the first occasion on which that had occurred. That is a tragedy for Australia. I have made the point to every person who has visited this place as my guest that it is a unique characteristic of our Australian democracy that politicians are able to move about freely when carrying out their duties. At one stage I had the opportunity to work closely with a Federal politician. It never ceased to amaze me that because of the uniqueness of the Australian character and of our democracy politicians never felt the need for that sort of protection. What we saw was something we all hoped would never happen. It has happened in other democratic countries, but we in Australia thought it would never happen here.

In addition, our Prime Minister and Deputy
Page 3444
Prime Minister were heckled when trying to present their points of view on this issue to a gathering of people. I will not repeat some of the slogans shouted at them during those meetings because to do so would give more publicity to such bad behaviour. I now want to speak about gun control as it affects the rural community. My family and I have had a long association with the rural community. In my present position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Roads, I have had the opportunity to travel round rural communities. I raised the issue of gun laws and sought the opinions of a group of farmers at a meeting in Moree two months ago. Everyone at that meeting supported the introduction of the gun laws proposed by the Prime Minister of this nation. Two north Moree farmers who were interviewed this morning on radio 2BL said that they were opposed to the gun lobby and its activities but they supported the Federal legislation and the proposed State legislation.

It has been argued that professional shooters need automatic or semiautomatic weapons. A professional shooter who addressed the meeting at Moree to which I referred earlier said that anyone putting forward that argument was not a professional shooter. Professional shooters do not need those weapons. He made an interesting point concerning the weapons we are talking about. He said that automatic or semiautomatic weapons were designed to spread a blanket of metal across the terrain to eliminate humans, not animals. A trauma doctor who addressed the meeting talked about the damage done by high-powered weapons and high-velocity bullets. Recently I had an opportunity to discuss with police officers the impact that these weapons have had on the victims of crime and the victims of the Port Arthur tragedy. The trauma doctor repeated what the police officers had said, but the account of the police officers was more graphic. They said that after these high-velocity automatic or semiautomatic weapons are discharged into human bodies fragments of bones and pieces of human flesh become shrapnel.

It is not only bullets from automatic or semiautomatic weapons that kill. Anyone in a confined space would be killed by this shrapnel. When one is faced with the graphic information provided by doctors who deal with injuries caused by these weapons and by police officers who deal with the victims, it becomes very clear that these weapons are not designed to kill animals; they are designed specifically to kill and maim human beings. Rural Labor members of Parliament, the honourable members for Bathurst, Broken Hill and Cessnock, were given a lot of publicity recently when they walked out of a Labor Party caucus meeting. Those honourable members are known in the Labor Party as people of integrity. They are outstanding local members who are committed to their electorates. I do not doubt for a minute that they are also strong Labor Party people.

Those honourable members said that there had not been sufficient community consultation or input into this legislation. They subsequently discussed those matters with the Premier and the Minister. This morning on national radio the honourable member for Bathurst set the record straight. It was important for him to lay to rest the argument that this is a them-and-us issue; an issue of the country versus the city; an issue on which the nation is divided. It was important for him to inform the community that this division does not exist. The farmers from Moree who were interviewed on radio 2BL this morning said that people who shoot in the bush are described as townies; they are not true rural people and the interests of rural people are not dear to their heart.

The Labor members of Parliament to whom I referred earlier expressed concerned about rural people. The honourable member for Bathurst, to his credit, dispelled that myth this morning. It is not an issue of them and us; it is not an issue of the country versus the city. That sort of mentality, which is encouraged by the pro-gun lobby, is a pox on our nation. It serves no purpose other than to encourage politicians to seek to exploit this issue for their own political purposes. The Federal member for Kalgoorlie, Graeme Campbell, who was getting nowhere nationally with his anti-immigration stance, has now joined the pro-gun lobby. He wants a pro-gun party. Those people who object to the introduction of gun reform laws will be condemned for promoting their own political interests. They are not concerned about the men, women, children and grandchildren of this nation; they wish only to promote their own political interests.

It is important that this legislation be passed in this Parliament. It gives State and Federal politicians of all political persuasions an opportunity to state what sort of Australia they want today and in the future. The 35 people killed at Port Arthur gave rise to this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that should not be lost. We have had a number of national tragedies, but every time the gun law issue has been raised governments have not done anything about it. Australia experienced one of the greatest tragedies in the world. This is an opportunity to do something concrete for the lives that were lost - for today and for the future of our nation.

This is an opportunity for honourable members to take part in the shaping of our nation. We do not often have an opportunity to do something in coordination and cooperation with all members of Parliament at the State and Federal level. I ask all members of Parliament to support this legislation, which will give power to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Premier and other leaders to introduce uniform national gun laws. I congratulate Prime Minister John Howard, Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, and Premier Bob Carr, on having the courage to act on behalf of all Australians in respect of this issue. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [3.49]: I
Page 3445
support the bill and the political leaders of Australia who have called for uniform and template gun legislation Australiawide. Members of Parliament have an absolute responsibility to listen to their electorates and the wider electorate on major issues such as gun control. The legislation put before all the parliaments of Australia must work. The people of Australia must be given an opportunity to act within the legislation. All of us are aghast at the incident of 28 April at Port Arthur. Any action we take in response should provide the maximum likelihood that such an incident will not occur in the future.

This bill has been presented with undue haste because the Premier and the police Minister, for political expediency, want to be seen as leading the debate. Yet they have ignored the original call from the Prime Minister for template legislation capable of adoption by all States. The bill should have been developed at the police Ministers conference and presented in all States with the same provisions. The groups most affected by the legislation - recreational gun owners with an interest in sporting and hunting and professional gun owners - have not been consulted in detail or in general.

The Minister for Police said in his second reading speech that the Carr Government believes that the proposed laws are strict, sensible and fair and they will facilitate a national approach to the control of firearms. If he believes that, he should have asked the police Ministers conference to adopt this legislation, giving all States the opportunity to have identical legislation. The Queensland Government is now having discussions with the farming communities and sporting shooters. Governments and individual parliamentarians should have an opportunity to consult the groups with an interest in the legislation. However, the Government has introduced the bill in the last week of the sitting. To make the people of New South Wales think that it is urgent, the Government has introduced it this week - next week was a scheduled sitting week - and to debate and pass the bill the House will sit Friday and Saturday, and possibly Sunday.

We all know that the legislation will be passed by this House and the upper House but will not be enacted: it will go out to public discussion between now and the end of July so that the shooting fraternity and other people may comment on it. In July or September the bill will be amended to correct the weaknesses in it which by then will have shown up, and it will not be enacted until January 1997. So the urgency in the introduction of the bill has been feigned. The honourable member for Bathurst, the honourable member for Broken Hill and the honourable member for Cessnock are being given opportunities for political expediency. I believe those members will bring in private members’ bills to deal with the deficiencies of the legislation. They are playing politics with the people in their constituencies.

The issues dealt with by the bill are so important that a draft bill should have been tabled and amended after community input. The staged walkout the other day was a sham. I followed the honourable member for Broken Hill up to the eleventh floor and heard him say to waiting media representatives, "We are not going to do it now. We will do something at about half past one down in the media room. We will set it up. You will have your story." The media know it was a sham, we know it was a sham, and those members know it was a sham. Playing silly politics on an issue as big as this one is a disgrace.

The Government and the Opposition have an obligation to ensure that any laws passed by the Parliament are responsible and work. The Leader of the National Party has stated that some provisions in the bill are unacceptable to many people, and for good reasons. I refer to the registration of individual firearms. When the Prime Minister first spoke on the issue he said that he supported a register of gun ownership in Australia. I support that - not the registration of individual firearms. Many gun owners are happy to register their firearms but they argue that it would probably be counter-productive because people would not register their firearms. The way in which the legislation has been put forward will not encourage people to become licensed firearm owners.

It is incumbent upon all parliaments in Australia to ensure that we can identify the location of all types of firearms in the electorate. Police attending a dispute or altercation at any premises should have a reasonable chance of identifying whether the persons present are licensed gun owners, and the categories of guns they possess. The fear in the shooting fraternity is that once guns are registered the next time amendments are made to the legislation the guns will be confiscated. By getting away from the legislation and encouraging people to become licensed owners - along with severe penalties - there will be an opportunity of identifying the categories of guns owned.

It is incumbent upon us to make sure that another Port Arthur does not happen. I do not believe that this or any other legislation can prevent such incidents, but we should be able to identify what types of guns people have. I do not believe military-style semiautomatic firearms should be in general use. I qualify that statement by saying that people who are members of sporting shooting organisations who use semiautomatic military-style firearms, because of their qualifications and experience, under a very tight licensing system, should be able to keep those firearms and utilise them in the way they have previously. But other people do not need such weapons.

I met approximately 15 people from the executives of all the shooting groups in my electorate. Only one of them owned a semiautomatic military-style weapon. When asked whether he needed that weapon he said that he did
Page 3446
not and he would be quite happy to hand it in. But those people own semiautomatic sporting weapons, and I believe this bill will allow them to use those guns in the future. But they said to me, and through me to the Parliament, "Make sure the legislation you put in will protect not only the public but our right to our sport."

A number of important issues need to be addressed by the Minister for Police and the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council. There is no cross-border template legislation. People who live in border towns must be informed of the provisions covering the use of different types of weapons. We must determine what types of weapons international shooters can bring into Australia. I am concerned about the permit provisions of this legislation. People with a shooter’s licence will have to apply for a permit to purchase a weapon. For example, a farmer whose .22 semiautomatic rifle - used for the control of foxes and rabbits - is disabled and needs replacing, will have to prove that he holds a certain category licence, apply for a permit and wait 28 days before he can replace that weapon. The same would apply if a weapon required upgrading. That issue should be looked at.

I would like to know whether a category C licence permits the use of a category A or category B weapon. We must address a number of issues, for example, the number of guns any one person is permitted to own. Some people have more than one gun of a particular category. It is ludicrous to prevent a pre-1946 replica firearms collector from including ammunition as part of his collection. The needs of collectors should be encompassed in this legislation. Weapons storage requirements and compensation for surrendered weapons must also be addressed. The shooting fraternity points out that although shooters may be compensated for the loss of a weapon, the mount for the scope and the scope itself are often more valuable. There appears to be no guarantee that there will be compensation for them.

The cost of registration is another matter of concern. Sporting shooters fear that the annual registration fee may increase to such an extent that they will no longer be able to afford to participate in that sport. Though I appreciate that Local Court appeals provisions are included in this legislation, that appeal process should be extended to the District Court. It is rumoured that doctors will not accept the disclosure provisions. That area needs to be tightened so that doctors have no option. I support the legislation but it has been brought forward with undue haste. The queries and needs of the sporting shooters fraternity and the community generally have not been addressed. There has been no consultation. The cynical acts by members of the Labor Party in their staged walkout the other day and by Mr Carr in trying to cede our rights to the Commonwealth will be seen by the electorate as an attempt to gain favour. Let us have legislation that works.

Ms HARRISON (Parramatta - Minister for Sport and Recreation) [4.01]: I congratulate the Premier and the Minister for Police on introducing this legislation so quickly in response to the Federal Government initiatives and community concern. It is with a twofold purpose that I speak in debate on the Firearms Bill. There cannot be any question that action by government on this issue is long overdue. I am deeply concerned about the impact of guns on the community, in particular, the devastating mass shootings that have shocked all Australians and the acts of violence against women. At the same time I recognise my responsibilities as the Minister for Sport and Recreation to look after the interests of sporting shooters.

Shooting is an Olympic sport and will be part of the program for Sydney in the year 2000. The Australian Olympic Committee has advised me that the sport of shooting had its origins in the fifteenth century. The first recorded contest was held in 1477 in Germany using a blunderbuss and firing at targets 220 yards away. The founder of the modern Olympiad, Baron Pierre de Cooburtan, was a keen marksman, so shooting was included on the Olympic program for the first of the modern games in 1896. The media handbook for the Atlanta Olympics will tell the story of the first Olympic competition where two Americans showed up in Athens with an assortment of guns and went home with the gold and silver medals. Since then the sport at Olympic level has become more regulated. There are standard weapons and courses.

The Australian Olympic Committee describes shooting as the safest of all the Olympic sports with no injuries sustained while competing in a Games shooting event. Women were included in the Olympic Games program for shooting in Los Angeles in 1984. There are now 15 events in Olympic shooting; 10 for men and five for women. The main disciplines are pistol events which are divided into four categories - air, free, rapid fire and sport. Pistol types vary in their calibre and the number of shots and time limits also differ. Other events are the free rifle prone, three position rifle and air rifle. Telescopic sights are used in the running target while 12-gauge shotguns are used in the trap and skeet. There is also a double trap event.

Olympic shooting is highly competitive and many nations have a chance of winning medals, including our own Australian team. I wish them well as the Atlantic Olympics draw near. I make special mention of Forbes farmer, Phillip Adams, who is regarded as the greatest Commonwealth champion in the history of the Games. He will be competing in his fourth Olympiad. Sports shooters, target shooters and recreational hunters will be able to apply for specific licence categories to enable them to continue their sport. These licence categories are A, B and H. Category A refers to air rifles, rim-fire rifles other than self-loading, shotguns other than those with repeating actions such as pump action or self-loading, and shotgun
Page 3447
rim-fire rifle combinations. Category B refers to muzzle-loading firearms other than pistols, centre-fire rifles other than self-loading and shotgun centre-fire rifle combinations. Category H refers to pistols, including blank fire and air pistols.

All applicants for licences will need to show a genuine reason for using or possessing a firearm. The Minister for Police has advised that sport and target shooting constitutes a genuine reason. The applicant who cites sport or target shooting as his or her reason to secure a licence must be a current member of a shooting club prescribed in the regulations which conducts competitions or activities requiring the use of the firearm for which the licence is sought. I am advised that the Commissioner of Police is currently formulating criteria for determining those clubs to be listed in the regulations but it is expected that they will be clubs that have been genuinely formed to conduct shooting competitions.

As far as recreational hunting is concerned, an applicant for a licence must either be the owner or occupier of rural land or prove that he or she has permission from an owner or occupier or a relevant public authority to shoot on their land. Until the new legislation comes into force, the existing provisions under the Firearms Act 1989 and the firearms regulation 1990 will still apply. The Minister for Police has advised that all shooting clubs will be sent a copy of the Firearms Bill and his second reading speech. I am also told that these documents are being sent to all local councils with a request that they be made available in their libraries. I am confident that this consultative process and information provided on this issue will ensure that sporting shooters will be able to continue their sport and use their firearms in a responsible manner.

I turn now to the situation relating to women. Figures from the crime and justice bulletin for the years 1968 to 1992 show that the most common way of committing homicide was by shooting. A report from the office of the Minister for Women shows that, according to the police, more than half of the homicides committed in this State are related to domestic violence. In approximately 70 per cent of those cases, guns were the weapons used. While many speakers today have referred to the tragedy in Port Arthur, I cannot forget an incident in March outside the Family Court in my electorate when Jean Lennon was shot and killed. She had taken out an apprehended violence order against a violent husband and was to attend court on a custody matter. Less than a month later, Mrs Anna Di Clemente of Wetherill Park was shot and killed outside her home. At Wyong Local Court in November last year, another woman seeking an AVO was shot and wounded within the court precincts. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, the most commonly available gun in this country is the generic class of semiautomatic .22 rifle, which accounted for about 40 per cent of gun homicides in Australia in 1992-93. Many opponents of gun law reform speak of this gun as "low powered" and "small calibre".

Every year, many women tell their counsellors of occasions when their male partner threatens them with violence. These women do not appear in the statistics because they are not actually victims of homicide. Threats of violence with firearms are psychologically and emotionally damaging for women - and the children who witness these threats. We as elected representatives have a responsibility to take any action we can to reduce the number of women who must deal with the terrifying experience of being threatened with a firearm. There is widespread support in the community for gun law reform and the establishment of a gun register. At a Violence Against Women forum in April this year, organised by the Premier’s Council for Women, there was unanimous support for these measures. Dr Moira Carmody, the convenor of Violence Against Women, wrote as follows to the Premier:

I applaud the commitments you made on 2 May 1996 to co-operate with the establishment of a national gun register and a total ban on all automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

A gun register is a significant enabling mechanism for other strategies to limit the use of weapons, especially the confiscation of guns by police when they attend domestic violence incidents.

The letter further stated:

I note that 90 per cent of voters support a law that gun purchasers should have to provide a good reason for owning a gun and 97 per cent of women support a national register of guns.

It is very encouraging to see the New South Wales Government responding so strongly to the concerns of a deeply troubled community and I commend your prompt action regarding these matters.

While a ban on automatic and semiautomatic firearms goes a long way towards achieving a safer society for our women and children, I support the advice of the Minister for Women that the gun registration scheme is still vital because it will require owners to show legitimate reasons for owning other guns, such as shotguns. The Government is not stopping people from owning guns. Responsible shooters will still be able to enjoy their sport. However, I reiterate, and agree with, the comment of the Minister for Police that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. We live in a democracy - and what the Government is trying to achieve with this legislation is not at odds with personal freedom. Freedoms often have restrictions and conditions in our society. We have the freedom to drive a car, but we must obey the road rules. We must be licensed to drive a car. Our cars must also be registered and conform to specific criteria and standards of safety.

We need a united, cohesive approach to achieve something special in this country. Too often we have followed the United States but this is one area where we should choose a different path. The Leader of the National Party and the Leader of
Page 3448
the Opposition are not speaking with the same voice when it comes to the initiatives of the Federal Government. This morning the Leader of the National Party talked about the need for template legislation. That is exactly what this bill is; it is in total sympathy with the aims and objectives set down during the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council meeting and agreed to by State police Ministers. It mirrors what the Prime Minister wants to achieve on a national basis. The cracks in the National Party’s resolve to support the Prime Minister can be explained very simply.

The Leader of the National Party is worried that his pals in Queensland will wimp out, and he wants the right to be able to wimp out as well. He would do much better to put greater pressure on his colleagues in Queensland to get them to fall into line with the rest of the nation. Finally, the Port Arthur massacre has given governments of all political persuasions the impetus to do something positive to protect all Australians. This morning I was reminded of a comment made by former Labor Premier Barrie Unsworth in 1987. As he left a gun summit of State Ministers that had failed to reach agreement he said, "It will take a massacre in Tasmania before we get gun law reform in Australia." There have been too many tragedies both here and overseas: Strathfield, Dunblane, Hoddle Street and now Port Arthur. Too many lives have been lost, and too many loved ones are grieving because of guns. I am proud to have spoken in this historic debate, and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [4.15]: Undoubtedly the dreadful tragedy that occurred recently in Port Arthur has changed the way that many people in Australia think, particularly about firearms. Certainly the Port Arthur tragedy has been a dreadful experience for all Australians. I cannot imagine anyone in the country not being horrified by what happened; and I cannot imagine anyone not feeling that all possible steps should be taken to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring in the future. This is a national problem, and it can be dealt with only on a national basis. Obviously most people in Australia want the bans on firearms as proposed in this legislation. Many gun owners, though responsible citizens, are finding it difficult to come to terms with the fact that ownership of certain firearms that they have legally owned for many years will suddenly no longer be legal. They do not see themselves as murderers or Rambos, and they are finding it difficult to adjust to the fact that the laws will change.

I am appalled by the small number of gun owners who have behaved disgracefully at some gun rallies. I am sure that their actions are not typical of all gun owners in this country. I have no time for those who behaved disgracefully and who are bullying other people into accepting their point of view. That is no way to behave. Many gun owners feel that there has been a lack of consultation and that they have not had an opportunity to express their points of view. If they had had that opportunity I am sure they would have made a number of practical and sensible suggestions that might have helped to solve the national problem. I am concerned that this legislation has not yet been agreed to by all States. I noticed in newspaper reports today that the Prime Minister is considering some changes to the legislation, such that the final legislation will be different from what we are discussing today. It is possible that other States, such as Queensland and Western Australia, may propose different legislation, so we may have to amend this bill if we want uniform national gun laws.

The Minister for Police said in his second reading speech that the bill would be passed and then distributed for consultation. That seems to be putting the cart before the horse; it may have been better to consult first and then introduce legislation. That would have ensured that the legislation was agreed to by all States, that it would truly be uniform national legislation to control the use of firearms. Many people doubt that a register of individual firearms will work. I have been told, but I have no way of checking, that the registers in Victoria and New Zealand are not working. I am sure that the New South Wales laws which call for the register of shooters - shooters’ licences - are not observed by all citizens. Many people who are not registered shooters have firearms in their possession. I am disturbed about that because people should obey the law; the law is not effective if it is not obeyed.

Earlier, one of my colleagues mentioned pistols. Although they have been strictly controlled in this State for many years, many are illegally held and often illegally used. Many law-abiding citizens who own firearms, and who will obey these laws when they are passed, are concerned about the level of compensation they will receive. A number of them have said to me, "Look, I am a law-abiding citizen. If these laws come into effect I will certainly obey them, I will register my individual firearms. I will surrender those I have that will no longer be legal. But I want to be sure that I get the right level of compensation, that I actually get what these firearms are worth." That is an important issue. I am pleased with some aspects of the legislation, especially the way in which farmers will be dealt with. I notice that when many people speak about firearms they talk of them as being weapons. Farmers do not see their firearms as weapons, but as tools of trade.

I was a farmer for many years and I still have a small farm. I own firearms and from time to time I have to use a firearm to destroy stock. About two weeks ago one of my stud ewes lost an eye to a crow. When I got down to the paddock on the Saturday I set her upright. She was steady on her feet after I treated her with penicillin and terramycin powder in the eye socket. I went back home, but later when I went to check on her I found that she had fallen again and the crows had taken her other
Page 3449
eye. She had to be destroyed. Farmers need to be considered in a special way. Many farmers need assistance with controlling vermin on their properties, and the people who assist them also need special consideration in this legislation.

Many young people in my electorate are keen target or sporting shooters. Many of them hope to be proficient enough to represent Australia at the Sydney Olympics in the year 2000. They are keen on their sport and keen on their training. I am pleased that there will be provision for junior shooters in this legislation. I am also heartened that some moves are being made to exercise control over people who are mentally unstable and want access to firearms. The combination of mental instability and access to firearms is a dangerous cocktail; a situation that should never be allowed to occur. I hope this provision in the legislation will be effective. Along with other members I am concerned about the high rate of suicide in Australia by the use of firearms. It is a great tragedy for our nation that this occurs among young people. I hope that one result of this legislation will be a reduction in the youth suicide rate. If that happens, the legislation is worthwhile.

I am also interested in the provision that prohibits the purchase of firearms by mail order. That situation should never have been allowed to exist. One way to control the misuse of firearms would be through strict control on the sale of ammunition. Society would welcome tougher penalties for the misuse of firearms. I am pleased that genuine shooters will continue to enjoy their sporting recreation. It is important to them, and I am pleased that they will have access to firearms, under the right conditions.

Although we are all concerned about the events at Port Arthur, we have focused only on guns. Violent videos and television programs also need to be addressed. Films depicting extreme violence and cruelty are viewed almost daily and I am sure they have contributed to the moral decline in society. We need to look at discipline in schools. Recently there have been reports of amazing levels of student truancy. I hope that following the shock and horror of Port Arthur we do not concentrate on guns only and overlook other aspects that cause enormous problems in society. We have an obligation to consider other issues as well. I look forward to the day when I speak on legislation dealing with the other problems I have listed which are eating at the heart of the morals of society. I support this legislation and commend it to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Watkins.