Firearms Amendment (Permits For Self-Loading Rifles) Bill

Debate resumed from 14 November 1996.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [10.41 a.m.]: The bill was foreshadowed by the honourable member for Tamworth in debate on the Firearms Bill 1996. I have taken advice from the office of the Federal Attorney-General in November last year, when notice of the bill was first given, and as recently as 7 May, only last week. The Australasian Police Ministers' Council has met in the interim, and it has debated the subject matter of the bill. No doubt the honourable member for Tamworth will say something about that. The outcome of that process has been clear. As indicated to me in a letter from the office of the Attorney-General on 7 May, the bill, which relates to category D firearms which are to be used only for official purposes, clearly remains outside the 18 May agreement of the APMC. The letter states that category D firearms are the most strongly controlled of all the categories, principally because of their power and speed of firing. The precise objects and substance of the bill have twice been put to the office of the Federal Attorney-General and rejected on both occasions, the most recent being last week, as still being outside the APMC resolutions. For that reason I am not in a position to support the bill.

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [10.43 a.m.]: Mr Acting Deputy-Speaker -

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [10.43 a.m.]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

Page 8705

Mr COCHRAN: On a point of order -

Mr ACTING DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Monaro need not pursue his point of order. He had the call.

Mr COCHRAN: Mr Acting Deputy-Speaker, I thank you for that ruling, which was not only correct but very fair.

Mr E. T. Page: He is a fair man.

Mr COCHRAN: As the Minister has correctly pointed out, the Acting Deputy-Speaker is a very fair man. The bill before the House results from debate that took place on 20 June on the Firearms Bill. During that debate the honourable member for Tamworth foreshadowed that he proposed to move certain amendments to the bill. In doing so he reflected the view of representatives of other country electorates. Members representing rural electorates often bring issues into this Chamber that are not supported by members who live in urban areas. The National Party represents country electorates democratically. It does so by allowing members to vote according to the wishes of their constituents. The National Party has debated this bill and generally supports it, with some conditions. Paragraph (5) of the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Tamworth on 20 June 1996 reads:

(5) The Commissioner must not approve a rifle range for the purposes of this section unless the Commissioner is satisfied that appropriate arrangements are in place for the safe and secure storage of self-loading firearms when they are not actually being used.

I foreshadow that the National Party will move a similar amendment to the bill before the House. The question on that amendment was not put to the House on 20 June, as a preceding amendment was defeated and the honourable member for Tamworth accurately predicted that his amendment would also be defeated. The Firearms Bill was debated at a time of great emotion, and rightly so. The Port Arthur events had become a tragic part of the history of Australia; we certainly want to avoid a repetition of those events at all costs. However, over a period of 150 years a certain section of the community, particularly ex-military personnel, has used semi-automatic firearms in sporting events that are recognised by shooting organisations across the world. In the past those people have demonstrated their responsibility with firearms and their ability to secure them safely.

Ex-servicemen and servicemen in many of these clubs represent a part of our heritage which we cannot avoid, that is, the various wars. They have served in theatres of war and used semi-automatic firearms, the likes of which were carried in Vietnam and were known as self-loading automatic rifles, or F1-A1s. There is provision in the Act for the storage of firearms such as pistols and self-loading rifles. However, no provision is enshrined in the bill to secure firearms in accordance with the directions of the Commissioner of Police. Some members of the National Party may not be able to support this bill if the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Tamworth is not included. The National Party acknowledges the responsible attitude of sporting shooters in various New South Wales clubs. On 20 June 1996 the honourable member for Cessnock, the honourable member for Bathurst, the honourable member for Broken Hill, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Police acknowledged that there are responsible people in society who have used semi-automatic weapons in the past and who present no risk to society.

Members of the National Party believe that this bill will provide for the preservation of the sporting interests of those responsible shooters. Provided the amendment is successful the National Party will totally support the bill. At the end of the day it will be a matter for individual members as to whether they support the bill without the amendment. I referred earlier to the fact that the responsibilities of members representing country electorates are different to those representing city electorates. I realise also that those members representing city electorates have a responsibility to voice the grave concerns of those who consider firearms to be a risk to society.

I remind those in city electorates that the interests of recognised shooting clubs in Newcastle, Wollongong, Bathurst and Cessnock are served by the bill. I have the greatest respect for the honourable member for Cessnock, who has put himself at odds with his party by speaking his mind in this House. It would not surprise me in the least if he were tempted to join members of the National Party and support the bill. I congratulate the honourable member for Tamworth on his support for the sporting shooters fraternity, who, under the emotional conditions of the debate since the tragic events at Port Arthur, have been maligned, misrepresented, vilified and ridiculed through the media. Those people are often responsible fathers, grandfathers, and ex-service people who present no risk or threat to society. The interests of those
Page 8706
people have caused the honourable member for Cessnock and others to speak on their behalf.

This issue should not be treated lightly. Many older members of sporting shooters clubs, particularly those with military rifles, some of which are rather ancient, derive great joy from using their firearms, and they store and secure them with great pride. Those who own firearms protect their valuable possessions by storing and securing them in the most meticulous way. I have been advised that 328 members of metropolitan clubs and 258 members of country clubs will be directly affected by this bill. For example, the metropolitan branch of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia has 80 members, and its two country branches have 50 members. Although thousands of people are not concerned about this issue, the few who protect the heritage of military firearms owners and users across Australia deserve to have their interests protected.

I have expressed the concerns of members of the National Party and of those club members whose future is threatened by the current Act. The failure of the bill will surely result in the demise of those clubs. I have referred to shooters across Australia who are concerned that their interests have been greatly maligned in debate. In the clear light of day 12 months after the tragedy at Port Arthur, we should take a moment to consider those who for generations have demonstrated that they are responsible firearms owners. I call on members from both sides of the House to show some tolerance to them. I seek support for the amendment to enshrine in the legislation provisions for security of firearms. This issue is not an easy one for any of us. The obvious division in the coalition on this issue is a true indication of the right of its members to represent country and city electorates. As I have said, those on this side of the House would understand the feelings of the honourable member for Cessnock and the honourable member for Bathurst if they joined the members of the National Party and the honourable member for Tamworth in supporting the rights of shooters who are affected by the legislation.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [11.00 a.m.]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Carr Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Dr Refshauge
Mr Gaudry Mr Rogan
Mr Gibson Mr Rumble
Mrs Grusovin Mr Scully
Ms Hall Mr Shedden
Mr Harrison Mr Stewart
Ms Harrison Mr Sullivan
Mr Hunter Mr Tripodi
Mr Iemma Mr Watkins
Mr Knight Mr Whelan
Mr Knowles Mr Woods
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Farrell
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Downy Ms Seaton
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr J. H. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr R. W. Turner
Mr MacCarthy Mr Windsor
Dr Macdonald
Ms Moore Tellers,
Mr Oakeshott Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Langton Mr Humpherson
Mr Price Mr Merton

Page 8707

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion for adjournment agreed to.