Debate resumed from 25 June.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [10.46]: In her contribution to debate on this legislation last night, the Hon. Ann Symonds said that this was one of the happiest occasions she had experienced during her time as a member of Parliament because she was able to speak in debate on the gun control legislation introduced by the Government. It is also one of the happiest times for me in this Parliament, because today my eldest grandson, who is eight years old, is seated in the gallery. Like all young men of that age he is interested in guns. He and his friends play games with guns, in exactly the same way as children have played games with guns over the centuries. However, because of what is happening in Australia now, with the abuse of the privilege of being able to own guns, his parents believed it would be a good thing if he heard part of the debate in Parliament today. I am very happy that he is in the Chamber and I am happy that his parents made that decision.

On Sunday 28 April when I turned on the evening news I was sickened by what I saw. Twenty-two people had been shot dead in Port Arthur and the gunman was still on the loose. On Monday morning we woke up to one of the worst massacres in Australia's history. Thirty-five people were dead - killed by bullets from two military-style semiautomatic weapons. There were no reasons why Martin Bryant was in possession of such weapons. But, of course, under Tasmania's current gun laws he was able to obtain an Armalite AR 15 semiautomatic assault rifle and a Chinese SKS assault rifle. With those weapons he was able to murder 35 people within the space of 12 hours. Since becoming a member of this House 15 years ago I have witnessed the aftermath of eight mass homicides in New South Wales alone. After each of these massacres, all of us hung our heads in shame. We proclaimed that we had now lost our innocence and that something must be done. However, I believe we should hang our heads in shame at our failure over the years to reduce significantly the level of gun violence in society.

During those 15 years several attempts have been made to substantially tighten gun control and to create a national gun register, but those attempts have not met with any success. Many national gun summits have been held, with the best of intentions, and strong recommendations have been made after each summit. But the guns have not been controlled and the mass killings continue. The opponents of gun registration must be asked by the community to advance their reasons for not wanting to restrict gun ownership. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. In order for that privilege to exist in our society, restrictions and conditions, including the registration of all firearms, must apply. Each year more than 600 Australians die from gun-related injuries, and approximately 200 of those deaths occur in New South Wales. Most of those who die in gun-related homicides are not the victims of the mass shootings that we see on the news; they are the hidden victims of gun-related violence, women and children. Firearms are more likely to be used to kill family members than strangers or intruders, with women and children the most likely victims of gun homicide in the home. In the United States, for example, a gun is 43 times more likely to be used in the murder or suicide of a household member than against a non-family member.

We can no longer tolerate the self-interested excuses and pleas from members of the gun lobby. Why should they not have to prove themselves worthy of the privilege of gun ownership? Why should they not have to register their firearms, particularly when they are a very small percentage of the population? A New South Wales health promotion survey conducted in 1994 showed that only 26 per cent of rural households and 7 per cent of urban households contained guns. It has been estimated that only 1.5 million people in Australia own a firearm, with at least 3.5 million to four
Page 3631
million guns being held in private ownership. Although those 1.5 million people may own four million guns, for every household that has a firearm there are three households that do not.

The Australian Democrats are very pleased to support the Firearms Bill, which implements the 11 resolutions of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council held on 10 May 1996. It also implements many of the recommendations of the 1991 report of the parliamentary Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, a committee of which I was a member. The Australasian Police Ministers' Council came about because of the tragic events in Port Arthur, and the foreword of the 1991 report served as a chilling reminder of the fact that we have all been here before. The report stated:

The Joint Select Committee Upon Gun Law Reform was established at a time when people and governments across Australia were devastated by the tragic events at Strathfield when seven people lost their lives at the hands of a gunman who had access to a military style automatic rifle. The incident was the latest in a series of massacres which had occurred in Victoria and New South Wales in recent years and galvanised Governments across Australia into accelerating their examination of firearm laws and related violence issues which had initially been the subject of a report by the National Committee on violence.

That sounds too familiar. The Australian Democrats are pleased to support the bill for two reasons, that it moves further towards the reduction of access to firearms in New South Wales and I hope that it finally represents action, after a long period of hollow words. There is no doubt that countries that have minimal access to guns have fewer gun-related deaths compared with those countries that have easier access. In the United States, for example, there are between 130 million and 200 million guns in private ownership. With a population 14 times that of Australia, America has a gun death rate 49 times higher than that of Australia.

In 1992 in New South Wales, which has a population of approximately six million, there were 40 gun-related deaths. In the same year in England and Wales, which have a combined population of more than 49 million but have much tougher gun laws, only 35 homicides were committed with guns. The Australian Democrats support the underlying principles of the legislation, namely, that firearm use and possession is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety; that the imposition of strict controls on the possession and use of firearms and the promotion of their responsible use and storage will promote public safety; and that a national approach to firearms is the most effective approach in the long run.

The Australian Democrats also support the objects of the bill, which seek to achieve gun control by regulating both the shooter, through licensing, and the actual firearms - the weapons - through registration. I shall insist on continuing to call them weapons, whatever the gun lobby may say, because a gun is a weapon and it has no purpose other than to kill either an individual or an animal. The first of the bill's objects is to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns except in special circumstances.

In the aftermath of the Strathfield massacre in August 1991 an opinion poll conducted by the Sydney Morning Herald found that 90 per cent of Sydney residents supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons, while 67 per cent supported a ban on all guns except those required by people who needed guns specifically for their jobs. Automatic and semiautomatic weapons represent a very real danger to the community unless they are used with extreme care and for specific purposes only. Recommendation 5.2 of the report of the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform urges:

[the] prohibition on sale, possession or use of all self-loading centre fire rifles with a magazine capable of holding more than 5 rounds and all repeating shotguns, whether self loading or pump action, with a magazine capable of holding more than 5 rounds.

For the benefit of Opposition members I point out that another member of the select committee, Mr Peter Cochran, a member in another place, is a proponent of the private ownership of guns, yet he supported recommendation 5.2. The second object of the bill is to establish an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms. Recently a statewide survey commissioned by the New South Wales Department of Health of 16,000 urban and rural residents found that 92.4 per cent of urban residents and 83 per cent of rural residents supported the annual registration of all guns, while 69.3 per cent of those who said they had guns in their homes - they were not trying to hide the fact - also supported registration.

Registration of guns is necessary for many reasons. It allows the police to keep track of individual weapons and is useful in the investigation of crime. In addition, registration would allow police officers responding to a domestic violence matter to have prior knowledge of any weapons that might be in a residence. Presently there is no way of knowing exactly how many firearms are in private possession in Australia. Registration will give a clearer picture of firearm ownership and use. An article written by Sandra Egger and Rebecca Peters and published in the journal Polemic in 1992 gave a graphic example of the necessity for firearm registration. Under the headline "The Terrigal Massacre" the writers state:

The absence of a firearms register in NSW was critical in the recent killings on the Central Coast. A few weeks before, an apprehended violence order against the accused man, Malcolm Baker, was sought by one of the victims, Kerry Gannan. The court granted the order and Baker's firearms licence was revoked. The NSW law has effective domestic violence provisions: firearms licences are automatically revoked on the granting of an apprehended violence order, and the police have the power to search for and seize the now illegal firearms. But these provisions are undermined by the failure to require that firearms be registered. The police have no information whatsoever as to how many and what weapons to search for and seize.

Page 3632

In this case, after the granting of the order, the police went to the accused's home to search for firearms. They found and seized five. They did not know there was a sixth, a pump-action shotgun. This was the weapon allegedly used by Malcolm Baker to kill six people on the night of October 27. A firearms register could have saved those six lives.

The Australian Democrats are also supportive of the objects of the bill that require each person who under the authority of a licence possesses or uses a firearm to prove a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm, to abide by strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to the licensing of firearms and the acquisition and sale of firearms, and to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner. While the Democrats support the object of the bill to provide for compensation in respect of certain prohibited firearms and an amnesty period to enable the surrender of such firearms, I believe that adequate compensation must be guaranteed to ensure that the prohibitions themselves are effective.

It has been suggested that inadequate compensation will lead to a significant number of gun owners hiding their weapons instead of handing them in. So I urge the Commonwealth Government to ensure that adequate compensation is forthcoming. I believe that the Prime Minister should make immediate commitments to New South Wales, as soon as this legislation is passed - which I believe will be in the next 24 hours - to guarantee that the compensation money will be available to the Government of this State no later than 1 August. Gun owners will not be prepared to go to police stations and hand in their weapons unless in return they get a receipt for those weapons and a guarantee that the Commonwealth will honour its promise to pay them the value of their weapons. I have taken up this matter with my Federal colleagues, urging them in the strongest terms to lobby the Prime Minister to ensure that that money is forthcoming, and to ensure that his was not just a promise made in the heat of the moment. I do not believe it was. I believe Mr Howard is absolutely genuine, but this State needs an absolute and concrete assurance that that money will be forthcoming.

I do not accept the arguments proffered by the gun lobby that the bill and its requirements are intrusive and that the bill infringes upon an individual's constitutional right to bear arms. After all, if registration is required for motor vehicles and dogs - and I believe quite shortly cats also will have to be registered - why should not registration be required for firearms? In Australia there is no constitutional right to bear arms. Even the so-called American constitutional right has been misinterpreted and exaggerated. We must not forget that the American Constitution was drawn up immediately after the War of Independence, when Americans were fighting for their freedom against the British. They had to bear arms at that time because otherwise they would not have been able to conduct a revolutionary war. That is why that provision is in the American Constitution; it has to do with the concept of the revolutionary war and has nothing to do with life in America today.

I do not accept the argument that the bill will not result in a safer Australia. Medical and criminal research shows that gun availability is a major determinant of gun violence and gun deaths. Figures show that firearm homicide rates correlate directly with gun availability and ownership. Also, I do not accept the arguments that all massacres are committed by mentally ill people. I quote from the media release of Dr Michael Dudley of the Prince of Wales Hospital department of child and adolescent psychiatry. In reference to Martin Bryant, Dr Dudley said:

Most people who are violent do not have schizophrenia, and most people with schizophrenia are not violent. Such violence as was witnessed at Port Arthur cannot be predicted. The best predictor is the availability of a gun. No other method could result in 35 deaths.

I do not accept the argument that if guns were not available people would be killed by other means. The fact is that people assaulted with guns are 12 times more likely to die than are those assaulted with other weapons or implements. Because of this, guns are the most common weapon used in homicides and, regrettably, in suicides. One reason that so many young men achieve suicide is that those young men used a gun. An equal number of young women attempt suicide, but they do not finalise that act because normally they use analgesics or other forms of medication, and they are able to be found and taken to hospital and therefore rescued. However depressed or unhappy a young man may be - and our report on rural suicides showed this well - the fact that a young man was able to get hold of a gun and use it in the depths of depression to end his life shows that the control and registration of guns is essential if we are to control suicide, particularly in rural areas.

A few moments ago, by way of interjection, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said that guns were also used to shoot at targets. He is perfectly right, and I accept that. The Australian Democrats have been discussing ways in which sporting shooters competing in national and international shooting events, such as the Olympics, will under the legislation before the House have a right to own weapons and take part in shooting events. The Australian Democrats certainly have no objection to that. I am pleased that the bill contains the provision that young people under the age of 18 years who learned to shoot in their earlier teens, providing they are always accompanied by an adult and are receiving training in a registered sporting association or club, will be able to continue with that sporting activity. The Australian Democrats are not against sporting shooters of that ilk being able to continue to compete either nationally or internationally, because shooting events are part of the Olympics, and those who shoot at that level would be not only fine shots but would be very responsible and highly trained people, far more so than many others in the community.

Page 3633

Finally, I commend the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for their unfailing stance on this issue. I particularly commend the attitude and stance of Tim Fischer, once a member of this Parliament and now Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Leader of the National Party. He has stood unfailingly by what was decided by Federal Cabinet, although members of his party, particularly those in Queensland, have shown no loyalty to him and he has been put under enormous pressure. I congratulate also the New South Wales Premier and the Minister for Police on their unfailing stand on this issue and on their swift action. I note, however, from the second reading speech of the Minister for Police that a number of issues remain to be resolved by the Commonwealth and the police Ministers.

I urge resolution of those matters as soon as possible. I hope that when this Parliament resumes in September, after the winter recess, any necessary amendments that result from the meeting of the police Ministers will be introduced as a priority in the early stages of the sittings of the Houses. I am delighted at one of the statements made by the Minister for Police. He was under great pressure in another place when he introduced the legislation and when it was debated last Friday and Saturday. He made one of the most important statements on this matter that I have heard. That statement was made to his opponents. It is known that some National Party members on that occasion crossed the floor. The Minister said:

Instead of you telling me that gun registration will not work, will you please put your minds to working out a system by which it will work.

We must fight against the negative attitude of some National Party members. I am delighted that in this Chamber at least the National Party is united and will not cross the floor when a vote on the bill is taken. Once again I thank all those who have worked so hard to bring the legislation to fruition, particularly all those concerned with gun control not only in New South Wales but in other States of Australia. I am pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.10]: I am proud and pleased to support the Firearms Bill. Like so many members of the House I too have fought and argued on the gun issue for what seems like a decade. The bill is a culmination of all that we could have wished for. Not only are we taking part in a massive strengthening of New South Wales gun laws but we are also taking the first concrete step towards uniform national laws. I join with other honourable members in paying tribute to the work of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Premier of New South Wales and many other politicians who have helped to rescue the reputation of politicians. Over the past few months honourable members have seen a unity of purpose in a good cause, which makes me feel honoured to be able to say that I am a politician.

I was in Port Arthur a short time before the massacre. I have thought often of Port Arthur and its terrible history - a place which has an even more terrible reputation after the deaths there of 35 people. During my two-week visit to Tasmania immediately after the Federal election I noticed that most road signs had been shot up by hoons or loons who were allowed to possess any sort of weapon under the incredibly lax Tasmanian laws. The desecration of the beautiful countryside and its wildlife was evidence that Tasmania was a place where disaster with guns was waiting to happen. It is tragic that it took the Port Arthur massacre to finally galvanise us all into action, but if anything could be a suitable memorial to the people who died at Port Arthur it is the legislation that we are debating.

After many years in the Labor Women's Organisation, and with memories of the many speeches I have made in the Parliament and elsewhere on the guns issue, I am delighted that finally action is being taken. It gives me a great sense of relief that the campaign for gun reform has succeeded. I pay tribute also to the Coalition for Gun Control and other community organisations, and particularly to Rebecca Peters and Simon Chapman, for their work in recent times. I add also my tribute to trade unionists such as bank employees, who are literally in the firing line, for their work and also to the Police Association of New South Wales, a group that has received little mention. The police know the harm that guns can cause. Over the years the Police Association of New South Wales has taken an excellent position on the issue of gun reform.

I wish to refer with less praise to the opponents of gun law reform. I start with the Hon. J. S. Tingle because his contribution was the one false and discordant note in the speeches in the House during the past couple of days, just as his contribution has been the most striking discordant note in the Parliament for the past year or two. People sometimes ask me how I feel about a representative of the Shooters Party being a member of the Chamber. I have told them that it makes me feel ashamed. Regardless of the political divisions between members of the House, I believe that the Liberal Party, the National party, the Labor Party and even Call to Australia stand for ideals in which they firmly believe. It is impossible to think of a single ideal or belief for the betterment of society, the State or nation that the Shooters Party could possibly stand for. I certainly have not been proud to be a member of a Chamber housing the only representative of the Shooters Party in Australia.

That opinion was reinforced when I heard what the Hon. J. S. Tingle said last night. He said that the bill has as its purpose the disarmament of a law- abiding civilian population - as if Australians have a right to bear arms, or as if Australia wants an armed civilian population! He referred to Nazism and a political Berchtesgaden - Hitler's mountain retreat - and likened the bill to a triumphant exercise
Page 3634
of left wing ideology. Such parallels are offensive to me and to other members of the House. He said that the legislation will not prevent another massacre and that it will not make this community safer to live in. He should tell that to all the women and children who have been victims of domestic violence in their homes.

The Hon. J. S. Tingle said that the proposed legislation will not make this community safer, and that gun registration will make no difference to the use of firearms in incidents such as domestic violence. He should tell that to the people who were killed on the Central Coast by a man with a gun. Though five guns were confiscated from this man who had an apprehended violence order against him, unbeknown to the police he still had one gun. I guess, I might add in his defence, the Hon. J. S. Tingle is by no means the worst. The possibility of a Senator Ted Drane would fill all of us with horror. I was pleased to hear that comment from members of the National Party.

Ted Drane, of the Sporting Shooters Association, has visited the United States, attended conferences of the National Rifle Association, and taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in blood money from the American gun lobby. He has returned to Australia and used that money to further his cause here. A point rarely made in the debate is that the gun lobby is not merely a lot of misguided shooters who feel that they have a right to own weapons. No-one is trying to take away the rights of farmers, sporting shooters or Olympic shooters to possess guns. Those people do not make up the gun lobby. It should be emphasised that the gun lobby is financed by the gun industry. It is not an accident that the National Rifle Association in America is so rich. It is not an accident that it is willing to hand out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Ted Dranes of this world. The gun industry is willing to do it because the sale of guns and ammunition means profit. It is a simple equation and it is about time that something was done about it. I am pleased to be here doing that. I will not deal with specific parts of the legislation. I stress that this is not the end of the gun debate as the legislation will have to be tightened up. The issues of storage of guns in the home and their location in an urban environment have not been properly addressed yet, and I will continue to fight to ensure they are.

It is clear from what was said last night that the National Party is divided on the issue of registration. I have already stressed the importance of registering individual guns as distinct from the current cry about registering gun owners. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his fine speech last night said he will support registration of guns. He made the relevant point that those who are trying to infiltrate the National Party are the same type of people who tend to appear and make themselves heard on gun ownership, gun legislation, native land title, access to wilderness areas or Asian immigration. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is perfectly right. The extreme right is the lunatic fringe in this and other debates. The Hon. D. J. Gay put the other side of the National Party argument: he is going to oppose a gun register. Later today when this House comes to deal with the amendments we will see a divided National Party.

I am proud that the Labor Party is united on this issue. Like other parties it has had fairly robust internal debate from the honourable member for Bathurst and others, but it is united on this issue, as will be shown later. I will correct a small exchange that took place last night between the Hon. J. R. Johnson and the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann which was not factual. The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann has never been censured by the Labor caucus for anything, let alone what she had said about guns. While it is true that she was mildly censured by the left caucus a couple of months ago, it had nothing to do with guns. I am pleased to support the Firearms Bill, which is a very important step forward. Like so many other people who have spoken I become emotional about gun victims that I and other members of the House have spoken about before. But this is not the time for long speeches. I conclude by saying I am proud to support this legislation and to be part of a government that has introduced it as quickly as possible.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [11.23]: I could not speak in debate on this profound bill without acknowledging the great work that the Hon. Ann Symmonds has done over a number of years. When I joined the caucus in 1988 she led the charge to endeavour to get Labor to take a strong and sensible position on gun control after the travesties of 1987 and 1988. She copped a lot of ridicule over the years in and outside caucus for her strong and effective stand in relation to tougher gun controls. This legislation is a tribute in many ways to her and her endeavours over the years, along with those of Rebecca Peters and Simon Chapman of the Coalition for Gun Control.

This Parliament has finally shaken off the shackles of paintball Pickering. When I came into Parliament in 1988 he was strident in his approach to gun control; he wanted none of it. He wanted the proliferation of the far right-wing groups that have grown up under the ascendancy of very slack gun laws in this country. He wanted a country very similar to the United States where Rambos can run off into the bush and shoot up anything that moves; and he gave sucker, support and encouragement to them. He put his shackles over this Parliament and over the whole of New South Wales in his approach to gun control. As a consequence, for seven years the conservative coalition in this State did very little to introduce sensible gun laws. Fortunately, a different attitude has been brought about Federally by John Howard in response to the terrible massacre at Port Arthur.

The evidence of the last few years about the necessity of this legislation is incontestable. For instance, the rural suicide report shows that the rate
Page 3635
of suicide by firearms in rural municipalities and shires has risen fivefold from 2.8 to 14.8 per cent. There is evidence that different international gun policies have varying consequences on the rate of deaths by firearms. In 1992 in New South Wales, with a population of six million, 40 homicides were committed with guns. In 1992 in England and Wales, where there is a population of 49 million, eight times that of New South Wales, and very tough gun laws, 35 homicides were committed with guns. If a rate similar to that in New South Wales had applied in 1992, Britain would have had 240 killings with guns. The evidence has been pointing to the need for greater gun control. In the United States, where gun control is virtually non-existent - you can own your own tank if you like - the death rate from guns, at 15,800, is 40 times more than in New South Wales. That is an amazingly high figure and demonstrates that countries that have effective gun control laws have far fewer deaths committed by firearms or through firearms.

The Hon. J. S. Tingle continues to state the greatest fallacy and most deceptive statement delivered during the debate: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." That trite slogan has been given a run in this House. The Hon. J. S. Tingle, who has been a bit of a media mogul in years gone by, over and over again has used that statement during and prior to the debate. Martin Bryant could not have killed 35 people if he had a single-action shotgun or a single-shot .22 rifle. He killed 35 people because he had precisely the type of weapons that the New South Wales Parliament wants to control and ban. Yes, people kill people, but access to assault rifles and semiautomatic weapons makes such killing more effective in terms of the number of victims.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: He did not say that.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I am not reading his speech.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: He did not say that. When did he ever say that?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: He said it previously. I think the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has been asleep half the time, and I know he is tired and worn out from his battles with his former party. As a consequence at times he becomes tired, like his former leader. During the debate mention has been made of the rise of the loony right. The loony right is a series of organisations. A recent Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners program covered the Lyndon Larouche group in the United States and its extensions into Australia. The National Party, particularly its leader Tim Fischer, is very concerned about the operation of the Larouche group and the spreading of its insidious influence into rural New South Wales and Queensland.

The National Party has been very concerned about this racist organisation undermining the fabric of our society. Strong steps have to be taken to ensure that organisations of that type do not spread racist philosophy across this country and take advantage of those who believe that their guns are more important to them than their families. One such organisation, the Freedom Scouts, somewhere out in western New South Wales, is quite a crazy group. These groups claim that if they were to train themselves militarily they would be arrested, yet Indonesians have trained on Australian soil. They believe in conspiracy theories. They are paranoid, racist, white supremacists. They take the view that other countries, particularly Asian countries, wish to capture and take over Australia and they believe they could defend the country somehow through their little military exercises with semiautomatic weapons.

Film shot during the American attack on Iraq shows that soldiers that do not have sophisticated weaponry and modern technology have no hope against a sophisticated army. You can have all the tanks and guns you like but if you are hit with missiles - and heat seeking missiles at that - you have very little hope. That sort of view by the Freedom Scouts, that militia-style US-style nuttery that has grown up in regional New South Wales, also has to be strongly rejected. I hope that the Hon. J. S. Tingle rejects the sorts of slogans projected at the demonstrations he has been attending across the country - slogans which will clearly be illegal - such as "Don't give up your guns", which is an incitement to illegal activity in the future. He should distance himself from slogans such as "Gun culture safer than Canberra poofters culture" and "Only wusses hand in guns". These are the sorts of slogans seen at the demonstrations. I am not saying that he supported them but he should reject the fringe element opposed to gun laws.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You are verballing him.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I am not. I hope he rejects such statements being made at the demonstrations. I believe he did support the slogan "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." He should stop supporting it because the events at Port Arthur showed that people do kill people and a person with a very powerful weapon can kill an awful lot more people. I congratulate the Government on taking the steps it has. In my eight years in this Parliament I have not seen greater legislation for the long-term good of the citizenry of New South Wales. Yes, there will be people who will defy the laws, who will, as the Hon. R. S. L. Jones believes, bury their guns. And people will continue to organise politically against gun laws. But every step taken to rein in the rampant, uncontrolled gun laws of this country will be a step towards making Australia safer over the long term. It will not happen tomorrow; it will not happen next year; but over time, as education and support for the legislation spreads within the community, there will be increasing compliance and Australia will become a safer place. I support and fully endorse
Page 3636
the legislation. Once more, Madam Deputy-President, I congratulate you on your absolutely pivotal role in getting this legislation through.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [11.33]: First, I join with all members of Parliament in again extending my deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of all those who died in Australia's latest mass shooting - this century's tragic addition to Port Arthur's horrible history. As most members know, the delegates to the National Party annual general conference held at Taree a couple of weeks ago overwhelmingly carried a resolution that, in principle, supported the proposals of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for uniform national gun laws. Just before this new phase in the public debate about Australia's firearms laws I had been reading a book which sets out the technical aspects of Canada's firearms laws and is entitled Canadian Firearms Law by Donna Lea Hawley. The preface of that book could well have been the preface to a similar book were one to be published in Australia once the legislatures of our States and Territories enact the resolutions of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council of 10 May 1996. It reads:

In 1977, Parliament -

that is, the Canadian Parliament -

introduced legislation to reform the criminal gun control provisions. This was preceded and followed by a flurry of reports, discussions and articles in the media and academic literature. It was also followed by a wave of cases which allowed the courts to interpret the various sections of the Criminal Code. The law has been somewhat clarified but the debate about the desirability of private gun ownership is far from being resolved. It is unlikely that it will be to everyone's satisfaction.

That book was published in 1988. The preface goes on to say:

Guns are part of our culture. They have been used by Canadians throughout the country's history. Although the frequency and freedom of gun ownership and use is far less than in the United States, to whom we are so often compared, guns are, and have been, a part of Canadian life. Hunting is an important sporting activity to many, a form of subsistence to others, and a business as part of the recreation and tourism industries of many communities. Target shooting is a growing sport and involves the use of many forms of firearms . . . Local, national and international competitions are allowing athletes the opportunity to achieve high levels of skills in shooting.

The book mentions that the first gold medal won by a Canadian at the Los Angeles Olympics was won by a woman pistol shooter. However, the debate in Canada goes on to this day. It is not just in rural areas of Australia that people are anxious about changes in firearms laws. Whilst I was in Saskatchewan briefly last January, nearly a decade after that great debate in Canada, to speak with members of that province's Legislature about its pioneering code of ethics, the Speaker of the House of Assembly hosted a dinner for the New South Wales delegation attended by a number of members of the Saskatchewan Parliament. It did not take long before the discussion focused upon Canada's firearms legislation and, because Saskatchewan is a province with an economic base very dependent upon its rural industries, I felt very much at home amongst those rural parliamentarians.

The issues confronting them, including the drift of population away from the rural communities to the capitals, especially the pull of the cities for young people, were those universal to rural communities. One of the issues was firearms laws. Certainly the members of that Parliament to whom I spoke volunteered their concern about Canada's firearms laws, reflecting the continuing anxiety of their provincial constituencies. A decade after Canada's major firearms debates, provincial legislators in Canada are still wrestling with the need to satisfy everyone in the debate, especially those outside the capitals.

Canadians are, of course, keen to ensure that their culture continues to be distinguishable from that existing across the border in the United States, with one of the less desirable features of US society being its level of violence and the pervasiveness of firearms, including pistols. This is one of the motivations behind the support by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of uniform firearms legislation in this country - one most Australians support - the need to act as Canada did to try to ensure that the culture of violence by firearms does not get a greater hold in our society. When contemplating my contribution to the debate on the bill, a debate that was inevitable once the news broke, ever so slowly, about the awful scenes at Port Arthur, I could not but recall the first speech I made in the Legislative Council. That was after the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform report had been presented to the Parliament, the establishment of that all-parties committee having been the Parliament's response to the horror of the Strathfield massacre. I said then:

The National Party staunchly and successfully defends the need for farmers and various other categories of shooters to have firearms and, depending on need, some high powered weapons at that . . .

I went on to say:

. . . in the modern National Party, where rednecks do not rule, that is not the end of the debate; that is not the end of our responsibility to those who are of special concern to us - the people of rural and regional New South Wales.

I also referred to rural suicides as a reason for putting time and distance between depressed people and access to firearms, a subject which was partly addressed by the tighter gun laws introduced as a result of that Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, which provided for, among other things, tighter provisions relating to storage of weapons. It is interesting to look back upon that joint select committee report and to note that the first recommendation made by the committee - and it was placed in the primary position quite deliberately by the all-parties committee - related to firearms in domestic violence contexts. As a result of the implementation of that part of the joint select committee's report there is now greater statutory
Page 3637
backup to women who may fear for their lives if there is violence in their households - violence mixed with access to firearms.

But the legislation is also helpful in those households where there are children and there is a worry about whether firearms are stored securely. With respect to the attitudes of women voters to firearms issues, I recall that while serving as a member of that joint select committee I, like other members of my party, studied the report of the National Committee on Violence. During the inquiry I asked the Australian Institute of Criminology whether it knew of any public opinion polling which showed a difference between men and women in this country in attitudes towards firearms issues. Astonishingly, the answer was that there was no such research. It has always been my subjective judgment that many women, including country women, have a different attitude to the whole question of firearm possession and use from that of many men, including men in the same household or family. That is illustrated by the messages of support for the national gun law proposals that were sent to Prime Minister Howard by the delegates at the post-Port Arthur annual conference of the New South Wales Country Women's Association.

Honourable members may recall that after the by-elections on 25 May the New South Wales National Party Leader, the Hon. Ian Armstrong, commented on possible reasons for the swing against the National Party in two of the seats. Mr Armstrong said that one factor deleterious to the National Party's level of support at that time might have been the gun law debate that erupted after the Port Arthur tragedy. Mr Armstrong was attacked for that comment. However, he should not have been attacked because he was referring to National Party research during that campaign which showed that, on the other side of the Blue Mountains, women voters were uneasy about the National Party's reservations about committing itself to supporting what were then undrafted amendments to firearms legislation, and for continuing its long-held opposition to the registration of individual firearms.

It seems that a significant proportion of women voters had the impression that the position on the issue taken by the National Party in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy was not tough enough, that is, we were seen at that stage as not sufficiently supporting the Prime Minister's proposals. The results of that research were, in my view, not surprising. That information also supports the gut instincts of the Federal Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Tim Fischer, who said, after Port Arthur, that there had been a sea change in the attitudes of country women on the firearms issue. I do not know whether there has been a sea change. I believe that on this issue country women have long held views that diverge from the more strident pro-gun attitudes of some Australian men.

National Party annual general conferences have long featured a more equal balance of women and men delegates than was the case with Australia's other major political parties until the past few years. Certainly, at our 1996 annual general conference one could observe this difference in attitude, and it is important that that difference is given voice in this debate and in the laws of New South Wales and Australia. The incidence of domestic violence is probably one factor in this difference in attitude. The research I have referred to, which came to light only recently, seems to support the view of the joint select committee that the domestic violence aspects of the previous debate on New South Wales firearms laws should receive pre-eminent positioning in its list of recommendations, as they did.

Another important segment of the national firearms debate surrounds mental illness and firearms misuse. The joint select committee recommended that the Government develop procedures, having regard to privacy issues, for the voluntary reporting to police by any person, in particular health professionals and community workers, of those people who are likely to be dangerous to themselves and/or others if they have access, or continue to have access, to firearms. The report called for indemnification of "persons acting in good faith in making voluntary reports against any action which may be brought against them" and for a multilingual education program to make all sections of the community aware of the reporting process.

It is important to remember also that the committee recommended that action should be taken to formulate a coordinated strategy, with equitable funding, to provide for early intervention and support to affected persons by mental health crisis teams and community workers in both urban and rural areas. That is a very important recommendation and needs ongoing support from governments of all persuasions. Let us all hope that those words do not take on a more chilling meaning once the coroners and the courts have delivered their verdicts in the Port Arthur case. It is tragic that it has taken an event such as that at Port Arthur for this amendment relating to mental illness to find its way onto the statute book.

One concern I have is that the bill refers only to medical practitioners, whereas the joint select committee specifically, and for good reason, referred to health professionals and community workers. It is hoped that we will return to that part of the bill in the review period immediately ahead - as long as the promise of further consultation on the bill was not simply a stunt by the Premier and his police Minister. The 1996 initiative, the mental health amendment, has widespread support on both sides of the firearms debate. Nevertheless, we should not forget that homicide offenders are not typically mentally ill; nor do they have criminal records for serious violent offences. Life is not that simple.

Page 3638

The then chairman of the New South Wales branch of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Dr Andrews, told the joint select committee, when giving evidence about the mental state of persons involved in shootings, that the average person who shoots another is just that - an average person - and that while people may be under great emotional strain, or even intoxicated, they are rarely mentally ill. The Federal Minister for Health, Dr Wooldridge, is right to consult a committee of experts on this complex aspect of the proposed national laws. The same psychiatrist, Dr Andrews, also gave evidence about what he called the myth "that we can predict even amongst those that we know who are mentally ill, who is going to shoot someone else, and the answer to that also is that in most cases we cannot". Dr Andrews told the committee:

The simple fact is that on the best information available to us (the Royal College of Psychiatrists), and there aren't precise estimates of this for obvious reasons, the best information we can get is that less than ten per cent of the people who commit homicides are psychologically distinguishable from the general population before the event. That means that even with the wisdom of hindsight in probably more than 90 per cent of cases we couldn't have predicted it on psychological grounds.

There are many studies of murderers in the international literature and all of them find that very few of them are mentally ill. The average murderer is an ordinary person reacting to extraordinary circumstances in a violent manner with lethal methods and they were frequently intoxicated at the time.

Dr Andrews said:

I have personally treated hundreds of mentally ill people, I can count on the fingers of one hand those who have tried to shoot anyone else. The mentally ill are far more likely to kill themselves than to kill others and the few exceptions attract enormous publicity. The proposition that a register of people who have attracted psychiatric attention as (an) effective means of reducing gun deaths or some variation of such a proposal is a red herring which must not divert attention from the real issue which is the availability of guns to the general population.

We believe that the major determinants of the use of guns in society depends, first, on their availability and, secondly, on the attitudes of that society towards the use of guns. The way that is portrayed in the media and so on we believe would have some effect on society's attitudes towards them.

This is the thing that worries us in the College of Psychiatrists is the statistic of one in four households with a gun in the house. The combination of conflict, particularly domestic conflict, alcohol and a weapon in the house is a deadly cocktail.

All the available evidence suggests to us that it is the availability of guns to the general population that influences the statistics on gun deaths whether they are homicides or suicides or by accident and that any measures that will reduce the availability of weapons in the general population will reduce the instance of gun deaths.

The latter part of that testimony by Dr Andrews is, of course, the nub of the Prime Minister's proposals for national firearms legislation - proposals which most Australians support. It is a similar view to that expressed yesterday in Sydney by the former Mayor of New York City, Mr Ed Koch, in ascribing tighter controls on the licensing of pistols as one reason for the recent, long-awaited and widely welcomed downturn in violent deaths in that city. The medical evidence I referred to shows clearly, however, that this is an extraordinarily complex area of law, that firearms legislation is only part of the picture and, clearly, that a bill such as this is a partial and imperfect way to deal with the need to reduce the level of violence in Australia.

The bill in its present form is causing many people great anxiety. One of the National Party's strongest concerns relates to the registration of individual firearms. The Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform made nine recommendations relating to domestic violence issues, five on mental illness and firearms misuse, 13 on licensing, six on firearms safety and security, three relating to prohibited weapons, three on amnesty and compensation matters, nine on firearm sale and purchase, four on penalties for firearm misuse and one on the compilation of crime statistics. Lastly, the committee recommended that it be reconvened, if necessary, after gun law reform issues were discussed at the special Premiers' conference scheduled for later that year.

Most of the committee's 54 recommendations were adopted by the previous coalition Government. However, despite the extraordinarily broad terms of reference given to that committee, which included the words "without limiting the generality of" the other terms of reference, the committee was to recommend "any other action necessary to reinforce responsible gun ownership and use on a national basis". There was not a single recommendation to the effect that the all-parties committee supported a national firearms register or anything like it. Not one! That was the position of the New South Wales National Party then, and it is a policy which our party's membership has chosen not to change, although, as I indicated to this House a couple of weeks ago, and as indicated by the party's New South Wales leadership, the parliamentary National Party had agreed to the concept of a register of firearms owners - exactly the proposition that was put by the Prime Minister in his first statement to the House of Representatives after the Port Arthur tragedy.

The National Party's opposition to registration has always been clear. We believe that a register is impracticable, costly and ineffective. Just before the Port Arthur tragedy, the Deputy Premier, Dr Refshauge, again publicly stated the Australian Labor Party's opposition to the introduction of a register. Mr Carr, just before becoming Premier, went on the public record specifically ruling out the introduction of a firearms register, using words that could well have been extracted from the National Party's firearms policy. A major problem with this package of changes - and the way it is being processed - is that it risks alienating many law-abiding people from our whole political system. They see this package being aimed unfairly, but squarely, at them and, like others in my party, I
Page 3639
believe that a less-threatening proposal for a register would lower the resistance to compliance with the overall package.

It is in the interests of all of the citizens of this State that one segment of the population is not left to feel that it belongs to some sort of undemocratic wasteland and for that reason I continue to support my party's stated policy on registration, and will vote accordingly. I have already referred to the period of review of this bill that has been promised by the Government introducing it - the Carr Labor Government. The idea of having a review period after legislation passes through a Parliament is bizarre and it is offensive. To answer the attack a few minutes ago by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby on members of the National Party, I for one am happy to invest time and energy in trying to come up with a workable register. What a pity the New South Wales Government did not give anyone such an opportunity.

One cannot but be cynical that the Labor Government has any real intention of revisiting this bill. Its promise of consultation is as much a sham on this issue as it is on practically every other area of policy, whether it is the role of the Governor, the closure of agricultural institutions, or Dr Refshauge's bolt-from-the-blue announcement in the last few days about the closure of New South Wales hospitals. Mr Carr did use the word "consultation" in his policy statements leading up to the State election in 1995. He did use the word again, especially in regional New South Wales after its rejection of Labor at the March 1996 Federal election. And he did promise consultation on this bill, but only after it goes through the Parliament.

Consultation is not part of the culture of the Carr Labor Government. It never has been and, sadly, as the hospital closures show, the Labor leopard is slow to change its spots. After all, it was without consultation that Mr Carr and Mr Whelan leapt at the window of opportunity they saw immediately after Port Arthur to try to cede to the Commonwealth the power to make firearms laws. Just like in Canada, a decade hence it is likely that the issue of firearms law will still be the subject of contention here in Australia. That is the reality. Another reality is that the coalition of members of this Parliament means that the bill will proceed through the Parliament, almost certainly unamended. Having articulated a number of serious shortcomings with the bill's provisions and protested at the denial of the normal consultative process that we are accustomed to in a democracy, like most members and delegates in my party and all its New South Wales parliamentarians, I support the general humane intent of the Prime Minister's proposals as part of the way that this country can address the need to contain, and preferably reduce, the incidence of violence throughout Australia.

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE [11.53]: I support the Firearms Bill. Much has already been said in this debate, and I do not wish to delay the passage of the bill by repeating the comments of others. But there are two brief comments that I would like to make. Taking up the point made so well recently by Simon Chapman, we need to think long and hard about the notion that there are two types of gun owners: the crazy and dangerous, and the law-abiding peaceful owners who should have full and free access to guns. This idea is at the basis of much of the gun lobby's rhetoric and it is just not true. In Australia and New Zealand over the past decade, there have been 14 mass shootings in which more than five people were shot - 116 people killed, with 87 per cent dying at the hands of someone with no criminal record of violence.

Equally, it is interesting to note the research into less spectacular instances of shootings. For instance, in the Brisbane region in the decade 1980 to 1989 there were 587 reported firearm deaths. Guns were used in the suicides of 76 per cent of victims, 18 per cent were murders and the remainder were unintentional injuries. Of the murders where the perpetrator was identified, 71 per cent of victims were killed by someone known to them; a jilted lover, a family member or a neighbour. The reality is simple. The most probable perpetrator of gun violence is not a criminal or a crazed person running amuck. It is the hitherto normal gun owner who kills either himself or people close to him.

Unlike a number of other members, I tend not to talk about my past experiences or background when I address this House. But, having practised as a social worker for over a decade, I have assessed people and families in situations, the memories of which I, frankly, still sometimes have difficulty coping with. These included cases involving suicides and guns. If I were asked to develop an interview schedule to assess the possibility of some form of pathology prior to approval of the issuing of a gun licence, the first question I would ask is whether the person really thought they needed a gun in the home. If they said yes then they clearly have deep-seated personal and possible psychopathological problems and need professional help. There is one additional point that I wish to make. The Minister said in his second reading speech:

. . . this bill does not treat firearm owners as criminals, as some have claimed. Rather, it requires firearm owners to comply with special conditions for the privilege of owning and using those firearms in a free society.

In much the same way as those of us with motor vehicle driver's licences have to drive on the left-hand side of the road, it is an invasion of my personal freedom that makes sense for the common good. Equally, when I go through the security scanners at the entrance to this building I do not believe that the Presiding Officers are accusing me of wanting to commit a criminal act. But the hardest part of this process is yet to come - to convince firearm owners to comply with the new laws. Equivalent problems are convincing citizens to register their dogs, or to fence off their
Page 3640
swimming pools. In each case citizens know the laws and they know the consequences of not keeping those laws. Most people do the right thing by their community. For firearm owners there is another threat. The Deputy Prime Minister recently made the point that if these laws were not passed and effectively implemented, then some people would push for all guns to be banned. Well, I am one of those people.

I believe that we should ban all guns in all residential homes. I support this bill as a positive compromise for all interested parties. But, if the gun lobby frustrates its implementation, so be it. The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, has clearly outlined the inevitable reaction of people like me if this occurs. Finally, may I keep an undertaking made by my colleague the Hon. Ann Symonds to remember with respect and sadness those killed at Port Arthur by reading their names onto the Hansard record: Zoe Hall, Helene Salzmann, Janet Quin, Mary Nixon, Elizabeth Howard, Sarah Loughton, Ron Jary, Anthony Nightingale, Glen Pears, Jim Pollard, Nannette Mikac, David Martin, Walter Bennett, Mervyn Howard, Pauline Masters, Kate Scott, Tony Kistan, Andrew Mills, Alannah Mikac, Sally Martin, Kevin Sharp, Mary Howard, Elva Gaylard, Winifred Aplin, Robert Salzmann, Royce Thompson, Madeline Mikac, Jason Winter, Raymond Sharp, Dennis Lever, Peter Nash, Gwenda Neander, Ng Moh Yee William, Chung Soo Leng and Nicole Burgess. For all of those reasons I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN [11.59]: Like all Australians I was deeply shocked by the tragic events that occurred at Port Arthur. There can be no doubt that every honourable member of this House was horrified and appalled by the wanton killing and injury inflicted on so many innocent people. I am in favour of tough gun laws, and I sincerely pray that after their introduction there will never be a repeat of Port Arthur in this country. Radical extremists, whom I abhor, operating under the guise of the so-called gun lobby will get no comfort from me. I have stated publicly that extreme right-wing organisations that call for the spilling of blood to assert their rights are, in my opinion, raving ratbags who should never be allowed to get their hands on a gun, let alone own one.

I have a great deal of respect for the well-meaning and decent people in our society who want to do something about the senseless violence that seems to have become the norm in this day and age. I have heard many fine speeches from honourable members in this House in the past 24 hours. They have addressed this issue squarely, and I commend them for that. I could see that the speech given by the Hon. Ann Symonds, who is at present in the chair, came directly from the heart and was something about which she felt very strongly. I commend you, Madam Deputy-President, for the stance you have taken, for which I have the greatest respect and admiration. However, whilst I agree with the bulk of the legislation, it would be hypocritical of me not to raise the concerns I have.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: How many guns do you have?

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: I have one. I am particularly concerned with firearms registration. Whilst I would agree that theoretically it is a sound idea, the reality is that it has not worked anywhere else, and I am utterly convinced that it will not work here. All of the evidence that has been obtained in New Zealand, Great Britain, Canada and the Australian States has shown that most have either abandoned firearms registration or publicly acknowledged its failure. I am quoting now from research into this subject conducted by the honourable member for Monaro, Peter Cochran:

In evidence to the 1991 New South Wales Parliamentary Committee into Gun Law Reform, a Victorian Report prepared in 1987 by the registrar of firearms after three years of assessing the scheme quoted:

"It seems just to be an elaborate system of arithmetic with no tangible aim. Probably, and with the best of intentions, it may have been thought, that if it were known what firearms each individual in Victoria owned, some form of control may be exercised and those who were guilty of criminal misuse could be readily identified. This is a fallacy, and has proven not to be the case."

The registrar found that a shooter on average holds 2.8 firearms and that only 58.7% of firearms owned had actually been registered. His conclusion was that the registrar of firearms was costly, ineffective, achieves little and does not suppress or control the criminal misuse or irresponsible use of firearms.

The registrar (Chief Inspector Police) finally recommended the abolition of the Victorian Firearms registration scheme and that:

"A far-reaching, effective and proper system of education should be introduced."

This conclusion was echoed in New Zealand. In evidence before the Parliamentary committee, reference was made to a New Zealand police internal study by Inspector A. G. McCallum where he states:

"There is no evidence to suggest there is any relationship between the registration of firearms and their control."

Education will reduce misuse more than will registration.

New Zealand have since abandoned their firearms registry. Another United Kingdom report by Inspector Greenwood, when attached to the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University, makes even more startling claims about firearms registration. The report claims:

"Greenwood, who apparently conducted an exhaustive study of the effects and benefits of long gun registration in Britain, could find no proof that its long gun registration program had been of real assistance to any police force in the apprehension of even one criminal."

It seems that Greenwood found that the only benefit of registration was that it made it easier to return stolen guns to their registered owners. Mr Cochran's research notes continued:

Page 3641

Probably the most damning statement condemning firearms registration comes from a leading authority in this area. David Fine quoted in his 1988 publication "Gun Laws. Proposal for Reform:"

Fine said:

A long gun registration in those Australian jurisdictions in which it has been introduced in recent years, does not appear to be achieving a meaningful reduction in the number of firearms held by private persons who have no real use for or strong attachment to these firearms.

Registration, thus, does not appear to be a strategy particularly well calculated to reduce the availability of firearms to criminals, through a diminution in the number of firearms likely to be lost through burglary.

The final and conclusive statement by Fine was:

If firearms registration was of significant assistance to police anywhere in Australia in their criminal duties, then the author (Fine) would have expected at least some of the many police whom I interviewed nationwide to support it enthusiastically for this reason. None did.

The other area about which I am greatly concerned centres around the uninformed and sometimes prejudiced debate about certain firearms and the proposal to ban semiautomatic weapons. The five-shot self-loading shotgun is a significant item in the armoury of many field and range shooters; I hope that type of firearm will continue to be available to responsible licensed and approved shooters. Similarly, in a number of occupations a semiautomatic rifle is an efficient tool to carry out legitimate shooting activities such as vermin eradication and, where necessary, livestock destruction. Another issue of great significance relates to rifle clubs. It seems to me to be grossly unfair that rifle club members who are neither Olympians nor Australian representatives at an international level, but who legitimately participate in their local club shooting events on weekends, and who are, I might add, the most safety-conscious people that one would wish to meet, may have their sport wiped out at the stroke of a pen.

These people have never done a thing wrong in their lives. In fact, they have done more than anyone to raise the safety aspects of firearms use and control, but the Commonwealth Government intends to repeal the regulations under the Defence Act that cover rifle clubs. Why? I thought the general idea was to remove firearms from the wrong hands, not from the hands of decent, law-abiding sportsmen who want nothing more than to enjoy their favourite recreation. Thousands of Australians are in this position, and they are bitter and angry. Who can blame them? I attended a combined local clubs team shooting event in Broken Hill on the weekend which was well patronised. As honourable members can no doubt imagine, many issues were raised with me at that venue.

These sportsmen have a great love for their chosen sport, and they always go to great pains to compete fiercely in what is an exacting discipline. Many of them have spent considerable sums of money to purchase equipment, which is of a very high standard. I am not talking only about their rifles. A serious competitor needs a large range of equipment, as well as a rifle - specialised sights, rifle mounts, shooting jackets, eye glasses and scopes - the list goes on. Some of this equipment is extremely expensive; in some cases more expensive than the rifle. I want to know whether these law-abiding citizens will be compensated for their sundry equipment.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Maybe not.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: More than likely not. Compensation is covered in part 9 at clause 78 of the bill. I am concerned to know whether a person who decides to surrender his or her firearm, or who is refused a licence to have a firearm that is deemed to be legal under the legislation, will be compensated for the firearm. Will people be compensated for legal firearms they choose to surrender or for which they may be refused licences?

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They should be.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: They should be compensated, but it is unclear as to whether they will be compensated. Or will they simply have to hand them in and receive nothing? That is not spelled out in the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: That is not justice either.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: It is not justice and it is not fair. I shall take a few minutes to read part of a letter I received from Mr R. G. Cheal, who owns the Coo-ee Military Museum in Gilgandra, in which he said:

Dear Sir,

I am the owner of a small Military Museum established more than twenty years ago, to honour our service men and women from all conflicts Australia has been involved with. I have used the museum collection to educate the public, groups of people, (eg Probus) school excursions and so on about Australia's military history.

Over the years we have been invited to many functions around the Gilgandra, Dubbo and Gulargambone districts (and usually at no cost to the organizers) to mount a display from our museum. We have been happy to do this because the history we are trying to preserve needs to be shared with all Australians and although we have larger national and state museums it is the small museums such as ours that are able to bring this history to people on a personal and local level.

My museum collection consists of infantry weapons, field guns, armoured vehicles, soft-skinned vehicles and associated militaria. A significant number of these weapons are held on a museum prohibited weapons permit. The automatic weapons in this category are already rendered innocuous to comply with the current NSW law. Under the proposed State and Federal legislation - State Section 11 page 13 (Firearms Bill 1996) and Federal (page 6 of Australian Police Ministers' Council Resolutions) "NO PROHIBITED FIREARMS TO BE INCLUDED IN A COLLECTION".

This will mean the removal of a large and key part of the museum collection which has great historical value and is a monetary investment of many thousands of dollars resulting from 40 years of collecting.

The museum is that man's life.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: We will look after him.

Page 3642

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: I am sure the Hon. B. H. Vaughan would. He stated further in his letter:

I deeply resent that this can be destroyed by the stroke of a pen by an uninformed bureaucracy that refuses to even to consult with firearms owners. There has been no consultation with genuine firearms owners and users.

I will not read the rest of that letter but one can see the man's concerns, and they are extremely valid. Finally, I would like to read a statement from a friend of mine who lives at Broken Hill. Peter Hocking, MB, BS, is not only a friend of mine but also my family doctor. Dr Hocking has a colourful history. He is a self-made man; he spent many years in the work force and several years in the army; finally, he pulled his finger out and studied at university to become a doctor. I admire the man; he has done it the hard way. His statement reads:

Responsible firearm owners acknowledge the need for safe storage and use of firearms.

However we do not acknowledge any correlation between the number of firearms in the community and the number of firearm related murders. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show a decline in the number of firearm related homicides between 1979 and 1994 (excluding suicide by firearms, which also showed a noticeable decline). In 1979, firearm related murders, as a percentage of all murders was 37% - in 1994 it was only 23%. This too has shown a decline over this period of time (as has firearm related suicides as a percentage of total suicides). Firearm ownership has increased during this period of time, as has the number of non-firearm related homicides.

Murder is not an issue of firearm ownership, it is an issue of people killing people. It is an issue of public safety. Murder is an action. It involves a motive, thought processes, physical activity and a means all directed towards a specific bloody objective. Only sometimes are firearms that means used.

Actions are much more likely to be influenced by observation of similar actions. That is, visual and auditory stimulus of real and depicted killing is more likely to be an influence towards murder than is the possession of an object.

"Rambo" styled videos, or live or depicted portrayals of killing on television are examples of this stimulus. They are the killing culture. During the past 15 years there has been an increase in the number of mass murders where semi-automatic military rifles, similar to those depicted in the killing culture, have been used. These types of mass murders are a relatively new phenomena. They are now occurring at a greater frequency. These mass murders claim the greatest loss of life per incident.

The sports of recreational hunting and competitive shooting do not involve aggression or hostility towards fellow participants or the general public. They exercise the utmost regard for safety to avoid the loss of human life. They are sociable people with a similar sporting interest. Their culture is definitely not part of killing culture. The killing culture is imported from America. It exploits the immature and vulnerable for financial gain and has no regard for human life or public safety.

To the psychologically unstable, immature or those not in touch with reality, the killing culture can be extremely influential. Semi-automatic firearms, even if banned, will still always be available, and if the killing culture is allowed to go on then, unfortunately, the killings will continue.

The impending laws concerning firearm ownership and use involve two approaches. The first is control of what type of firearms can be owned, the second is control of who can shoot. Instead of putting the emphasis on the types of firearms available, it would be more logical to put more emphasis on who can shoot what types of firearms.

This should be based on psychological stability, maturity and shooting experience as they are the factors closely related to public safety. This would legally prevent the unsafe from using firearms but would not inhibit safe and experienced sports people from participating in their recreational activities.

If the proposed changes to firearm laws were made more selective and fair then more people would be likely to comply with them. People would register their firearms (and themselves) if they knew that the firearms would not be indiscriminately confiscated or destroyed, and were given a promise of no further changes. This would be in the interests of public safety. This is the Prime Ministers responsibility. He should adequately and genuinely consult the shooting organisations when making the changes as one of their chief concerns is public safety and the sensible use of firearms.

Ban the killing culture and the weapons depicted as part of it but do not ban the responsible and sporting cultures of shooting and hunting or the firearms used by them. There is an obvious difference between the two cultures.

This is why shooters are angry…

It is possible (very possible) that under the proposed changes to the law, that the majority of Repeating (not semi-automatic) firearms could be made illegal for most people to use but not be regarded as illegal firearms.

Although people would have a genuine reason for using these firearms (eg safe recreational purposes) the authorities may deem that person has no need for them. This means that people who own legal firearms will be considered illegal shooters and will not be able to use them. Therefore it is likely that those who currently do not have them registered in the States where presently registration is not reinforced, will simply not register these firearms and will hide them along with their illegal firearms. People who had illegal firearms which they would have handed in because they felt they could go on shooting with their legal firearms, will probably hide those along with their legal firearms.

People who have non-registered semi-automatic firearms in states where registration is an issue will not hand them in as they will not be permitted to use their legal arms and will be forced to sell them in what will be a grossly depressed market.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: On the black market.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: The black market, of course. His statement continued:

They would feel the only way they can have a high powered rifle would be illegally whereas if the "need" situation did not exist they would probably be "shooters with legal firearms".

Having no known history of Mental illness does not mean it didn't exist. Both the licensed and unlicensed perpetrators probably had never been screened.

The act of mass murder of the random type certainly suggests to me that Mental Instability or illness was present.

Do psychologically stable or normal people commit these crimes.

About 2/3 of the victims were killed by military style semiautomatic firearms.

Pretty significant.

In a recent study of mass fatal shootings which was published in the Melbourne Age Friday 3rd May 1996 -

Page 3643

And the Hon. P. T. Primrose made reference to that.

- it was revealed that most of the Gunmen had no history of mental illness and two thirds were licensed gun owners.

The study showed that a military-style semi-automatic rifle was the primary weapon used by six of the perpetrators (40 per cent) claiming the lives of 74 (64 per cent) of the 116 victims who were the subject of the study.

But if we removed all those who used MSSAI, those with mental illness and those who were unlicensed, we'd reduce this number by 77.58% leaving only 26 victims rather than 116.

Under this law it is possible to ban the majority of recreational and sporting shooters from using legal firearms with bolt action centre fires which are in licence category B by simply saying they don't have any need for them (over and above a reason for having them). This needs a lot of clarification. The genuine reason is explained but what about genuine need.

That is the statement from Dr Peter Hocking. I have expressed my grave reservations about some aspects of the bill, including the firearms register, and I propose to vote along those lines. Another of my concerns relates to the use of the low power semiautomatic weapons. I have given that issue a great deal of thought and my views will be reflected in the way I vote on the proposed amendments.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [12.20]: My late father, Cecil Herbert, was a sporting shooter, winning awards for clay target shooting over many years at State, national and international levels. It is in his memory that I wish to put a few remarks on record during this debate. I am not going to revisit the many issues already addressed by my colleagues, given the considerable demand on our time in this the last sitting week for the Parliament. Rather, I wish to address some particular concerns that I fear otherwise might not get the attention they deserve. For seven years I have served on the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues, as honourable members will be aware. During that time the committee has conducted a number of inquiries into various facets of violence: youth and drugs, juvenile justice, youth violence, sexual violence and rural suicide.

One theme that kept recurring through all those inquiries was the appalling destructiveness of violence: the harm that it does, not just in a physical sense, but - what is often more serious - in a psychological sense, creating dread so great that the survivors of violence henceforth live a life of fear; restricted in their lifestyle; forever wary of people and social situations that others would not think at all dangerous. In the case of a death from violence families are left forever grieving the loss of a loved one; children are left without a father or mother; parents are left without their child; a spouse is suddenly widowed by the thrust of a knife or a shot from a gun. Violence is horrific and insupportable. Along with the rest of the community - including, I am sure, sporting shooters - I strongly support measures that will reduce violence in the community. My concern at this time is that, in the aftermath of Port Arthur, when all of Australia came together in shock, grief and horror to mourn the deaths of so many innocent people, when the whole country wanted to do something meaningful to address the issue of violence, the only people who have been asked to make sacrifices are the shooting community.

Guns are just one aspect of violence. Restricting the availability of guns is an attack on a symptom of violence. What we most need to do, however, is to attack the causes of violence. One cause of violence above all others needs attention if we genuinely wish to prevent violence in future. Those who commit horrific crimes of violence, be they mass murderers or vicious murderers of the variety who killed Anita Cobby, tend to be damaged, alienated human beings. I know that you, Madam Deputy-President, are aware that studies conducted by researchers in the United States of America of criminals on death row found that those criminals, those vicious murderers, were themselves the victims of horrifically vicious childhoods. That information has turned up in physical child abuse and sexual child abuse statistics; and frequently there is truly appalling emotional child abuse, as well. One group of researchers - Dorothy Otnow-Lewis and her colleagues - who undertook a study of criminals on death row, found that in the majority of cases the parents of those people had actually tried to kill them when they were children. In the light of that information, I was not surprised to learn recently that there are now suspicions that the Anita Cobby murderers were themselves the victims of protracted child sexual abuse.

In its juvenile justice inquiry, the social issues committee found that, overwhelmingly, juvenile criminals have had damaging and alienating childhoods; they have not been brought up to be a part of a community; they have not been brought up to be self-confident human beings who can function effectively in a social environment. Ultimately, in respect of a small minority of those people, down the track all of society pays the cost, particularly those who are closest to their violence: the victims of such violence and the families of the victims of such violence. Violent recidivist criminals are mostly made, they are not born, and we can do something to prevent that from happening. If we, as a community, want to prevent violence in future, we must ensure that children are properly parented. We know how it is done and we have programs to make the appropriate knowledge and support available to new parents. What is needed is the commitment to find the resources to do it. Meanwhile, thousands of children in this State are growing up in physical fear or emotional deprivation. The violent criminals of tomorrow are being created among the children of today.

The second cause of violence that I wish to address is less fundamental than the first, but I raise it for a particular reason. It is the issue of violence in the media. I have particularly referred to this issue because the Sun Herald newspaper surveyed all members of Parliament on 30 April, to find out
Page 3644
where they would stand on the question of gun control. In response, I surveyed all members of the New South Wales parliamentary press gallery to find out where they stood on the question of violence in the media, and whether they thought more restraint should be practised by the media in relation to violence. Thousands of studies into media violence overwhelmingly point to connections between childhood exposure to media, especially television violence, and later violence and desensitisation to violence. A chapter of my recent book entitled Political Incorrectness outlines many of the studies in this area, which show the appalling effects of irresponsible television coverage of violence on our children.

These effects are long term, and persist when the children grow up. Indeed, just this month a case was reported in the press of another copycat killing by a child who murdered, cooked and, I believe, ate the flesh of a younger child as a result of having seen a particularly horrific movie demonstrating such activity. What got my ire about the Sun Herald survey was the attitude to social violence by media which seem to be eager to demand reform and sacrifice from others, but extremely unwilling to look at the one area where they themselves could have the most impact, namely, media violence. Sadly, there is a very real tendency in many contentious social and political areas for us to demand sacrifices from others but never from ourselves. This has been demonstrated in everything from the NIMBY - not in my backyard - syndrome to violence. The hypocrisy of the media in focusing relentlessly on guns, and by and large dismissing community concerns about violence in the media, has been obvious in the post-Port Arthur debate.

In recent weeks there has been a great deal of television footage of angry shooters. While I have no time for extremism of any form, in my view those shooters would probably have been a lot less hostile had they not seen themselves as the only community group expected to make sacrifices in response to Port Arthur. Violence is an issue of great social impact; it is relevant to every one of us. The social changes required to tackle it are burdens for all of us to bear together, not just for a single group. This State Government had a major window of opportunity to call for, and to introduce, parental support measures in the wake of Port Arthur. It did not bother. The media also had a major window of opportunity to do some serious self-examination of how they portray violence and how they might clean up their act. Instead, the media focused relentlessly on guns, as if guns were the only factor involved. For the sake of our children and our future, I am disappointed. My father, I am sure, would have been very disappointed.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [12.31]: I wish to make only one point in this debate, about registration. I have listened to many objections and much talk in the community about registration. It is my view - and it seems that of the community - that the objections are not only unreasonable but, in many cases, border on being irrational. We have a society in which we register many things, for example our cars. As the Hon. Ann Symonds has said, if one owns many cars - as for example John Laws does - one has many registrations. We get a licence to drive; we even register our pets; we cannot even open a bank account without proving who we are - our word is not good enough. Some people talk about exhaustive studies on the merits of registration and claim that it will not work. However, exhaustive studies do not necessarily adduce rigorous research. The issue of registration is being used as a lifeline, and it is absolute nonsense. I want to put on record my total support for this legislation and for the leadership of Prime Minister John Howard, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Hon. Ann Symonds. I have to say that it is about time.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [12.32]: Before I commence my address I want to say that after my first speech this is the most important speech I have given in this House, but unlike my first speech it will take somewhat more than five minutes. In March this year I announced my intention to table a private member's bill to tighten our gun laws in line with the recommendations of the National Committee on Violence. That bill, which was in the process of being drafted when the Port Arthur massacre occurred, has now been withdrawn because it has been overtaken by the Australian police Ministers' agreement on gun control and the Government's introduction of this bill. I am pleased that this bill includes some of the major elements of my proposed private member's bill: the registration of all guns, the requirement of proof of the reason for owning any gun; a ban on private sales of guns; and an end to lifetime licensing.

These measures are part of a scheme of national uniform gun laws that will go a long way towards addressing the problem of firearms violence in Australia. Contrary to the portrayal of violence in the media, gun violence in this country is overwhelmingly a problem of suicide and of domestic violence. In fact, domestic violence is probably the single major area of gun violence in our community. Furthermore, the largest single category of homicide is domestic homicide. But far more numerous than gun homicides or even gun suicides are incidents in which guns are used to intimidate family members in the home. My sole motivation in standing for Parliament in last year's election was the desire to protect and promote the interests of children.

We all know that the world can be a dangerous place for our children, but the fact is that the most dangerous place for children is usually their own home. Children who are involved in domestic violence, or are witness to it, exemplify this danger. Domestic violence is about the abuse of power within the family. The availability of a gun gives the abuser the ultimate power of life or death over his victims - and instantaneously. I would like to
Page 3645
read to the House the words of Michael, a little boy who was terrorised at gunpoint by his father, who was the owner of a .22 rifle and two shotguns. Michael said in evidence in court:

I was crying because I was so scared. He told me to take my hands away from my face. I took my hands down to just below my chin . . . He was holding it [the gun] with one hand. He said something to me but I can't remember what it was. I think he abused me a bit more, then he pulled the trigger. There was a click. I looked up and saw a grin on his face.

Shortly after this horrifyingly cruel incident, Michael's father trained the gun on his 12-year-old daughter, Michael's sister Laurell. But this time he was not joking. He shot Laurell dead at point-blank range. This murder was one of the cases examined in the Family Court's report on domestic homicides, released in March this year. In fact it was released only days after the killing of Jean Lennon Mahjdalawi by her husband outside the Family Court at Parramatta. That report makes very sobering reading. It notes the finding by the Australian Institute of Criminology that guns are more commonly used in domestic homicides than in other types of killings, and particularly in parent-child homicides.

The Family Court's study found that guns were by far the most common weapon used in domestic homicide. In fact Jean Lennon Mahjdalawi was one of three women in New South Wales who were shot dead by their partners in the space of seven weeks. According to the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Police, in the nine months from May 1995 to February 1996 police attended 33,807 domestic disputes across New South Wales and as a result confiscated 1,147 firearms. The presence of this volatile combination of firearms and domestic violence in so many homes indicates a very high level of danger in our community - a danger that is rarely, if ever, mentioned by the gun lobby. The Australasian Police Ministers' Council resolutions and this bill acknowledge the nature of gun violence in Australia: that it is primarily domestic, involving ordinary people with ordinary guns, not professional criminals.

The bill gives us at last a comprehensive system of firearms registration. Many honourable members have said that they believe registration is unnecessary. I would like to outline briefly some of the reasons why I believe it will work. Registration will allow police to know, when they are called out to a domestic dispute, whether they are likely to encounter firearms. In addition, when a domestic violence offender is ordered by the Local Court to give up his guns, registration will allow that order to be enforced, by providing a list of the guns that the perpetrator owns. When a house is broken into and a firearm is stolen, registration will alert police to the urgency of responding. If a suspect is apprehended in possession of a firearm, registration may connect the suspect with the break-in. The main benefit of registration will be to set up a chain of responsibility and accountability, thereby ensuring the effective operation of the licensing system. Currently, someone can legally purchase a firearm and there is no record of that purchase available to any government agency. Hence, when that person's licence expires, there is no incentive for the person to renew it. Now, a dealer who sells a gun will record that transaction and forward the record to the police. Thus, in the future when the licence expires, the police will be notified that the person is now in illegal possession of that firearm. This is a powerful incentive for people either to renew the licence or to dispose of the gun. Registration will ensure that the owner does not sell or give the gun away to someone who is unlicensed, because the owner will have to account for the gun's absence at the time of renewal.

While registration will not prevent every incident of firearm misuse or embrace every weapon in the community, it will be a significant improvement on the status quo and should be continually monitored and refined to maintain its effectiveness. Apart from registration, the bill provides for a ban on private sales. It puts an end to backyard gun peddlers and classified advertisements for lethal weapons. Most important, it recognises that all guns are dangerous items with the potential to kill, wound, disfigure, intimidate and traumatise people both in close proximity and at a distance. There is no such thing as a harmless gun that does not require regulation. I have a saying: Keeping a firearm in your home is like having a pet red-back spider. It may be well looked after but one day it will bite you or someone in your family.

The most significant principle in the bill is the requirement of proof of reason for anyone wanting to own a gun. Under the existing Firearms Act any adult who does not have a serious criminal record - the vast majority of adults - basically qualifies to own a gun. Under the new law, no-one will be allowed to own a gun unless a case for ownership can be established. In other words, gun ownership is unequivocally established as a privilege rather than a right. It is not that gun ownership has ever been a legal or constitutional right in New South Wales but judging from some of the rhetoric heard recently there are gun owners organisations that have difficulty coming to terms with that fact.

I welcome particularly the first statement in the overview of the bill, that firearm possession and use is a privilege conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his leadership and courage; the leader of the Federal National Party on putting public safety ahead of political considerations; and the New South Wales Government on being the first in Australia to incorporate in legislation the Australasian Police Ministers' Council resolutions. I also congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peter Collins, and his deputy, Mr Ian Armstrong, on supporting the bill's passage through the lower House despite some reservations on the part of the latter.

Page 3646

The National Party in particular has taken risks in this reform of gun laws, and I commend the Opposition parties for their commitment to bipartisan support for the gun laws that 90 per cent of Australians want. This bill is an excellent starting point towards a safer New South Wales. However, it is only a start. I had intended in Committee to move several amendments to the legislation, but, given the circumstances and upon consideration, I have decided to address my concerns in this speech and thereby avoid taking up the time of honourable members in Committee. I shall now outline my concerns and urge the Government to give consideration to them, particularly in cases in which there will be an impact on any future regulations arising from the legislation.

I have seven concerns. My first relates to storage, in that before a firearm licence is granted the commissioner should have to be satisfied that storage facilities have been installed that meet the requirements of part 4 of the bill, safe keeping of firearms. The current wording of clause 11(3) requires the commissioner only to be satisfied that the legal storage requirements "are capable of being met by the applicant". My concern is that the clause may be interpreted in a manner that falls short of confirmation that the storage requirements have been met. That would represent very little progress on the existing gun law, which merely requires applicants to state that they are aware of the storage requirements and promise to comply with them; it does not require them to provide any evidence.

The APMC and the Government in drafting part 4 have gone to some lengths to specify the storage requirements considered necessary for keeping a gun in a house. The requirements are crucial in preventing guns from being used impulsively in suicide, homicide or domestic violence; for protecting children from gun accidents; and for preventing guns from being stolen and later used in the commission of crime. If we take those requirements seriously, we must make them a prerequisite for gun ownership. Every other prerequisite for gun ownership - genuine reason, special need, identity and safety awareness - has to be proved. Compliance with the storage requirements is no less important than those other prerequisites, so no licence should be granted unless the applicant proves that he or she has complied with the requirements.

I remind honourable members that inspection of storage before a licence is granted is the normal process at present in relation to pistols. If the wording of clause 11(3) is not changed, it could be interpreted as weakening the existing law on pistols. I acknowledge that the bill in its present form provides that once a licence is granted it is subject to the condition that the police can arrange an inspection of storage, as per clause 19(2)(c). However, from the public health and safety point of view, this is a downstream measure rather than a preventative one. The police are unlikely ever to inspect storage unless violence is believed to have occurred previously. That is primarily because of the limited resources available to the police. Rather than allow gun owners to take their chances on never being inspected, it would be much safer to force them at the beginning of the licence process to face up to their legal responsibility to comply.

I repeat: the emphasis throughout the APMC resolutions is on reducing the gun stockpile by allowing gun ownership only by those who prove that they qualify. Requiring proof of adequate storage is not only an essential part of the scheme but yet another hurdle for those who would contemplate owning a firearm. My second concern follows on from the first. If storage facilities are shown to be inadequate following the granting of a licence and result in the confiscation of a firearm, the firearm should be destroyed. At present firearms seized because of unsafe storage may be destroyed, as provided under clause 80, but that is not mandatory. The storage requirement is crucial to preventing accidental or unintentional misuse of firearms. There must be a strong deterrent for those who fail to meet the storage condition of their licence.

My third concern relates to the storage requirements for gun dealers and the records of transactions that they must keep. Clause 47(4) requires dealers to keep their records "in a place of safe keeping", which presumably means a safe. Dealers' safes should be required to be fireproof. Dealers will keep records of gun sales in their safes for up to three months before forwarding them to the police. A fire in a gun shop could adversely affect the firearm registration system unless the records are kept in a fireproof safe. My fourth concern involves an aspect of the licensing process that does need to be proved under the bill, namely genuine reason to own a gun. The first reason listed in the table in clause 12 is "sport/target shooting", which will be proved by the applicant being a member of a shooting club prescribed by the regulations.

That method of proving genuine reason is contained in the existing law applying to pistols; if one is a member of a pistol club, one has genuine reason to own a pistol. Under the existing law for pistols the club must notify the commissioner if any membership lapses or if a member fails to attend the club. That provision should be made under the new law for owners of any type of gun who have nominated sport or target shooting as their genuine reason to own a gun. Shooting clubs should be required to notify the police of any member who stops attending or ceases to be a member.

My fifth concern relates to the permit to own a gun, which under clause 31(3)(c) will also require proof of reason. It is unclear whether when considering an applicant's proof of reason the commissioner will take into account the number and nature of firearms already owned by an applicant,
Page 3647
and whether the applicant already owns enough guns for the purpose nominated as a genuine reason to own a gun. To prevent the stockpiling of weapons, the law must make it harder to prove genuine reason for each additional gun. If someone already owns four guns for target shooting, that person should not be able to get a fifth gun simply because it is proved that he or she is a genuine target shooter. The commissioner should be required to ask whether the applicant's genuine reason is such as to necessitate owning yet another gun.

My sixth concern relates to dealings involving ammunition. When ammunition changes hands, the person receiving it should be required to hold a licence, regardless of whether the transfer of the ammunition is a sale or a gift. However, clause 65 of the bill does not explicitly refer to the possibility of an exchange of ammunition without financial consideration: for example, a licensed shooter may have an unlicensed gun owner friend who simply asks for some ammunition. In that case, money not being involved, under the current wording of the clause no offence will be committed. Buying and selling should be taken to mean taking and giving, which would prevent unlicensed gun owners from obtaining ammunition by gift or barter, because the giver will commit an offence by giving ammunition to an unlicensed gun owner.

My final concern has to do with the subject of compensation, and it is the one matter on which the Hon. John Tingle and I agree. I believe the Commonwealth-funded compensation scheme should cover all guns surrendered during the amnesty, not just prohibited category C and D guns. Clause 78 currently provides for compensation only for prohibited firearms surrendered during the amnesty, that is guns listed in schedule 1. Most gun violence - whether domestic violence, homicides or suicides - involves ordinary rifles and shotguns that come under category A or B, that is firearms which will not be prohibited weapons.

Very large numbers of people who legally own those ordinary rifles and shotguns will be unable to prove genuine reason to continue owning their guns, because they acquired them at a time when proof of reason was not required. Hence they are not eligible under the present wording of the clause for compensation. Those people must be encouraged to hand in their guns during the amnesty. They should not be disadvantaged by being denied the compensation being offered to those who surrender category C and D weapons. The argument has been put forward that they will be able to sell their guns to dealers, but it must be acknowledged that the price they will receive will be depressed by the glut of guns that hopefully will be sold by others in the same circumstances. The compensation scheme should provide an incentive to surrender those guns and for people to take advantage of the 12-month period during which fair and just compensation will be paid.

Recognising that funding for the compensation scheme must come from the Commonwealth, I have raised this matter with the police Minister. I am pleased he has given me a verbal assurance that he will in turn raise it with the Commonwealth Government, through the Australasian Police Ministers' Council. I believe the $500 million to be raised by the increase in the Medicare levy will prove sufficient to compensate for all guns surrendered, including those in categories A and B. However, if the funds do not cover the total bill, I suggest that the Commonwealth ask the corporate sector to make up the shortfall. The corporate sector stands to benefit significantly from restrictions on the availability of guns, through reductions in insurance premiums, security expenses, sick leave and workers compensation costs. Yet the corporate sector has so far escaped liability from the cost because it does not pay the Medicare levy.

The bill also leaves some important aspects of the law to be dealt with in the regulations. No doubt this has resulted from the Government's wish to act quickly on the APMC agreement, and I commend the Government for its determination and initiative. However, the drafting of the regulations will be a process that requires careful monitoring to make sure the principles of strict and uniform gun laws are not undermined by pragmatic political interests. Certain vocal sections of the gun lobby have declared their intention to subvert the operation of the new gun laws by any means possible, including log-jamming the Local Court with spurious appeals against the commissioner's decisions and by inciting gun owners to disobey the law. The message I want to send to them is that I will do everything within my power to resist their irresponsibility and to maintain the democratic process and the rule of law.

The Government has declared a public consultation period until 31 July. I hope all rational groups and individuals will take advantage of that consultation period and make constructive submissions. While I welcome this process, its effect must be to strengthen the practical effect of the new law. We must not allow a self-interest minority to overwhelm the will of the vast majority of Australians to live in safer homes and in a safer community. Our children not only demand this, but expect it of us. On 5 May 1995, just after I was sworn in as a member, my son, who was five, drew a picture of me - incidentally with one eye and with what looked like musical notes coming out of my mouth. I asked him what I was doing in the picture, and he replied, "This is daddy talking and making laws." When I asked him what law he would like me to make he said, "I want you to make a law that stops people killing each other." I am proud to be part of this historic legislation and to go some way towards fulfilling his wish. I support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.55]: The Call to Australia party supports the Firearms Bill, which will become the Firearms Act 1996. The Act
Page 3648
will commence on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation, and different days may be appointed for the commencement of section 89 for the purpose of repealing different provisions of the Firearms Act 1989 or the Firearms Regulations 1900, on different days. Call to Australia supports the principles and objects of the bill, which are stated in clause 3 as follows:

(1) The underlying principles of this 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:

(i) by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and

(ii) by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms, and

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

(2) The objects of this Act are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

As honourable members know, this legislation and similar legislation being introduced or to be introduced in other States results from a plan launched by the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, to have uniform national firearms laws in Australia. At the time of that call, following the Port Arthur massacre, different States had different laws and there was a need for a uniform approach, particularly as some States, such as Tasmania, the Northern Territory and to a degree Queensland, appeared to have far more lax gun laws.

When the Prime Minister made his announcement I believe New South Wales had some of the strongest gun laws in the Commonwealth. As we know, those laws resulted from the deliberations of a joint select committee that inquired into gun laws in this State following the tragic deaths that occurred at Strathfield when Wade Frankum killed one person with a knife and shot six others. That incident drove the Houses of this State to do something fairly dramatic to introduce strong gun laws, and I was pleased to be part of that process. Much of the criticism in the media was about automatic and semiautomatic weapons being available, and it was suggested that New South Wales did not need uniform legislation because it had already moved to ban those types of weapons and had a number of other positive firearms control measures as part of the laws of this State.

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister was correct when he said that Australia must have uniform legislation. There is no point having strong legislation in New South Wales if people can go to Tasmania or other States, buy weapons banned in this State and bring them back here. So Call to Australia supports that uniform legislation approach. I went on record as stating that Call to Australia supports uniform gun laws in Australia. I sent a detailed submission to the Prime Minister and the Federal Attorney-General, as well as to Premier Carr and police Minister Whelan, with copies to members of the Federal Parliament, including the Leader of the National Party, the Hon. Tim Fischer. My submission recommended the toughening of existing laws in New South Wales and increasing penalties, particularly for persons who possess firearms without a licence.

A number of those submissions have been embodied in the bill. I was advocating for template legislation and an improvement to New South Wales legislation. Call to Australia is pleased that this draft bill was submitted to the Commonwealth Attorney General for his examination. The Minister for Police received the following letter from Daryl Williams, the Federal Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, on 18 June:

I refer to our previous correspondence and discussions regarding the NSW Firearms Bill 1996. Thank you for providing me with a copy of the Bill. I understand you intend to introduce the legislation into NSW Parliament this week.

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.

I would like to record my appreciation for the speed with which you have completed this legislation, and my thanks for your cooperation or in this matter.

This legislation is in harmony with the Federal Government's request for uniform legislation. I trust that other States will work through the New South Wales bill and adopt similar legislation so that although Australia has sovereign States it will have developed and implemented uniform gun laws. That will be a positive move. Honourable members are all concerned about what has been described as the culture of violence in the United States. Australia should not go down that path. As I drove to the Parliament this morning I listened to John Laws interviewing a person from New York who was surprised at the high content of American programs on Australian television. In many ways that is a true reflection of the true situation. Australia is flooded with American television programs and news reports. A natural disaster in India, for example, a flood or an earthquake which causes the deaths of hundreds or thousands of
Page 3649
people may receive scant attention on Australian television. But an event of less magnitude in America will receive headline coverage.

Australians are being excessively influenced by the United States. Cultural violence in the United States is portrayed on television programs, films produced in the United States and news coverage. I hope that this legislation will circumvent that culture. Years ago Australians were warned about the use of heroin and other drugs in the United States, and some rather naive people in Australia thought that would never happen here. But we have gone down that path. Most of the social and moral problems of the United States have been duplicated in Australia and we are close to duplicating cultural violence by the use of firearms.

The United States has a population of 254 million. Last year 38,000 Americans were killed by firearms. In 1994 the population of Australia was 18 million. During that same year 620 people were killed by firearms - 200 in New South Wales. That is about the yearly average. Medical experts estimate that up to 80 per cent of those gun deaths were suicides, many of them young males. To put it in context, 504 Australians died in the Vietnam war! The red lights are flashing; something has to be done and I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction.

No one is sure how many guns are in Australia, but we have 1.8 million licensed shooters. How many unlicensed shooters are there, how many more unlicensed shooters will there be in the future, and of those how many will not register their firearms? I pose those questions because already there seems to be a lack of cooperation by the more extreme elements of the so-called gun lobby with the existing legislation. Those extreme elements are threatening not to cooperate with the legislation. The Government must ensure that the community observes this law. It is no good passing laws in this State if they are going to be ignored by a large percentage of the population.

This legislation was drafted quickly following the Port Arthur massacre. There should have been far more consultation with all organisations involved with firearms - sporting or target shooters, primary producers, farming associations and so on - so that a unified approach to gun control could be taken. Australia needs uniform gun legislation but it also needs a united nation. Regrettably in recent days the media has drawn attention to a division in our nation over this issue. It should have been handled more carefully to try to bring about agreement, a united approach. In the main licensed firearms users are law-abiding, conservative citizens who feel strongly about observing the law. They are most upset at the high incidence of robberies, car stealing, the use of illegal drugs and so on.

Generally speaking, farmers and members of firearms clubs are conservative law-abiding citizens. Had more time and care been taken to consult, such groups could have been brought on side and there would be a united approach to the legislation. I still believe that it is not a lost cause, although I acknowledge that there is a tough road to hoe before there can be agreement. When the bill passes through the Parliament I trust that the Government will seek the views of those who are intimately involved with firearms in New South Wales and across the nation to finetune the legislation. I refer particularly to primary producers and farmers and members of shooters clubs, sporting clubs, and Olympic shooting teams. When we resume after the winter recess those improvements, amendments or modifications can be considered and implemented if necessary.

No-one can deny that the driving force behind the legislation was the Port Arthur massacre. Many questions will be asked and many leads investigated during the murder trial in Tasmania. Martin Bryant used an automatic military assault weapon to murder 35 innocent people and to wound, some seriously, 18 others. Such a weapon is very effective in wartime; it is not a weapon that should be in the hands of civilians, and it is certainly not a weapon that is available to someone in a deranged state of mind. No normal human being could kill men, women and children in such a cold-blooded manner. In one instance the offender hunted down a small child who was trying to run away. I do not in any way excuse Martin Bryant - he will have to pay the full penalty for committing these horrific crimes - but there are serious underlying doubts about whether the massacre at Port Arthur could have been avoided.

The nation was shocked by the tragedy. Many church services were held throughout the nation. The event is burnt deeply into our national psyche. It has had the same thought-provoking effect as the commemoration activities on Anzac Day - from north to the south, east to west, in cities and in country towns. The brutality that was perpetrated on that quiet Sunday afternoon rocked our nation to its foundations. The Port Arthur massacre will be remembered as the place at which the most murders by shooting were committed by one person in modern history. We should not be proud that our nation is now listed in the history books as the nation which gave rise to such an event.

Individual people are not to blame. It is a pity that publicity and reaction to the terrible event has provided the unintended impression that those who have guns are in some way to blame for what happened at Port Arthur. Firearm owners at many of the large rallies said that they felt they were being blamed for the incident and were being treated as if they were associates of Martin Bryant. It seems that in recent times mass shootings by a lone gunman firing a high-powered automatic weapon at innocent people completely unknown to the gunman are not rare. In 1984 in California, James Huberty entered a MacDonald's restaurant
Page 3650
and firing indiscriminately, killed 21 people and wounded 19 others before he was shot dead by police. That seems to be the first recorded case.

Such incidences are not foreign to Australia. There were the Hoddle Street and Queen Street shootings in Melbourne in 1987. Then in 1991 Wade Frankum stabbed one girl and shot six others in Strathfield, Sydney, before killing himself. This year honourable members were shocked by the report that in the quiet Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March, a known paedophile, Thomas Hamilton, killed 16 young children and their teacher in a school gymnasium. There is no doubt that the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania has shaken Australia to the core. How did it happen and what can we do to avoid a recurrence? Many people believe that this bill will stop a recurrence of such tragedies . I do not believe we should put our full confidence in this legislation alone. A more comprehensive approach should be taken to the issue. The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith referred in her contribution to violent television videos that encourage violence and desensitise society.

There is no doubt Martin Byrant is a very unusual person. His background would suggest that he was a bomb waiting to explode. Like so many others in modern society, as a result of the breakdown of his parents' marriage he was left alone for a great deal of his life. He did, however, have an association with his father. We also heard first-hand from people who knew Martin Bryant. Jenetta Hoani, a former girlfriend of Martin Bryant, revealed that he was very fond of violent videos, his favourite being Child's Play 2 - rated M - which features a cute doll named "Chucky". Another "Chucky" video was a factor in the horrific murder of Jamie Bulger by two boys in England in 1993.

I have not seen this video; I am going on information provided to me about it. Jenetta said that the main character of the video is a doll named"Chucky", who has to kill a boy to become real. "Chucky" apparently kills many people. Miss Hoani said that Martin used to talk about "Chucky" all the time. She also said that he had some hard-core porn videos depicting bestiality that he had bought in Scandinavia. She said she left him after his mother revealed that he was schizophrenic and after she was disturbed by the "unnatural attention" he paid to young men. In another media interview the mother of one of Bryant's girlfriends was distressed at something Bryant had allegedly done to her daughter - something so bad that the mother did not want to describe or discuss. No-one knows what took place between Martin Bryant and that young woman. Bryant's most recent girlfriend was aware of his preoccupation with guns and was not surprised, as others were, to hear that he was involved in the massacre.

It has been reported also that in 1994 the Tasmanian Supreme Court ordered a trustee company to administer Martin Bryant's affairs. Health and community services doctors had examined Bryant and found that he suffered from a personality disorder and schizophrenia. I read with interest the debate on this bill in the other place. As we know the Legislative Assembly sat to debate this bill on Friday and Saturday of last week. The Minister for Health denied in his speech that there was any evidence Martin Bryant was suffering from schizophrenia. There is documented evidence of that fact from many sources. I am not sure why the Minister for Health made such a denial. He seems to be out of touch with the reality. Obviously he has not studied this case and the evidence very closely.

There is no doubt that Martin Bryant liked violent computer games and arcade video games and violent videos. The police reported that they confiscated 2,000 violent videos from his suburban residence. In the a room in the house occupied by Miss Harvey, who had died earlier, family videos were found but in Martin Bryant's room were the violent videos, which the police confiscated. They included Nightmare on Elm Street. He had video games which could be played on television. One arcade game named Virtuacop involved the player pointing a plastic gun at the screen and pressing a button to fire. The player is awarded points for accuracy, for killing people on the screen.

The few survivors of the assault on the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur said that the gunman acted slowly and deliberately, carefully aiming and firing in a systemic way - almost as if he was playing the video game. Perhaps he had some sort of mental breakdown in which he thought he was playing the video game - but it was reality, not fantasy. There are confirmed reports that he had tried to buy guns. He went to a gun shop in New Town near his home twice in the week before the massacre but could not buy guns because he had no licence. The gun used in the massacre did not belong to Martin Bryant. Some speakers gave the impression that he was able to buy an automatic rifle. He went to the Seascape Cottage of the Martins and murdered the Martins and then stole the guns, which belonged to the Martins' son, which he used to kill the other 33 people. After his rampage he returned to the cottage. Some people mistakenly believed that he ended up at the cottage but he actually started his rampage from the cottage, which he later burned down. When he tried to escape from the burning building the police SWAT group captured him and he was treated for serious burns in hospital.

People have tried to find a simple reason for the Port Arthur massacre which could be counteracted through legislation. A single piece of legislation such as this bill will not prevent such events in the future as many factors were involved. Psychiatrist Professor Brent Waters said that access to high-powered guns was a factor in the massacre but he said so was the glorification of violence in the media. We cannot ignore that influence. Melbourne clinical psychologist Ronald Conway said, "An increasing number of recent violent
Page 3651
assailants or killers have had some psychiatric illness that I think has been poorly investigated or underestimated." He cited the Melbourne Queen Street killer, Vitkovic, and the Strathfield killer, Wade Frankum. With Martin Bryant we see a similar pattern.

At this stage no evidence has been revealed to indicate that he took drugs but a loner involved with violent videos would quite possibly have experimented with drugs. I will be prophetic and say that the court proceedings will reveal he has at least experimented with drugs - marijuana and so on. I do not have all the details but apparently Martin Bryant's farm neighbours had complained to police that he had threatened to shoot them if they came on to his property. He obviously had a gun but he did not have a licence. It seems a great oversight that the police did not investigate the complaints and check out Bryant to ensure that he did not have access to a gun. They could then have gone further to check whether he had a mental illness or violent tendencies which could have led to a shooting. This poses the question of whether the Port Arthur massacre could have been prevented if all those involved had done their duty.

I do not know Tasmanian police policy but there has been a tendency in recent years for police to move away from preventive action and to react only to crime. Police are nervous about interfering with people's privacy, taking action on hearsay and so on. This is creating a vacuum in our society. When police receive such reports they should be encouraged to follow them through. I am pleased that domestic violence legislation in New South Wales, following the report of the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, of which I was a member, allows police to confiscate guns, thereby preventing a deranged husband who completely loses self-control from turning a gun against his wife, children and/or himself - as has occurred many times in our State and nation.

After the massacre there was a call for people to be calm and not to make guns a political issue. In my humble opinion that did not happen. Individuals and organisations supporting gun control took the opportunity to make guns an issue, and by so doing have distorted the debate, perhaps unintentionally. Some sections of the media have aided and abetted that attitude. For example, when the Australian Broadcasting Corporation heard that the group that Ian McNiven is associated with was to hold a rally at Gympie it sent a camera crew to film the meeting. If I were the producer at the ABC, I would have known the sort of footage I would get at the meeting - fiery and almost irrational statements. Many times I have seen calm rallies - the protests by nurses about hospital transfers is a current example - become agitated with people shouting slogans as soon as camera crews arrive. They want to have impact on the television that night. Indirectly, Ian McNiven and others cooperated with the ABC by making what I believe were quite irrational statements.

Many of the people at the rally would have been inflamed to a degree by the ABC. Many conservative and country people have had disagreements with the ABC over the years. I have disagreed with the ABC over its promotion of the homosexual mardi gras and so on. Many sections of the community are antagonistic towards the ABC. Putting ABC camera crews in a conservative meeting will almost generate an extremism which perhaps is not normal or even genuine. If the ABC had not been present, the meeting may have been calmer. I cannot prove that what I claim happened would not have happened if the ABC had not been there. However, the ABC should bear some blame for inflaming the meeting. The extreme statements made at that meeting provoked a stronger reaction to firearm owners. People believed all firearm owners were extremists. As I have said, Ian McNiven was provoked to make more extreme statements than he would have made in a normal discussion or at a public protest meeting about firearms.

The extreme statements of Ian McNiven helped to accentuate the division in our nation and made honest, responsible gun owners - farmers, members of shooting clubs, et cetera - believe that they were being treated like criminals. Some of the more extreme views expressed by gun control groups have conveyed that impression. Those groups seem to have a chip on their shoulder about any person holding a firearm licence. A distinction needs to be made between extremists such as Ian McNiven and average, responsible Australians. I have had contact with firearms for many years. During my 22 years in the army reserve I took part in shooting competitions on rifle ranges and met with members of gun clubs and farmers. Many of my supporters are farmers; I received telephone calls from some of them this morning. Those people are the most conservative, law-abiding citizens in Australia; they are not criminals or lawbreakers. There are extremists on both the pro-gun side and the anti-gun side of the debate. Some on the anti-gun side will not rest until all firearms in Australia are banned. That is one of the concerns of those who want to use firearms: primary producers and members of recognised shooting clubs or associations. They ask whether the bill is the first item on the agenda to totally prohibit weapons in Australia.

During this debate some extreme statements have been made by members who want legislation to prohibit firearms from being stored in a person's home, whether it is a farmhouse or a house in the suburbs. I have some sympathy for attempts to reduce or eliminate firearms from suburban areas. However, the proposition seems to be that the legislation will be accepted, but the next step will be to prohibit all domestic firearms. Such a proposition only creates greater antagonism and
Page 3652
division in our nation. Honourable members need to be aware of that proposition and do all they can to unite our nation and ensure that we all work in harmony.

I was a member of the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform that was established in 1991. Although the committee had only limited time in which to conduct its investigations, it considered 257 submissions and examined 25 witnesses who were mainly senior members and presidents of recognised shooters associations and clubs. The committee discussed a wide range of issues relating to gun law reform. Members of the committee inspected the forensic ballistics unit in the physical evidence section of the New South Wales Police Service, the New South Wales Gun Club at Terrey Hills, and the premises of the New South Wales Firearms Safety Awareness Council Limited.

I shall not refer to all the recommendations in the report, which has been tabled and discussed in this Chamber. The majority of the recommendations were incorporated in legislation and gave New South Wales the strongest gun laws in Australia. The bill improves on those provisions, and the improved provisions will be the basis for uniform national legislation. I have received correspondence from some of the groups who are concerned about the whole debate. I want to put some of those letters on the record to counteract the perception in the minds of some people, in some sections of the media, and perhaps in the minds of some members of this House that those involved with firearms and with shooters associations and clubs are extremists. The correspondence I have received supports sound workable legislation. In a letter dated 17 July the President of the New South Wales Shooting Association Limited, Alex Comino, said:

The NSW Shooting Association wishes to assist the government in the effective implementation of the new uniform gun laws and revised firearms legislation.

The NSW Shooting Association is:

•the official and only member for the sport to the NSW Olympic Council,

•the official and only member for the sport to the Australian Commonwealth Games Association (NSW), and

•the sole state member of the national sports federation.

The letter made a number of points and concluded in this way:

We would therefore appreciate the opportunity to provide sensible input into proposed firearms laws and assist the process, but we also wish the ensure that they do not unnecessarily restrict the legitimate activities of the sport - a matter of considerable importance for our sport as we draw closer to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

My colleagues and I would be very pleased to be able to discuss this matter with the appropriate people at your earliest convenience.

I have met with deputations from that organisation. I acknowledge the organisation's sincerity in seeking sound, workable legislation. The same can be said about the Sporting Shooters Association of New South Wales Incorporated. The association expressed some of its concerns in a letter dated 5 June, which stated:

The Sporting Shooters Association wants Tough National Gun Laws too, but we want tough gun laws that will work; and work without unreasonably affecting law abiding firearm owners.

Enclosed with that letter was a proposal headed "Towards Uniform National Gun Laws". That impressive document deals with many issues. In summary the document states that to be workable the national control gun strategy must provide for the establishment of a national firearms board to drive the process of reform and to ensure that the current momentum is not lost or squandered; the creation of a national register of licensed firearm owners accessible by all police jurisdictions; the immediate declaration of an amnesty to facilitate the removal of illegal and unwanted firearms in the community; the general prohibition of all automatic firearms, all military-style semiautomatic centre-fire firearms and all other large magazine-capacity semiautomatic firearms, as well as strict minimum national license conditions for all other firearms; the requirement that all license applicants are to have an appropriate genuine reason for owning a firearm; the creation of standardised classes or categories of firearms licenses; and compulsory training for all licence applicants.

The association explained in detail how the national strategy would operate. I will not take up the time of the House by reading the document. By leave, I table that national gun control strategy. I am seeking to make the point that these groups are not irrational; they are not like Ian McNiven. They want to cooperate. It is not right to label them as criminals, as some sections of the media have. We must all work cooperatively to achieve a united approach. At the moment the nation is divided. Perhaps the nation is gradually moving towards agreement, but there has certainly been strong disagreement, which has been evident in protest marches and rallies by those on both sides of the debate. Some speakers in the debate have ridiculed what could be called the defence factor. It may be hard for those living in suburban areas - even some Labor Party people, particularly those from the left-wing of the Labor Party - to understand that many Australians, particularly in the country, have a real fear of invasion. I do not personally have that fear.

During the Second World War, the authorities were prepared to hand over the northern part of Australia above the Brisbane Line to Japan if that became necessary. Those living in northern Queensland have a deep-seated fear of invasion and want Australia to be protected. Perhaps it is emotional and illogical but those who have that fear ought not to be laughed at. They believe that Australia can be protected through the availability of firearms and through recognised clubs, particularly the Australian rifle clubs, which work in cooperation with the Federal Government. Those
Page 3653
clubs were established in the early 1920s after the First World War under the Commonwealth Defence Act regulations with a view to providing a reservoir of trained riflemen who could be inducted into the Australian Army if war broke out.

I and other members of the House who have spoken in favour of the Australian rifle clubs support the retention of the Defence Act regulations that make it possible for clubs to operate. Apparently the Federal Government is considering repealing those regulations. That is causing fear and concern among members of the Australian rifle clubs. I believe that the clubs should be allowed to continue to operate. Some ask why people need to know how to fire a gun when they will never be required to defend Australia because we are living in the space age, the nuclear age. No-one knows what the future holds. No-one knows what possible problems might arise in Australia's relationships with Indonesia, China or any other nation in the Pacific.

When the coup occurred in Fiji, the media reported that the former Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, was anxious to send the Australian Army to Fiji to help restore the Fijian Government. But Mr Hawke found out that the Fijian Army was bigger than the Australian Army; it had 6,000 trained soldiers and the Australian Army apparently had about 3,000. He then decided it was not the right time to invade Fiji because Fiji was stronger than Australia. As I have said, this morning I received phone calls from rational farmers who are concerned about the future security and defence of Australia. We should not laugh at those people; we should understand their fears and try to work through those fears with them.

As I said before, I have worked closely with the defence forces. I spent 22 years in the Army Reserve. When I resigned I was a company commander with the 4th Royal New South Wales Regiment. I had a great deal to do with every weapon that it was possible to fire. I fired heavy Vickers machine guns, Bren guns, M60s, antitank weapons, Owen submachine guns, and rifles including .303 Lee-Enfield and self-loading rifles. For that reason I have a great respect for guns. I would never have a gun in my home because I know how dangerous they can be. Some honourable members may have never handled a gun and do not fully understand the situation. I do understand the situation, and I understand that those who hold licences - members of rifle clubs and farmers - want to maintain their right to hold a licence and to have a firearm. I respect those rights, but I also know how dangerous firearms, especially military assault weapons, can be. That is why I strongly support the bill.

Careful consideration must be given to those with mental health problems who want to obtain gun licences. That issue has already been discussed in the debate. Obviously no person with a mental problem should be able to obtain a licence. The argument is that it is not always possible to determine whether a person has a mental problem. But even if some people with mental problems can be identified and prevented from holding licences, that will be a step forward even if others with mental problems pass the test and obtain licences. But we should be upfront about it and at least try to make the licensing system work. A degree of voluntary reporting is accepted by the Government, and the Federal Government is inquiring into this matter, which should be treated seriously. In most cases of mass murder the perpetrator had clear signs of mental illness. Martin Bryant obviously had those signs, and I understand that Wade Frankum showed such signs as well. The licences of people showing those signs should be cancelled.

The Australian rifle clubs, the sporting clubs, the Sporting Shooters Association of New South Wales and perhaps the New South Wales Farmers Association should be given as much responsibility as possible so that those organisations will have some input as to who can obtain a licence. If any organisation suspects that someone is a Rambo or is dangerous, that organisation should be able to advise the police to not issue a licence or to cancel a licence. I advocate some type of self-regulation so that those who run the shooters' associations, et cetera, are able to take some responsibility for making sure that people who obtain a licence are sound, safe, law-abiding citizens with no mental illness and no involvement in domestic or other violence. Those associations should be able to veto a licence application or to have a licence cancelled. Those associations have a vested interest in ensuring that there are no more tragedies like those at Port Arthur or Strathfield. That is why I would place a great deal of the responsibility on their shoulders.

I hope there will be a genuine review of the legislation. The police Ministers will consult on 4 July. The legislation will be fully discussed and submissions will be received from the public, particularly the firearms associations, the shooters associations, rifle clubs and so on. Their input will help to form a united approach to this problem. To unite the nation we should listen to all concerned groups. The bill should be reviewed and amended, if necessary, in September because the legislation must be workable. There is undoubtedly great concern over the issue of firearm registration. I strongly support registration of firearm owners and I and other honourable members question whether a system involving the registration of every firearm will work. I question whether people will register their weapons to start with. Who will administer the necessary bureaucratic controls? How many police officers will be required? How is the register to be maintained and kept up to date so that it is accurate? Will police be misled by the register? The register may lead police to believe that a person does not have a gun when in fact that person does have a gun. The register may be inaccurate and may cause a police officer to put himself into a life-threatening situation. The views of all people must
Page 3654
be considered, not only those of city people. The views of country people must be considered, as well as the views of those who have genuine fears that the next step is the confiscation of all guns in Australia. Those fears should be put to rest. The bill is a sensible, rational approach to a serious social problem. The culture of violence is not wanted in Australia. That development must be turned around. The legislation is one way of doing that and, therefore, Call to Australia supports the bill.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [1.49]: I congratulate the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the Premier of this State on what I hope will be uniform national legislation. I believe a scare campaign has been on foot for a number of years. In 1994 we were visiting country areas of the State and in Tamworth city hall a speaker from the Shooters Party claimed that the coalition Government would take away all guns from every person in the State. At a meeting the next night in Tamworth the only matter our supporters were concerned about was that the Government intended to take away their guns. In every country town we visited the first thing people said to us was, "The Government is going to take away our guns." This rumour was spread by the Shooters Party. Media releases were issued advising people not to vote for the Niles because we were in favour of taking away guns. As I said that scare campaign has been going on since 1994.

Earlier this week an exposé was screened on television of the American Lyndon Larouche. The Citizens Electoral Councils of Australia has members in New South Wales and Victoria. Call to Australia is aware of the sneaky way in which members of that organisation operate. The latest conspiracy theory they are pushing throughout the community is that 100 Indonesian tanks and Indonesian troops are in Townsville. It is simply a scaremongering campaign, but unfortunately many people believe what they are told. That is the problem in New South Wales. People believe what they are told and they are burying their guns, and have been burying their guns for a number of years. Following the Port Arthur massacre I was visiting a hospital when one of the sisters told me she had relatives living in Port Arthur at the time. She said her sister who lives in Eastwood had told her children that whenever they heard a shotgun or a bang to fall down on the footpath. What worse thought could one put into the mind of a child?

That is one of the effects of the scaremongering campaign that has continued throughout New South Wales since 1994. Sadly, many country people are being taken in by it. They should have more sense and investigate the rumours more fully. Police officers will be pleased with the bill. I do not believe many members of this Chamber have had to look down the barrel of a gun. I have two sons in the Police Service who have had to do that in domestic violence situations and when dealing with drunks, particularly in country towns. Last year two police officers from Crescent Head were killed with a firearm and their deaths have affected a number of families. As a mother, I am concerned about the misuse of firearms. I am pleased that the bill has been introduced, as it will give the community confidence. However, not enough information about the legislation was given to country people and gun clubs. That is why there has been a Rambo-type reaction from so many people. I support the bill.

[The President left the chair at 1.53 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.15], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. In the Legislative Assembly the Minister for Police declared that in 20 years in Parliament, this legislation was undoubtedly the most important with which he had been involved. The legislation is important for all members of Parliament. It goes to the heart of our culture and belief systems. The legislation expresses our opposition to violence and gun-based subcultures, it ensures that the protection of individual liberty and safety is elevated above the potential to destroy them, and it gives primacy to humanity and a more peaceful society. The bill does not do this by punitive measures, but by imposing strict but sensible conditions on firearms ownership. Registration and licensing will be requirements of, not barriers to, responsible firearms ownership.

The registration and licensing systems will be streamlined to facilitate responsible and law-abiding firearms ownership. For example, the Minister for Police is seeking Commonwealth support for a one-year amnesty on registration fees to ensure that shooters face as little inconvenience as possible in conforming with the new laws. The barriers to ownership are based on reasonableness. Those seeking to apply for a licence will require simply a genuine reason, and in some cases a special need, to own a firearm. They will require only a willingness to develop appropriate shooting skills and knowledge, to behave responsibly, and to handle and store firearms safely. The benefits of these simple requirements will flow to the whole community. They will reduce the risk to the innocent, they will lessen the threat to the vulnerable, and they will reduce the harm able to be perpetrated by the violent and the indifferent. Above all they will save lives.

I have been pleased by the support shown by almost all honourable members of this House for the bill. Some have argued that the system will not work. I prefer the argument of those who say that it must be made to work. The legislation will not end all gun-related deaths, but if we are defeatist we fail the democratic process and we fail the people who elected us to govern for a better society. An obvious analogy is the road toll. The introduction of compulsory seat belts and random breath testing,
Page 3655
and modern developments in vehicle safety failed to eliminate road fatalities, but the road toll today is the lowest it has been since the Second World War. That is a remarkable achievement. This legislation provides an opportunity to replicate that success. National uniform gun laws signify a cultural change which sees Australia turn away from the United States' path of gun violence and deaths. I strongly support that change and I am proud to be associated with this bill, which is the start of that process.

Some have attempted to portray the development of this legislation and its passage as a stunt. Nothing could be further from the truth. Progress has been rapid, which was the desire of the Commonwealth and the States. Port Arthur has been history's most recent and important catalyst for change, but the Australasian Police Ministers' Council resolutions and the legislation to implement them are the culmination of a long debate. These resolutions had their origin in the recommendations of the national inquiry into violence, which began in 1988 and lasted two years. Its recommendations for a national system of firearm regulation, released in 1990, formed the basis of recommendations put to the APMC as long ago as 1991. They were defeated there largely due to the lack of support shown by the former New South Wales coalition Government. The debate on firearms control has been a long one. The issues in question have not changed, only the outcomes. The advantages have moved towards those individuals who wish to protect their safety.

In the two months since the massacre at Port Arthur the Government has held numerous meetings with Commonwealth and State governments, politicians, gun owners, dealers, shooters' organisations and gun control groups. It is now more than seven weeks since the APMC passed its resolutions, which have been widely distributed and debated. It is more likely the complaint of too little consultation reflects the failure of those complaining to put the concerns of their constituents before the concerns of the Government. To date, the Government has received many constructive comments from members on both sides of this debate. The administration of compensation, collectors, the national training schemes and storage requirements will be crucial in ensuring that the intentions of the bill are reflected in its implementation. For that reason the Government will strive to adopt the most practical and effective systems to ensure that the safety of the community is enhanced.

Many speakers have questioned the central feature of the APMC resolutions - the national registration scheme for all firearms. In particular, some members of the National Party have expressed their disagreement with this aspect of the package. Too many people are willing to portray the introduction of registration as exceptional. The fact is that the lack of registration in New South Wales is exceptional. Only New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania were without firearms registration before the tragedy at Port Arthur. All other States had the protection of such schemes. Opponents of registration argue that it is expensive and that it does not reduce crime. That is not true. Western Australia has had gun registration since the late 1940s and in 1973 those laws were supplemented with controls over ownership. Today Western Australia has the lowest gun death rate in Australia. This Government will not weaken these important reforms proposed by the APMC by removing or compromising registration. The Government supports shooters who are willing to do the right thing. It wants our society to be as safe as it can make it. Registration should not be a barrier to gun ownership. The Government is working to streamline its administration, to ensure it is simple, easy and accessible for all firearms owners.

To remove concerns about costs we will approach the Commonwealth to provide a 12-month amnesty for registration and licensing fees for all gun owners. Later today there will be divisions on various points. We will deal with those matters in the Committee stage. It is important to avoid amendments which damage the integrity of the APMC resolutions. We have to adhere to the fundamental features and to the detail of the resolutions. That is why any amendment which undermines the APMC resolutions must be opposed by the Government. The Prime Minister made his object abundantly clear when he put forward the resolutions endorsed by the APMC. He made registration a central and unalterable condition of this package. The opportunism of those seeking to subvert that aspect of the package is to be condemned. Concerns have been raised about the ability of the Government to guarantee compliance with the storage provisions - a key element of the safety package in the bill. I assure all honourable members that the Government will strive to develop effective systems of administration which will protect the integrity of the storage provisions.

Honourable members have raised the issue concerning the need to destroy all firearms that are surrendered. We have heard allegations that firearms surrendered in Victoria were sold to firearms dealers. The Acting Commissioner of Police has assured the Minister for Police that that will not happen in New South Wales. On 10 May the Prime Minister gave the Minister for Police an assurance that guns surrendered under the Commonwealth's amnesty and buy-back proposals would be destroyed. Arrangements are being made to ensure that all firearms which are surrendered will be melted down, with the exception of those which have special historical significance.

The Acting Commissioner of Police has advised the Minister for Police that strong security and audit procedures will be put in place to ensure the destruction of all surrendered firearms. The same standards will continue to apply when the amnesty period has concluded. A key issue in removing unneeded guns from our society will be the payment of appropriate compensation. The
Page 3656
Government has been called upon to clarify the terms of the compensation that will be offered to firearms owners who surrender their prohibited firearms and parts. It is still waiting on the Commonwealth to provide advice on these issues. When these details are available a public education campaign will be launched to properly inform firearms owners on this important issue. The issue is one of several which will be pursued with the Commonwealth at next week's APMC meeting.

Another outstanding issue that has to be dealt with by the Commonwealth is the national system for firearms collectors. The Commonwealth has established a working party to revisit this issue and a report will be presented to the APMC next week. The associated issue of family heirlooms and inherited firearms will also be revisited at the APMC in July. The Opposition criticised the Commonwealth Government for failing to draft template legislation to ensure uniformity across Australia. This Government has always stated that uniformity is crucial. Any State which fails to implement the APMC resolutions will be the weak link in the chain. This bill, which is the first to be introduced in Australia, has been fully endorsed by the Commonwealth Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Hon. Daryl Williams QC, as a true reflection of the APMC resolutions of 10 May. To enhance the uniformity of State legislation, the bill has been circulated to the other States and Territories. Already, I understand, there are indications that other States are using its provisions as a basis for their own legislation. The Government will ask the Commonwealth to endorse this and encourage other States to adopt the provisions of its bill. It is crucial that there is no weak link in the laws which are to be passed across Australia. If the Commonwealth is unable to provide that guarantee, a referendum on firearm ownership should be held and the responsibility for firearms assumed by the Commonwealth.

Many speakers have argued that the new laws will only be as effective as their enforcement. The Acting Commissioner of Police has assured the Minister for Police that the New South Wales Police Service will properly enforce them. The Minister for Police has advised me that he will ensure that the Police Service has adequate resources to do so. Those who refuse to comply with the new law will be treated with the severity that their unwillingness to respect community wishes deserves. It is easy to chant the gun lobby mantra "Guns don't kill, people do", but the succession of high profile firearm-related tragedies in this country disproves that mindless phrase. The facts speak for themselves. Any human misusing a firearm becomes an extraordinarily destructive and lethal adversary. The massacres which preceded Port Arthur are indelibly etched on people's minds. The Milperra bikie massacre, Hoddle Street and Strathfield all raise images of terror and loss of life. But it is all too easy to forget the way guns affect ordinary people every day. A gun used to threaten or intimidate is enough to devastate and destroy lives.

Ordinary citizens can be threatened in their homes, in the local bank or at a petrol station. On most occasions those people are not shot or physically injured. Instead, they are forced to live through a few moments of unforgettable terror as they or their loved ones are threatened with a weapon. Guns do not have to be fired to inflict damage. For many in our community, particularly women and children, guns signify fear and domination. The statistics are too consistent. In domestic situations guns are used to instil fear and, all too frequently, to maim or kill. Tragically, many of these women and children are too intimidated to speak out. Their shame and fear trap and disable them. These new laws are for all these people: for the silent victims who are intimidated or otherwise threatened by the possession of firearms. I have indicated that the Government will be resisting various amendments that have been foreshadowed which, in our view, undermine the basic structural elements of the agreement that has been reached between the States and the Commonwealth. That will be done for obvious reasons.

I wish to say something about a number of concerns that the Hon. A. G. Corbett raised with Government representatives. The Hon. A. G. Corbett is concerned about compliance with the storage requirement and the inspection of storage facilities which, of course, go hand in hand. The Government sees compliance with the storage provisions as crucial to the success of the legislation. That is why there are strong penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment for failure to comply with this licence condition. The Minister for Police has assured me that extra staff will be recruited to facilitate the proper administration of the Act, most particularly during the introductory phase in those areas where gun ownership is high. The honourable member voiced concerns about the destruction of surrendered firearms, a matter with which I have already dealt in reply. The honourable member also expressed concerns about storage requirements for gun dealers' records. As I understand it, he has asked for storage in a fireproof safe. The Government is currently examining a system of electronic records transfer, similar to that envisaged under the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act.

It has been suggested that sport or target shooting clubs be required to notify the commissioner of membership changes. Presumably, that is to catch those shooters whose club membership provides a genuine reason for their licence, but who later allow that membership to lapse and so no longer qualify to possess or use a firearm. That issue will be considered in the formulation of the regulations. The honourable member argued that it is unclear whether the commissioner will take into account guns that are already owned when deciding whether to issue a permit to acquire. This issue will be considered in the formulation of the regulations and the
Page 3657
administration of the Act. The honourable member sought to have it made a requirement that licences be produced for transfers of ammunition without financial consideration. This will be considered in the making of the regulations. Finally, the honourable member expressed some views about compensation. I have already dealt with that to some extent in reply, but that is also a matter for the Commonwealth. The Government believes that that matter will be addressed at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council meeting on 4 July. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Part 1

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [2.33]: I do not propose to move amendments 1, 3, 18, 34, 36, 40, 49, 50, 53, 57, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 96, 104, 105, 106, 110 and 111 circulated in my name. By leave, I move amendments 2, 99 and 112 in globo:

Page 3, clause 3, line 8. After "firearms", insert "(including firearms which, by reason of the operation of this Act, can no longer be lawfully possessed by the holder of a licence or permit)".

Page 54, clause 78. Insert after line 6:

(c) any firearm that, although lawfully possessed by a person immediately before the commencement of this section, cannot be lawfully possessed by that person because of the operation of this Act,

Page 65, Schedule 3, clause 3. Insert after line 15:

(c) any firearm that, although lawfully possessed by a person immediately before the commencement of this clause, cannot be lawfully possessed by that person because of the operation of this Act,

These amendments relate to the firearms for which compensation will be paid, a matter that the Attorney-General referred to in his reply. The bill provides that compensation shall be paid for prohibited firearms which are surrendered to police. The Minister for Police in another place indicated in his second reading speech that one matter still to be resolved by the Australasian Police Ministers' Council was the question of whether compensation should be paid only for the surrender of prohibited arms, or whether compensation should also be paid for the surrender of firearms which in themselves were legal, but which could no longer be possessed by a licence holder because of the strictures of the Act.

The problem is that with the severe restrictions on firearms numbers, and the obvious increased difficulty in meeting the requirements for an individual firearm licence, it would be difficult to sell a firearm, once owned legally, which could no longer be owned legally. The amendments seek to provide that a person who can no longer obtain a licence for an otherwise legal firearm and who therefore has to surrender it, should be able to be compensated for it on surrender. If this is not provided for, it is likely that a significant number of people might decide to keep firearms, which they formerly owned legally, even though they cannot obtain a licence for them. This would mitigate seriously against the stated intention of the bill to reduce the overall number of firearms in the community.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.37]: The Government cannot accept the amendments. The Government believes that compensation fundamentally is a matter for the Commonwealth under the arrangements that have been reached, and it is a matter for ongoing discussion and deliberation. I am informed that a working party, which has been set up to determine compensation issues, is expected to report to the APMC meeting on 3 July. The working party has been considering the circumstances in which compensation will be paid, the valuation process and the amounts that will be paid. In other words, this is a matter which is under active consideration and is being dealt with in the way that I have indicated. The Government believes the amendments are inappropriate.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [2.38]: The Opposition does not support the amendments.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [2.39]: I support compensation for category A and category B weapons, in order to provide a real incentive for the surrender of those legally possessed weapons most commonly found in homes, and those weapons most commonly used to threaten women and children. In other circumstances, if a division were called, I would vote for the amendments. However, it has been pointed out that the availability of compensation will depend on the Commonwealth Government. I have received an assurance from the Minister for Police that he will raise the matter at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council and I am prepared to accept that assurance. I would prefer it if the Committee did not divide on the amendment so that the Government is not put in a position where it has to vote against it. If this amendment were defeated today it would undermine the authority of the Minister for Police at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council on 4 July. He would be placed in the invidious position of having to argue in favour of a proposition already rejected by his own Government. Although I support the objectives of the amendment I shall not vote for it if a division is called. This is also the view of the Coalition for Gun Control.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [2.41]: I support amendment 2. I also agree with the intent of amendment 99. I believe that there should be a right of appeal to the District Court from the Local Court because in some instances the Local Court may make a mistake.

Amendments negatived.

Page 3658

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [2.42]: I do not intend to move my amendment 4. I move amendment 5 circulated in my name:

Page 4, clause 4, line 23. Omit "that is the person's principal business".

This amendment deals with the definition of a firearms dealer. Clause 43 and other clauses in part 5 of the bill deal with the rights and obligations of firearms dealers. The Firearms Act 1989 did not require a dealer, as a pre-requisite to being licensed, to carry on the business as his principal business. This clause will cause many small firearms dealers who are well qualified to carry on their trade to close their business. This law provides that they cannot work in their occupation on a part-time basis. There appears to be no justification or requirement for insisting that qualified persons should not carry out their vocation unless it is their principal business. This provision will also cause sports stores, or other stores in country towns that offer firearms for sale as an adjunct to their business, to relinquish their licence. A corollary of this will be that firearms that should be repaired - and which would be repaired if there were suitable persons to do so - will not be repaired. I believe that this is an attempt to restrict the number of dealers in the industry and to force others out. As I understand it, that matter was not raised at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.43]: I am informed that this provision of the bill simply reflects the current law. For that reason, the Government does not agree to the amendment. I have been advised that in States that do not have this requirement - that is, that a firearms dealer's principal business is dealing - the provision is open to exploitation by those who wish to collect firearms, to avoid the requirements of a collector's licence. Fundamentally, the Government's view is that this simply reflects the status quo. The Government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [2.44]: I move amendment 6:

Page 5, clause 4, line 20. Omit all words on that line.

This amendment relates to the definition of "possession". Clause 4 attempts to extend the definition "possession of a firearm" and the rights and obligations of and restrictions attaching to a person who, as a matter of commonsense, does not have a firearm in his or her possession. One person may possess an article. Two people, separate and apart, cannot physically possess the same article. Clause 19(2)(b) provides that if a person has another person's firearm and without the consent of the first person he gives it to a third person, the first person, that is, the owner, is guilty of a breach of his licence conditions. I believe that is quite an absurd result.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.45]: The effect of the amendment is to amend the definition of "possession" by removing the provision that possession includes knowingly placing the firearm in the custody of another person. That is a reasonable concept of possession. A person can possess some implement or item even if he or she knowingly places that item in the custody of another person. The Government's view is that the proposed amendment would significantly weaken the current law; it would enable a firearms owner to evade licensing requirements simply by knowingly placing the firearm into the temporary custody of another person. The Government does not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [2.46]: By leave, I move my amendments 7, 8, 15, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 45, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 78 in globo:

Page 5, clause 4, line 25. Omit "Firearms". Insert instead "firearm owners".

Page 5, clause 4, line 26. Omit all words on that line.

Page 9, clause 8, line 2. Omit "registered".

Page 9, clause 8, line 13. Omit "registered".

Page 10, clause 8, line 3. Omit "registered".

Page 10, clause 8, line 6. Omit "registered".

Page 10, clause 8, line 28. Omit "registered".

Page 11, clause 8, line 2. Omit "registered".

Page 19, clause 18, line 8. Omit "registered".

Page 29, heading to Part 3, line 1. Omit "Registration of firearms". Insert instead "Register of firearm owners".

Page 29, heading to Division 1, line 3. Omit all words on that line.

Page 29, heading to clause 33, line 4. Omit "Firearms". Insert instead "firearm owners".

Page 29, clause 33, line 6. Omit "Firearms". Insert instead "firearm owners".

Page 29, clause 33, lines 8 to 13. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(a) such particulars relating to licensed firearm owners as are prescribed by the regulations, and

Page 38, clause 47, lines 28 and 29. Omit all words on those lines.

All these amendments relate to the question of registration. They seek to return to the Federal Government's original proposal a national register of firearms owners, not a register of firearms. A register of firearms owners is readily available by linking current databases of State police forces. It could be brought into force regardless of whether firearms owners would comply. Possession of a firearms licence automatically ensures that a firearms owner is on the database. A register of firearms owners is much more likely to be effective than a firearms register, which requires majority compliance to be successful. Speakers in the second reading debate have canvassed exhaustively the pros and cons of the firearms register system. I do not intend to go over that ground again. It is far more
Page 3659
sensible to introduce something that is likely to work rather than something that produces a false sense of security; that can be no real guide as to where the guns are located; that will arouse hostility, resentment and non-compliance amongst otherwise law-abiding firearms owners; and that will give the Government and the community even less idea of who has the firearms and where they are.

As has been shown by experience in many places, firearms registration can be a self-defeating device which is likely to create an underworld of firearms which can do nothing but harm to the community that it is supposed to protect. Reference was made in debate to the possibility of police knowing where the firearms are. The awful shootings at Crescent Head are a good example of a case where registration would not have provided the police with that information. I know that the Government believes that firearms registration will be a safety measure, and I know that it will insist upon it because it does not really understand that it might not work, but I urge honourable members to think about it carefully. I believe that firearms registration, as distinct from owner registration, is wrong and dangerous. That is why these amendments seek to introduce a firearms owners register, not a register of firearms.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.48]: These amendments obviously address one of the major issues of principle in the legislative package, and they have been thoroughly debated in the second reading debate. The Government opposes the amendments. The Australasian Police Ministers' Council second resolution was that New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania should immediately establish an integrated licensing and registration system to enable effective nationwide registration of all firearms across Australia. That important resolution was a key element of the package which was agreed upon. The Government regards the measures as integral to the bill as a whole, and opposes the amendments.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [2.49]: The Opposition also opposes the amendments. As the Attorney General has indicated, one of the issues that was agreed to at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council - and which was strongly endorsed by the Prime Minister, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales - was the establishment of a firearms register. The Opposition therefore sustains its position that a register of firearms should be instituted. Since we are seeking to achieve uniform legislation to deal with firearms and since all governments in Australia have agreed to a firearms register and the vast majority are now proceeding to implement that decision, New South Wales should maintain its support for a firearms register and support this bill.

There is the argument that the registration of weapons will not necessarily lead to the elimination of weapons illegally held in the community and will not necessarily eliminate violence resulting from the use of unlicensed weapons. In many areas, however, licensing is sought as a measure for achieving cultural and behavioural change and as a mechanism for dealing with those who wish to behave outside the law. New South Wales has a mechanism that provides for the registration of motor vehicles as well as the licensing of drivers. That does not stop people from driving outside the law, it does not stop them from breaking the law, but it does provide a means for dealing with someone who has broken the law. That is exactly what is expected to be the outcome of this legislation.

Honourable members have been told that New South Wales has since 1927 provided for the registration of pistols yet that has not eliminated pistols from the marketplace. I recognise that. The registration of pistols, however, has certainly secured a significant reduction in the number of those guns that are in the marketplace and through the decades it has led to a change in community attitude towards the strapping on of a pistol. I recognise that the bill will not lead to the immediate elimination of illegally held long arms, but it is expected that there will be an attitudinal change, a cultural change, towards the use of long arms and the involvement of long arms in matters of violence, particularly within the home.

Whilst honourable members have been presented with the statistic that a registration system in Victoria has achieved only 52 per cent registration, it should be noted that many in the community would regard the achievement of 52 per cent registration after the short number of years that mechanism has been in existence as somewhat of a success. Of course, one would always have wanted to achieve a higher level of registration, but 52 per cent is a step in the right direction. By taking what I describe as a courageous step in the pursuit of changes in the firearms law on a uniform basis throughout the nation, the Prime Minister has sought to address the culture of violence and the use of weapons as one element of that culture of violence in our community. If that can be achieved in the long term, and even if some change is achieved in the short term, that will be a step in the right direction. For that reason the coalition opposes the amendments.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [2.53]: In my contribution to the second reading debate I indicated my intention to support amendments along the lines of those under discussion. I support the amendments moved by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, who has rightly pointed out that all these amendments relate to whether provision should be made for a register of firearms or a register of firearms owners. I addressed that issue during my contribution to the second reading debate. I shall now make a few remarks about the subjects I spoke about then, and address another issue also.

Page 3660

During the second reading debate I said that I believed compliance with the legislation to be important. Anyone who has been in contact with groups of firearms owners, not only organised shooting bodies but also people who have a legitimate use for firearms, would know that the community has grave concern about the registration aspect of the legislation. We as members of the Legislative Council should apply our minds to ensure that there will be a maximum degree of compliance with the legislation passed. The amendments proposed will strike at that fundamental objective and are worthy of consideration. I certainly support them.

A raft of arguments about the effectiveness of a firearms register have come forward. It has been brought out in the debate that evidence before a parliamentary select committee showed that other jurisdictions that had instituted a register of firearms would not recommend such a register. A register of firearms was found by other jurisdictions to be an administrative burden, and very rarely if ever was any useful information provided on the apprehension or prosecution of criminals. For that reason one would ask why New South Wales is going down that path, which if not well trodden has at least been embarked upon and has not shown satisfactory results. Little can be argued in favour of the registration of firearms, other than the symbolism of the community coming together and declaring in a corporate way a revulsion at the events that took place at Port Arthur and a desire to limit access to firearms.

The nexus between that general community reaction and what is proposed in the bill, however, is not well made. There is an issue that I did not address during my contribution to the second reading debate but is worth drawing to the attention of honourable members in that it provides an insight into the reason that the registration of firearms was one of the key recommendations of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council. Honourable members would know that police associations are very keen on the concept of a register of weapons. I imagine that police Ministers would have agreed to discuss the issue. I do not have the benefit of the police Ministers' debates - I do not know how many honourable members have the benefit of their debates - but I know that the persuasive argument of the police would have been discussed at police Ministers conferences.

The Police Association has expressed its number one wish as being the disarmament of the civilian population. I can understand why that would be - as many honourable members have said, police officers are in the firing line in difficult situations; they are required to attend potentially violent incidents and, acting judiciously and with due regard to their own safety, do what they can to preserve the safety of the people involved. The Committee is not discussing the disarmament of the civilian population - that objective is recognised by the police as being impractical. The police have, however, argued that a register of individual firearms would give them vital information for use when they are called out in circumstances that might involve violence and in which firearms could be present.

It is difficult to recognise the practicality of a register of firearms. I doubt whether in the particular circumstances that brought the country to the introduction of changes to firearms legislation - the incidents at Strathfield, Terrigal and Port Arthur - the police would have had time to look up a register. In such circumstances the police generally have to deal with a lack of information: they need to establish the identity of the persons involved and then determine other details. I do not recognise the practicality of a firearms register. In any case, if there were even the slightest suspicion that a firearm of any sort was involved in an incident - no matter how old the firearm, and whether it were a single-shot or a repeat-action firearm or a side-by-side shotgun - the police would have to approach the incident with great caution.

I have heard some police say that if they are confronted by someone with a self-loading gun, a semiautomatic weapon, they simply do not stand a chance. I suggest to the police that their procedures ought to be reviewed if they think that because of some report that comes off a computer they will be able to take a different approach to someone they believe has a five-shot repeating-magazine firearm than they would take to someone who they believe has a self-loading semiautomatic shotgun. That type of thinking beggars my imagination.

The arguments that have been put forward for the registration of individual firearms are unconvincing. I do not know about this concept of registration being counterproductive. I do not think I have advanced arguments to establish, as the Hon. J. S. Tingle stated he had, that this provision would be counterproductive. However, it would not achieve the objective of national consensus on containment and, if possible, elimination of this type of mass violence in our society. This provision will tie up valuable police resources, without useful output, and will strike at the level of compliance, which we would all hope will be 100 per cent. The only way to achieve complete compliance would be to consult with the shooting bodies, the registered clubs and so on, and talk to the people in the bush who have firearms, show them the model that we propose and ask them what they would be prepared to comply with willingly and wholeheartedly. I am sure we would find that those people would object to the register of firearms, though they are perfectly happy to comply with an owner licensing process.

In an earlier debate I said that we had sadly swept aside responsible shooters who had undergone tests and taken part in all sorts of awareness and safety campaigns to make their sport safer and give it a better image. However, we have swept them aside in the debate and not recognised the role that they could play in a more orderly society, one
Page 3661
which is virtually free of violence. We ought to remind ourselves of that. Let us think of their views on the matter. My opinion is that their view is that we should have a register of firearm owners but set aside the requirement for owners to register each and every firearm in their possession, submitting those firearms to some sort of inspection and recording of serial numbers as provided for in the legislation.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.01]: In view of what was said by the Hon. D. F. Moppett, I should like to put on record that I too live in a country area. I have no firearms, but I have neighbours who do have firearms. Over the past few weeks they have told me that they would be perfectly happy to have their firearms registered. They have asked me how I thought that would be done, and what procedures they will have to follow. They have even suggested to me procedures by which that could be done in a responsible manner. So I think the Hon. D. F. Moppett draws a long bow when he suggests that all responsible firearm owners will not want to register their weapons. The responsible firearm owners that I know have absolutely no objection to a register of firearms.

I do not see how the debate will be advanced if we are to have only a register of firearm owners. We shall never know under such a system how many firearms there are in the community. I am not as naive to think that a register of firearms would tell us exactly how many firearms there are in the community, but it would give us a much better idea of the number, because I believe law-abiding people in country areas will register their weapons. There will still be the extreme right-wing element who will not register their guns. Those people have shown their true colours in many rallies and are now well identified. They do not represent the majority of gun owners. We must bear that in mind.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.03]: The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby made a valuable contribution. It is hard for many of us to understand the passion that the issue seems to arouse. It does not seem to raise any genuine issue of civil liberty to say to a person who owns a lethal weapon that that weapon ought to be registered in some way, just as the Leader of the Opposition said that a motor vehicle must be registered. The Committee must bear in mind that the Prime Minister and State Premiers insisted on and signed an agreement to give effect to the registration of all weapons. The gun amnesty in New South Wales provides evidence of the need for and usefulness of a registration process, because in the 12 months of the New South Wales gun amnesty 10,000 guns were recovered. That gives an indication of the number of lethal weapons abroad in our society, but apart from that the Government has no accurate information about their number and type. The Government hopes that the Opposition will unite with the Government, assuming the law is passed by the Parliament, to encourage people to register their weapons and hand in illegal firearms, as well as supporting the Government in its effort to have the Commonwealth implement a proper compensation package.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.05]: As I said I would in my second reading speech, I support these amendments. I note that the parliamentary Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, whilst making more than 50 recommendations on firearms laws, did not make a solitary recommendation calling for the introduction of a gun register. Whilst supporting the generally humane intent of the Prime Minister's reform proposals in the bill, I believe that the proposed amendments will lead to a greater level of compliance with the overall package of legislation now before the House. The Attorney General said that he finds it difficult to understand why this issue arouses such passion. The fact is that it does arouse passion, certainly right across the constituency that I represent. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said that people who have said they cannot support this particular provision are necessarily part of the extreme right-wing of the political spectrum. That is not so. Many mainstream and decent citizens of New South Wales do not support the introduction of a register of individual firearms. As I said earlier, I am happy to support a workable register, but I support the amendments because I believe they will produce a better outcome than will the measures proposed in the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.07]: The Committee is discussing amendments moved to the Firearms Bill. Call to Australia and, I believe, the Labor Party and the coalition leadership, but obviously not all coalition members, want to support uniform legislation along the lines of the model adopted by John Howard, the Federal Attorney-General and the Australasian Police Ministers' Council. That model included a licensing and registration scheme for all firearms. I understand that to be an integral part of the uniform legislation.

Call to Australia believes that the bill should be passed as drafted and that it should not be amended, even if the amendment as it applies to New South Wales is supported by reasonable argument. If the amendment were to be passed, immediately the legislation would not be uniform with legislation to be passed by other States. This State would therefore be out of step with other States. To accept the amendment would be to torpedo the uniform firearms law approach, when for the first time we are close to achieving uniform gun laws in Australia. Call to Australia could introduce, say, 100 amendments to improve the legislation. But we should accept the model before us. This is a quite unique procedure. Normally, in Committee honourable members can move amendments and vote on those amendments because we are normally dealing with State legislation. However, debate on the bill is on a completely different level. We hope that the legislation will become part of uniform national legislation.

Page 3662

Even if the Hon. J. S. Tingle put forward good arguments as to why individual firearms should not be registered - and some National Party members supported his arguments - I do not believe that honourable members have the option of accepting those arguments. I believe we should allow the bill to go forward as it is. I believe that the police Ministers meeting on 3 and 4 July will agree on model legislation. That meeting, after hearing submissions, might propose some changes. Later in the year, maybe at a special sitting of the Parliament or on resumption in September, the House will be considering further amendments. But those amendments would be amendments proposed nationally, so that if they are passed all States will finish up with uniform national legislation.

When I was a member of the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform there was extensive debate on the issue of registration. Firearms registration has been debated in this Parliament in the past. In 1920 there was registration of all firearms but that legislation was repealed in 1927. Legislation was reintroduced in 1985 but not implemented. Again, registration of firearms legislation was introduced on 1 March 1988 and repealed on 1 December 1988. It has been on and off the agenda for some time. I note that page 123 of the 1991 report of the Joint Select Committee Upon Gun Law Reform reads:

Registration of Australia . . . is currently in place in 5 jurisdictions, (WA, SA, N.T., Vic, ACT) with NSW, Queensland and Tasmania the only states not currently requiring registration of all firearms. However, it is noted that at the March 1988 Australian Police Ministers' Council meeting, NSW was the only State still opposing registration of all firearms.

Though there are problems with the firearms registration system I do not believe that New South Wales should go out on a limb. It appears from that report that New South Wales is the only State out on a limb. If these amendments were successful an argument could be raised by other States that they should reverse the policy and Australia would move further away from uniform legislation. I believe the legislation should be accepted as it is to maintain uniformity. There is evidence that firearms registration has many problems. Victoria has had registration but one of the submissions received by the committee suggested that only 58.7 of firearms held by the Victorian community were registered, which left more than 300,000 unregistered long arms being held by the community.

I would rather we go forward and assess the success of registration. If it does fail completely, other options such as registration of firearm owners or detailing firearms on licences may have to be introduced. Though the amendments may have some good points I believe they should not be supported. The Minister said that he did not understand the passionate opposition by firearm owners to registration. I do a lot of travelling in country areas and I hear that many firearm owners believe that after they acquire a licence and register, their firearms will be confiscated. That may be irrational but it is a genuine fear in the community. That is the passion. They see this as a process that is moving along, rightly or wrongly, and that is why there is strong feeling about registration.

Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.13]: I hear what is raised both in support and in opposition to these amendments. I cannot accept the notion that merely because a number of police Ministers and the Prime Minister agree on something necessarily makes it inalterably and for all time right. In a democracy people have the right to question decisions on these sorts of issues, and that is precisely what we are doing. Registration of firearms will not assist police as to the whereabouts of firearms. Police officers are told to proceed with caution when approaching a premise where domestic violence is occurring. Though no firearms are known to be registered at that address, it is not known whether firearms may have been taken there by a third party, so police officers always assume that firearms are there. The assumption that firearm registration will necessarily let everyone know where guns are all the time falls down due to the fact that the firearms registry has never worked properly in New South Wales and is never likely to.

Without labouring the point, I remind honourable members that I have my pistols licensed, and on one occasion when my pistols were due for renewal, only two of the three renewals arrived. I rang the registry and said, "You have forgotten to send me a renewal for one of my target pistols." The girl tapped on the computer and said, "You do not have such a pistol." I said, "Now you give me a problem because I do have the expiring licence for it and the pistol is in front of me." Three weeks later it was discovered that that pistol was registered to two other people, neither of whom had ever owned it. It was not important; it was only a .44 magnum with a 10 inch barrel, the original Dirty Harry gun made like a cannon, but they did not have any record of it. That has happened repeatedly and is a weakness which raises the question whether a register will work or not.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby made the point that the establishment of a gun register will give a closer approximation of the numbers of firearms in the community. If the number of firearms in the community is not known, how will we ever know what proportion of them have ever been registered? We will not know whether a tenth or half of them have been registered, so what difference will it make? It seems to me that a mythical mystique has been built around this question of registering guns on the assumption that it will somehow fix the gun problem. It will not. I am unable to understand the attitude of members of the Liberal Party who in 1988 reversed the moves by the Unsworth Government. I find myself unable to understand their attitude given the previous commitment of the Prime Minister when in opposition not to bring in gun registration. Those of us who wish to see a maximum amount of compliance with gun laws in
Page 3663
this country say that if a firearms register is introduced it will have a low level of compliance. It may give a false sense of security. A register of gun owners will contain information on who has a gun, though not information on how many guns are owned by an individual.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [3.16]: During the second reading debate I explained why I believed registration will work, and I refer honourable members to my speech. Essentially, a registration scheme is necessary to ensure the effective operation of a licensing system. People who object to registration constantly refer to the Victorian register. That register has had some defects and I do not think anyone disputes that. However, I remind honourable members that police in Western Australia estimate that more than 80 per cent of guns are registered, and that a major factor in the 20 per cent shortfall is a lack of registration in other States which allows guns to be imported into Western Australia without any record being kept. The problem with a gun owner register is that one owner may have any number of weapons. That is why a gun registration system is necessary.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Tellers,
Miss Gardiner Mr Kersten
Mr Moppett Mr Tingle

Mrs Arena Mr Manson
Mr Bull Mrs Nile
Dr Burgmann Rev. Nile
Ms Burnswoods Mr Obeid
Mrs Chadwick Dr Pezzutti
Mr Cohen Mr Primrose
Mr Corbett Mr Ryan
Mr Dyer Ms Saffin
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Mr Gallacher Mrs Sham-Ho
Dr Goldsmith Mr Shaw
Mr Hannaford Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Johnson Ms Staunton
Mr Jones Mrs Symonds
Mr Kaldis Mr Vaughan
Miss Kirkby Tellers,
Mr Lynn Mrs Isaksen
Mr Macdonald Mr Jobling

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.26]: I do not propose to move amendment 9. I move amendment 10 circulated in my name:

Page 6, clause 4, line 12. Omit "firearm parts are". Insert instead "a firearm is".

This clause as it presently stands purports to make the carrying of a firearm part the same as the carrying of a firearm. The definition section of firearm and firearm part is clear: a firearm part is not a firearm and it should not be seen as being the same. The effect of this clause would be that if two or more persons were each carrying a magazine for a particular rifle, that is, one was carrying a spare magazine, each of them would be taken to be carrying the particular firearm, and I believe that to be an absurd proposition.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.27]: The amendment would mean that broken-down firearms carried by more than one person could not be dealt with as a firearm and would therefore be outside the possession offences. The Government says that the bill's provisions simply reflect the current law. The amendment would weaken the current law and it is therefore opposed.

Amendment negatived.

Part agreed to.

Part 2

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.28]: I move Shooters Party amendment 11:

Page 8, clause 7, lines 16 to 19. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment relates to the uses allowed for a firearm. I believe this part of the clause should be deleted, together with consequential measures contained in clauses of similar import, such as "but only for the purpose established by the licensee as being the genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm", at lines 3 to 5 of clause 8, page 9. If a person satisfies the onus of one of the tests for having a firearm, that should be sufficient. He or she should then be able to use that firearm for any lawful purpose.

If a person has a firearm for hunting or vermin control then, as the section now stands, he cannot take that firearm to the rifle range for practice. Clause 12(1) suggests that there can be only one genuine reason for possession of a firearm, not multiple reasons. Although, clause 12(4)(a) refers to an applicant having a genuine reason if he or she intends to possess or use the firearm for any one or more of the reasons set out in the table. Is it proposed that the genuine reason referred to in clause 18(2)(e) will cover more than one of the categories in the table to clause 12? It may be that clause 7(2)(a) should be amended by inserting the words "or purposes" after the word "purpose" on line 17. If this was so then the definition of sport or target shooting in the table section of clause 12 should be amended. In other words it appears to me that there is a contradiction in the provisions of this part.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.30]: The amendment would omit the requirement that a
Page 3664
firearm be used only for the genuine reason provided on the licence application. The amendment would be in contravention of the APMC resolution and the Government cannot accept it.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.30]: I would simply point out that the Minister for Police said in his second reading speech that more than one genuine reason would be allowed in backing up an application for a licence. It therefore seems to be that if you provide for only a singular reason you mitigate against that. If more than one reason is to be accepted in relation to qualification for a licence, surely the wording should be plural.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.31]: By leave, I move Shooters Party amendments 13 and 17 in globo:

Page 8, clause 8. Insert after 31: "•muzzle loading firearms (other than pistols)".

Page 9, clause 8, line 8. Omit all words on that line.

The reference to muzzle-loading firearms other than pistols should be removed and those firearms should be included under category A. Loading a firearm from the muzzle is a time-consuming process. You have to load the powder through the muzzle, ram it in place, place a wad on top of the powder then place a ball - in this case the projectile - on top of the wad, and all this has to be rammed into a compact load. The procedure is not very fast. It cannot rate in speed with loading a modern rifle from the breech. We have only to remember movies about Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett to realise how slow it is to load a muzzle-loading rifle. This leads me to believe that muzzle-loading rifles are in the wrong category.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.32]: I support the amendment of the Hon. J. S. Tingle. It makes sense to move muzzle-loading firearms into category A. Having used a muzzle loader myself and seen how long it takes to load the thing -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You are not that old.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: It was an antique weapon. I was not an antique at the time. I was not an expert at loading muzzle loaders. A person clearly could not commit any kind of massacre with a muzzle loader; everyone would be on top of him before he had even half loaded the thing. The amendment should be supported. It is ridiculous having muzzle loaders in category B.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.33]: I can understand the argument put for the amendment which, in effect, seeks to move muzzle loaders other than pistols from category B to category A. As members know, applicants for licences in category B will have to prove a special need to own that type of firearm over and above the genuine reason to own any firearm, that is, the general requirement for all licence applicants. This matter was specifically debated and agreed upon in APMC resolution 4. It was determined that muzzle-loading firearms would be in licence category B. The amendment is in direct contradiction of that aspect of the resolution. Committed as we are to the APMC resolution, we must oppose the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.34]: Call to Australia agrees with the Government's reply on the amendment. The Hon. J. S. Tingle put up a good argument that there is an inconsistency but, rather than amending the legislation, it would be better for the Attorney General to convey this matter to the Minister for Police so that he may raise it at the police Ministers conference on 4 July. If such weapons should be in category A - there may be other reasons that we are not aware of why they have been included in category B - Ministers may review the matter and easily agree again to maintain a uniform position if there is to be a change. I would rather the Attorney General simply indicate that he will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister for Police for reference to the Minister's conference if it is a matter of serious concern.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.35]: I will undertake to refer the Hansard record of this debate to the police Minister. These matters are not set in concrete for ever; they can be reviewed. The remarks of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile are pertinent.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.36]: By leave, I move Shooters Party amendments 29, 33, 38 and 94 in globo:

Page 13, clause 11, line 8. After "application.", insert "If a licence application is refused, the Commissioner must provide the applicant with reasons for the refusal.".

Page 14, clause 11, line 20. After "interest.", insert "If the Commissioner decides to refuse to issue a licence on such grounds, the Commissioner must provide the applicant with a full explanation of the Commissioner's decision.".

Page 15, clause 12, line 3. After "firearm.", insert "If the Commissioner rejects any reason as claimed by an applicant, the Commissioner must provide the applicant with a full explanation of the Commissioner's decision.".

Page 50, clause 73, line 6. After "firearm.", insert "The Commissioner must provide any person who is the subject of a firearms prohibition order with the reasons for making the order.".

I shall not proceed with amendments 12, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 28 in view of what has happened with previous amendments. In a number of places in the bill the Commissioner of Police is given various powers to refuse, suspend or cancel a licence or to seize firearms or take other measures on suspicion or because of his belief that this should be done. These amendments seek to correct what appears to be an omission from the bill, that is, that the bill does not appear to require the commissioner to provide reasons for such actions. Obviously, if a
Page 3665
citizen has had such arbitrary action taken against him or her and wishes to appeal it is important for him or her to know the stated reasons behind that action. If no reasons are furnished, an appeal may be impossible. This seems a basic need in the interests of justice, and that is the reason for the amendment.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.38]: At the second reading stage I indicated that the coalition would not support amendments but that the Government should address its mind to certain amendments when it amends the bill. The coalition believes these amendments should be given further consideration. When the commissioner is exercising the powers under the provisions concerned he should give reasons for decisions he takes. Natural justice requires the providing of information as to the basis upon which decisions are made. Therefore, I ask the Government, when it reviews the legislation, to favourably review its position on these amendments.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.39]: The amendments would change the existing law and would need to be further examined to determine the impact on resources and the workability of the licensing system. Having said that, I am happy to refer the issue to the Minister for Police. I am sure the matter will be considered in due course. As has been said, clause 75 provides for rights of appeal to the Local Court. No doubt if an appeal is lodged, a reason will need to be furnished for refusing the licence application on public interest grounds or the like. That matter can be argued before the Local Court. The question of whether there should be an independent statutory obligation to give reasons for these decisions, apart from the appellate provisions, can be reconsidered. However, as at present advised, the Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.40]: I echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. J. S. Tingle. I believe that these amendments should be supported, if not now then at a later date, because the Commissioner of Police should give reasons for refusing an application.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.40]: By leave, I move Shooters Party amendments 30 and 62 in globo:

Page 13, clause 11. Insert after line 10:

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply in any case where the applicant:

(a) is a licensee who is currently competing in a national or international shooting competition, and

(b) provides proof to the Commissioner that the firearm the applicant is using has become inoperative and that the applicant needs an immediate replacement firearm in order to be able to complete the event.

Page 27, clause 31. Insert after line 2:

(4) Subsection (3)(b) does not apply in any case where a person:

(a) is the holder of a licence or permit authorising possession of a firearm, and

(b) is currently competing in a national or international shooting competition, and

(c) provides proof to the Commissioner that the firearm the person is using has become inoperative and that the person needs an immediate replacement firearm in order to be able to complete the event.

There may simply be an oversight in the bill. The 28-day cooling off period in itself is not basically objectionable, although it is worth noting that it seems a little unnecessary when an applicant who is already licensed applies for a new licence. These amendments address concerns about what could happen to a special class of people, that is, those competing in recognised national or international shooting events, such as Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games or other major world matches, when a firearm suddenly becomes unserviceable. That is not an unknown happening. As the Government has given undertakings that it will do what it can within the framework of the bill to ensure that competitors at Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games, and other competitors, are not disadvantaged, I believe that a competitor should be able to replace a firearm immediately, with permission, on furnishing proof to the Commissioner of Police that the firearm has become unserviceable and that the competitor cannot wait 28 days for it to be replaced.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.41]: Again, in the context which I outlined in my contribution to the second reading debate, there are amendments which I believe the Government should consider when it reviews the bill. These amendments fall into that category. The Opposition urges the Government to consider these issues with some sympathy.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.42]: The first amendment would waive the 28-day waiting period for the issue of a new licence for competitors in shooting competitions who need a replacement firearm. The Government is of the view that the amendment is unnecessary as shooters would already be licensed to use any registered firearm of the same category for shooting purposes. It would not be necessary to apply for a new licence simply to obtain a replacement firearm. The second amendment would amend the clause relating to permits to acquire by waiving the 28-day period for a permit to buy a new firearm when a competitor in an international shooting competition needs to replace a firearm immediately. Again, the Government is of the view that the amendment is unnecessary. The bill does not place arbitrary limits on the number of firearms that can be owned, and the possibility of breakdown of a competition firearm would be a good reason for owning more
Page 3666
than one firearm for competition purposes. It would be impracticable to purchase a new firearm in the middle of a competition; it would be easier to borrow a firearm from another person in the shooters club, for example, than to buy a replacement in these circumstances.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.43]: With respect to the Attorney General, he does not understand what happens in these competitions. First, a shooter does not borrow a firearm for a major national or international match. A firearm must be tuned to the shooter; it must be adjusted to the person's hand size, shoulder length, arm length and so on. A competitor would need another licence because under the bill it is proposed that each firearm will be individually licensed. If a licence is good only for the firearm that has broken down, the competitor will need another licence to replace the firearm. It is not as easy as borrowing a gun; it does not work like that. In the context of a major national or international shooting event, it is possible for a shooter to replace the firearm within a couple of hours because dealers usually have access to guns. The amendments will apply to only a few people; they will not change the intention of the Act, which does not provide for a person to possess two firearms on one licence. The amendments are totally reasonable.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.45]: I move Shooters Party amendment 31:

Page 13, clause 11, line 35. After "mind" insert "(proof of which has been supplied to the Commissioner by a suitably qualified person)".

There is no objection to the Commissioner of Police having the powers laid down in the bill to keep firearm licences out of the hands of obviously unsuitable people. Indeed, my party and I have suggested to the Government a number of other ways that this could be achieved. The bill provides for the commissioner to make a totally discretionary decision that someone is suicidal, intemperate, of unsound mind or any other matter raised in the bill as a reason for refusing or withholding a licence. As in practice such a decision about an applicant will be made by an individual police officer acting as a delegate of the commissioner, the expertise and capacity of that officer to make such a judgment must be questioned. To save false jeopardy and use of this power vindictively, the amendment seeks to require the police officer or commissioner to obtain proof from a qualified person of the undesirable state of the applicant to support the decision that the commissioner is about to make. That person could be a doctor, a clergyman, a marriage counsellor or any other person with qualifications to judge the applicant dispassionately.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.46]: Under the proposal, licences may be refused by the Commissioner of Police for unsoundness of mind. The honourable member's amendment would require proof to be supplied to the commissioner by a suitably qualified person. The Government is of the view that the amendment detracts from the current legal position, which does not place a restriction on the source of evidence of unsound mind and enables the decision maker to draw that conclusion from whatever material might reasonably be available. The answer to the amendment is the right of appeal to the Local Court under clause 75. If there is a serious issue about suitable qualifications and soundness or unsoundness of mind, that can be thrashed out before the magistrate in accordance with the appeal proceedings under clause 75. So natural justice is satisfied. The power, therefore, could not be used in a vexatious or arbitrary way; or, at least if it were so used, that could be corrected by appeal to the Local Court.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.47]: By leave, I move Shooters Party amendments 32 and 59 in globo:

Page 14, clause 11, lines 9 and 10. Omit "within 10 years before the application for the licence was made". Insert instead "since 1 May 1992".

Page 25, clause 29, lines 15 and 16. Omit "within 10 years before the application for the permit was made". Insert instead "since 1 May 1992".

The retrospective effect of apprehended violence orders granted ten years before an application creates a double jeopardy for people who might have had an apprehended violence order taken out against them before 1 May 1992, when the current Firearms Act came into force and when, for the first time, an apprehended violence order became a reason for seizure or confiscation of firearms. Persons subject to such orders before that date had an additional penalty applied to them after that date. It seems unreasonable that any law should apply a retrospective penalty. The importance of apprehended violence orders is not questioned; used as intended, they are a crucial protection. However, given recent evidence that they are being used as a vindictive weapon by disaffected spouses of both genders, as well as a shield for genuinely threatened spouses, justice should demand reconsideration of their retrospective effect beyond 1 May 1992, when firearms were first removed from people who are subject to apprehended violence orders.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.48]: The Government opposes these amendments, which have the effect of watering down what we regard as important protections and limitations on the issue of a licence to a person who is or has been the subject of an apprehended violence order at any time within 10 years before the licence application was made. The Government is of the view that these provisions should be adhered to as a community protection measure. The amendments would enable some people against whom apprehended violence orders - AVOs - were issued prior to 1992 to
Page 3667
become eligible to own and use firearms. Furthermore, the amendments would be inconsistent with provisions that apply the same 10-year ban for conviction of many criminal offences. Honourable members have talked about horrific examples of firearms being used to threaten women and children. Obviously strong safeguards are needed to protect people in vulnerable positions. In particular, people who have had AVOs issued against them should be subjected to the reasonable restrictions which are contained in the bill in relation to the grant of a licence for possession of a firearm.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.50]: I move my amendment 35:

Page 14, clause 12. Insert after line 30:

(2) A person may have more than one genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm.

This amendment acknowledges the police Minister's statement in his second reading speech in the other place that a person will be permitted to submit more than one reason for possessing or using a firearm. This is an extremely sensible provision. Obviously, if every applicant had to have only one reason for owning a firearm, any firearm that person owned could be used for only one purpose; for every extra purpose that person would need to seek a licence for an extra gun. This would mitigate against the purpose of the bill: to reduce the number of firearms in the community. The amendment seeks to add the provision contained in the Minister's statement which has not been included in the bill.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.51]: My comments may satisfy the Hon. J. S. Tingle. The Government's fundamental reason for opposing his amendment is that, as a matter of interpretation and law, it is unnecessary. The Interpretation Act already provides that the singular includes the plural, and therefore there is no need to spell out that a person may have more than one genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm. As a matter of parliamentary drafting and practice the Parliamentary Counsel does not ordinarily spell out these matters, which are dealt with in the Interpretation Act. The honourable member would know that Hansard can be referred to if there is any debate or concern about ambiguity. The honourable member may be placated by what I have said.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.52]: I will not move amendment 37 circulated in my name. I move amendment 39:

Page 15, clause 12, lines 15 to 17. Omit ", and which conducts competitions or activities requiring the use of the firearm for which the licence is sought".

This clause provides, among other things, that in order for members of clubs to qualify for a licence they must belong to a club that conducts competitions or activities requiring the use of the firearm for which the licence is sought. The amendment seeks to delete those words from the table. The regulations will prescribe the clubs which are applicable to this category. This clause copies parts of the provisions of the table in regulation 22A of the Firearms Regulation 1990, paragraph 3, but does not define the clubs as did that regulation. Under the circumstances those words ought to be omitted.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.53]: The amendment would remove the requirement from the sport/target shooting genuine reason for having a licence that a shooting club conduct competitions. As I understand it the amendment breaches the Australasian Police Ministers' Council resolution 3. For that reason it could not be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.54]: I move my amendment 41:

Page 15, clause 12, line 26. Omit "land.". Insert instead:

land, or

(c) be a current member of a hunting club approved by the Commissioner.

The amendment relates to hunting clubs. The bill makes no provision for the large numbers of legitimate, established and eminently respectable hunting clubs in Australia: clubs such as Australian Bowhunters Association, the Australian Deer Association, Safari Club International, New South Wales Deerstalkers, New South Wales Field and Game Association, New South Wales Fire Brigade Employees Rifle Shooters and Outdoors Club, Nepean Hunters Club, and Sydney Colonial Muzzle-Loading Club, and perhaps even more importantly the very large and active hunting clubs which have been established by the ethnic community. These include the Italian Diana Club and the Greek Hunters and Fishermen's Association.

Recreational hunting is a major community and tourist activity which provides substantial community benefits. Hunting plays a positive role in controlling feral pests. Hunters are true conservationists. They have to be. Hunters represent a substantial direct economic resource to rural economies in New South Wales, estimated at around $24 million per annum. In his work "Economic Values of Recreational Deer Hunting in Australia" in 1990 Cause estimated the value of recreational deer hunting at $73 million a year. Deer hunters make up about 2.5 per cent of the hunting community. For members of clubs related to ethnic communities hunting is a deeply ingrained and traditional way of life dating back many thousands of years. In the culture of these groups in a multicultural Australia, which prides itself on its tolerance of differing ways of life and attitudes, it seems quite wrong that the bill makes no provision whatever for hunting clubs as such, only
Page 3668
shooting clubs which, in the shooting fraternity, are a different thing. This amendment seeks to redress a serious omission from the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.56]: Call to Australia sympathises with this amendment but our policy is not to change the uniform firearms legislation. Again the Attorney General could take this matter up with the police Ministers to see how provision can be made for recognised hunting clubs. Hunting clubs could be listed in regulations or accommodated by some other procedure. I have received a submission from a group that has not yet been mentioned: the Aboriginal community. I did not realise that many members of the Aboriginal community engage in hunting and regard that as one of their traditional rights. I understand that under the native title legislation they have a right to hunt. I ask the Attorney General to raise that issue at the future conference of police Ministers. It may be covered by the regulations, or the Aboriginal people may need to form an ad hoc Aboriginal hunting club to identify genuine Aboriginal hunters as distinct from some who are abusing that provision.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [3.57]: I support the remarks of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I do not propose to support a division on this amendment but it is eminently sensible to accommodate groups that are well organised and responsible and to meet their legitimate needs. The Hon. J. S. Tingle has identified one group that might commend itself to the Attorney General. I hope he will convey this issue to the police Ministers' meeting in July. I hope they seriously examine the claims of these groups.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.58]: I undertake to draw this matter to the attention of the relevant Minister prior to the meeting of police Ministers. The Government takes the view that as presently advised the amendment would be inconsistent with APMC 3. Of course, an important theme is the need for consistency, but that does not preclude the reconsideration that various members have asked for on this point.

Amendment negatived.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.