Firearms Amendment Bill 2008

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [4.19 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The amendments in the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008, which was introduced in the other place by the Shooters Party, propose a number of changes to the Firearms Act 1996 and the Firearms Regulation 2006. I congratulate the Hon. Roy Smith and the Hon. Robert Brown on introducing this good piece of legislation. More than 20,000 licensed shooters are registered in the electorate of Tamworth, of which over 6,000 have been licensed since 1996. Many of these people are members of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia [SSAA], which has increased its base in New South Wales from 35,000 in 1996 to over 50,000 today.

The proposed amendments to the Act and regulations are designed to improve the operation of the system for the legal use and registration of firearms by law-abiding citizens such as those I have mentioned. The amendments aim to remove some of the impediments to legitimate sport shooting, hunting and collecting. Extensive consultation with police, the Firearms Registry and accredited sport shooting, hunting and collecting clubs has led to the developments of the amendments, which I stress will have no impact at all on public safety. As these amendments were first introduced in the other place, a Hansard record exists of their detail; however, I take the opportunity to broadly outline their intentions.

The bill proposes an exemption from the need to register antique firearms manufactured before 1900, and allows for possession of certain such firearms without a licence or permit. The exemption from registration applies only to pre-1900 firearms that do not take breech-loaded metallic cartridges, or are firearms for which ammunition is not commercially available. The exemption from licence applies only to long arms of the type described above, and prepercussion pistols. It extends a temporary amnesty that already exists in the regulations for highly prized collectors' items that are all now more than 108 years old. It does not allow for any such firearm to be fired. The amendments will remove the 28-day waiting period that applies to the issuing of a permit to acquire for a firearm, but only when the applicant already has a firearm of that type registered under his or her name. Licence holders will still be required to obtain a permit to acquire for every other firearm they wish to purchase. The amendment removes the mandatory waiting period only for an applicant who already owns a firearm of the same category.

Current legislation prohibits the possession of category C firearms, except under special circumstances such as for members of clay target shooting clubs affiliated with the Australian Clay Target Association. The amendments will allow members of clubs affiliated with other target shooting bodies that have been approved by the Commissioner of Police also to be able to apply for a special category C licence. This will permit the person to use a self-loading or pump-action shotgun only in a recognised clay target shooting competition, and only where they can demonstrate a special need for this exemption. At present people wishing to try shooting as a sport may only do so if they first join a club and then obtain a temporary exemption through the Firearms Registry. Such exemptions apply for a maximum of three months. The amendments will enable unlicensed persons to shoot under supervision at approved ranges without these restrictions. Such persons will have to make a written declaration that they have committed no offences that would make them ineligible for the issue of a licence under the Act. They will be able to shoot only under supervision of a licensed adult, and they cannot purchase or take a firearm or ammunition home.

The bill provides police with the option of dealing with minor offences under the Act and regulations by way of penalty notices. Penalty notices will not be issued for indictable offences. Currently even minor technical breaches can result in a licence holder being unable to renew their licence. The proposals mean that a penalty notice will not disqualify a person from having a licence or permit unless they elect to contest the matter in court and the court then finds them guilty. This is designed to give police more discretion in dealing with minor breaches. Changes to the type of authority under which a theatrical armourer operates are designed to expedite the way in which they can meet customer requirements. It is proposed to change the way in which they operate from a permit to a type of dealer's licence that will allow them to meet their client's needs quickly. Bill Caley is secretary of the Tamworth Pistol Club and President of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, Peel Valley Branch. This branch has some 240 members, and the Tamworth Pistol Club has approximately 190 members. Bill stated to me:

The changes to legislation will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on public safety. We are appalled by the Government's failure to prosecute illegal and criminal usage of firearms while making it very tough for licensed and registered firearms users to pursue their sport. We are totally against persons carrying firearms for personal protection. If kids over the age of twelve are taught firearms safety on licensed ranges they will have a greater respect for community safety and respect for the usage of firearms.

Bill has well summed up the feelings of thousands of accountable people who enjoy the use of firearms for sport and recreation. Those people are sick and tired of feeling like criminals rather than the responsible members of the community they are. Peter Holmes, President of the Tamworth Clay Target Club, who is also a club coach and Firearms Safety Awareness Officer, also applauded the introduction of these amendments in the other place by saying:

This is a small step towards common sense in a difficult and often emotional area. These amendments will bring New South Wales a little closer to laws in other States.

John Taylor is a member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Tamworth Branch and the Northwest Hunting Club, and he is an accredited safety awareness officer with a restricted Game Council licence for State Forests. John has been shooting for nearly 40 years. He pointed out the well-organised nature of sporting and recreational shooting in the Tamworth district, with events held every weekend between clubs. These events have resulted in a marked increase in junior membership and many family groups participating. John told me:

We've been finding the young people want to get a licence and their families come along and they become involved.

The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia runs a complete junior shooting program. It has recently introduced a magazine called The Junior Shooter, as well as its monthly magazine Australian Shooter. John said:

These changes will not affect the safety of anyone at all. It will only benefit law-abiding citizens who wish to enjoy their chosen sport. It's better to have people involved with our organisations to pursue their chosen sport, as it develops respect and responsibility in handling firearms. Even when we test new candidates for a licence, it's not like a car where you're on your own, we help and supervise them until they are not only fully proficient, but confident in themselves as well.

John referred to many of the wider community events that shooters groups support. They run supervised youth camps at the range at Tilterweira, near Wanaaring; they work with the Department of Primary Industries on fox surveys, and they support organisations such as the Childflight helicopter service. He pointed out also that the shooters movement has people such as Lee Kernaghan, Todd Russell, Glen McGrath and Shannon Noll as responsible role models. Other organisations within or catering for the Tamworth electorate include the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Tamworth Branch, Tamworth and Peel Valley Rifle Club, Boggabri-Gunnedah Rifle Club, Gunnedah Pistol Club, Moonbi Ranges Clay Target Club, Manilla Pistol Club, Barraba Civilian and Military Rifle Club, Peel Valley Rifle Club, Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Gunnedah, Gunnedah Western Action, Gunnedah Gun Club and Quirindi Sporting Clays.

At the 2006 Commonwealth Games Australia won nine gold, eight silver and six bronze medals in various shooting events. These are fantastic results and can be attributed to the encouragement of the clubs I have mentioned. It should not be so difficult to develop such young talent to a competitive level. These amendments seek to encourage good results into the future. With the introduction of these amendments, I am going in to bat for responsible people. The amendments do not reduce public safety; however, they will remove anomalies and bring New South Wales more into line with procedures in other States by allowing people to try sport shooting. Sporting shooters and hunters are the most legislated, restricted and inspected citizens in our State. Licensed firearm owners are subject to more scrutiny than anyone else in Australia in pursuing their chosen sport. The amendments do not seek to dilute laws designed to protect the general community but are designed to encourage sport and competition, to develop talent at a reasonable age and to ease restrictions on specialists within the field. The bill facilitates this in a very responsible manner. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Police, and Minister for the Illawarra) [4.29 p.m.]: On behalf of the Government, I indicate that the Government supports the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008, which was passed by the Legislative Council on Thursday 19 June 2008. Following considerable debate, the Government moved a range of amendments to this private member's bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Roy Smith, MLC, and the amendments were supported by the Legislative Council. The amendments ensure that existing firearms controls are not weakened and that the principles of the Firearms Act are not diminished in any way.

I understand that a number of issues relating to the bill were canvassed in the Legislative Council. As they already have been the subject of substantial debate in that Chamber, I do not intend to address all the issues again in the House this evening. However, I will say that the Government is committed to improving customer service, reducing red tape, and removing unnecessary or burdensome regulation. Accordingly, the Government considers that a number of the proposals in the bill will assist in streamlining processes for firearms licence and permit holders as well as for the Firearms Registry. Moreover, many of the proposals align New South Wales with other States and Territories and create more consistency with other jurisdictions.

Having said that, I point out that the Iemma Government continues to ensure that the currently existing controls over firearms are not weakened and that the principles of the Firearms Act are not diminished in any way. As I said earlier, it is for those reasons that the Government introduced a number of amendments that were agreed upon in the other place following debate. I will deal with a couple of issues relating to the original bill that the Government opposed and will continue to oppose. The Government opposes the proposal to render firearms held under an heirloom firearm permit temporarily inoperable rather than permanently inoperable.

The responsibilities of an heirloom firearm permit holder are slightly less onerous than are those for a licence holder because it is understood that an inherited firearm may be of sentimental value. However, such items cannot be used, as they are rendered permanently inoperable. In effect, that means that a steel rod must be inserted into the barrel and welded to the muzzle, and the working components of the firearm must be removed or welded so that they cannot be used. It is fairly simple to reactivate a firearm that has been made temporarily inoperable, which is why firearms that are the subject of an heirloom permit must be rendered permanently inoperable. Accordingly, as I have said, the Government opposed that component of the original bill.

Another proposal that the Government opposed is minors being allowed to use high-calibre handguns. The Government strongly opposes minors obtaining access to high-calibre firearms. The Firearms Act restricts minors from accessing certain types of firearms and pistols. Community expectations are that young people will be prevented from accessing highly powerful weapons. If the Government had agreed to allowing children as young as 12 years old to have access to .45 calibre handguns it would have send the wrong message to the community.

The Government supports provisions in the bill that will enable people to try out the use of firearms at approved clubs or ranges, or undertake instruction as part of a firearms course while under the direct supervision of an appropriate licence holder. This is a sensible proposal that will enable someone to try before they buy, if I may put it that way, and they will be able to do that in a supervised environment. The Government believes that that is a sensible proposal. As we all know, the precision use of firearms not only is a recreational activity but also is a sporting activity that is included in the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games. The Government thought that the bill's proposal was appropriate to ensure that people are able to avail themselves of the opportunity of trying out the use of firearms before they buy them.

However, the Government recognises that it is critical for clubs, ranges and firearms instructors to ensure that only appropriate unlicensed person's gain access to firearms. Consequently, in accordance with schedule 2 item [24] clause 110 to the bill, unlicensed persons must complete a statutory declaration to assist in determining whether the person has committed an offence that may preclude them from successfully obtaining a licence should they apply for one. The Government pressed for inclusion in the bill of a provision to ensure that a club, range or instructor must prevent a person from possessing or using a firearm if they are not deemed appropriate as a result of examination of the statutory declaration. Moreover, to emphasise the seriousness of a breach a penalty of 50 penalty units has been proposed.

The Government believes that the bill strikes the right balance between continued appropriate oversight measures for the legitimate use of firearms and protecting public safety. As I have already noted, the bill provides for consistency with other jurisdictions in Australia. For those reasons the Government supports the amended bill that was passed in the Legislative Council last week.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [4.35 p.m.]: At the outset of debate on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008 I state that the Coalition will not oppose the bill. The Coalition of Liberal and Nationals parties was the only major political group that included some of the bill's reforms in policies in the lead-up to the 2007 election. That is a significant point because firearms reform legislation can be a controversial topic in some sectors of the community. Occasionally firearms legislation is used to scare people into opposing changes or opposing sensible reforms to firearms legislation.

I hold a firearms licence. Anybody who owns firearms or is the holder of a firearms licence knows the difficulties that arise on a day-to-day basis in complying with some of the quite silly administrative requirements. The difficulties in complying with technical conditions mean that it is easy to break the law. That is a significant issue for me as a person who holds a firearms licence as well as being a member of Parliament. I purposely do not own any firearms because I am conscious of how easy it is to break the law. A member of Parliament who breaks the law certainly gets into lots of trouble.

In the lead-up to the 2007 election the Coalition included in its policies a number of significant reforms that are provided in the bill and that it had intended to introduce. One of the reforms was allowing unlicensed persons to shoot on approved gun club ranges. I understand that statistics show that not one person has been injured as a result of the use of a firearm on a shooting range. I have been told anecdotally that people are more likely to be injured by breaking an ankle walking down a set of stairs than by incurring a wound from the use of a firearm at an approved firearms range or gun club. The reforms provided in the bill will enable people who want to try out the sport or visit a gun club on open days to use a firearm provided they are supervised.

In every case supervision must be carried out by people who have a great deal of experience in the use of firearms and who have been subjected to all the appropriate tests. That is a very safe and sensible provision. As I stated earlier, the issue of firearms can often be used to frighten people, but we must not forget that the use of firearms is an Olympic sport. We are happy to accept the gold, silver and bronze medals when we win in competitions at the Olympics and at various other places, and we are happy to laud our sportsmen. Shooting is a legitimate sport and people should be allowed to try it out and participate in it if they wish. If they like it they can undertake the licensing and purchasing processes. That is a sensible reform and it was part of the Coalition's 2007 election policy.

The second issue relates to the cooling-off period for a person who purchases a second or subsequent firearm. That provision was also part of the Coalition's policy and is a sensible reform. It makes sense, particularly for people who are involved in competitive shooting. It will apply to people who use firearms in their occupations, such as kangaroo shooters, and to people who use firearms for vermin control. For instance, my brother uses his rifle to shoot vermin on the farm. If one of his several firearms is inoperable for whatever reason, it is absurd that he is forced to wait a minimum of 28 days—it is usually two or three times longer than that—before he can purchase another firearm, even though he has already jumped through all the hoops to get a licence and has satisfied the law that he is a person of good character. The Opposition supports this sensible and logical reform.

Both of those measures were in the policy that the Coalition took to the 2007 State election. I understand that the legislation contains a number of other reforms, all of which are sensible and which we support. Changes remain to be made, particularly with respect to the Firearms Registry at Murwillumbah. I know from experience that the registry has difficulty administering the firearms legislation and the many regulations. One day you will get one answer from the registry and two weeks later a different person will give you a different answer to the same question. That is a criticism not of the registry staff but of the extremely complicated firearms legislation and regulations.

We could introduce many reforms that would make the lives of legitimate firearms owners and users a lot easier. We should make it easier for them to obey the law. The irony is that only law-abiding citizens obey firearms laws. Those who commit crimes using firearms do not go to the trouble of registering their rifle or pistol. Firearms laws make life very difficult for law-abiding citizens, and I believe the law should make it easier for them. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, which contains measures that were part of our policy in the lead-up to the 2007 election, and I am pleased that the Government is supporting several major reforms. However, other sensible, logical changes need to be made in this area that, like this legislation, will not put more firearms into the community or decrease community safety. We should make life easier for the good people who obey the law in New South Wales.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [4.42 p.m.]: I oppose the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008. I oppose its introduction and its passage through all stages in the dying moments of this session of Parliament. This significant bill, which erodes some of the measures in the landmark legislation enacted in Federal and State jurisdictions, should have been allowed to lie on the table for a minimum of five days. Indeed, it should have remained on the table for the entire parliamentary recess. I am sorry that members who were elected at the last election have experienced Parliament only under the management of this leader. Members should be permitted to assess legislation in a meaningful way. They should have the opportunity to discuss legislation with key stakeholders and their constituents, and to make an informed vote. It is an insult to every member of Parliament—and, consequently, to our constituents—to introduce at this hour and pass through all stages legislation that changes the gun laws. The Government is treating Parliament and our constituents with contempt. I am absolutely opposed to what is happening this afternoon.

The bill will change the firearms legislation that has been so important to our nation. It is beginning to unravel the strict measures that were introduced after the shocking Port Arthur massacre. Gun laws around the nation were changed after 35 people were killed and 37 were wounded on 28 April 1996 by a lone gunman, Martin Bryant, at the historic Port Arthur tourist site in Tasmania. Why are we debating this bill? Why is Parliament even considering these changes? There is general consensus in the community that this is a payola bill. The Government is accommodating the Shooters Party because it accommodated the Government by supporting the appalling planning legislation that passed through the other place with the support of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the two members of the Shooters Party. The planning legislation is undemocratic: it removes people's right to have a say about what happens in their neighbourhood. Some describe it as shanty town legislation, which will lead to the blighting of the urban environments in our towns and cities.

The Firearms Amendment Bill 2008 will reduce gun controls in New South Wales. I understand—I must qualify my comments because the bill has only just been introduced and neither my constituents nor I have had the opportunity to scrutinise it—that the bill will result in breaches of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement and the 2002 National Handgun Agreement. I have long supported strict gun controls to protect citizens and reduce firearms-related deaths and injuries. That is our duty as parliamentarians in a civilised society. I am aware that this is a sensitive issue. I am aware also that the Coalition attributed its election win in 1988 to Barrie Unsworth taking a strong—and, indeed, laudatory—position on gun control. In the early 1990s I served on a gun law reform committee and heard some shocking evidence about gun violence. It came mainly from women who lived with men who owned legal weapons. I was also in receipt of some appalling literature from shooters groups that supported the system that was in place prior to the enactment of the 1996 legislation. I found that literature quite sickening and shocking, as I believe any civilised person would.

It took the tragic Port Arthur massacre in 1996 to achieve historic gun control reforms. The former Prime Minister showed courageous leadership in getting the National Party to agree to the legislation. It was fantastic that all State governments followed the lead of the Federal Government and introduced similar legislation. Then the Shooters Party did a deal with the Government over the appalling planning legislation and introduced this bill. This is a very sad day for New South Wales; it is an erosion of all that we achieved as a result of the shocking and tragic massacre at Port Arthur. It is appalling that it took the murder of all those people to produce the reforms that we should have had many years earlier.

What will this legislation do? I again qualify my comments with "I understand" because I have not had an opportunity to scrutinise this legislation. I understand that currently a person who is a theatrical armourer may apply to the Commissioner of Police to authorise the person to possess, manufacture, buy, sell, transfer, supply and use firearms for the purpose of film, television or theatrical production. Theatrical armourers are limited by this legislation to use blank cartridges only. I oppose the proposal to include theatrical armourers under the title of a firearms dealer. A theatrical armourer is not a firearms dealer, and should not be given the same wide-ranging entitlements. Theatrical armourers should not deal with firearms and live ammunition.

I understand that this bill will also enable people to shoot on approved ranges under supervision without a licence or without an exemption from the police commissioner. The National Coalition for Gun Control says that fewer people will be able to apply for a licence because they can get unlimited access to firearms without one. I understand also that there is a proposal to remove the 28-day waiting period for licence renewals or applications for a new firearm of a type that someone already owns. The waiting period allows the police to check whether someone is a danger to the community or to themselves, whether the circumstances have changed and whether someone should no longer own a firearm or should not own more than one. The proposal contradicts the principle that gun ownership in Australia is a privilege and not a right. This Parliament should stand strongly behind that principle, which is now being undermined by this bill. I repeat that principle: gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.

The Commonwealth banned the importation of all self-loading and pump action shotguns after those weapons were used in the Port Arthur massacre. Those firearms are extremely dangerous, military-style weapons. Under resolution one of the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms, all jurisdictions agreed to ban the sale, resale, transfer, ownership, possession, manufacture and use of those firearms other than in exceptional circumstances. New South Wales is already in breach of resolution one of the national agreement by allowing the use of those weapons for clay target shooting. I oppose the proposal to enable the Commissioner of Police to approve bodies, other than those affiliated with the Australian Clay Target Association, to authorise a person to use a self-loading or pump action shotgun in a recognised clay target shooting competition. Expanding the bodies with which an applicant's shooting club may be affiliated will increase the number of people with access to prohibited firearms that have been used in several massacres.

I am concerned that this bill will allow firearms and firearm barrels to be sent by mail between firearms dealers. The Australian Institute of Criminology noted in a 1999 report that mail is one of the main methods of illegal acquisition of firearms by individuals. According to the report, allowing firearms to be sent through the post will increase the likelihood that firearms and firearm parts will be stolen and diverted into the black market. The need for firearms dealers and collectors to apply for a permit to participate in a gun expo should not be removed. The current permit system ensures that applicants are subject to the proper safety checks and must adhere to strict safety regulations.

I understand also that the bill introduces a proposal to allow minors who are members of an approved pistol shooting club, and who have held a minors target pistol permit for at least one year, to get a permit to use large calibre pistols in shooting competitions. I understand that children as young as 12 years will be able to use high-calibre semiautomatic handguns. How can that be in the public interest? Where is the Parliament's duty of care if it passes this bill? I qualify all of my remarks by saying that I have not had sufficient opportunity to scrutinise this bill, which will pass through all stages today. That is a real indictment on the processes of this Parliament. Under the 2002 National Handgun Agreement, all jurisdictions agreed to ban these handguns after a student armed with two high-calibre handguns opened fire at Monash University in Melbourne, killing two people and injuring five others. We cannot condone the use of high-powered handguns by young children.

I also understand the bill will remove the police commissioner's power to revoke a club's licence if it fails to disqualify a member after becoming aware that the member has been convicted of a firearms offence. All clubs have a responsibility to ensure that they have done everything possible to ensure the safety of their members and the public, and need to be made accountable for their responsibilities. The National Coalition for Gun Control is also concerned about the removal of the requirement to include the name and address of a firearms dealer in advertisements to sell firearms. Those details help police in tracking down illegal firearms transactions and inform consumers about the legitimacy of firearms dealers. Why should that requirement be removed when all licensed dealers of other goods are required to provide such details when advertising?

Have we become comfortable because firearms-related violence has reduced as a result of the reforms that were led by what was a visionary reaction by the former Federal Government? Have we forgotten the devastating incidents that led to the reforms, such as the Hoddle Street and Queen Street slaughters, which left 15 people dead and 29 injured in 1999, and the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, which left 35 people dead? I have to agree with the cynics that it is no coincidence that this bill is being supported by Parliament at this time when the Government needs the support of the Shooters Party. I believe that we should be working with the Commonwealth and the other States to end firearms-related violence, not threaten the safety of our citizens by passing legislation that undermines the visionary Federal legislation that we all supported in the 1990s.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [4.55 p.m.]: I also oppose the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008, not so much because of its content—members are not aware of what is in it—but strongly on the grounds of the process. At the start of this session we were told that we would be working under a family friendly regime. In the last hour of the session a firearms bill has been introduced into this Parliament, but we have not been given the chance to discuss it with our families or our electorates. That is a disgrace, and it is a poor reflection on the way the Executive treats local members of Parliament in this Chamber—a point I continue to raise. It is disappointing that a dodgy deal has been done. This legislation is being rammed through all stages in one hour in what can only be called a dodgy process.

Mr Gerard Martin: That's your opinion.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: Let me talk about the normal process. The member for Bathurst seems to think that under the standing orders it is normal for a bill to be introduced and rammed through without giving local members time to consider the legislation. Normally, a bill is introduced into this Chamber and then it sits on the table for five days, which has been agreed to by all members in this place for a good reason. That enables members to return to their electorates to discuss the bill's content with their constituents, to engage their communities, to give a bit of ownership to communities on what we call democracy. Then we have an informed debate on the bill before it is passed by the Parliament. That should be compared with the process this afternoon. On the very last day of this session the Government introduced this bill into the Parliament at 4.10 p.m., to be rammed through in one hour, when most members of Parliament are otherwise engaged. This smells of a very sneaky deal!

Mr John Aquilina: Point of order: A couple of members have now made the point that this legislation has been introduced in this Parliament now. That is not correct. I want to correct honourable members.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: Is this a point of order?

Mr John Aquilina: It is a point of order because it is a point of fact. This legislation was introduced into the Legislative Council some time ago. It has not been introduced into this Parliament now.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: On the point of order: Technically, this is the first time members in this Chamber have seen the bill. The Legislative Assembly got this bill at 4.10 p.m. It is an absolute disgrace that it is being rammed through. What is the urgency? What is the deal?

Mr John Aquilina: Point of order: The member specifically said "introduced into this Parliament" not "introduced into this Chamber". He is deliberately trying to convey the impression that the bill was introduced into the Parliament this afternoon and that is simply not true.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: Are we still on this fantasy point of order?

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! The point of order of the Leader of the House is relevant to the debate in a technical sense. I will allow the member for Port Macquarie to continue.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: Technically then, to correct the record, 96 members of this Chamber have seen this bill for the first time—

Mr Gerard Martin: Ninety-three members.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: Ninety-three—whatever the number. I cannot believe that it seems to be accepted that this will be the due process from now on under this Government or that members of Parliament are defending this Chamber by pushing through a bill that all of us in the lower House received, technically, for the first time at ten past four today.

Mr Gerard Martin: I read it weeks ago.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: I did not realise the member for Bathurst was a member of the upper House.

Mr Gerard Martin: You should know what is going on up there. If you spent a bit of time around the place, you'd know.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: Are you a member of the upper House? Why do bills lie on the table for five days as part of the normal process in this Chamber? It is an abuse of normal process to introduce a bill at 4.00 p.m. on the last sitting day of the Parliament. This legislation is a substantial reform, and I am sure if the bill were allowed to lie on the table for five days it would generate enormous interest in the community. I have not even started to talk about the content of the bill. Whilst I have read it quickly, I would like to return to my electorate and engage my community to find out what people think about it. The Shooters Party may think that it is great; families may be a bit worried. I do not know. No-one in this Chamber can say that with confidence because the bill was introduced 50 minutes ago. None of us has had the chance to look at it in detail. The Leader of the House, who seems to have made up a point of order, appears to think that technically we should all have known about this bill for a long time. The bill has just come into this Chamber—there has to be agreement on that—and it is outside the normal process, and there has to be agreement on that.

The fundamental question all of us want answered is this: what is the urgency? Why is this bill being treated differently from any other bill? I do not know whether anyone in the Government will answer that question or whether the private member who introduced it will answer that, but it is a fundamental question that the whole community wants answered. It points to a very dirty little deal that has taken place over the last fortnight whereby the planning laws got through the upper House by 18 votes to 17. Anyone who can count knows that there are two members of the Shooters Party in that House. To get that bill across the line, the Government needed to cut a deal. This looks to be—I qualify my comments because we got the legislation only 50 minutes ago—the end product of a very dirty little deal to get Minister Sartor's planning laws through. This looks to be confirmation that we in New South Wales live under government by vested interests for vested interests; public interest comes a distant second. All of us who give a damn about representing the public are frustrated. All members of this Chamber should take this matter seriously. If they do, they hang onto the process. The process is that when a bill comes into this Chamber it is put on the table for five days; during that time members engage their communities and then come back here and discuss the legislation with some sense, knowledge, logic and reason. This is a stitch-up job and I strongly oppose it.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [5.05 p.m.]: I endorse what the member for Port Macquarie has said about the way the Government is managing this place and the legislation. The point is, as the member for Port Macquarie said, this bill has just been introduced into the Parliament. There should be a process of community consultation. Like the member for Port Macquarie, I would be happy to engage my constituency on this legislation. I am sure that members of the shooting fraternity in my electorate would have been very happy to look at this legislation before it was introduced this afternoon.

I say up front that New South Wales should be seeking to have a system of regulating firearm ownership that without doubt puts community safety first but without punishing safe and law-abiding firearms owners. I say that as a member of Parliament representing a country electorate, and I am sure all members from country and coastal areas would agree with that principle. We have heard nothing from the Labor Government this afternoon in relation to what it is doing about illegal firearm use in this State to ensure that those engaged in illegal firearm use are brought to justice. One need only refer to illegal firearm use in parts of Sydney and the statistics on gun crimes to know that this Government is not doing enough. One need only look at the way the Government is penalising criminals caught committing crimes with firearms. The criminal court statistics for 2005 show that only 6 per cent of persons convicted of an offence involving the use of a weapon received a prison sentence.

The Liberals and The Nationals are keen to see this Government start to focus on illegal firearm use without punishing law-abiding firearms owners who have to deal with complex regulations. The member for Murrumbidgee referred to this earlier. The regulations are complex and quite often cockies and sporting shooters find adhering to them very tricky. We also want to see a degree of consistency and uniformity in this legislation across the States. That is why, on the basis of what we have seen of the administrative provisions of this legislation as debated in the upper House, we will support it.

The question remains: what is the Labor Party doing about illegal firearm use in this State? At the last State election we put a number of sensible measures on the table to deal with illegal firearm use. We hope that the Government will start to look closely at those proposals. For instance, let us look at some of the rewards on offer for information leading to a conviction for unsolved serious gun crimes. Let us look at the rewards for information leading to a conviction for gun theft.

Mr David Harris: Point of order: The member's comments are clearly outside the ambit of this bill. Whilst I do not disagree with what the member is saying, it does not relate to this bill and is therefore irrelevant.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! A number of speakers have been allowed latitude but I ask the member for Bega to make his remarks relevant to the bill.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I thank the member for Wyong for agreeing with me that the Labor Party is not doing enough about illegal firearms.

Mrs Barbara Perry: That is not what he said.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: He just said he agreed with me.

Mrs Barbara Perry: Point of order: The point of order relates to representation of assertions that have been made. There was clearly a misrepresentation of what was said, and it is improper.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! Again, I ask the member for Bega to restrict his remarks to the bill.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: We have made it clear we will not oppose the legislation. From my perspective as a member representing a country seat—the member for Wagga Wagga and the member for Tweed are also here in the Chamber—we want to see a system of regulation that is fair to law-abiding gun owners in this State and that continues to uphold community safety. That is why I make the point that the Government is not doing enough about illegal firearm use. I also make the point—again, this needs to be put into the context of this debate, and it is a matter on which I would prefer to have some consultation—that the firearms registry is ministering very badly to firearms owners in New South Wales. It is not resourced properly and it is not catering to their needs and ensuring that their requirements are met.

Reference has been made to the 28-day waiting period for people who want to purchase firearms. That is a minimum. People who are licensed to own firearms in this State are not waiting 28 days but 40 and 65 days—and in some cases a number of months—because of the administrative nightmare created by the Firearms Registry. A licensed firearms owner who wants to purchase a second or subsequent firearm should not be subject to a 28-day cooling off period because they are already licensed. It is nothing more than a measure to enable an under-resourced Firearms Registry to try to get through its work.

Mr Geoff Provest: They are under-resourced.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: That is right. The Firearms Registry is in the Tweed electorate, which adjoins Lismore electorate. The member for Tweed has raised concerns about the need for sensible firearms regulations, given the resources of the Firearms Registry. You need only to look at what is happening in other States. The Victorian Government offers overnight permits to acquire firearms electronically. The Western Australian Government allows its police to issue permits to acquire certain firearms without delay if the applicant meets the necessary criteria. Queensland's waiting period for similar second and subsequent permits to acquire a firearm is merely the time taken to send a form and receive a reply by mail.

This legislation is a sensible measure, and I support it. I know that the shadow Minister also expressed that view this afternoon. The 28-day rule is designed to try to cater for the under-resourced Firearms Registry, whose resources do need to be bolstered. It is a great shame that the Labor Party this afternoon tried to gag me because I simply raised illegal firearm use, which law-abiding shooters in this State want addressed by the Government. Those shooters are amongst the most vocal about illegal firearm use being addressed by the Labor Party, which has been soft on this point for a very long period of time.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [5.12 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members who contributed to today's debate, the Minister for Police for his support, the member for Murrumbidgee, and the members for Sydney, Port Macquarie and Bega. The original legislation is still protected. Everybody was very much aware of the reasoning behind the original legislation. This will not encourage another Port Arthur massacre. It does not reduce gun control in New South Wales. It does not change handgun regulations. It will not affect firearm-related deaths. If you look at how many firearm-related deaths there have been on licensed ranges, I think you will find it is zero. It does not give unlimited access to people who do not have licences. If you want to try to shoot a gun, you cannot buy one, you cannot take one home, you cannot use one, unless you are on a registered firearm range and under the direct supervision of a qualified person. This is always an emotive topic and I understand that passions run high, but this is a good piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

Division called for and Standing Order 181 applied.

Question declared resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.


Bill declared passed and returned to the Legislative Council without amendment.