Bills

Firearms Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (15:37): I rise to make a couple of points on the Firearms Bill, most of which have come in through correspondence to my office. Before I start, I do need to thank the minister. Every time I have gone to him with an issue that has been raised, he has been forthright and, I believe, sincere in his answers, which I really do appreciate.

I put on the record that the following people have made presentations to me, and I want to make sure they are acknowledged in this debate: Arthur Martel from Mount Gambier Pistol Club and Impact Practical Shooting League, Trevor Gartside, John Lacey, Stephen Bunnik, Andrew Kuchel and Alex Musolino. The RSL and a number of farmers have also raised issues with me.

The standout points that have been raised are concerns about the lawful use of firearms and making sure that those people who are doing the right thing and who are law-abiding citizens are not unfairly impacted by regulations that are designed, if I am correct, to reduce criminal behaviour and also address those who use firearms in an illegal sense.

The vast majority of people who are registered gun owners—and I will go through some statistics in a moment—are law-abiding and certainly aim to comply with legislation wherever they can, but in a presentation to me, the Impact Practical Shooting League, which is on Mitchell Road, Compton, in the seat of Mount Gambier, wants me to express the point that the discretion of the registrar is too broad. I must admit, in reading through the bill, I hold similar concerns. I know other people have spoken on the powers of the registrar.

I guess, in broad terms, what we do not want to see is an over-reach by a registrar. Just because somebody is a licensed gun owner, their civil rights, which should be protected, should not become infringed due to the powers granted to a registrar. What they are talking about there are the common law rights, which they believe will be removed. There is no right of appeal to the court if an injustice has been done. I am hoping the minister can address that at some stage. They believe there is no appeal to the courts and, with that, no compensation provision if found in their favour. The proper place for these topics should be through parliamentary debate and not by regulation alone, so I will get that onto the record.

Another group that has come to see me is the RSL clubs. Their concern is around fees associated with registration of replica, imitation or decommissioned firearms. As most people know, RSL clubs do a wonderful service, but they are not flush with excess funds. One of their main concerns is that there not be an onerous burden on volunteers who are doing the registration. We would be very keen to make sure that that is not an annual fee or a burden that some volunteer needs to continually undertake.

In terms of farmers, I was encouraged by the minister's second reading explanation and some conversations that I have had with the minister about red tape reduction. Of concern for farmers is the storage of firearms and the ability to have joint storage so that multiple employees will be able to store their firearms in a joint facility, as long as that is up to standard. Another issue from a farmer's point of view is transportation of firearms, particularly around lambing season when they may be out fox shooting or transporting firearms between paddocks or a number of farms. We do have a number of farmers down the South-East who have large holdings and they may go over quite a distance.

I want to reinforce the issues around law-abiding citizens. I did some research, but unfortunately it was from 2007. I could not find anything more recent, although I am not saying it is not out there. It was estimated that there are around 20,000 illegal handguns in Australia. With firearm theft in Australia, it was found that less than 0.1 per cent of registered firearms (that is, 1,500 firearms) were reported stolen by police. Rifles accounted for the majority of all stolen firearms, with bolt-action rifles the most often listed. As I said, there might be some further up-to-date information on that.

I have some correspondence from the Law Society. I believe that the minister has received correspondence as well, but I will read this in to signify that I have discussed this in parliament. I quote directly from their letter:

The Society recognises that possession and use of firearms needs to be carefully and diligently controlled, and also that the current Firearms Acts 1977 ("the Act") needs to be updated. With this in mind, the broad intent of much of the bill is appropriate, with reference to the current expectations of society.

Specifically, however, the society is concerned about several aspects of the Bill. Principally, they are as follows:

1. The extension of criminal responsibility for serious offences to the civil concept of causation (ie, without the need for criminal intent): refer to clauses 32, 37, 41;

2. The abrogation of the right to silence, particularly without the necessary legislative infrastructure to safeguard from misuse of information and to ensure a fair trial; refer to clauses 54, 55 and 60;

3. Empowering the police to search and seize information without a warrant: refer to clause 54;

4. Unjust reversal of onus of proof, which has the effect of abrogating right to silence and presumption of innocence.

That is a principle which I hold dear in many forms. I continue:

5. The issuing of interim firearm prohibition orders and public safety notices by non-judicial authorities.

The Society considers that some of the aspects of the Bill are not "user friendly" for the following reasons [there are only 2]:

(a) Some of the clauses are prolix, often because a clause tries to cover too much ground; and

(b) Some of the clauses are conceptually difficult, particularly where they prescribe an act as prohibited, and then allow exemptions in particular circumstances—

I do agree with that in some areas. The letter continues:

—(and those circumstances often refer to different sections of the Bill). See, for example, clauses 31, 32 and 41.

Again, I am led to believe that the minister has a copy of that letter but, if he has not, I am more than happy to pass that on.

The other correspondence I received on this is from the Combined Firearms Council of South Australia Incorporated on 26 October 2015. Again, that council is signalling a number of concerns regarding legal aspects of the Firearms Bill 2015, and I draw the attention of the house to a submission by the non-partisan Law Society of South Australia, which I have just indicated and which raises concerns regarding these legal principles. With that, Mr Acting Speaker, I conclude my remarks.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. P. Caica): The member for Flinders.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (15:47): Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker, and it is good to see you in the chair, sir, this afternoon. I hope that you are enjoying the debate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. P. Caica): It's riveting.

Mr TRELOAR: Riveting, no doubt. I will try to continue in that vein. I rise today to make a contribution on the Firearms Bill 2015, and I declare an interest immediately. I am a registered owner of firearms and I have a gun licence. I am looking at it here at the moment.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: I know that we are not supposed to use props but, as the member for Hammond suggested, I cannot quite believe how young I look on my firearm's licence, but that is what this place can do to us, I guess.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: It's done ten yearly.

Mr TRELOAR: Ten yearly, exactly, Tom. So, I am the proud holder of—

Mr Gardner: These guys might need to have a chat.

Mr TRELOAR: No, it is up to date. I am the holder of a class A and B licence for the purpose of category No. 5, which is primary production, so there you go. And it just so happened that I had it in my wallet today. I would also like to congratulate all the work that the shadow minister has done on behalf of the opposition. It is an extraordinary amount of work.

The bill itself has involved an extraordinary amount of work, I know, for the government and for the police, both. Everybody has attempted to come together and come up with a bill, and some of that work is still to go, I might add, during the committee stage, and I know that will be an opportunity for members of the opposition to question the minister and also to put in amendment proposals. We are looking forward to that part of the day as it unfolds.

Obviously, safety is paramount—the safety of the community at large and the safety of the individual—and that is a quest of this legislation. It is also, of course, aimed at keeping those operatives who are working outside of the law away from guns. It is probably a sad thing to have to acknowledge, but baddies will always be baddies and often if they want to get a firearm they probably will. In fact, it has occurred to me that even a half-baked boilermaker with a half decent workshop could probably knock up some sort of implement that could shoot a projectile. Be that as it may, that is not going to be covered in this legislation, it is just that people need to be aware that those who want a firearm probably ultimately will be able to get one.

I understand that there are 65,000 gun licences in South Australia and, as I have already said, I have one of those. There are over 300,000 registered firearms in South Australia. Last year, over 200 guns were stolen and therein lies the problem I think because those guns, of course, must have been in some way unsecured and have now gone into circulation with goodness knows who taking control of them.

Many constituents have actually contacted me with regard to this legislation. Primary production is a major component of our regional economy on Eyre Peninsula with many farmers and fishermen, most of whom regard a firearm, particularly a rifle or a shotgun, as a tool of trade, and that is recognised within the legislation and the licensing arrangements. Many have contacted my office regarding this legislation and what it might mean for them. To be honest, we do not quite know yet what it might mean for them because we have not seen it in its final form. There will no doubt be amendments made to the current form.

I acknowledge one constituent in particular, and that is Mr Peter Wyschnja of Port Lincoln, who is representing the Port Lincoln Firearms Collectors Club and the Heritage Munitions Museum. Peter and I have had a couple of conversations about this legislation. In fact, Peter is a collector. He is an active shooter, but he is also an avid collector of firearms, both current and historical. He invited me around to his well-secured shed one night to view his collection of firearms, and I have to say it is the most impressive private collection that I have ever seen and he is very proud of it. He is concerned about how this legislation might impact on him as a collector, but also those who are involved in re-enactments. Guns are not just a tool of trade. They can be a hobby. They can also be part of people's lifestyle and they are concerned about how this legislation might affect them.

Peter has done a lot of work going right through the bill as it has been proposed, highlighting points that he has concerns with and even prompting questions, but we will get to them at the committee stage. Obviously, the Law Society has made a submission. I have half a dozen different submissions from a number of gun clubs, etc., the Law Society, the Australian Airsoft Council of South Australia Incorporated, Southern Vales Practical Shooting League, Re-enact South Australia World War I and II Living History (these people are avid historians), the Arms and Militaria Federation of Australia Incorporated, and the Adelaide University Regiment Rifle and Pistol Club.

All of these organisations have been really proactive in their involvement with this significant legislation—and there is no doubt that it is. It has been a long time coming and a lot of work has gone into it. They have all raised concerns. I am sure that the minister would be aware of them and, hopefully, considered some of them in his amendments, but for the purposes of Hansard I might just quickly read some of the concerns because these are quite broad concerns. We may hone down the finer detail when we get to committee. The Law Society has specific concerns about several aspects and principally they are as follows:

1. The extension of criminal responsibility for serious offences to the civil concept of causation.

2. The abrogation of the right to silence—

which the member for Mount Gambier mentioned just a few moments ago—

particularly without the necessary legislative infrastructure to safeguard from misuse of information and to ensure a fair trial.

Rights under common law, I would suggest. They continue:

3. Empowering the police to search and seize information without a warrant.

4. Unjust reversal of onus of proof, which has the effect of abrogating right to silence and presumption of innocence.

5. The issuing of interim firearm prohibition orders and public safety notices by non-judicial authorities.

The society also considers that some aspects of the bill are not user friendly for the following reasons:

(a) Some of the clauses are prolix, often because the clause tries to cover too much ground; and

(b) Some of the clauses are conceptually difficult, particularly where they prescribe an act as prohibited, and then allow exemptions in particular circumstances (and those circumstances often refer to a different section of the Bill).

Obviously they are suggesting that some clauses of this bill are trying to do too much. In essence, I think what this bill ultimately needs to do is actually simplify the legislation and make it simpler for gun users, simpler for the police and simpler for licensed firearm owners to be aware of the legislation and the laws that they operate within.

Some of the critical commentary from stakeholders comes from—and I will read this into the Hansard—the Australian Airsoft Council South Australia:

…I find that the new Bill before Parliament contains many areas that will have an enormous effect on our member's activities…The members of our Council believe this Bill goes too far in making it more onerous on lawful firearm users particularly members of sports shooting clubs and will not affect the criminal misuse of firearms one bit.

So we might explore that, and the minister may have a response to that. From the Southern Vales Practical Shooting League:

There is universal opposition to the new Bill from owners, clubs, associations and the retail industry.

I am not sure that that is exactly right but certainly there are concerns out there. They continue:

They are all represented through the Combined Shooters and Firearms Council which has been a respected representative group for quite some time…This is about trying to achieve a satisfactory result regarding firearm laws that are acceptable to all concerned.

A fair and reasonable request. Re-Enact SA said:

We are alarmed at the inclusion of a necessity to licence and register arms that have been removed from such obligations by the fact that they were required to be deactivated beyond repair or reinstatement—to the satisfaction of the Registrar. Once deactivated and certified, why is there any need to register these objects or licence their owners?

Certainly the collector who I have been speaking with in Port Lincoln has these same concerns. A number of his firearms are deactivated and he believes that that is an appropriate state for them to be in. They are also concerned about the registration scheme for non hand-held pieces and also replica firearms. The Arms and Militaria Federation of Australia are concerned that the bill will have a detrimental effect on their hobby with no justifiable reason for such impositions. And so it goes on. There are some really legitimate concerns raised by people who are avid and law-abiding collectors and citizens.

A couple of things from the paper that have particular regard to my constituency are storage and also the transportation of firearms, for example, from paddock to paddock. With regard to transportation, there will be a code of practice in relation to the transportation of firearms that will potentially represent a loosening of current restrictions, and many landowners and farmers will be pleased to hear that. The focus will be on reasonable precautions being taken. The code of practice will clearly outline what is expected, so we will see that.

I mentioned deactivated firearms and certainly Peter Wyschnja talked to me about deactivated firearms. Currently, no registration is needed. South Australia Police argue that this is a public safety problem as a result of the case in Queensland, where 4,000 deactivated firearms were apparently reactivated and circulated amongst criminal organisations. The government argues that South Australia and Western Australia are the only two states where deactivated firearms do not fall within the definition of a firearm. The bill as proposed will require that deactivated firearms be registered.

My question during committee, minister, will be: should that registration be implemented and at what cost? I imagine that many collectors will have many firearms that fall into this category, firearms which they have not registered in the past and have not have to pay fees for, and will now be up for considerable cost should there be a registration fee.

I like the concept of an ongoing general amnesty. We have had amnesties over the years from time to time, and I have even been involved in a couple myself in the early days. We can only assume that there are still firearms out there that are not registered. That is a reasonable assumption, I think. The fact that owners still have the opportunity to hand in firearms is a good thing, and hopefully that will continue because from time to time, for various reasons, owners will make a decision to hand in guns.

With regard to farmers—and I spent 30 years as one—we certainly regard it as a tool of trade. I doubt, member for Hammond, whether there would be a farmer in South Australia who would not have a firearm of some sort.

Mr Pederick: I would be very surprised.

Mr TRELOAR: You would be very surprised. In fact, many of my constituents use firearms on a weekly basis, if not a daily basis, not just for the control of vermin but, as the member for Morialta very politely pointed out, to euthanise livestock should they need to, and that does happen from time to time.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: You mean kill them?

Mr TRELOAR: I mean euthanase, minister. I congratulate everybody involved in the work that has been done on that. Obviously, we do have some concerns still. Many collectors and gun owners out there have concerns and a little bit of apprehension about what this bill might mean for them, but hopefully we will get to a point, particularly after committee and after it has been through the upper house, where most people are reasonably comfortable with where it is at. Ultimately, we need to make the bill more readable, simpler, better able to be applied and less confusing for both gun owners and the police.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (16:02): I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on the Firearms Bill. I promised the Minister for Police that I would make them relatively brief, given that there has been a number of speakers on this debate already who have made some very useful contributions so far, particularly the member for Morialta's very lengthy and extensive contribution. It was very helpful.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Quality or minutes?

Mr PICTON: Well, both, I am sure. This is a significant reform to this area of law. This is the first major review of the act we have had in the last 35 years. I understand that since then there have been something like 11 minor amendments to the act, so it is time to modernise it and to look at it entirely again. This is an area where we need to get right the balance between community safety and the needs of people to have firearms where it is appropriate to do so.

We cannot eliminate all firearms from South Australia; in fact, there is quite a significant number of firearms in South Australia. The key thing is that they are managed appropriately, that they are kept by people who need to have those firearms and that there are proper safeguards around our legislation and offences if things go wrong. That is what the bill sets out to achieve.

I know firsthand from my father-in-law, Mr Sam Blefari, who has a property in Uraidla, of the need for firearms for people who operate farms. It was the first time that I went to visit my now wife's property up at Uraidla, where we went down into the cherry orchards with my father-in-law to pick up the ladders after the—

Members interjecting:

Mr PICTON: —that's right—harvest season of the cherries, and my father-in-law spotted a deer out of the corner of his eye. He has well-trained perception for spotting such animals. He said, 'Chris,' and this was the first time he had ever met me, 'I want you to go back to the shed and get the gun.' This could have been because he saw a deer or it really just could have been because he wanted to inform me that he did have firearms readily available on the property—and this is still a bone of contention. It would be remiss of me if—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: You didn't get the gun, did you?

Mr PICTON: No, I went and—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Don't incriminate yourself.

Mr PICTON: —that's right—I did not comment on how important such firearms are for people who operate properties in regional Australia.

I think the important thing in Australia that we do not have is people obtaining firearms just for protecting themselves. That really marks us as separate to the United States. Members will be aware of the long, ongoing debate in the US about the right to bear arms under their constitution. We do not have that right in South Australia. It is, of course, a privilege to have a firearm, and we need to have legislation that establishes the reasons for which people should have that privilege. That is what this bill seeks to do and I am very supportive of that.

The bill does a number of things, including enacting the underlying principle that firearm possession is a privilege, conditional on the overriding priority to ensure public safety. It creates management of people against whom firearm prohibition orders are enforced. It also creates new offences that have been created to protect the community and assist in preventing firearm-related crime. It introduces a code of practice provision for the security of firearms, ammunition and licensed dealers' premises.

I think all those provisions are particularly important because, as I said, there is a need for firearms, but we do need to manage them safely and ensure that they are appropriately dealt with. I think enacting those provisions, and also restricting the types of firearms that people have access to, is one of the reasons that we have such a low rate of death by firearm compared with countries like the United States, where those protections are not available.

In a previous professional life, when I worked for the commonwealth government, I worked closely with the Hon. Jason Clare MP when he was the minister for justice. He did a significant amount of work on this matter from a federal perspective, looking at the different laws across the states and the commonwealth. I understand that this bill tries to enact some of those changes, looking at how we can better harmonise nationally our laws.

Importantly, he undertook some work with the Australian Crime Commission and established a report looking at the number of firearms that are unregistered circulating around Australia, which included some worrying statistics: something like 250,000 unregistered longarms and 10,000 handguns are in circulation in Australia. I think that is one of the key reasons why the minister has introduced an ongoing amnesty in this bill, which I think has broad support, so that we can try to reduce the number of unregistered firearms circulating in the community.

Of course, firearms are not something that expire. They do not go off with age. They will exist and be around for a very long time. Once they get out of the legal system and into the unregistered market, they will not go away in a hurry. I think that ACC report, in fact, went back and found some unregistered firearms in circulation in Australia that had been used in crime dating back over 100 years. It just goes to show how long these firearms can be in circulation if they go into the black market.

The ACC report also stated that theft remained a primary method of diverting firearms into the illicit market. For that reason, this bill and the regulations will require stronger storage requirements for firearms owners to prevent guns entering the black market. I think there has been broad consultation with the community about these provisions. I am sure that there will be some people at the margins who might complain about some of them, but I think this parliament needs to take the approach that it sees these provisions as important because of the potential risks if storage is not secure, such as the theft of firearms.

We have a very strong contrast with the debate in the US about firearms. The ability of the minister to have these long discussions over the last year without the ferocious venom that you see in this discussion in the US is a credit to everybody involved in this debate in Australia. We never want to be in the place that the US is in now when it comes to this issue.

While the US is having this debate, we continually see references from them back here in Australia and a lot of distortions about how our laws work in Australia. In fact, I think it was just this week (and it was reported in The Advertiser today) that the National Rifle Association in the US has been circulating a video misquoting our former premier, Mike Rann, when he talked about the right to protect yourself from home invaders. They have been trying to use that quote to talk about the right to bear arms, which of course was not at all his intention when he made that comment.

It is completely outrageous for the NRA to make such remarks. If they ever came here and spoke to people, I think they would see that most people think that we have the balance right in Australia in regard to our firearms laws, and I think this bill further enhances that.

In the process of this bill coming to the house, I was able to have a briefing from our colleagues at SAPOL. I was very interested to hear the background of both how this bill has come about but also some of the statistics about gun ownership in South Australia. I was very pleased to hear about the level of thought and effort that has gone into SAPOL's efforts to try to prevent the theft of guns and firearms deaths in South Australia. Full credit to all of those people who work very hard on firearms regulation in South Australia in what can be a very difficult job at times. I am sure we have all seen through our electorates that the decisions that SAPOL needs to make can be quite difficult at times—full credit to them.

I endorse this bill and look forward to its passage. I hope it will lead to better gun safety and better community safety but also clearer laws and less red tape for our society.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:12): I wish to make a contribution to this debate. I attended the briefing here at Parliament House some weeks ago and raised a few issues, which I might go over. In essence, much of the bill does not particularly phase me. A lot of it is okay. If some amendments are put and carried, I think it will make the bill better. If the old firearms bill is outdated and this one updates that, it might be useful, particularly in the administration side of things.

I have made comments in this place about the firearms section and the amount of time that it used to take for licences to come through. That has improved to some extent, so I am pleased about that, but we still get complaints coming through the office about the length of time. I just hope that in all of this we do not forget common sense. You can put all the laws you like into place but you have to use common sense.

Common sense is at the fore with a vast majority of firearms owners that I know. The problem is that we have a minority in this community who do the wrong thing with firearms; the vast majority do the right thing. Why should the rest of us be put under more pressure over our firearms? I am a firearms owner. The one I use more than anything else is a single shot .22. It is just a fact of life: you carry it around on the farm for various uses. I have some almost-antique firearms for which I would not even know where to get ammunition, quite frankly.

It has been brought to my attention, as I have been lobbied by firearms owners, collectors and the like in my electorate on some aspects of this. They were concerned, but I think, to the best of my knowledge, a lot of those concerns have been allayed.

I listened to what the member for Kaurna said about the USA. The USA is a completely different animal to South Australia. The USA constitution was framed around their right to bear arms, and the reality of that was they were able to bear arms so that, if their armies were defeated, they had another army of citizens behind them. That was the intent of their constitution. So, if the Brits, at the time, overran them, they had another army from the population of the USA. That is where it started.

I was fortunate enough to be over there in August and stayed in a small city called Stockton, out from San Francisco. I stayed with people we had got to know and talked to people in the street. None of the people in that street had firearms. None of them had ever used firearms. None of them saw the need for firearms; they did not have to have one. Walking around San Francisco and Seattle, there was no evidence of what goes on.

We see what happens in the media all the time, and they play up shootings. Sure, they happen, but among the vast majority of Americans, particularly where I was moving, there was just no evidence of it. The police were most helpful; they were not roaring around. They were doing what they had to, and what you see on TV just did not happen. It was no different to being in the city of Adelaide or in Australia. Obviously, incidents take place and they have to deal with those.

I for one applaud the British police force who, to the best of my knowledge, still do not carry firearms. The bobbies do not carry firearms. I stand to be corrected on that if I am wrong. Of course, their tactical squads do, but I think it was a sad day in South Australia when our police started carrying firearms. I did not like it, I still do not like it, and I do not think it does the image any good whatsoever.

I was absolutely staggered when I went out front to the rally to see the number police officers and supporters out there today. It was just absolutely amazing to see the numbers out there. Why did the minister not go out there? We sit in here and debate this, and he has to be in the chamber, but no representative of the government would go out there today and talk to the police and others who were out there about the issue at hand.

The crowd was highly irate. I repeat: I was absolutely amazed at the numbers. I am sure it will be well and truly on the news tonight and be discussed further perhaps on the radio tomorrow. SAPOL officers, staff and supporters made the government look absolutely ridiculous today out the front.

I pick up on what Matthew Abraham said the other day on ABC in the morning. He said Mike Rann, when he was around, would have fixed this issue in about two seconds flat. He would have given them what they wanted and he would have fixed it up. He was never seen anywhere without a police officer alongside him when he was talking about police issues, and he would have fixed it up. Instead, what we see is this bumbling government allowing this to fester. They have completely upset SAPOL, and we saw that today. I say you can wear it, as far as I am concerned.

Back to the legislation. I mentioned that collectors and other people have come to see me. I have also had representatives from the RSL. Hopefully a lot of these things will be sorted out. The guns in parks will probably never fire again, even if you spent two years working on them. It is really important that no pressure is put on organisations such as the RSL about these monuments—and they are monuments—by way of unnecessary bureaucracy and overregulation.

I am seeing the minister and I believe he has seen some reason in all this. He can mention it later, but I want it to be well and truly on the record that I object to our RSL, particularly, having any pressure put on them where they have a .303 up in the clubroom. If you go to the Royal Australian Regiment facilities and see what they have hanging on the wall, these are important historical artefacts of how this country was defended and fought for, and they are part and parcel of Australian culture and idiom.

I was asked only the other day what has happened to the field gun at Victor Harbor and whether they had to get rid of it. The answer is no, it is being rebuilt by Mr Bob Suba; it will be back there and it will look spectacular. Likewise, I know collectors have had serious issues with some of what is proposed. Hopefully, when the minister winds up the debate, he can put some of that to rest properly.

In the briefing I attended, I particularly raised some issues to do with farmers and farming families who, by the very nature of where they are, as the member for Kaurna mentioned, just have firearms—end of story. You have firearms. You cart them around in your vehicle from time to time. You might need to shoot a sheep or a feral cat or destroy an animal to put it out of its misery, and there should be no undue pressure on people who do that.

At the committee stage I want to ask some more questions and get it on the record again, but there are occasions when you may have your firearm in your ute and you may have to go into the town. The police were quite helpful on this in the briefing. There needs to be means whereby farmers or landholders can go into town, have that weapon in the car and, if it has a trigger guard on it as is suggested, that may be a satisfactory means of keeping it safe. Likewise with ammunition, if it is locked in the glove box, if that is seen as secure and unable to be tampered with, I am comfortable with that. There has to be the room to move. The other point that was raised was the issue of farmers' wives who are fairly deadly shots with snakes.

Mr Pederick: Sometimes not!

Mr PENGILLY: Yes—sometimes I prefer to use a long-handled shovel, quite frankly. But it is not unusual in a farming situation to have a snake outside the back door. It happens too regularly. Why they want to come there, I do not know, but they do and then, of course, the other half of the outfit has to go and get a gun and dispatch the snake. Should that happen, there should be no threat of any sort of punishment to the spouse of a farmer who is out there basically defending their property or their children by dispatching said snake.

It might sound a bit simplistic and a bit boring and a bit country bumpkin, but they are important issues that need to be dealt with. There needs to be some sensible regulations or law—call it what you may. There needs to be some common sense brought into it, so that they can do these things and not fear any sort of retribution.

I had to get the gun out myself the other day when I was home on the farm and I was thinking, 'Well, I've got to get that back and lock it up, otherwise I'm breaking the law.' And I thought, 'Well, how stupid is that.' We were shearing and I had to get the gun. I took it down to the shed and it was down there for a day or a day and a half and, to all intents and purposes, I am breaking the law, but it is what you do. It is the way you run a property, minister. You just cannot run back and forth and lock things up and get them out every five minutes. You may not pick the thing up for another six months, I might add.

I am aware that the minister has been holding roundtable discussions for some time on this with a wide group of interested people and parties. I am also aware that you are never going to please everyone. I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with crashing down doors of bikie fortresses, suspected bikie hide-outs, drug laboratories or whatever when there are firearms possibly in there. I have no problem whatsoever with that.

I know very well one police officer—he is a former police officer now; he has not been retired that long—who would like nothing better than to crash down a door and go and sort out a bikie establishment. These things have to happen. These people—I call them scum—who make it difficult for the rest of us to deal with firearms and other offences should not put too much pressure on the vast majority of people for whom firearms are a necessary way of life.

It was interesting this morning at the Be Active challenge at the netball park at Mile End that the sports ambassadors were called out. Who did the Premier single out for special attention but Libby Kosmala for her prowess at shooting? I am thinking, 'Well, hallelujah.' She is off to the Olympics again. It is a sport. It is a sport enjoyed by many. It is not something I want to enjoy, but clay shooting is an Olympic sport, and it has been for a long time. Owning a gun does not make you a criminal. If you do not choose to do the right thing in the care of your firearms or take some sensible precautions then you leave yourself open and I am fully cognisant of that.

During the course of the committee I advise that I will raise some of those issues because I would like it on the record. We will be supporting the bill, but we would like to see some changes to things. I know the minister has acquiesced to some changes and I suspect there will be further changes in the other place. Hopefully out of this we will get a law which is updated and better than the current one, but is not restrictive on people who do the right thing and is in the interest of common sense.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (16:27): Firearms licensing and regulation is always a contentious issue because, as the member for Finniss has just been saying, there are people for whom the use of a firearm is almost a daily event; it is a tool of trade, and I will come back to that. There are people at the other end of the spectrum who believe in their heart that we would be a better society with no firearms at all, but there is obviously some common ground in the middle.

I must admit I find it offensive that people, the minister and this piece of legislation would say that having a firearm licence is a privilege and not a right. I have had a firearms licence ever since licensing of firearms was introduced in South Australia. I think that is the case. I did not go through a TAFE course or anything to get my licence. I got it virtually automatically.

Mr Pengilly: When you were seven years old.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I was a bit more than seven. I cannot remember exactly when it was, but I do remember that, when licensing was introduced, I was able to qualify and I have been a registered gun owner for longer than I care to remember. I regard, in my trade of being a farmer, that a gun—and more than one type of gun—is a tool of trade. As a farmer, from time to time, unfortunately—and none of us enjoy doing it—we have to put down injured livestock, obviously.

I recall many years ago a truckload of sheep overturned right by my back gate, and we went down and there were literally hundreds of sheep injured on the road, and it was quite an effort. There was a team of us helping to destroy the livestock that we identified that had broken limbs, that were seriously injured and were not able to be taken back to their place where they came from and nursed back to health, and that sort of thing happens from time to time.

Vermin control is a significant issue on our farm. Vermin control is something that we undertake on a regular basis. When I say 'we', these days it is my son, and he has equipment specific to that purpose, and that is obviously guns and baiting—all things that are very dangerous. Baiting for foxes is very dangerous. We use highly-dangerous chemicals. It would almost be impossible to undertake farming, particularly in the sheep industry, without undertaking some sort of vermin control.

I was reading an article in a magazine today where it is suggested that losses of newborn lambs could be as high as 30 per cent to foxes; and, where there is little or no effort within a group of farmers to control feral foxes, that could well be the case. That has a significant economic impact not just on the individual farmer but, obviously, on the economic wellbeing of the state and the nation.

This state and this nation rely very heavily on livestock production and the controlling of vermin is something which is an integral part of livestock production. I have a firearms' licence and I am a registered firearms' owner. I pulled my licence out of my wallet a moment ago and I see that I am licensed to use classes A, B and C firearms, and the purpose of use is purpose No. 5, which is primary production.

I see that the way in which classes A, B and C are listed on my licence indicates that class C is the more deadly and dangerous of the guns that I own, and that is a five shot self-loading shotgun. I have that in my possession. It was purchased by my father many years ago. I am still confused, and I am sure that most farmers are confused who have on their licence under 'purpose of use', purpose No. 5. I have always assumed that I could use it for those purposes below No. 5—1, 2, 3 and 4.

I do not know whether or not that is the case. The minister may be able to enlighten me on that. He is shaking his head; he is suggesting that I am not. I am licensed to use my shotgun for vermin control but I am not allowed to shoot a duck with it during the duck season, apparently. I just brought that up because that highlights one of the things which I think is a nonsense about the regulatory system that we have, that is, that the burden and the level of difficulty on law-abiding citizens has been made greater and greater over a relatively short period of time because a very small number of people choose to use firearms for the wrong purpose.

The point I want to make is that it is my firm belief that it does not matter how onerous we are with firearm regulation, there is a certain percentage of the people in our communities who will flout those regulations, anyway. There is a certain group, or certain people in our society who own illegal firearms, who possess firearms illegally and they are unlicensed; and it does not matter where we set the regulatory framework they will continue to do so, and there will be people who continue to seek out ownership of firearms or possession of firearms for illegal purposes.

The balance that we need to try to achieve with this sort of legislation is to ensure that the firearms in the possession of legitimate users—hunters, collectors, farmers and sporting shooters, and I am sure there are other smaller categories as well—are held securely.

I fully appreciate that there is a large issue, where guns are supposedly stolen fairly regularly in South Australia, and I think that is of concern. It is a concern of mine that guns which are legally held find their way into the hands of criminals because they have been incorrectly or poorly stored. On the other side of the coin—and the member for Finniss was saying a similar sort of thing—if I were a full-time farmer, as a tool of trade a gun is something I would be using on a very regular basis.

In my capacity as a local member, a constituent came to me after the local police had called on him to inspect his storage system for his guns. He had an adequate gun cupboard. He had come in to have lunch, the rifle that had been in his ute he had taken out of the ute—and I think he had done the right thing by taking it out—but he did not lock it in the cupboard while he was having lunch: he stood it behind the kitchen door. The local police officer said, 'No, you can't do that,' and took the gun from the farmer's possession and reported him for that offence. I think that is a nonsense.

I have had plenty of incidents where I have seen vermin, such as a fox or a rabbit, and I have to tell you that if you have to go back to the house, or wherever your gun cupboard is—and I choose to have mine in the house as I think it is more secure there than if I have it down in the shed—take your boots off (as my wife insists), go and get the key, go to the gun cupboard, unlock the gun cupboard, get the other key, unlock the ammunition cupboard, get all the bits and pieces, put it back together, lock the cupboards before you leave the room, go back out, and put your boots back on, the rabbit or the fox has long since gone, and it defeats the purpose to a significant extent.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Don't take your boots off.

Mr WILLIAMS: Don't take my boots off! Leonie is going to hear about that, minister. I am just pointing out that the practicalities for law-abiding gun owners and gun users can be very difficult and I think we need to find a balance. I am not suggesting at all that people should not be responsible in gun ownership. I accept that they are a dangerous thing to have in our community, and those of us who are required to have guns need to act responsibly. I accept that, but there is a lot of red tape around the responsible ownership which makes it very difficult.

Another issue that I think is being addressed at last is this. On our farm, as I have said, I have a shotgun in my possession which I inherited from my father. Between my son and I, we have two or three rifles and a couple of shotguns. We both have a gun safe, but my understanding is that, as the registered owner, the guns should be in my gun safe; if my son wants to take them and have them in his possession for a period of time—because he is actually doing the day-to-day managing and running of the farm—he has to have a written note from me, and that has been a nonsense also.

What it has really meant in our case—and this is a practical outcome of some of this red tape—is that we own more guns between us than we actually need. We have found, at least in the case of a .22 rifle, that we have always had a .22 rifle each, whereas that has probably been unnecessary and we could have been lulled into a situation where we had more shotguns than we needed. I am pleased to see that that anomaly, or that difficulty—the sharing of guns between people or staff who work on the same farm—is being addressed in this piece of legislation, and that has been a very great difficulty.

One of the other difficulties I have encountered is the 28-day cooling off period if you go to purchase a new rifle or a new gun of the same class of gun that you already own. I had this experience—and it is going back a few years ago, it is historic—when I wanted to buy another rifle, a .22 rimfire rifle. I happened to be in Adelaide, I went to a gun shop and I arranged to buy the gun, but I could not take possession of the gun. I had done all the paperwork and all of that, but I could not take possession of the gun for 28 days.

I had to wait that particular time, and this was before I was a member of this place, and it was just an inconvenience. Virtually, if I wanted to take possession of the gun at the end of 28 days it probably would have meant that I had to make a special four-hour trip to Adelaide to pick up the gun. That is an issue I raised during the briefing with the officers from the Firearms Branch. I am not too sure whether that is being addressed, but it is another difficulty with the way the thing is being regulated.

Another issue I raised at the time during the briefing with the officers was transferability of the gun licences from state to state. I was under the misapprehension that we had national gun laws and that we were moving towards having national gun laws so that we had the exact same rules. My electorate and my home are quite close to the Victorian border; in fact, I have constituents who have a farm on both sides of the South Australian/Victorian border, with part of their farm in South Australia and part of their farm in Victoria.

It would make a great deal of sense to me if they were subject to the same rules and laws on either side of the border and probably needed only one gun licence if their place of residence were on one particular side of the border, that the gun licence on that particular side of the border would be fine for them to use to give them the authority to use their firearm on the other side of the border. I am not too sure whether or not that is the case, to be quite frank.

I had a constituent come to me quite recently who told me that he had previously been a resident of South Australia, he had a gun licence in South Australia and then moved interstate. I think he moved to Queensland in the first instance and then moved to Tasmania, and about 10 years later (it might have been even longer) he came back to South Australia, and I wrote to the minister earlier this year sometime, I think, on this particular case. He came back to South Australia and had to go back to step 1 to re-establish a South Australian gun licence. He had to go and do a training course, and so on, to get a gun licence to continue possession of his guns here in South Australia.

The nonsense of it was that with his existing gun licence—I think it was Tasmanian—that he held at the time he was told that until that expired (which I think was last month, from memory, October this year) he was adequately covered with that licence but that to transfer it to a South Australian licence he would have to go and register for a TAFE course, do the course and make all the applications. Again, I think that is a nonsense. He had already proved, he suggested, in at least three states that he was a fit and proper person to own a gun licence.

The problem with doing some of these courses is that they only run from time to time, and if you are out in country South Australia sometimes it is incredibly inconvenient to do a course. I can understand somebody who has never owned a gun licence previously having to go through and learn all the things that they need to learn about gun ownership, gun safety and so on. It is the sort of thing that once you have learnt, it is a bit like riding a bike, you do not readily forget. I was taught by my father about gun safety and there are things about a gun that I never do.

I talked about storing the gun in the house. I would never walk through the home with the gun loaded; I would never do it. In fact, I do not drive around in the vehicle with the gun loaded. I usually only load the gun as I am about to use it. Things like climbing through fences and all that sort of thing I learnt as a small boy, and I think once you learn them you do not forget them because you respect the firearm and you respect the danger of it.

I really felt for this bloke. As I said, I wrote to the minister. The answer that came back was a standard answer which basically said, 'Sorry, that's the way it is, and you will have to go through and do the course.' I think there was one caveat that if he could prove that previously he held a licence in South Australia there might have been an exemption, but even that would have been quite onerous for him; it was 10 or 15 years before. I think that is something that, for people who are genuine and have proved that they are fit and proper persons to own a firearm and move from one state to another, we should be able to allow them to automatically renew their licence in the new state. I wish that that would be part of that process under this legislation. It is what we do with regard to a licence to drive a motor car. To be quite frank, more people are killed in motor cars and motor accidents than are killed with guns in this state. We do it with motor cars but we do not do it with guns.

Can I just finish off by saying that guns in the hands of the wrong people is something that we need to stamp out. I will just repeat: making the regulatory system more and more difficult on those who need to possess and use guns I do not think helps in making it easier to keep guns out of the wrong hands. I think that is a completely different issue, other than, as I said, the security of the guns that are stolen. I look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (16:46): I am really pleased to speak in favour of the government's Firearms Bill. There are many reasons that I have taken the step into this form of public life. Most of them are deeply personal and all of them involve some form of advocacy. I remember where I was on New Year's Eve 2012. I had a new baby in the car and a foster child who was deeply impressionable at the age of 11, having moved into our house not long before. We were very happy, positive and ready to start this new family life. We had been to an Adelaide United game and spent time with dear friends eating at a cafe watching the wonderful fireworks at the Bay, and we could not have been happier.

When driving home, my husband and I heard on the radio the news of the shooting of a young man at Warradale earlier on that New Year's Eve. Lewis McPherson was just 18, recently graduated from Brighton High, and ready to start his life. It was such a terrible loss and so very unnecessary. As is usual in Adelaide, you are never far removed from these events, and many, including our dear son Sam's friends and relatives, were closely connected to Lewis. My husband and I were therefore deeply affected by Lewis's death, and when contacted by his family for some support we were very glad to help.

I will take this opportunity to remind members that it is not the loss of life that we need to think about only. Lewis's buddies, in particular those who were with him on that terrible night, are still struggling. Some of them have to fight hard to stay on this earth. James Lamont and Liam Trewartha will suffer for the rest of their lives. This is bigger than Lewis, and any loss, any tragedy, causes a ripple effect.

Three years have passed and my family are still connected this beautiful family. Kimberly and Paul (who has also since passed away), Mark and Tina, as well as Lewis's many wonderful relatives and friends worked tirelessly raising money trying to stop violence in the community and lobby for a safe one. We have all heard about some of the work that has been done by this family in the public sphere, and I congratulate them on that. Together we will never stop.

Moving forward, I participated in this particular consultation and connected with the participants of the community around firearms, with Lewis in my mind always. Over the past 12 months, the Minister for Police has undertaken a really broad community consultation and harnessed community and stakeholder views on the reforms proposed for the bill. This process has driven the development of the bill to improve the regulatory firearms scheme for the benefit of all South Australians. I was really honoured to spend some time consulting with this community group and pleasantly surprised by how much I had in common with many of them.

This was alongside the Minister for Police. He held seven round tables between September 2014 and August 2015 to help write this bill that is before the house. It was a fantastic opportunity to speak to legitimate firearms users who are interested in hunting and sport, and also with other victims and their families and community activists. This was to try to find a solution that satisfied those who wish to use firearms in a safe manner and in a process which is not cumbersome and protects those who are rightly concerned about the damage that firearms can cause. I agree that guns will be accessed by the wrong people in an unlawful manner and used in an unlawful and harmful manner, and that really makes it so imperative that we do make lawful ownership as uncomplicated as possible.

Consultation is a key goal of this government, which is eager to give the community ownership of the laws and regulations that govern us. As well as community round tables that were held to help design the bill, the government has been really eager to consult with the community on a wide range of other issues that members would be aware of, which has never been done before, using tools such as the YourSAy website, where there has been consultation on other issues such as national parks, the future of the outback of South Australia, and the taxi and chauffer industry. Also, citizen juries have been held looking at dog and cat management, which is so important. That has attracted a diverse range of people to give the best advice about community expectations on a wide range of issues.

The main purposes of this bill are to improve public safety and prevent crime, reduce red tape, overcome deficiencies, and facilitate a national approach to firearm control—and can I say, having heard the minister throughout the many different sections of the act, he was very consistent in terms of what areas had to be referred on to the national group for consideration as well. We aim to increase functionality of the act and also to modernise it. The bill achieves a clear and sustainable balance between firearms control which maximises public safety and encourages the responsible possession and use of firearms for legitimate reasons. The bill reaffirms the underlying principle that firearm possession and use is a privilege conditional on the overriding priority to ensure public safety: it is not a right.

The bill has been amended a number of times over its history, making it quite complicated and arduous. However, these amendments have largely been to deal with criminal firearm users to best protect our community, and their attempts have been incredibly valiant. Little has been done to address the parts of the act that are difficult to interpret, follow and administer. Additionally, little progress has been made to improve firearm controls and enforcement measures and provide a sound administrative and governance framework to meet community expectations.

Wholesale reform of the act is now necessary to provide a contemporary legislative scheme which equips the state with an enhanced, effective, simple, clear and progressive firearm regulatory system. The new system will assist in improving public safety by strengthening firearms controls and providing the tools necessary to combat contemporary firearms crimes. It will be easier to comply with by reasonable law-abiding firearms owners, and that is what we are all aiming for. The bill is still concerned with trying to achieve the safest community standards for firearms and, to achieve this purpose, provisions have been created with respect to the management of persons against whom a firearms prohibition order is in force.

A code of practice provision is purposed for the security of firearms, ammunition and licensed dealers' buildings, which intends to overhaul and enhance current security requirements and reinforce the responsibilities associated with firearm ownership and possession. This code of practice will provide clear guidelines for the security, storage and transportation of firearms and ammunition. This has been proposed as an alternative to establishing a cap on the number of firearms that an individual can possess at any given time. This received broad agreement by firearms groups during the consultation on the bill. The overarching purpose of the code of practice will be to require firearms owners to increase the level of security for their firearms commensurate with the level of risk those firearms present to the community should they fall into the wrong hands, which is a really sensible approach.

The bill permits a senior police officer to issue a public safety notice to the owner or occupier of a regulated premises, like a firearm dealership or a firearm range, to address a public safety concern or a perceived issue to public safety. This notice can remain in force for up to 72 hours and can require the person to: produce material for inspection, close the premises, cease specific activities or operations on the premises or take action in relation to the premises.

A prohibition on certain persons being employed by a licensed dealer is also proposed. But for legitimate arms users, the bill also expands the powers of the Registrar of Firearms to allow them more freedom to make judgement calls about the desires of a firearms user, making it easier for sport and hunting shooters to use their firearms in a safe and desired manner. Again, that is the broad aim.

To help achieve national consistency for firearm control, several new information exchange provisions have been included in the bill. These provisions permit the maintenance and exchange of information, material or data with other law enforcement agencies and systems, government agencies and other organisations. The more I get involved with different projects in this place, I get a bigger understanding of some of the difficulties and barriers that we face amongst a whole range of issues with cross-border discussions and communications, so it is really important that we build that into this legislation.

Provisions that require applicants to have a genuine reason to possess or acquire a firearms licence, and possess or acquire a firearm, align the legislation with other jurisdictions. Under these provisions, the registrar must not grant an application for a permit to acquire a firearm unless satisfied that the applicant has a genuine reason to acquire a particular firearm. The registrar must also be satisfied that this genuine need cannot be met by a firearm already in the possession of the applicant.

The bill intends to create a more efficient and effective regulatory framework for firearms control. Important reforms contained within the proposal aim to maximise the functionality of the act by:

including a provision for prohibiting a person from being granted a firearms licence if the applicant has been found guilty of an offence prescribed by proscribed disqualifying offences. It is a bit complicated and a bit wordy but it makes a lot of sense;

implementing a general and ongoing firearms amnesty to allow a person who has unauthorised possession of a firearm or firearm-related parts, such as ammunition or a sound moderator, to surrender the item at a police station; and

enabling a registrar authority to exempt a person from a provision of the act, creating significant administrative flexibility of the legislative scheme.

This bill will help to protect the community, hunters and sports shooters, and of course farmers, and will greatly improve the way firearms are regulated in South Australia.

It was fascinating to be involved and interesting to hear from collectors and other people working in the industry, such as Paintball, which is affected by these laws as well. It was very interesting. I thank the minister for welcoming me into that roundtable environment and learning so much. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (16:58): I wish to make a relatively short contribution to this debate, but I do want to put two perspectives that I have. I understand that when legislation is seen by some to control the way they undertake things, the response is sometimes quite different, depending on what perspective of the argument—I will use that term loosely—you come from. The parliament is here to resolve difficult issues, and that is why it is important that legislation on this is considered.

I want to put two perspectives, if I may, one being good. First, I will just clarify that I am not a gun licence holder. I do not own a weapon. I married into a family from an agricultural background and they do have guns. I have witnessed the safety aspects as they store their guns and use them and ensure that they are safe.

I am proud to have the opportunity to be a patron of several pistol shooting and rifle clubs in the electorate that I represent. I go to them when I am invited because there is a tremendous camaraderie that exists within those groups. They are very competitive when it comes to the results that they want to try to achieve. However, the one message that I have taken from all of those clubs is the safety issues that they pursue. It is absolutely paramount to them. It is obvious to me that when I go there they do not just put on an example because I am around and I might dob them in if they are doing the wrong thing. These people truly want to do the best they can in whatever they undertake, but they also want it to be as safe as it possibly can. In every possible way, the safety aspects are demonstrated to me when I look at them. That is the same for all the groups that I have been to. No matter the location, no matter the circumstances—larger weapons, smaller weapons and everything between—it is the safety aspect that is demonstrated.

I come from a regional community where I know that guns are considered to be more of a presence within a larger number of homes than they might otherwise be in a suburban area, but I have also seen the tragedy of when a gun is not stored appropriately. In my case, it was the 12-year-old son of a man I have known for nearly all of my life, from an agricultural sector.

They were spotlighting on a Saturday night, and then the young man, who was only 12 at the time, decided that he wanted to go out and do something on the farm which involved the use of machinery. An incident occurred; he thought he had damaged it rather seriously, and then for some reason that none of us who know the family and the young man in particular can ever understand, he decided to take his own life because of the fear of what he had done. He was able to so because he was able to access a gun that had been used the previous night.

That is a tragedy which remains with that family forever, and I think of that young man continuously. I had moved away from them but I had known his dad so well that I was certainly at the funeral, and it was an absolute tragedy. The impact that it had upon his mum, who I do not think has ever truly recovered from it either—that was it. The family has disintegrated since as a result. There are two younger siblings who are very strong young people and who have overcome that, but for the mum and dad it is an issue they have dealt with for at least the past 10 years, I think it is.

He was taken far too soon, and it was because an opportunity existed: the gun had not been put away as it should have been. There are some who might criticise me for putting that on the record. It is an absolutely tragedy that all of us have to live with. I know that 99.9 per cent of people will ensure that the requirements are undertaken all the time, and they do that diligently.

The member for MacKillop has related stories of how he learned, as a young boy, to ensure that safety exists. For this father, he lives with that regret every day. On that one occasion when the gun was not put away, for all the time that they have had guns as part of their operation on their farm, the tragedy occurred. I do not know what could have triggered the thought in the young man's mind for that to happen, but it did.

So that is why I do respect that legislation needs to be reviewed. The legislation needs to be appropriate, not just to ensure safety but to ensure accessibility when it is required, but safety has to be paramount. I took the opportunity to attend the briefing the minister coordinated that was provided in the Balcony Room in parliament, and I am still haunted by the fact that—I think it was 240 or 260—guns go missing per year. I am flabbergasted that it is to that level, and that it can be to that number. This becomes part of an opportunity for those who choose to never obey the laws to do the wrong thing.

I have not taken as close a view on this as I should have, as I have been focused on other legislation, but I know that members of the opposition have had some quite lengthy discussions about this, and the shadow minister in particular has done an exceptional job in trying to develop the position that the Liberal Party holds. It is about trying to ensure workability exists in the legislation that the minister proposes. I know that his intent is an honourable one: to try to get some results here that people can work with.

The minister confirmed with me that the legislation had been tabled. He came to me in this chamber and said, 'We have looked after the farmers.' From the perspective of the community that I come from, I am grateful for that. There will be a lot of discussion about individual clauses, and I respect that too. The importance of the parliament, now that it has legislation before it, is to put in place a system that not only offers protection and the security attached to gun ownership but ensures that the needs of those who either have accessibility to a gun through a working situation or a recreational situation can use it.

The chap who asked me this question has passed away since, but as a candidate standing for parliament in 2006, the very first telephone call I had from anybody about running for parliament was not 'What do you bring to the opportunity for that?' but 'What is your position on gun ownership?' It was the very first call that I had, and it was from an older chap—

Mr Pederick: Good luck!

Mr GRIFFITHS: I know. I thought, 'God, I have been thrown in the deep end here; what sort of an answer do you give?' I have had a relationship with him for a long time so we got through—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Do you think he had you in his sights?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I won't repeat that, minister! He was a very responsible sports shooter all his life and he died when he was 83. He had been involved in that for over 60 years and he had taken every precaution in terms of gun safes and so forth, so that weapons were not transported irresponsibly. It demonstrates to me that there is a level at which all our communities have an interest in this bill and how, in a practical way, it is going to work.

I have been contacted by the president of one of my sporting shooter clubs and I understand he was involved in the dialogue that the minister has undertaken over the last year and a bit, in which discussions with the representative bodies have been a focus. He raised questions and concerns about practical issues with me, and he wanted some assurances that there will be opportunities for people who do the right thing not to be driven away from something that they love doing.

I did not want to hold up the house any longer than that but I just wanted to put the two perspectives that I have on the record. I am saddened to hear the member for Fisher relating a tragedy that she is personally aware of and I think most of us in this room have some physical perspective on how a gun has been used inappropriately. I look forward to the committee stage and also the passage of the bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:06): I rise to speak on the Firearms Bill 2015 and I thank the member for Morialta for his presentation of the opposition's position and the development and implementation of a number of amendments that I am sure will assist in improving the bill. I do commend the minister for his approach in having a considered and appropriate consultation as to how we reform this important area of law.

In short, our side of the house supports the registration system which, really, was formalised back in 1977 under the current act. It is one of the mechanisms that you can use. It is time-honoured and, I think, proven to be reasonably appropriate and effective, but it needs updating. The contemporary assessment of what is now required was done in a sensible way. Obviously those who are professionals in the firearms division of the South Australian police force were valuable to all of us in the roundtable discussions as to what is working and what is not and where they needed to have reform.

I remain concerned that firearms that are illegal and other weapons—including knives and the like and motor vehicles, for that matter—are still without adequate management in terms of protecting South Australians against their illegal use or criminal behaviour, either in supporting other criminal activity or being used directly to hurt people. Our management of that area is, I think, fundamentally deficient.

It is not necessarily exclusively in the realm of responsibility of the Minister for Police or the Commissioner for Police. I accept that law enforcement traverses some other areas of responsibility, but the application of the investigation—whether it is with extra resources or simply the commissioner looking at some directed involvement in the surveillance and apprehension of those who are either stealing legally-registered weapons and using them for improper purposes, importing illegal weapons into the state via trucks, vessels, ports or whatever, or indeed the trading of them internally—needs some attention.

I accept that it is not addressed by this bill, but that is the crux of keeping South Australians safe. Until we deal with those issues, we are not going to have really comprehensive protection for South Australians. I certainly think there needs to be a lot more done in that regard.

Can I address one matter in the bill which I see as being relaxed, and I think it is important. It probably needs to have a sympathetic assessment when it comes to those who are going to be in charge of its regulation, namely, the use of silencers. I think we are calling them some other new thing—sound modification.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Sound moderators.

Ms CHAPMAN: Sound moderators we are calling them now. Anyway, we know what we are talking about. There might be some other type of implement which reduces the sound, other than a silencer; if there is, I suppose we have to make provision for that. It might be something where we turn off the hearing aids up here.

Before I make comment on this, I should say that I am not the owner of any guns. I inherited a couple after my father died and promptly, like all good citizens, made sure they were delivered up to the appropriate authorities. I am not sure whether he had a licence for them all actually but, in any event, they had no purpose for me. In farming interests, my brother has the appropriate weaponry that is always properly encased and so on; he follows all the rules.

I make this point: I do not own a gun and I do not like using a gun, even against animals for pest management, but they have a very important role in urban and rural parts of our community. Suffice to say that other speakers have spoken about the importance of the need to put down livestock from time to time and the importance of being able to have access to weapons quickly—guns in particular, obviously—for that purpose. Usually, if it is anything above a chook size, the use of guns is important for a swift and humane disposal.

I want to address pest management, which is not beyond the wit of most people here in this house, I am sure, that is, undertaking some eradication program in respect of pests. There are a number of these: pigs, goats, deer and so on, but I want to particularly focus on foxes because they are an introduced species. Foxes have been in South Australia for about 140 years and they are a pain in the neck. They are ravenous when it comes to the destruction of our birdlife and they are a pest of the first order.

I particularly bring the attention of the house to this matter because, if you deal with the disposal of a pest by shooting it and it is in a pack, obviously if you shoot one without any kind of sound modifier the rest disperse and you do not have any chance of dealing with the rest of them. It is pretty basic, but that is the reality. I do not know a lot about foxes because where I was born we did not have foxes and rabbits—and we still do not on Kangaroo Island, thankfully. However, in areas that I represent in the Adelaide Hills they are prolific. They raid people's little chicken houses in the local community and they cause havoc at times for lambs in the Adelaide Hills, as well as for other small pets and livestock, so they need to be dealt with.

I gave evidence at an inquiry of the Legislative Council in respect of fox management three years ago. Three years later, we still do not have a program that is actually being implemented in the Adelaide Hills. I went to the last NRM board meeting which had fox management on the agenda to find that there was a proposed trial for part of the Adelaide Hills. I have been desperately trying to get something to happen, particularly on large tracts of government-owned land—SA Water, Forestry, and parks and wildlife—so that we do not offend the border rules, which of course prohibit baits being laid within a certain distance of people's boundaries, etc.

I recently had a meeting with minister Hunter and representatives from the department on a number of matters, but also on this issue I was given a display of a little injector thing which goes into the ground, a bit like a big sprinkler system. Of course, when the fox bites the piece of meat on the top it is supposed to then push up some poison. It is not easily accessible to anything else that has a very strong grip, so foxes are the ones that are likely to be hurt, other than the local pooch, the neighbouring dog and so on. All that sounds good, but it has not actually happened yet. We are still back on the old 1080 regime to bait them, which is pretty ineffective really, unless it is done on a wholesale scale across the Hills.

I for one know that even though other ideas are being looked at, whether it is to deal with corellas in the trees at Strathalbyn or foxes in my area or deer or kangaroos jumping over the highways or koalas getting run over on the South Eastern Freeway, we have to maintain a vigilance in the management of pests in the community; and, when all else fails, or government departments fail us by not actually dealing with it, we rely on people who are appointed under contract to dispose of the vermin in this category.

I just want to say that for those who are contracted by the department—either primary industry, the Department of Environment, and sometimes the Department for Health—in the management and use of rifles and weaponry for this purpose, then I applaud them because I think they are very constructive and important in environmental preservation and conservation of the animals, whether they are the management of an abundant native species or the management and eradication of animals, such as the fox.

I want to just say that, when I read the bill, initially I was concerned that there would be no application to the Crown, and you start to wonder, once you remove the police, emergency services, the Department of Primary Industries, etc., the people who are under contract for this work, who is this bill going to apply to. Is it just amateur members of shooting clubs and farmers? It is pretty narrow, I have to say. So, I think there is a question that does need to be raised still about how we deal with the management of those others in the community who are not directly under the influence of this legislation.

For obvious reasons, we have a separate regime of the responsible management of firearms in areas such as Corrections and, obviously, the police, and those regimes operate without any knowledge to myself, anyway. As to whether there is any problem with that, I do not suggest there is. However, it just seems to me that in the pest management area we use a lot of private contractors. If they are owning their own guns and then accept the contracts, I would think on the face of it they are subject to this legislation currently, under the 1977 act, and will be under this bill.

I am not sure about the status of what happens in respect of someone who is contracted or employed by the department for the management and disposal of animals and is using weaponry which they do not own but which is owned by the department. They might be someone who manages guns on a marine vessel in the department of fisheries, or they might be someone who is employed in the Department of Environment. Just on the face of it, there seems to be two sets of rules.

The minister might want to clarify as to the application of government employees who are using guns for lawful purposes, obviously, who therefore are not contracted as currently amateur clubs are and hunting clubs are for this job, and as to what rules apply to them in respect of their safe storage, and so on, of guns which they do not own but which they are using in their workplace.

As I say, I am leaving aside Corrections because they have a regime of protection, and I know, I have seen it, and I think it is excellent that they do not take the guns home with them. They cannot even get their car keys out of their own locker, I think, in most prisons now until they have secured their weapon into the locker; and, obviously, the police have their own regimes.

I would just like some clarification on that, but otherwise I commend the minister and our shadow minister for the excellent work in progressing this bill.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (17:19): I also rise today to support the Firearms Bill 2015. I learnt a lot during the consultation phase of this bill. I learnt that a lot of my constituents—many more than I thought—do have firearms, and it was good to see so much interest in the bill by local constituents. It enabled me to really look into detail at the sorts of issues that they were facing in respect of this legislation and the complex issues that are highlighted in such a bill. I have to say—and I echo the words of the deputy leader—that I commend the minister for the way he has gone about preparing this legislation, as well as the drafters of the bill and the South Australian police.

I have had a little bit to do with the South Australian police, particularly the firearms unit, over the years because many local constituents have had issues, big and small, with that area, and I must say that I have always found that particular section of the police to be very statesman-like, very professional and firm, but very fair as well. This is a complex regime and it is an area that is very difficult to get right. Trying to rectify the many flaws that exist in the legislation is very difficult to do and so I commend those responsible for doing so.

In saying that, many people in my area are part of an array of groups that use firearms—gun clubs, hunters, clay target shooters, etc. I am pretty sure that my parents may have a deregistered firearm. They might actually be implicated firsthand—

Mr Gardner: Decommissioned.

Mr TARZIA: Decommissioned.

Mr Gardner: Deactivated.

Mr TARZIA: Deactivated. They may have a deactivated firearm, so even some of my relatives might be impacted by legislation if it is passed in the next couple of days. Many of the people who have come to see me have sincere issues, which I will highlight in due course. One of them is about the cost of administering the bill, how it will be costed, and where that money is coming from.

We all know that firearms and legislating around firearms is an extremely serious issue. Many registered firearms that are acquired for legitimate purposes can be diverted to the illicit market. It is unfortunate that the few who do the wrong thing make it much harder for what are many law-abiding, licensed individuals, as well as licensed firearms dealers as well.

Many of the firearms that are acquired legally unfortunately have a tendency to be stolen, and illegal importation is another massive market in Australia. The Australian Crime Commission conservatively estimates, in fact, that there are more than 250,000 longarms and 10,000 handguns in the illicit firearms market, so these are significant issues. What we are talking about here is people using firearms. Obviously, the firearms themselves do not cause harm without that human element, and so what we have to do as lawmakers is to make sure that we regulate this area extremely well so that we keep the people of South Australia as safe as we can.

The member for Morialta has proposed many amendments. I agree with those amendments, which I will explain. Amendment 1 is in relation to changing the first principle of the act to remove the word 'privilege' at 3(1)(a). Amendment 2 is to change the first object of the act to remove the word 'prohibit' at 3(2)(a). Amendment 3 is to change the sixth object of the act to remove duplication of the word 'criminal' at 3(2)(f).

There is an amendment concerning ammunition components, which I know he will flesh out in the committee stage, as well as some comments that we will have concerning the definition of ammunition at clause 4, and potentially changing the term double barrel to multiple barrel at 5(b). I know we may have some questions around the minimum age for junior shooters as well.

The introduction of the general defence is a significant area of law and, for the purposes of natural justice, this defence is around an array of areas, and obviously that is extremely important to us. This general defence, which exists in the current act, we think is certainly worthy of discussion, at least to make sure that it is included in the amendments that we will be speaking about. That is something that we will certainly have more to say about as well.

There are many goals for the new act, and who could argue with any of them? We are all hand in hand here when it comes to the purposes, the goals, the intention of what the minister says are those of the new act. For example, improving public safety and preventing crime; reducing red tape; overcoming deficiencies; facilitating a nationally consistent approach to firearm control; increasing functionality of the act; and modernising the act.

In regard to improving public safety and preventing crime, the bill speaks about creating regulatory power for the introduction of a security code, and that security will reflect the level of the risk involved. In relation to public safety notices, they will be available to a senior police officer who can serve it on the owner or occupier of a dealership, firing range or the like, requiring that they take certain actions in relation to whatever the public safety concern is. The new bill obviously also speaks about firearms prohibition orders and how the registrar may issue a firearms provision order (an FPO) against members of criminal organisations or against people subject to a control order.

Self-audits are spoken about, and I note that licensed firearm owners or dealers may be required to undertake a self-audit of firearms in their possession at the time of renewing their gun licence. There is also the introduction of an aggravated offence for unlicensed possession of a firearm if an unlicensed person commits a drug-related crime. Obviously we have seen a link between that sort of behaviour and further criminal activity, so I think that is a very relevant consideration that this bill adopts.

There are dealer employee prohibition elements to the bill as well as the registrar authority to inquire regarding licensing as well. Red tape reduction is also targeted in this bill and I think, when we can reduce red tape, like any area of law, we should certainly look to do so, as long as there is safety, and safety needs to be our paramount factor in consideration of this bill. As long as the safety of the public is maintained, if there is room for red tape reduction then so be it.

I know that my colleague the member for Morialta, the shadow minister, will have more to say about inserting vicarious liability provisions. You have to be careful; I think you have to tread carefully when you talk about vicarious liability and the implications that may have. I know that that will certainly come out in committee.

I spoke a little about deactivated firearms. Obviously at the moment no registration is needed and I know that the police have argued that it is a public safety problem as a result, particularly of a case in Queensland where 4,000 deactivated firearms were reactivated and circulated among criminal organisations. I acknowledge that that maybe a risk; however, I think we can be doing much better here and we need to flesh out the issues involved here, because the bill, as I understand it, requires that deactivated firearms need to be registered.

I understand that the government has said that there is no cost to apply for the registration if done within the first 12 months. How is that going to be communicated? I suggest that people who are in possession of these sorts of firearms would need to be contacted quite rapidly.

I have had some dealings with paperwork in this area. The paperwork can move slowly, especially around this time of year. Not only that but the course involved to get a licence takes quite a while. I have had I do not know whether it is pleasure or pain of helping someone fill out their paperwork in the past, and it does take time, because it is a rigid process and the right checks, balances and measures need to be undertaken. At the moment it would seem that a deactivated firearm owner would have to have the firearms licence. This is something that I think we should further explore at the committee stage. We might be looking at, for example, specifically prohibiting charging a fee for that registration or licence if the only purpose is to register a deactivated firearm.

Obviously regulated imitation firearms are dealt with as well. That is a very valid addition to the bill. There will be a code of practice in relation to the transportation of firearms, and the focus will be on reasonable precautions. As the member for Finniss alluded to, common sense should certainly come into this, and it has come out in the context of the debate.

Whilst we can never be too careful in relation to firearms, I think a degree of common sense must always shine through. I would ask the house to consider that when considering any sensible amendments that the opposition moves. It is fair to say that there is a substantial amount of goodwill here, and I would like to think that in a bipartisan manner we may be able to get through whatever small issues we can for the greater good of this legislation and the safety of the people of South Australia.

In excluding prescribed firearms from the handgun definition, I notice that that sawn down long arms will be specifically defined as prescribed firearms and not as handguns. I think that is also important. In the bill we and the minister, in his earlier comments, have also spoken about the national approach to firearm control; it is very important. If we can make these sorts of things universal across Australia that is a good thing. It is good that we finally understand that there should always be a general reason to acquire a firearms licence. I know that South Australia Police have characterised this as a matter that they certainly agree to after the awful incident at Port Arthur, the massacre in 1996. I notice that this particular angle has not been covered and implemented in South Australia, so it is about time that this happens, and I would certainly welcome it. There should always be a genuine reason and need to acquire a firearm.

In terms of increasing useability, I notice that there are a number of disqualifying offences as well as the ongoing general amnesty. I echo the sentiments of some of my colleagues. From 1 July 2016 there will be an ongoing general amnesty for someone who has unauthorised access to a firearm to be able hand it in at a police station. Why not? It is much better that they hand it in to the police rather than keeping it on the street. The government has already announced an amnesty that will operate until 1 July 2016; so, in effect this provision would be in place from now, and publicity has started. I notice that there are—

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: 1 December, thank you, minister. The act is also being modernised by amending certain licence categories as well as terminology to make sure that it is up to date. There are a number of other issues that we will flesh out at the committee stage as well.

Overall, I think the minister has given this bill a very solid crack. There has been consultation with a range of stakeholders. It is an extremely difficult bill to get right first time around. We will on this side of the chamber be putting forward what I know are sensible amendments. I would encourage the minister and the government to consider them.

I think overall, however, we will end up in a much better spot at the end of this than we are at the moment, and at the end of the day, whatever we can be doing to ensure that the people of South Australia are safe and that this level of regulation strikes a good balance between that regulation and safety I think is a fantastic thing. I commend the bill to the house. I look forward to seeing these sensible amendments implemented from our side and look forward to debating the bill hopefully when it comes back from the other place.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light—Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (17:35): I will make every attempt to finish by 6 o'clock with my closing remarks. I will not necessarily prolong this, because I think some of the discussion will take place at the committee stage irrespective. First of all, I thank all the speakers who have spoken on this. I have noted that all speakers have spoken in favour of the bill subject to some agreement on some amendments to the bill. I would at the outset say that I am open to any suggestions which do not undermine the integrity of the bill and what we are trying to achieve.

I also, at this point in time, thank the enormous amount of work that the officers in the SAPOL Firearms Branch have undertaken. I think their work has actually surprised some groups in the speed with which they have been able to do this work and that we have this bill in parliament at the moment. I also thank all those organisations and groups who came to the various round tables and consulted and all those people who have actually made a genuine effort to provide feedback. I would remind members that the draft bill we put out for comment received quite a bit of feedback and, as a result of that, we actually amended the draft with 33 amendments, so that was a genuine process to consult. Even since then, we have had a number of discussions and refined the bill further, because we are trying to achieve a bill with the right balance.

I also thank my staff, who have worked long hours and on weekends, because most of the consultation process was held after hours on either nights or weekends to fit in with the requirements to get as many people involved as possible. Firstly, I would just—

Mr Pederick: I hope you gave them a bit of OT.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I think they do it for the love of the cause. If they work for me, they have to do both.

Mr Gardner: They just want their boss to be happy.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes. I would like to address some of the comments, firstly, made by the opposition spokesperson for police—the shadow minister, the member for Morialta—and I will deal with some of the issues he has raised which he has asked me to comment on, but obviously we will be going into a bit more detail at the committee stage.

First of all, he raised in his speech the issue regarding the differentiation between a toy and a regulated imitation firearm. The current regulated imitation firearm legislation is regulation 5 of the firearms regulations. One thing I would like to say as an aside is that a lot of what actually regulates the sector at the moment is in regulation already, so this notion put out by some people that regulations are something new is not true. There will be regulations in the new act, but there are regulations under the current act, so that is something I mention.

It is complex and ambiguous, and that is why, through the process of the next stage of forming the regulations—and you will be aware that Rob Kerin (the former Liberal premier and former member for Frome) has agreed to chair a group to look at the appropriate regulations, and I look forward to receiving his recommendations. It is very hard to give an answer as to what that may look like in the end, because that is subject to the consultation process. What I envisage is that, all going well, this bill will be passed this week or next sitting week and the work will then start. We will call for submissions, we will then prepare some drafts and then engage further with the sector, and I look forward to receiving these recommendations.

Given that regulated imitation firearms must be registered and the owner licensed, an important element is the ability of the firearm to be readily convertible. That is one of the principles behind that. I will leave the double-barrelled firearms issue for the committee stage, because that is going to be one of the amendments proposed by the opposition, and we will discuss that perhaps in detail then.

Clarity about clause 9(7) regarding 'in the immediate vicinity'—there is no easy or definitive way of precisely defining the concept connoted by the words 'immediate vicinity'. That is just a legal term and the courts will take the context into account. That is terminology used in a number of acts right across the sectors so it is nothing new. I think it would be addressed there.

Permits to possess ammunition—some concern was indicated about this new power under section 32(8)(b). Is the new provision designed to empower the registrar to impose limitations and conditions upon ammunition permits? This provision is necessary to provide the foundation for the registrar to be able to act under clause 32(4); in other words, to restrict by condition or limit a permit for the type of ammunition which can be possessed.

Clause 32(4) is actually a carryover of section 21B(4) of the current act. However, in developing the bill, it has been identified that the related foundation power sought to be enacted by proposed clause 32(8)(b) was omitted from the current act for some reason. The ammunition permit proposed by the bill is intended to formalise the process by which the registrar may approve a collector of firearms, who ordinarily cannot possess ammunition for a collection of firearms, acquiring and possessing ammunition for use in shoots of collection firearms as approved by the registrar.

I would like to mention one of the things that has been discussed: the wide powers of the registrar. It is certainly true that the bill does provide a greater discretion to the registrar, but that is actually quite a positive thing, and I will explain why. Some things at the moment are quite black-and-white. The new bill actually gives the registrar some discretionary power. An example would be sound moderators. They are prohibited at the moment. Under the new bill, the registrar will have a discretion to approve some of those subject to some policy frameworks to make sure that they are consistent.

I also need to mention the balance, which I have mentioned time and time again amongst the round tables. Yes, there certainly are more discretionary powers for the registrar but they are subject to review by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. So, there is a check and balance, which is very important. Decisions are reviewable and the SACAT provides a cheap, quick and effective way to have the decision reviewable. It is not as if the powers are not checked or are able to be misused. There are checks and balances in this bill, and that is quite deliberate.

In terms of what is reviewable, some concern has been expressed regarding the power of the SACAT. I will read from the SACAT Act itself. Section 34(3) provides:

…the Tribunal will, in exercising its review jurisdiction, examine the decision of the decision-maker—

which will in this case be the registrar—

by way of rehearing.

(4) On a rehearing, the Tribunal must reach the correct or preferable decision but in doing so must have regard to, and give appropriate weight to, the decision of the original decision-maker.

But also:

the Tribunal must act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case and without regard to legal technicalities and forms.

So the tribunal has quite a broad power to disagree with a registrar's position. By 'rehearing' what it means is that it takes into account what led to that decision, but it also can have new evidence put forward. It is not a restrictive form of what you might call a legal appeal on a legal basis. It is actually a merit-based review. I think there is sufficient breadth in the current SACAT Act to provide quite a wide review of decisions made by the registrar. I would be a bit reluctant to amend that because it would actually change the whole SACAT Act.

One thing that I also need to mention is that this act is quite clearly about ensuring that the number of firearms that go to people who should not have them is minimised in the sense that we are maximising the security of firearms, which is very important.

What I should also mention is that, unfortunately, while we are actually redefining some of the restrictions for farmers to make sure that we get a practical, common-sense approach, we do have to keep in mind that two-thirds of firearms which are stolen do come from rural areas. So, again, we need to maintain that balance. We are prepared to look at that because we are conscious of the fact that we want to make it as easy as possible to comply with the law.

On the issue of a right versus a privilege, one of the groups has sent out a newsletter saying that the insertion in the principles of the word 'privilege' will 'completely change the concept of lawful firearm ownership and use'. That is completely incorrect, and I will explain why. First of all, the privilege principle is already part of the existing statute law in two other jurisdictions, which has not amended the balance. Secondly, it is also part of our existing common law.

The courts have, on a number of occasions, referred to that issue, and I draw members' attention to the case of R v Cullen if they wish to follow this up in detail. Justice Gray goes into the history of rights versus privilege, and in his decision he says: 'The underlying thrust of those resolutions,' and this is about the whole national gun framework, 'is that gun ownership is not a right, it is a conditional privilege'. There are a number of cases where the courts have decided that way.

What is important, though—and I notice that a number of opposition members mentioned this—is that it is very much about the culture around gun ownership. Gun ownership should be about a purpose. It is not about a right, and what we do not want in this country—and I think a number of members from the opposition also agree with this—is the American culture of gun ownership. The word 'privilege' is inserted, quite clearly, to distinguish us from America, and that is what it is about.

So, it does not change the legal balance in terms of that, but it makes it very clear that this is about the culture. We want to make sure those purchasing guns are using the guns for legitimate purposes. My view is that if you need to purchase a gun for self-protection, that is an admission that we have actually had a complete breakdown of civil society, and I would hate to get to the point where we would have to do that.

I note that the opposition supports the expiation notice. That is a reduction of red tape, and that is also a common-sense approach. People will make some minor mistakes. They need to be reminded they have made a minor mistake, but an expiation notice does not mean they have to go to court and get a conviction. It is an administrative penalty so that people are not treated unfairly, so it is a reasonable balance.

In terms of restriction around the number of guns, there was a discussion around capping the number of guns people can have. Members should be aware that there are a number of people in the community who have multiple guns. Just to give you an example, there are 508 licensed gun owners who have 20 firearms or more—and these are not collector guns; these are people who actually own class A, B or C guns. There are 22 registered gun owners who have 50 firearms or more. In some cases, there might be some legitimate uses, such as sportspeople who have different guns for different sporting purposes.

Mr Gardner: Like Olympic shooters.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is correct, but I would be keen, obviously, to have as few guns in society as possible. My view was the sector supported that. There is a risk—the more guns in society, the greater the risk of misuse—and so the trade-off was there is actually greater security. The level of security required for having one double-barrelled shotgun would be less than if you had 20 or 30 guns. We thrashed out those specific details through the codes of practice which we will negotiate once the act is passed through the regulations, but people will have an opportunity to talk about that. In the end, there will be some technical response.

A couple of people raised the issue of deactivated guns. The reason we are actually asking for them to be registered is that, at the moment if they are not registered and they go missing, we do not know where they are. If they are not registered, there is no requirement to report them. As mentioned by SAPOL, a number of guns have been reactivated. We also acknowledge that we do not want to put on any additional burden, and that is why we are quite prepared to accept that there will be no fees charged.

We already do not charge fees for RSLs and other community organisations that register certain guns. That is something we can discuss at the committee stage, but we are quite happy to ensure that there is no additional financial impost, if that is all you have. If you have an existing licence for another purpose of gun, that is a different matter.

The reason we want people to do it within 12 months is to encourage them to do it and also to provide an incentive to do it as soon as possible so we can get the scheme going. I also take on board the member for Hartley's comment, which I have made a note of, that we need to make sure that the material we produce after the bill is passed is in multiple languages and is circulated in a whole range of communities to make sure everybody understands their responsibilities under the new act. We will do that.

The Law Society has raised a number of issues that we think we can address. The issue of interstate licences was raised and it is not a question of whether or not you can shoot a gun. If people from interstate come here, part of the purpose of getting them to obtain a South Australian licence is to make sure they are up to date with our laws. One way of achieving that outcome is to make sure people get a licence in South Australia and are required to do the training course. It is not just a question of the actual ability to use a gun: it is also very important that they actually understand what our current laws are.

The member for MacKillop raised the issue that, unfortunately, while we have a national framework, we do not have national gun laws as such. That would be great to achieve, but it will probably not be in my political lifetime. Given that we cannot even agree nationally on what category one gun should be in, imagine trying to get a whole act the same right across the country. However, I have been very consistent in the whole process, that we will not accept anything that is outside the national framework. We will work within the national framework to make sure we get as much commonality as possible. That is for the benefit of gun owners as much as it is for community safety.

There were a couple of other things I wanted to mention. Regarding sound moderators for pest management, the registrar will have discretionary powers. I have to be up-front: I am not convinced that if you are shooting at a herd of wild pigs some hundreds of metres way you need a sound moderator. The scientific evidence does not actually support that.

Sound moderators are used in an urban setting. For example, if you are shooting pigeons off the top of the building, you do not wish to alarm people in the community. That is appropriate pest management, and I am yet to be convinced that you need to use it when you are dealing with other pests like wild pigs, etc.

I have seen some footage where bang, one falls over and the others still run away because that does scare them. Having said that, we do acknowledge that it is appropriate in some cases and that is why we are removing the current prohibition and giving the discretion to the registrar.

Government employees who have guns only for the purposes of work, I am advised, cannot take them home. If that is the only purpose they have, they cannot take that gun home; they are required to remain at work, I am advised. For example, there are some DEWNR employees who have guns and they are licensed for that purpose. If they do not hold a separate licence, they cannot keep a gun at home. They can only keep it at work.

It is also important that we are very careful about what we say: it is certainly true that we will never stop 100 per cent of people using guns for unlawful purposes or people holding guns unlawfully. That does not stop us taking action to ensure that we minimise opportunities for people to have those guns, and that is why we are increasing the level of safety, particularly around storage. I have heard some stories about the current storage requirements and they are, unfortunately, not as strong as we expect, which exposes us to guns going into illegal hands.

As I said, there are, I think, about 240 to 250 guns stolen every year from premises. We need to make sure that we reduce that because they are, unfortunately, used. The other thing is that I am very keen to get people to register their guns if they do not hand them in at an amnesty. We will make it easier for people, particularly farmers, to register guns.

I am aware that often farmers inherit guns from three or four generations ago. They often sit in back sheds and the current generation finds them after some years. We are very keen to make sure those guns are either registered or handed in. We will make it as easy as possible for people to register, because I would rather know where they are so they can not only be lawfully held but also so we can ensure that, if something does go wrong, we know what to do in terms of following that up.

There are a couple of things I would like to mention very quickly. One group mentioned that there has not been enough consultation in the process of deriving this bill. They put that out in one of their newsletters. To give you an idea, the Firearms Liaison Advisory Group (FLAG) process started in 2008 and went up to 2012. That was one process that started way before I was minister. I became minister last year and we had a series of round tables. At the very first round table I made it clear I wanted to fully understand what the issues were in the sector. That is when farmers raised their issues and a whole range of things, which led us to rethink a whole range of matters and to have a more practical bill.

Given there have been the round tables and that a draft bill came out, which is not commonly done, people in the sector got a copy of the draft bill before cabinet did. The final version was put out after consultation, so I completely reject that accusation that we have not consulted. If people do not like the bill that is fine, they can say they do not like it, but to suggest that we have not consulted is just nonsense. Not only myself but the police have done a wonderful job in engaging in that.

The regulations do not accompany the bill. That is certainly true and that is the normal practice. What the regulations will actually do will depend on the final version of the bill. Some things we will deal with though. In the regulation will be the code of practice for storage and transport, categories of licences, exemptions and permits, and firearm clubs. As I said, preparation of these regulations will be done for the consultative process under the leadership of the Hon. Rob Kerin.

I think that covers most of the issues. I thank members again for their contributions. With good will on both sides, I think we can achieve a really good outcome to make the community safer.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

Mr GARDNER: Can I clarify the date of commencement?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Our aim is to have the act proclaimed to start on 1 July, subject to it obviously passing before Christmas and the regulations being prepared. Our aim is 1 July, which will also give us sufficient time to prepare member materials and educate the community about the changes.

Mr GARDNER: Following on from that, I have a question that relates to the minister's desire to get the bill passed before Christmas. I assume that is so there is time over summer to deal with those regulations. As we have sitting weeks in February, what is the anticipated timetable for the development of those regulations and how long do you expect that will take?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The aim is that, once the bill is passed, we would commence work on those regulations fairly quickly. Obviously we will need some time because we need to engage the sector. We envisage that we would probably require three to four months to do a fair job, to engage the community, then we will need quite a few months to promote the regulations and the act before it comes into effect.

Clause passed.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30.

Clause 3.

The CHAIR: You have withdrawn amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3 in amendment schedule 1; is that correct?

Mr GARDNER: Yes, the first set of amendments has been withdrawn.

The CHAIR: We are now dealing with amendments in amendment schedule 2, and they are amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3 in your name.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Gardner–1]—

Page 6, lines 3 and 4 [clause 3(1)(a)]—Delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) to confirm that firearm possession and use is subject to the overriding need to ensure public safety; and

In doing so, I will identify what its purpose is. Amendment No. 1, from memory, deals with the use of the word 'privilege' in the objects of the bill. It proposes that in its place we instead say that the bill is to confirm that firearm possession and use is subject to the overriding need to ensure public safety. It performs exactly the same function as using the word 'privilege'.

The second reading speech identified specifically some of the reasons that a number of stakeholders have had concerns with this. I particularly draw the house's attention to the Law Society's concerns with the word 'privilege' in this way. The Law Society identifies:

The prime difficulty is that the word 'privilege' has quite a number of meanings, and so including it in the Bill is likely to lead to confusion, rather than clarity. Ownership of a firearm often meets a sentimental reason, such as the desire to keep a gun once used by a forebear. Further, some people require use of a firearm as a work tool...

It is difficult to see this falling within the definition of privilege. I note that the Arms and Militaria Federation of Australia have provided input to members and, in particular, in relation to the use of privilege. They identify their concerns regarding the use of the word 'privilege', as do the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia, the Combined Firearms Council and others.

I suggest that the use of the word 'privilege' in this manner—in my view and that of parliamentary counsel, inasmuch as I asked them questions and they provided me with information—as far as we can tell, does not actually alter the impact that is going to happen to somebody's regular use. In fact, as the minister has said, the legally established position is that firearm possession is a privilege in the same manner, I would suggest, that having a driver's licence is a privilege. One goes through certain processes to acquire it because society has determined that these are things to be regulated, so in that sense it is indeed a privilege.

But including it in the act in this way is something that is not the case for the driver's licence, for example. Legally, it may be the same case, but it is only firearms that we determine need to have this in the title, and clearly there are people who are law-abiding firearms owners who find this an exclusionary term and a divisive term and are upset by its use, given that none of the other categories of people who have the same legal basis for expecting a privilege has that imposed upon them.

I do not think that this will change the impact of how the act is applied, but the amendment as suggested by the opposition reduces the exclusionary impact on the way that a number of people will feel that the act applies to them. I think that it is useful for the parliament to pass legislation that encourages the 65,000 South Australians who are most impacted by that legislation to approach it in a positive way. Having the first line of the affected part of the bill, something that so many of them find troubling, I do not think is very helpful and so I ask the house to support the amendment.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I thank the member for his comments. The government will not be supporting this amendment, and I will outline why. As he mentioned, and I think the member for Stuart also mentioned in his contribution, whether it is a privilege or a right really does not change, if you like, the legal position. As I said in my closing remarks to the second reading, the common law position is quite clear, and there is a number of existing court decisions which talk about being a privilege.

That is the law, so that is what happens now. People are not losing their guns unless they obviously break the law. There are no restrictions because of that wording. It is the existing wording in both the ACT and also New South Wales, and my understanding is that it has not changed the right to own or the privilege of ownership there. As I mentioned earlier, the main reason is that it is a symbolic gesture, and I acknowledge that.

It is symbolic to the extent that this is not a message for the gun-owning community: this is message to the whole community. This is about saying that the ownership of a gun is a privilege which comes with responsibilities, so the rest of the community who are not gun owners—and the majority of the community are not gun owners—know that a person who owns a gun does so not as a matter of right but because the community gives them that privilege to own a gun and it comes with responsibility.

What I understand from some of the feedback the member for Morialta has received is that I do not believe it is one which actually changes people's position or their ability to own a gun. But it is a very important symbolic thing, and I would say, as a number of other members have already said on both sides of the house, that we are not looking for an American gun culture in this country. That is what this message is about: it is saying that we have a very specific Australian view about guns and that is not the American gun culture. For those reasons, we will be opposing the amendment by the Liberal Party.

Amendment negatived.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Gardner–2]—

Page 6, lines 12 and 13 [clause 3(2)(a)]—Delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) to ensure that the possession and use of automatic and self-loading firearms is permitted only in strictly limited circumstances;

In a similar manner, the first object of the act is to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading firearms except in strictly limited circumstances. It is a similar principle to the first amendment, so I will not repeat myself, other than to say that the suggested amendment we are proposing is that, rather than to use the word 'prohibit', to instead identify that the object should be:

to ensure that the possession and use of automatic and self-loading firearms is permitted only in strictly limited circumstances

This restricts in a very specific way, but by the use of the word 'prohibit' being in the act with exceptions means that those people to whom the exceptions are applied, being farmers, for example, or people for whom the use of these firearms is part of their business and businesses that we all rely on—whether they be farms or whether they be people who are culling feral pests or anything else—to say that they are somehow an exception to something that is prohibited, is again something that excludes them from the act. The amendment proposed by the Liberal Party I think gets the same message across without being exclusionary in that way.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I agree with the member for Morialta. The government will be supporting this amendment. We believe that it does not detract from the intention of the object that we are seeking and, therefore, we are happy to support it.

Amendment carried.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Gardner–2]—

Page 6, line 23 [clause 3(2)(f)]—Delete 'criminal'

This is in relation to clause 3(2)(f), which currently provides:

…to prevent or restrict criminal persons and organisations from accessing, possessing or using firearms for criminal purposes;

The Law Society in their submission identify that, when the object of the act specifically talks about preventing or restricting criminal persons and organisations from access, the act should in fact apply to all people who should be prevented or restricted from accessing, possessing or using firearms for criminal purposes. The first use of the word criminal is superfluous and sends a poor message. We therefore urge the amendment to be supported.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The government supports this amendment. We accept the view put by the Law Society. The amended wording proposed by the member for Morialta still supports what we intend it to do, so I indicate the government will support the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Gardner–2]—

Page 7, line 3 [clause 4(1), definition of ammunition, (c)]—Delete 'live primers, propellants and'

I discussed this in the second reading, but in particular the interpretation of the word ammunition currently at (b) on page 7 of the bill states that ammunition is:

(b) an article consisting of a cartridge case fitted with a live primer and…projectile; and

(c) live primers, propellants and blank cartridges;

The fact is that live primers in and of themselves are propellants in and of themselves and are not ammunition and should not be defined as such.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Unfortunately, the good run stops here for a moment. I indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment. The current definition of ammunition in the Firearms Act 1977 is already component-based by including primers and propellants. The proposed definition aligns with the UN protocol definition recognising the complete round and its components. Australia is a signatory to the UN protocol.

Additionally—and this is taking on board what the member for MacKillop said—this is a nationally consistent approach. The ACT, New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Tasmania have extensive definitions not dissimilar to ours. In the regulations code of practice, for security it is proposed that the components as opposed to the complete round the owner must take all reasonable precautions to ensure it is not lost or stolen or does not come into the possession of an unauthorised person.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The CHAIR: Luckily you didn't throw us.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! I can't hear with you all laughing, sorry.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Gardner–2]—

Page 7, line 8 [clause 4(1), definition of ammunition, (g)]—After 'breech' insert 'or chamber'

Can I suggest that it would be appropriate to add the words 'or chamber' after the word 'breech', again in the definition of ammunition. I think I touched on this in the second reading.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We agree that this amendment is supportive. It adds clarity as some ammunition fits to the chamber, so we will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried.

Mr GARDNER: I am hoping for a little bit of indulgence from the Chair in this clause because there is a fairly substantial amount of the busywork in the bill that is contained within clause 4. Let us start with the definition of the word 'firearm'. In the bill, there is some change from the existing act, particularly in relation to what has up until now been identified as being 'carried by hand', and there has been fairly substantial feedback from stakeholders in relation to this change.

The minister can clarify, perhaps, but I understand there are national consistency issues here from the one point of view and, secondly, there are a number of firearms that the government is concerned about and police may be concerned about being unregulated. There are a range of stakeholders for whom this is very troubling, and if the definition of firearm continues as is written here, there will be a number of people in the community—a significant number of people in the community—who will have an increased imposition, an increased burden on them in terms of compliance and potentially cost, depending on how it is managed. Can I perhaps start with a general question and ask the minister to explain why he seeks for the term 'carried by hand' to be removed from the definition of firearm in this bill?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise the committee that we would be the only jurisdiction which does not regulate non-handheld guns. Just to give you an example of what we have in mind: a 50 calibre machine gun, for example, which is designed to be either vehicle mounted or tripod mounted, would be an unregulated gun.

Mr Pengilly: I am not surprised.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, it actually does not fall into the definition of a gun, therefore it is unregulated, so it just makes it a nonsense really—that is not common sense. What we are saying is that just because a firearm cannot be handheld does not mean it is not a gun or firearm. What we are saying is those things which can be used in other ways besides being handheld which have the characteristic of a gun—they fire, they have bullets, etc.—should be defined as a firearm. The fact that it is non-handheld should not exclude it.

Mr GARDNER: I was going to comment in the build-up to that question that I was particularly looking at the correspondence from the Arms and Militaria Federation of Australia who are concerned about that. Can I ask what the intention is in relation to non-handheld firearms. I imagine there are a significant number of people who hold these items at the moment who have come to their members of parliament or me, indeed, as the shadow minister to express concerns, but is it the intention to deactivate them or just that they be registered? In what manner will they be classified?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise that, for individuals, they will just be treated like any other gun (in other words, any other regulated gun) to get a registration and licence. If it is an organisation like an RSL or a museum, etc., what we would say is there will be a fee-free licensing arrangement, so they will be registered and licensed for free. The idea is to know that they actually do exist and they are registered, but there will be no financial imposition on your museums, your RSLs, etc., but if you are just an individual, it will be treated like any other gun and meet the normal gun tests.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Just to confirm, for an RSL, the process would be that the Firearms Branch would visit the RSL, maybe note if they had say a canon out the front with a serial number, there would be a registration process for that, someone would sign for it and that would be the end of it. That is the process you are suggesting would roughly be?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Correct.

Mr PENGILLY: Following on from that, there will be no charge for—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It will be free.

The CHAIR: Free means no charge where I come from.

Mr PEDERICK: This change will have to be fairly well publicised, because there may be in effect people inadvertently breaking the law. What will be the process over time if the government finds there are a range of whether they be World War II field guns or World War I field guns that are war memorials around the state in making sure that RSLs are complaint? Will there be a warning process first or an education program? How will that work?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Just to clarify one thing, it will be free for museums and also for RSLs. For other people, if they are going to licence and register, it will be just like normal licensing and registration fees for individuals. Because these are guns which actually are active, as distinct from deactivated guns, which we will come to, I am sure, in a few moments.

We will have an extensive campaign. Obviously, the philosophy behind the act is to get people to comply. If at the time—I would view that we are going to have an extensive campaign—somebody has unknowingly done it, obviously the police would use a light touch to compliance, but if there is evidence to suggest a person just wants to disregard the law for whatever reason, and there are people who do that, that is a different matter.

We will do our best to make sure that we extensively mount a campaign so people do know what the requirements are: we will write to museums, RSLs, etc. We have had discussions with RSLs, so they will communicate through their own arrangements, but we will also make it very clear through media and other ways to make sure people understand the requirements to be met. It also depends when it is found out. In early days, obviously police will be much more tolerant because it is new. If, after some time—

Mr Treloar: Do you know that for sure?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I do, because I do get letters from people saying that police have visited them and they appreciate the approach taken. That is why we are introducing also, as a related matter, expiation notices. So, if it is in doubt, you will not become a criminal person. It is an expiation notice if it is a minor offence.

Mr TRELOAR: Just some further clarification on this, if I may: what about those who have a private collection or are a private collector? How would they be involved in this? Will they have a free registration option as well, because those people do exist.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: There is free registration for the first 12 months, because there is an incentive built in to get people to comply, and they can add that to their existing licence. The registration process will be free of charge for 12 months from 1 July when we are proposing to enact.

Mr PENGILLY: I have a couple of people who I know of in my electorate with very large collections of guns—antiques, etc. I just want to know that they are not going to get hit up for large amounts of money on a regular basis and are not going to have to be subjected to overly bureaucratic controls. They are responsible.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Registration is a one-off and there is no fee for it, so it is for the life of that person owning it. Any licensing will be subject to any other licence they have for their collection anyway.

Mr GARDNER: Let us touch on the deactivated firearms, then, while we are still on firearms—I will not stretch the friendship and call this a further supplementary. The definition in the bill of 'firearm' includes 'whether or not rendered temporarily or permanently unusable', which I think is the new bit which means that it includes deactivated firearms.

Can the minister explain the process whereby a firearm is to be deemed deactivated for the purposes of licensing conditions or anything else? Is somebody going to take in their firearm and get a certificate from SAPOL? Are there any other matters in the process that the minister thinks are worth drawing to our attention?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The process of deactivation already exists; people can actually deactivate a gun at the moment. Essentially, the person who owns the gun will get a certificate from the registrar saying that it is a deactivated gun. The process of deactivation can actually be undertaken by SAPOL or a licensed dealer. As I said, it is a one-off process. Basically, once you have a certificate saying it is deactivated, that is all you need to do.

Mr GARDNER: I think there is an amendment later, and there are some other opportunities for us to engage further on deactivation, so I might just ask a question in relation to sound moderators.

Mr Pederick: Could I just ask one more on this?

Mr GARDNER: I will let the member for Hammond have a crack.

Mr PEDERICK: I do not want this to sound frivolous, and it was probably already in the old act, but I have been aware of, in my lifetime, people with what are called either spud guns or potato guns. Are they encompassed as a firearm under this proposal? I do not know what the PVC guns use—I think it is some sort of propellant.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise the committee that this act does not change the existing provisions—it is exactly the same for that thing. What I can say is that the definition of 'firearm', just to clarify, is:

(a) a device designed to fire bullets, shot or other projectiles by means of burning propellant or by means of compressed air or other compressed gas…

If you have an issue about whether or not it is an imitation gun, that would be covered by the regulations, which are subject to a separate process of engagement under Mr Rob Kerin. But, we are not changing the meaning, and it is exactly the same meaning in the act itself.

Mr GARDNER: I will ask a question about sound moderators. Are the sound moderators going to include fittings known as 'muzzle blast deflectors', 'flash suppressors' or 'muzzle breaks'?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The only explanation I can provide is that a sound moderator is defined in this bill as 'a device designed or adapted to be attached to, or comprising part of, a firearm to muffle the report when the firearm is fired'. Anything that is, in effect, designed to muffle the sound is a sound moderator, and currently they are prohibited items. What we are seeking to do in this bill, though, is to give the registrar the discretion to allow some people to use them in appropriate circumstances.

Mr GARDNER: Supplementary to that, I am not 100 per cent familiar myself with the nature of those items. Is there the opportunity to clarify some of these things in regulation through what is provided, or will the nature of the moderator that is potentially to be allowed be entirely a result of the registrar's discretion?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The definition of a moderator is in the act, so it will not be open to discretion. The only thing that will be open to discretion is whether or not some person can exercise discretion for somebody to get a permit to use them, and that will be worked out through some policy arrangement.

Mr GARDNER: As I understand it, there is some level of confusion. This is an act, of course, where there are many delegations and things are going to be open to the subjective scrutiny of the relevant decision-maker, although clearly SAPOL has firm processes in place that they work through. As I understand it, some of these items moderate the colour or the flash as opposed to the sound.

For clarity, if it is to be established that they are not sound moderators, would that be potentially by way of a SAPOL internal document to identify what is and is not a moderator? I assume SAPOL would have a list of things that they clearly see as moderators as a result of this definition, or is it just going to be left to the determination of the decision-maker—the registrar's delegate, in this case?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In the end, if somebody has a dispute, they can take it to the SACAT, but for SAPOL the guidelines will be: was the attachment designed to muffle the report? That is it. It is quite clear and quite simple. In my view, it is quite unambiguous.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: On the matter of definitions, there are definitions of 'foreign theatrical armourer' and 'foreign theatrical armourer permit'. There is no current permit to be a theatrical armourer if you are a resident of Australia, for instance. I am wondering whether the new act makes provision for there to be theatrical armourers and to facilitate that sort of thing in the state.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Sorry, could you ask the question again?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The bill contains definitions of 'foreign theatrical armourer' and 'foreign theatrical armourer permit'. Currently, we are trying to encourage the arts to grow; we are encouraging movies to come here. There are often requirements for armourers. In Wolf Creek, I think, Mick has a .308 that he brandishes, for example. The current act does not actually contemplate that, and I am wondering whether the new act contemplates creating permits for armourers and theatrical armourers to allow them to undertake that activity?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, it does.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Gardner–2]—

Page 12, line 19 [clause 5(1)(b)(iv)]—Delete 'double' and substitute 'multiple'

This is very simple. In relation to double-barrel centrefire rifles, there are in fact some devices that have three barrels, as I understand it, or four, and many of them are of a somewhat historical nature. It would seem appropriate that they should be captured as category B firearms and therefore we move this amendment.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I indicate that we will support this amendment, but I will be moving a further amendment, which I believe you are aware of.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Police–1]—

Page 14, line 4 [clause 5(2), definition of self-loading firearm]—

Delete 'double barrel shotgun' and substitute 'shotgun that is a category A or B firearm'

I think that clarifies it and achieves the same aim.

Mr GARDNER: This arose out of discussions between the government and opposition in relation to this very matter that was dealt with in the previous amendment. We had a proposed amendment that was inferior in its application to the government's amendment that has just been moved. Therefore, the opposition supports the government's amendment, which completes the virtuous cycle of what was moved in the last amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 6.

Mr GARDNER: Clause 6 deals with the possession of firearms. This is not the only place where the general defence issue comes up, but I think it is the first one, so we will deal with it here a little bit. I note that the Law Society identifies that clause 6 is concerned with possession of firearms. The Law Society states:

The Society suggests that the clause 6(3) defence should apply to clause 6(4). The intention may be that it does apply. If so, this should be made clear on the terms of this section. If not, the Society submits that it would be inconsistent and unfair if clause 6(3) did not apply to clause 6(4) in light of the availability of the defence to clause 6(2)(d).

The point is that clause 6(3) provides a defence in the case where somebody did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the item was on the premises or the item was in the lawful possession of another. The point of the general defence is to prevent inadvertent mistakes from being unduly harshly dealt with. I wonder if the minister would like to respond either to the Law Society's comments or to the general principle of whether the general defence should be applicable across the act.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I advise the committee that a later amendment I will move regarding the general defence will mean that strict liability will not apply to this section, which I think is the concern the Law Society has expressed.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr GARDNER: Clause 7(2) has to do with a fit and proper person. Somebody who is not a fit and proper person is prohibited from possessing or using a firearm. Clause 7(2) provides:

A person who has a physical or mental illness, condition or disorder, or in relation to whom other circumstances exist, that would make it unsafe for him or her to possess a firearm or ammunition is not a fit and proper person for a purpose under this Act.

In particular, the Law Society identifies:

…the words 'or in relation to whom other circumstances exist' require some clarification. It is not clear what 'other circumstances' is meant to include. A physical or mental illness can be properly diagnosed, but 'other circumstances' is broad and ambiguous. Because these words are found within a section that deals with the mental or physical attributes of a person, it is presumed that 'other circumstances' is meant to encompass something in addition to physical or mental.

The minister may be able to identify whether that was the wording that was in the previous act, but if it was not in the previous act then what is meant by 'other circumstances'?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: This additional provision came about in our discussions with the medical profession. There are some illnesses, etc., which are quite clearly defined but there will be instances where a person who does not have a clearly defined illness may not be fit to handle a gun. The advice from the medical profession is that we should allow some scope to deal with those things that are not specific—a person who does not have the functionality to hold a gun or manage a gun properly. Again, I just remind members that, in giving this wider scope, it is still one of those things that is subject to review.

Mr PEDERICK: A fit and proper person—does that mean that a person who may have been found guilty of a drink-driving offence would be found not to be a fit and proper person?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: A person who just has a drinking offence in itself is not a person who would not be fit and proper. But if a person, for example, has a history of alcohol-related issues—

Mr Pengilly: Crime?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well, no. A person who may have an alcohol problem, which may include drink-driving or other things, may be a person who may not be fit to hold a gun licence because obviously there are going to be times when they are not going to be able to control the firearm. In itself, the answer is no, but you have to look at the whole context. Does this person drink on a regular basis? Is that a person we want to have a firearm licence?

Mr TRELOAR: Minister, that seems a bit vague to me still. Who makes that judgement about whether a person is fit and proper?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We would actually seek medical advice on that. I also just remind members that this is actually part of a coroner's recommendation, in one of their reports regarding people having ownership of firearms.

Mr PENGILLY: I am not quite sure that I have got my head right around that. It seems to be a bit of a narrow answer and I would like it broadened out a bit, if possible. If the minister wants to bring that back, that is fine, but I think it is too holistic and it really does not stipulate just who will not be considered as an appropriate person.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: You are not going to have a black-and-white answer to this question, unfortunately, because the registrar has to balance and weigh up a whole range of factors. A drink-driving offence would be one of the factors they would take into account. The advice that I have received is that if one drink-driving offence was the only mark, if you like, against this person, it would not prevent them from being a licence holder. However, if drink-driving was then combined with other matters—for example, medication or drugs or something—then those things will all have to be taken into account.

I remind people that in the end we would actually seek medical reports to do that. We have already sought medical reports, to get a doctor to say whether a person's ability to actually hold a licence is appropriate or not. In the end, if we were to reject it, it would be subject to appeal or a review through SACAT.

Mr PENGILLY: I do not want anyone who has a bad history of alcoholism or drugs or whatever running around with a firearm. I do not have an issue with that. But if I, for example, committed that sort of drama eight, nine, 10 years ago and had been perfectly clear ever since, that should not exclude me from being in the position where I can have a licence.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I agree with you. Clearly, the intent of the legislation is to say: is this person, at the time they apply, a fit and proper person? If that person did have, as with your example, an alcohol-related problem, but gets a certificate from a doctor saying he has been alcohol-free or has not had a problem for eight years, there is no reason why the registrar would not allow it, all other things being equal.

But I agree with you that you do not want a person who has a serious alcohol problem now or a problem with drugs, and it will not be black and white. You cannot say it is one week or one month. It is a case that the doctors make a judgement or provide some advice and that is why we ask for medical reports to say that this person is not fit to hold a licence. There are a whole range of other issues which flow from giving firearms to people who may not be of—

Mr Gardner: They may not be fit and proper.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is right, yes.

Mr TRELOAR: Sorry to dwell on this point, but it is the registrar who makes that decision.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

Mr PEDERICK: I am just a bit concerned because this is one of those grey areas if someone had a bent against someone in the community. For example, they might observe someone in a hotel and this other person might not just be a gun owner, they might be a small-time dealer or something like that, or a licensed regulated dealer and they might take offence. They might see this person in the pub perhaps two or three times a week and they might have a vexatious issue with this person and report that. We do not want people who should not have guns holding guns or dealing in guns, let me say that, but it seems that some of these decisions have been made on the spot by perhaps a local police officer visiting the home or somewhere else.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The police would be aware of vexatious complaints. They get them now from a whole range of people. That happens now, unfortunately, but what I can say is, if you like, for the person who was seeking the licence, we would seek independent medical verification of some sort. That could be a family doctor or an appropriate specialist depending on the case. It is grey, but you cannot make it black and white. In a bill you cannot determine ahead of time all the exact examples which you may or may not have because each example is quite different, and the fact that you make an assessment is actually fairer. You could be unfair by having some really black and white rules.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Clause 7(2) refers to a person who has a physical or mental illness. I want to ask you about the physical side of it. Can you give some examples of why a person might be excluded from being a fit and proper person because of physical illness?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We have a number of people who have a physical illness who are world champions and that is not an issue. It would be a case where a person's physical disability would not enable them to control a weapon or a firearm properly. As an example, it might be some sort of spasm which means that you shoot somewhere you should not shoot. That is the sort of case.

In itself, again, it has to be based on whether the physical disability is one which actually impacts on a person's ability to control a firearm properly. If you are in a wheelchair, in itself, that would not preclude you because you can still hold a rifle and shoot a firearm, etc., but if you had an illness, for example, which impacted on your ability to hold a gun or control a firearm, then that would be an issue which both the doctor and registrar should take into account.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I know that you, like myself and all of us here, would want to support people to excel as much as possible with disabled sports, and we know that the various firearm disciplines are areas that allow people to do that. I know the registrar, at the end of the day, would be the person with the final decision, but it would be a very difficult area for a firearms registrar, who would not necessarily be an expert with regard to physical disabilities, to decide who should or should not of those people with a physical disability have the opportunity to try to pursue firearms as a sport. How would you see that being dealt with?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In the end, one has to balance, if you like, the right of the individual and the right of the people around that individual to safety, and the registrar would have to make some sort of judgement, and that judgement would be made based on appropriate medical advice. The registrar would not just make his or her own judgement; they would act on reports from appropriate doctors, but it may also include the circumstances that that person is in.

Also, as I said before, the registrar makes the decision but the final arbitrator would be SACAT, if the person believes that they have been denied properly a licence when they should have received a licence. That could be independently reviewed, and one of the powers that the registrar would have is the power to seek medical advice, so a person who has a disability or who may fit into this category would be required to provide medical evidence to suggest or support their claims that they can control a firearm properly, as they have to do now.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Would it be fair to say that, if a person with some sort of physical disability that could impair the way that they can handle a firearm said that they wanted it for hunting, that would be viewed differently to if the person said they wanted it for sporting purposes within a clearly structured disabled sporting context? It would not necessarily be the disability that would make the difference, it would be the purpose and the available structures within which they could pursue that purpose that would be considered.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is correct, I am advised, and that is why we ask why or for what purpose the person seeks a firearm, so that would be taken into account, yes.

Mr PENGILLY: On that same matter, minister, I can see, and I know a number of people, as probably others in here do—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Can you speak up?

Mr PENGILLY: You are not as deaf as I am. I know people who are acutely mentally on top of everything but are physically in that position when they are in a wheelchair or for some reason by way of accident. I do not know where this is going to end up down here, but I know when it gets to someone in another place, they may have a different view of the world. I say to you, is it indeed not discriminating against somebody who through no fault of their own has a physical disability but is mentally highly cognisant to say that, 'No, they will not be able to get a licence without going through a lot of drama and a lot of medical reasons to be able to, if they want, to be able to use a firearm.' I think you are open to it.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: My answer would be no. The reason the registrar would seek medical advice would be to say, 'Is that person able to demonstrate they can actually do that?' It is not only about a person with disability; there is a whole range of things. You may need to get independent advice to satisfy a registrar that you actually are a fit and proper person. It is not just about physical or mental ability, it is a whole range of things.

In the end it is the registrar who has to make a judgement about the safety of the community about whether a person should have a firearms licence or not. Again, that is balanced against that person's right to review. In effect, if you are seeking any independent advice, on the face of it you would discriminate against that person for whatever reason, but the reality is that the registrar has a responsibility to make sure that only fit and proper people have a firearms licence.

Mr GARDNER: In relation to the 'fit and proper person', and I think this is my last question on this clause, 7(3) identifies a series of things that may mean that somebody is taken not to be a fit and proper person which all rely on a finding of fact, usually by a court, or indeed a determination by a police officer that somebody needs an intervention order. But then at 7(5):

A person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person…if the person has made a threat of violence, or stated the intention, or sought, to acquire or use a prescribed firearm or any firearm for an unauthorised purpose.

This is particularly an issue that the Law Society has raised, so I imagine the minister probably has had some time to think about this.

As far as the Law Society is concerned, they do not identify that a finding of fact is clearly established there. Can the minister identify whether that is to be determined by a court, or if it is to be determined by a registrar, that somebody has made a threat of violence or stated the intention, etc., how is the registrar to make that determination? What is the threshold for them to be convinced?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In terms of the member for Finniss' earlier question, can I just finish that off? The Registrar of Motor Vehicles at the moment has the power to ask a person to provide medical evidence if they are to retain their licence if they are fit and proper person to drive the vehicle. That may be because of an illness, a whole range of things. That is no different to a similar test where you are required to give medical evidence to support it. You use it for driving a vehicle; you have to be a fit and proper person, in effect, until we get medical advice. Again, the registrar has to be satisfied that that person is fit to drive.

I will explain why this provision has been included. It is for people who are threatening self-harm. It is not a criminal offence to threaten self-harm, but it might be desirable for the registrar to have the power to organise that such a person does not have a licence. A little earlier today we heard about such an example from one of the members.

Mr PEDERICK: It is a bit of an observation, and this is in regard to the physical fitness of a person. I like to think sometimes about the ability of a person and not the disability, and I believe that this was part of a vexatious case. This lad is an ammunition dealer. He is a clay target shooter and he has the proper gear: the Berettas, unders and overs, and all that, and—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Nice firearm.

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely; you have to have real money to buy them. Mine was under $1,000; they are a bit more than that. There is a little bit of hearsay in this, so just bear with me. He had to put up with what I say was someone who was vexatious in the community who sent people out there because of his slight physical disability—he has to use a crutch. From what I understand, he was fully audited and found to be fine. I guess it can be in the eye of the beholder. In light of that, my question is about people who may have been on an intervention order. Is that for time eternal? That will envelop a whole lot of people over time.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The answer is not black and white. The clause provides—and this is a very important point—that a person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person. That gives the registrar a discretion. The registrar would take into consideration a whole range of factors. The registrar would have to satisfy themselves that the time for lifting the order has elapsed and consider the issues which gave rise to a whole range of factors. Yes, if the registrar is not satisfied that those things which gave rise to the order have not been passed, that power still exists to preclude a person. All this does is give a person the power to say no, but it does not mean they have to say no. Does that make sense?

Mr PEDERICK: I will have another go, if that is all right.

The CHAIR: This is a supplementary to your final question.

Mr PEDERICK: Supplementary, thank you, ma'am. I am not trying to defend everyone with intervention orders, but it is an interesting way this is written. Paragraph (f) provides:

…is the subject, or has in the past been the subject, of—

There is no end date, there is no sunset clause on that line. Essentially, every time the law can say that no matter whether this happened 40 years ago in a person's life, and they have been a fit and proper person, this can still come up and rule them out.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is correct, and I think it is important. The alternative is to say three years, five years, seven years, 10 years, and that sort of arbitrary figure you can get wrong. You just cannot have an arbitrary figure. This section gives the power to the registrar to look at all the factors. It empowers him to say no, but it is not a mandatory power to say no, though—he does not have to say no. He, the registrar—and I say 'he' because it is a 'he' at the moment—would actually say, 'Taking all other factors into consideration this person, at this point in time, is not a fit and proper person.'

I understand what your concern is, but again because it is a 'may', it is a discretionary power which is subject to review. It is not an absolute. For example, in other provisions in the act if you are convicted of a drug-related offence it is no full stop—no discretion. This actually gives, if you like, the registrar discretion, and it gives the discretion because it is acknowledgement that it is not a clear-cut situation; it will have to be on the merits of each case. What you said earlier is correct. I am just trying to put into context how it could actually operate or be implemented.

Mr PEDERICK: But it is still to the letter of the law. I find paragraph (f) interesting where it could be a lifetime ban—it could be in the way that is read. I have not found the exact clause just looking at it quickly, but you said that if someone commits a drug offence: does that mean for the rest of their life, if they have been found guilty of one drug offence, they will never be able to be a fit and proper person to hold a gun licence?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, there is a statutory requirement to that one; there is a period—

Mr PEDERICK: A specific time?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes. There are two things. The provision you are referring to is in the existing act, so it carries over from the existing act, the ones we are discussing. Secondly, for example, with an intervention order, where perhaps the victim of the intervention order moves interstate, that would be a factor to take into account. The registrar may, if you like, decide it is appropriate to perhaps grant the licence because the person, who was the subject of the intervention order, is now interstate. They are the sort of things it takes into account. It creates a discretion.

The alternative is then to set very hard and fast rules, and you then have a really robust test, because if somebody was going to use a gun and an intervention order had been granted, I can assure you there would be hell to pay. By allowing the registrar discretion enables him to take all factors into account.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Gardner–2]—

Page 17, line 21 [clause 8(2)(g)]—Delete '12' and substitute '10'

This amendment clarifies the age limit in the act and ensures that the minimum age is consistent throughout all the various clauses in the act, and encourage members to support the amendment.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise the committee that the government will support this amendment that changes the age that a child can start shooting under the continuous supervision of a recognised coach to 10 not 12. The Sporting Shooters Association have suggested the amendment as they want younger people to get involved in the sport, and we are happy to support that amendment.

Mr GARDNER: I also clarify that I think it continues the existing age.

Amendment carried.

Mr GARDNER: I have a question in relation to issues relating to executors and administrators. Clause 8(2)(k) specifically talks about this group of people, and in clause 8(2)(k)(i) requires that executors or administrators provide the registrar with written notice and so forth not more than 21 days after coming into possession of the firearm and then requires the disposal of the firearm as soon as practicable, but in any event, within 28 days of the person coming into its possession.

I note that a number of stakeholders—and I am particularly looking at correspondence from the Antique and Historical Arms Association of South Australia right now, but others have also—have raised the question of whether this is enough time for an executor to deal with estates involving firearms. As with pretty much every question I raise tonight, if it is a matter that is carrying over from the existing act, then that is useful to know. In this one, because some people have identified that it is not enough time, does the government have any particular basis for those time frames in mind?