Bills

Firearms Bill

Committee Stage

Debate resumed.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The only answer I can provide on this question is that this was one of the things that was discussed quite extensively during the round tables. There was a consensus that these sorts of time frames were appropriate. I am not saying that everybody agreed, but certainly there was a consensus.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Nearly a consensus. It is a case of: you are an executor, you are appointed an executor, and we think this is 21 days. You have to remember that you have a period of time when you want to make sure that the gun is in lawful hands.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: On clause 8(2)(j)—transport and storage businesses—which also has a connection to clause 9, but I am asking specifically about this clause, this is essentially saying that it is okay to be in possession of a firearm if it is part of your usual business for transport and storage.

Are there any obligations that go with that for the transporter or the storer? Understanding that the primary responsibility goes with the owner of the firearm, for somebody who might be transporting or storing a firearm in the course of their usual business, are there any obligations upon that person over and above what they would normally do to transport or store any other item?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That provision states that a transport operator does not require a licence to transport and store it in the truck, but the issue of the requirements will be met under the code of practice, and that will be negotiated. Once this bill has passed, that will be part of the code of practice in terms of storage and security issues, and that will be one of those things Mr Rob Kerin will look at through the process of talking to industry and stakeholders to work out the best way of doing that. The answer is that I do not know at this point in time whether the requirement will be higher, lower or the same. That will be something which will be negotiated through that second process.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So, the obligations for the transporter and storer who is not the legal owner are subject to those further discussions?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Correct.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Clause 8(3)(d) provides:

(d) handles a firearm while so much under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug as to be incapable of exercising effective control of the firearm.

Is that going to be a .05 measure like driving or a boat, or is it going to be as open ended as it is that somebody must judge whether that person was capable regardless of the amount of alcohol they might have consumed, or is it something that is to be resolved later, just like the transport and storage?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: This provision also relates to one of the other clauses, but in essence it basically says that one of the factors is being impaired by intoxication or drugs, and that will vary from person to person. For example, I am a very light drinker—

The CHAIR: From the seat of Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: —from the seat of Light, of course—and if I had what some of my friends drink I would be on the ground paralytic, but they can walk in a straight line. So, the test has to be not so much the alcohol but the person's—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Two beers.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Unfortunately, yes. If you go to clause 42(3), that provision can be read in conjunction. This is how they define it:

(3) Without limiting subsection (1) or (2), a person is incapable of exercising effective control of a firearm if, owing to the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug, the use of any mental or physical faculty…

In short, an officer would have to make a judgement. That is the existing provision of the act, and we are just carrying that forward.

The CHAIR: Is this a supplementary for your final question?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, thanks, Chair. Minister, I am not saying it is right or wrong, but I guess I am just looking for a bit of clarification. When it comes to driving, it is pretty straightforward: we all know it is .05. When it comes to boats, it is .05. It would be presumably very difficult to determine whether a person were capable or incapable because of alcohol, particularly given that, in many situations where that judgement would have to be made, it would be made post fact. Do you know what I mean?

If somebody was at a shooting range, or out hunting, or doing whatever they might be, it is unlikely that that the person making the judgement is going to be right there with some sort of professional capacity. To clarify, it is not a strict .05; it is going to be a judgement that would be made by somebody after the fact.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I do not wish to correct the member, but that provision is actually in the traffic act now. There is 'driving under the influence' and there is also the prescribed amounts. You can still be caught driving under the influence outside the prescribed amounts, so that is a judgement which officers already make in relation to traffic matters as well.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So it will generally be wide open for an officer to make that assessment?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well, they will have to make an assessment of judgement, that is correct.

Mr GARDNER: In relation to 8(2)(g), which is to do to with junior shooters on the grounds of a shooting club. The exemption here identifies that junior shooters are indeed able to participate in shooting clubs and so forth, and there are a range of areas in the act where this is relevant. Clause 8(2)(g)(i) requires that the person is a member of a shooting club.

My understanding is that a number of shooting clubs would not classify a junior shooter as a member of their club. They might be somehow affiliated, but they would identify that members of their clubs, potentially, with voting rights, for example, are somebody who is over 18. Perhaps the minister's answer will provide all the clarity that is needed, especially if it is in the existing act, but I want to be certain that this does not preclude somebody who is understood to be a participant in a shooting club as a junior shooter, but who is not formally a full member of that club and is going to be assisted by this exemption clause.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The answer is yes, they will be required to. That is actually carried forward from existing regulation 24; that is an existing law.

Mr GARDNER: So the exemption does not apply to visitors of a club who are under the age of 18?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, they need to be a member of a club with a coach. That is not a new provision.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 9.

Mr GARDNER: Clause 9(7)(a)(ii) introduces a term—actually, this may be in the current act, but perhaps the minister can provide some clarity because a number of people have raised concerns about the definition of 'immediate vicinity'. The bill provides:

(7) An offence under this section is an aggravated offence if it has been proved that—

(a) the firearm to which the offence relates was…

(ii) in the immediate vicinity of ammunition suitable for use in the firearm…

What do we mean by 'immediate vicinity'?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The member for Morialta was correct: it is a current provision and I will provide the following explanation, as much as I can, to clarify it even further. There is no easy or definitive way to precisely define the concept conveyed by the phrase 'immediate vicinity'.

The word 'vicinity' inherently lacks clarity and specificity as has been emphasised in case law. What I can say is that it is contextual. A thread runs through most legislation where 'vicinity' applies: simply, it must be considered in the circumstances presented. The concept of 'immediate vicinity' was introduced into the Firearms Act 1977 on 7 February 2014 to amend section 11(7b)(a) which now reads:

An offence against this section is an aggravated offence if it has been proved that—

(a) the firearm to which the offence relates was loaded or in the immediate vicinity of a loaded magazine that could be attached to and used in conjunction with the firearm;

Unfortunately, the short answer is that it is one of those things that is a question of degree and, if it were an issue, a tribunal or court would make some sort of finding of fact based on the circumstances. As I mentioned, it is an existing provision.

Mr PEDERICK: In regard to possession and use of firearms—and this may have been in the old act—subclause (2) provides:

A person who has possession of or uses a firearm for a purpose that is not authorised by a firearms licence held by the person is guilty of an offence.

If I let someone have a shot with my C class shotgun under my supervision, would they be guilty of an offence?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: This is an existing provision in the act, but it actually applies to the licensee and not to the third person. If you use a firearm for a purpose for which you are not licensed, you are committing an offence, but if you hand it to a different person, they are not committing the offence, you are, because you are the licensee of that gun.

Mr PEDERICK: So if you give someone who does not even have a gun licence just one shot—and it does not matter what category it is: it might be an A, B or C class rifle or shotgun—you are essentially committing an offence?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Are you referring to just one class of firearm or any class of firearm?

Mr PEDERICK: Perhaps you could explain. It could be an A, B or C and obviously the categories get heavier as you go up.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is actually quite clear. If you supervise a person who is not licensed but you use the firearm for a purpose for which you are licensed, it is not an offence. You only create the offence when the firearm is used not for the right purpose. The person is exempt and they are covered by your supervision, so they are not committing an offence.

As an example, if you are licensed for hunting or target shooting and you use it for some other purpose for which you are not licensed, that is what this is about. You are using it for a purpose for which you are not licensed. The fact that you have given it to somebody else is not the issue. It is the fact that you are using it, or allowing it to be used, for a non-licensed use.

There is an exemption for the person you are allowing to use the gun, as long as it is used for the purpose which you are licensed to use it for. In other words, if you are a clay shooter and the person wants to use it for clay shooting, and you are supervising that person, there is no issue. However, if you are the licensed person and you are licensed for another purpose, and they are using it for a purpose which you are not licensed for, you are committing an offence.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you for clearing that up. I understand that would include those three categories A, B and C, and possibly even D.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is A, B and H.

Mr PEDERICK: That makes it even more interesting. If I let an unlicensed person have a shot with my C-class shotgun, which I have admitted I have owned to the public, that is committing an offence, is it?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, it will be under the new bill.

Mr PEDERICK: That is interesting.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Perhaps you don't want to say too much more.

Mr PEDERICK: No, I am not admitting to anything. I am saying 'if I did'. I am not admitting to a thing, minister.

The CHAIR: This is all hypothetical.

Mr PEDERICK: This is all very hypothetical. Thank you, Chair.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: And also privileged.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. It is good to have this debate. So A and B firearms are fine.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: And H.

Mr PEDERICK: And H, but C and D are not. Thank you.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I assume it is not an issue because it has not become an issue under current law.

Mr PEDERICK: It is just good to get clarity.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

Mr GARDNER: I refer to clause 10(2), which provides:

For the purposes of this section, a person who purchases or sells more than 20 firearms or more than 20 firearm parts in any 12 month period will be taken to be carrying on the business of a dealer…unless it is proved that the person was not carrying on such a business.

I have a couple of questions in relation to this. Would SAPOL have figures on how many individuals in South Australia have purchased or sold more than 20 firearms or more than 20 firearm parts in the last 12 months?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We do not have that to hand, but they can get that information. That information is manually collected. We are not quite into the IT world yet.

Mr GARDNER: That raises a whole other slew of questions that the minister can potentially put to the Treasurer in the budget cycle when we are dealing with the rollout of project Shield to Firearms Branch, which we all encourage to happen as quickly as possible for everyone's benefit. I think the minister has just identified that it is an existing provision. While I might have other questions, I will have a think about them and maybe suggest them to an upper house colleague.

Clause passed.

Clause 11 passed.

Clause 12.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Gardner–2]—

Page 24, line 16 [clause 12(5)]—Delete ', if the Registrar so determines'

One of the things that has come out of a number of the issues of feedback has been the opportunity for the registrar to make decisions of their own judgement when the act, and potentially even (depending on how they come out) the regulations, may be silent on certain matters. This has been presented to open up the interpretation of the act to subjectivity in a manner that is more than is desirable.

The fact of the matter is that a large number of the suggestions that have been put forward as to removing the registrar subject to decision-making powers in the act over the course of consultation have shown that these are mostly almost entirely areas where the registrar currently has that discretionary power.

As I have previously identified, the opposition—except in some fairly specific circumstances which are opened up by nature of the way the act has opened up certain new areas—is not looking to remove any public safety opportunities that currently exist. However, where the registrar's powers are to be expanded, the opposition is eager, as I said in my second reading speech, for things to be in the act rather than in the regulations, and prefers things to be in the regulations rather than in the subjective decision-making power of the registrar or the delegate.

Reducing subjectivity, by and large, is a positive. This identification is not going to create a huge amount of difference in the application of the act, the amendment that is proposed, but in the deletion of the words 'if the registrar so determines'. I think it does identify a symbolic identification, and this is in relation to clause 12(5), which provides:

A firearms licence may, if the Registrar so determines—

(a) indicate the purpose for which a firearm may be possessed under the licence by specifying—

and various things. The fact is that the act should just clearly say that a firearms licence may do those things. The inclusion of the words 'if the Registrar so determines' is not helpful and we suggest that they should be deleted.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We believe that the amendment proposed by the opposition will have no adverse consequences and we are happy to support it.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: Are there any questions on general clause 12?

Mr TRELOAR: If I may, I ask that we go back to clause 10 for a question.

The CHAIR: No, that is too long ago, unfortunately. What is your question?

Mr TRELOAR: It relates to dealers and the definition of a dealership.

The CHAIR: It is a long time ago.

Mr TRELOAR: Well, it's not really.

The CHAIR: It is as far as the clauses go.

Mr TRELOAR: It is two clauses.

The CHAIR: It does not matter, we have already passed it. What is your question and we will see if we can help you.

Mr TRELOAR: My question is in relation to the definition of a dealer. The minister has defined quite clearly here that a dealer is somebody who purchases or sells more than 20 firearms in a year or more than 20 firearm parts in a year. I put it to the minister that there are collectors who may buy, swap or sell well in excess of 20 parts, as collectors do in any hobby. Would they be caught up and be defined as a dealer under this definition?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I thank the member for his question. I have just two points. One is that that is an existing provision of the current act. The second one is that there is, if you like, a 'defence'; the person can actually then prove that they were not carrying on a business or dealing. They have to somehow demonstrate to the registrar that they actually are a collector. The registrar will look at that person's collection, etc., and be satisfied.

Mr Gardner: Presumably in the manner they do now.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Exactly, yes.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Mr GARDNER: Clause 14(1)(c) provides:

An application for a firearms licence…must be accompanied by the application fee prescribed by the regulations.

It appears here, and there is a similar clause further on which we will just touch on for clarity.

The member for Unley currently has a bill before the parliament which deals with a circumstance that has arisen through legislative language not entirely dissimilar to this, which says that because the Unley council wants to set a parking fee of zero on some of their regulated roads, the legislation does not allow them to do that because it says that there must be some level of fee, so the parliament is acting—and I believe the government is supporting us—to enable the fee to be set at zero. I was going to propose an amendment that added the word 'if' before this, so it must be accompanied by the application fee if prescribed by regulations.

The minister may take this opportunity to confirm, if he likes, that if the government decision is that the application fee for, in this case, a firearms licence, should be zero for a certain category of people, that this clause does not prevent that from happening. The question is: if a minister wants the fee for a certain class of licence to be zero in the regulations, will that be able to happen?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised that yes, we can prescribe that. You may be aware that we indicated that the fee to register a deactivated gun would be zero. That is the intention of the scheme and the advice from parliamentary counsel is that you can actually prescribe a fee for a particular item as zero.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Gardner–2]—

Page 26, line 25 [clause 15(6)]—After 'refusal' insert 'within 28 days of the decision to refuse the application'

This amendment is to give a time frame of 28 days after the refusal of an application so the registrar must 'by written notice served personally or by registered post on the licensee, notify the licensee of the refusal'. I think it is unreasonable for a licence seeker, having applied and a decision made that there is going to be a refusal, then not to have some finality on the matter. If the registrar has made the decision, we want there to be written notice served within 28 days.

I identify and thank again, as I had previously in the second reading speech but it was late in the hour when we were dealing with this, the SAPOL officers who provided briefings, did an excellent job and were available on a range of occasions for us. They suggested at the time that 28 days was not unreasonable, so I support the amendment.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can indicate that we support the amendment. We believe that 28 days is a reasonable period as well.

Amendment carried.

Mr GARDNER: In relation to clause 15(5):

An application for a firearms licence must not be granted if the applicant has been found guilty of a prescribed offence within the 5 years immediately preceding the application.

Prescribed offences are to be identified in the regulations. Can the minister clarify what sort of offences are set to be prescribed and, in particular, I would not mind an indication that we are not talking about expiable offences or offences that might attract some sort of diversion and that we are talking about serious offences?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I will answer the first part. Yes, if it is an expiation notice that is not an offence that would cover that area, but there will be a range of other offences. If you really wish to get an indication of what the parameters would be, it is covered by the current regulation 5A under fit and proper person. That lists all the various offences which basically say when you are not a fit and proper person and that is for the five-year period. Having said that, that is a regulation which, again, there will be a whole range of consultation on before it is finalised.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, clause 15(7) talks about the fact that if the registrar essentially wants to refuse an application, the registrar is not required to provide a reason for the decision. Would it be fair to say that the registrar will provide information unless there is a reason to withhold the explanation?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The provision actually works in a way that the registrar has to, unless there is a specific purpose listed, and it would be stuff like police intelligence in this case. So basically the provision works that, yes, the registrar has to provide a reason unless those provisions are there.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 16 passed.

Clause 17.

Mr GARDNER: Clause 17 deals with terms and renewal of licences, and in particular identifies that, subject to this act, a firearms licence remains in force for terms not exceeding five years but with the opportunity for regulations to prescribe different times. I have particularly identified the correspondence from the Sporting Shooters Association which identifies a question of why, I believe, the regulations allow for up to five years but presumably there are a range of licences that are thought to be less than that, and I think in the briefings provided, we identified that some were three years. Can the minister identify why there would be a different range of licence expiry times and whether or not there might be some saving of time and money in having a standard maximum term?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Class D and H firearms at the moment are one year. We are proposing to make them three years, but once we have the systems in place, we are seeking to make them five years, and this just helps us get to that point.

Mr GARDNER: I will ask a supplementary question, then. When does the minister envisage the necessary IT systems to be in place?

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: A supplementary question, sir.

The CHAIR: He might think it is a supplementary; I have not decided if I am going to call it that.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We are seeking to do it in the next 12 to 18 months but I cannot be more definitive than that. I would get in trouble with my cabinet colleagues.

Clause passed.

Clause 18.

Mr GARDNER: I refer to clause 18(3):

A firearms licence is subject to (in addition to the limitations and conditions prescribed by other provisions of this Act)—

(a) any limitations or conditions prescribed by the regulations; and

(b) any limitations or conditions imposed by the Registrar.

I think this is a carryover from the current act from memory, but I wonder if the minister, as a point of principle, can identify why there might be advantages in having the registrar able to set limitations or conditions in addition to those in the regulations because, as I have identified before, when subjectivity comes into it, sometimes people feel the decision has been governed by a subjective approach rather than one that is more clear that might be governed just by the regulations.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In this case it is actually to provide more flexibility. The regulations will prescribe certain situations in which a person may not meet the test. The idea of the registrar having some flexibility may be where the person may not meet one criterion but, by having other conditions, may meet that criterion in another way. It is designed to be more flexible and reduce red tape.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, my question is about exactly the same area. Having heard your answer, I appreciate the extra flexibility. Would it be fair to say that if the same reason for flexibility or the same situation or circumstances arose, those circumstances would very quickly become part of the regulations, that if the registrar had a reason to be making the same types of decisions in a fairly regular way the government would put those circumstances into the regulation so that essentially any limitations or conditions imposed by the registrar would become the unusual one-offs for greater flexibility?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is designed to perhaps deal with those cases that do not fit the normal criteria. What I can say, though, is that the discretion has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner and, again, that would be subject to review. In answer to your question, no, it would not become the norm because it is unlikely that you would have a repeat of these cases.

These cases are designed to deal with exceptional cases, and I will give you an example. If we have a particular issue with a particular dealer, to allow that dealer to still continue, which under normal circumstances they may not be able to, they might say that at any one time they can only hold so many guns in stock. That may be a specific condition which the registrar could impose to enable that person to continue to trade.

Clause passed.

Clause 19 passed.

Clause 20.

Mr GARDNER: Under clause 20(8), the registrar may 'suspend the licence pending an investigation as to whether grounds exist for action against the licensee'. There does not seem to be any time limit on how long the suspension may be in place. I assume that is because if the reason for the suspension, for example, is that there might be some court case, the practice in South Australia under the present Attorney-General's reign has been that court cases are often taking much longer than six months, so there might be a disadvantage in having a time limit for the licence holder. Can the minister confirm what capacity the licence holder has, if any, to appeal against the suspension of their licence in 20(8)?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is reviewable under clause 47(1)(d).

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: For clarification, what does that mean, 'It is reviewable'? I think—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: A person can lodge an appeal to SACAT and say that it is unreasonable or that they want a decision made.

Mr Gardner: So SACAT could overrule it?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: But, without an appeal to SACAT, the registrar could potentially suspend the licence, pending an investigation, for an indefinite amount of time?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The reason we have done that is that, if you cannot deal with the matter within the period of the suspension, the only alternative SAPOL would have would be to cancel the licence altogether. It is a case of allowing the suspension to continue, which means it can then be reinstated or, if we cannot finish the investigation in time, the only alternative for the registrar would be to cancel that licence, which means the person has to go through the whole process again to get their licence renewed.

It is designed to provide some flexibility but, that said, it is still subject to review. If the person is aggrieved and thinks it has taken an unreasonable amount of time, they can then seek an order from the tribunal without the need to cancel.

Clause passed.

Clauses 21 and 22 passed.

Clause 23.

Mr GARDNER: In relation to clause 23(1)(c), I want to get on the record the minister's confirmation that the application fee to be prescribed by regulations may, indeed, be zero if that is the decision that is taken, and that the way in which this is drafted does not preclude that fee from being zero, if the decision is chosen.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The zero fee could be prescribed in the regulations if that is considered appropriate, yes.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Clause 23(3)(d)(ii) provides:

(ii) a genuine need to acquire the firearm that cannot be met by a firearm already in the possession of the applicant;

If, for instance, I went into purchase a .22 or something similar for my children, to hand it over to them when they turn 18 or when they are old enough to own a firearm in their own right or are licensed to own a firearm, if I had three kids and wanted to buy three .22s, for instance, for them, would that be seen to be a genuine reason or a genuine need to acquire a firearm whilst having my own .22, for instance, in my possession?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If it is a class A firearm, you do not need a genuine need. If it is another class, you need to demonstrate a genuine need, and that would be a question of fact or other circumstances.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: So, the circumstances I mentioned?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The circumstances would be that if you were seeking to supervise a younger person to shoot, to use a firearm, you would have to satisfy the registrar that you would be able to shoot your rifle or your firearm at the same time that the other person was as well, for example.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: That is a 'no' then?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, I am saying that in itself it is not sufficient, and I will give you an example. If I had a firearm and I was supervising my son—he was under the age, etc.—I would need to satisfy the registrar that both he and I could have a gun at the same time and use it safely, and then it would be yes; if not, you would have to demonstrate need. But that is only for other classes; for class A, you do not have to demonstrate a genuine need—and most of those, I would have thought, would have been covered by class A firearms.

Mr PEDERICK: Let's say, for instance, it was a military collector. I have not checked which class a .303 would be, a bolt-action 10-shot magazine, but if they were to have a World War I .303 rifle and wanted to purchase another one, for its history more than anything and to put the odd shot through it, would that be caught up in this provision?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If they are a genuine collector and a licensed collector, there is a genuine need there, but you also have to remember that, with collectors, the other control is around ammunition, so there are some safeguards there. That is why it is different.

Mr PEDERICK: Just on that, if you were just a run-of-the-mill gun owner and you wanted to have possession of a World War I .303 and a World War II .303, are you saying that would not be able to happen?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The person you are referring to is a collector?

Mr PEDERICK: Not necessarily. It could be someone just for history's sake who wanted to have in their possession a World War I .303 and a World War II .303.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: You would overcome that by getting a collector's licence first, then that would be the reason and then they would have the genuine need to purchase it. You are either a collector or not a collector. If the purpose of your—

Mr Pederick: You would be a pretty small-time collector.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: But if it is for the purpose of collecting, you have to have a collector's licence, which makes sense. There are two parts to the requirements. One is you need to have a genuine reason—in other words, you have a licence which enables you to do that—and second would be the genuine need to do that, which means you need this additional firearm because it is a certain type of firearm, etc. What I am trying to say is, if you want to have it for the purpose of being a collector, then you have to have a collector's licence.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, minister. This could get fairly ambiguous, I think, because a lot of farmers may have a single-shot (I am talking 12-gauge) shotgun, they might have an over/under for clay targets, they might have a side-by-side shotgun and they may also have a C class pump-action, so which one of those would be ruled out in that? They could have five shotguns.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Under the existing act, you are only allowed to have one C class firearm, and that will not change. The other provisions I mentioned a bit earlier which you inquired about are part of the National Firearms Agreement.

Mr PEDERICK: I guess it would get contentious if you had a B class pump-action shotgun and a C class because you probably could not constitute a reason.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: You can have firearms of different classes. You can have a need and genuine reason for different classes. For example, you might want to collect one item as a collector and one to shoot rabbits or something in a different class. That is permitted.

Mr PEDERICK: What you are saying is, they would obviously be slightly different, but you could have an A, B, C and D class rifle or shotgun, if so be it?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If you were licensed for that, yes.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, I think this is the clause to ask this question. It is something I touched on in my second reading speech, and I got an indication from you, I thought, that this was all okay, but I would just like to have this really clarified. At the moment now, if somebody wants to acquire a new firearm—this is separate to whether they are entitled to under the class and purpose, but let's just say they are entitled to it—they need to pay their deposit at a gun dealer, the gun dealer has to go and buy it, put it in the safe, and then they go to the police to ask for their permit to acquire it, and that can take some time. It is an imposition cash flow-wise; there is a risk you may not get your permit. It is a very serious working capital issue for the gun dealers, who might have dozens of these.

Could you confirm, so it is really easy for my constituents, that it will now be possible for a law-abiding, responsible person to go and get their permit first, then take their permit to the gun dealer and say, 'Yes, I have been given permission to acquire this firearm. I would like to buy one please. Would you go and source one for me?' and, so long as that can all be done before the permit expires, that transaction can go smoothly that way and there will be no need for anybody to outlay any money until after they have received their permit?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: There would be a provision in the new act for what we call non-specific purchase. In other words, you will have to talk about the class of the firearm and the type of firearm, but you will not have to give the serial number of the firearm, which you do now. So, you go and get your permit and then go to the gun dealer after—once.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am sure this is trivial, but just to be really clear: once you have done that, the dealer sources the specific firearm, you get the serial number, you get the make and model and all of that sort of stuff. You then provide that to the police, as the conclusion of the transaction, but you would never have to ask the dealer to source the firearm for you without knowing in advance that you have permission to acquire it unless some other unknown information were to come to light later on?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Essentially, you go to the Firearms Branch and you get a permit to buy, say, a class B firearm. You take that permit to a dealer, who then sells you a class B firearm. You then have to go to Firearms to register that firearm. Is that how you understood it?

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Yes.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is as it is.

Clause passed.

Clause 24 passed.

Clause 25.

Mr GARDNER: Can the minister confirm that a firearm refurbishment permit holder may be transferred possession of a firearm in a case where that firearm's refurbishment permit holder is not in fact a dealer? I ask the question because there has been some level of concern that clause 25(1)(b) specifically refers to dealers but not to firearms refurbishment permit holders.

Is it possible that they are covered by clause 8(2), which includes an exemption for holders of firearms refurbishment permits, thus identifying that in fact they do not need to be mentioned here? I just want to make sure that firearms refurbishment permit holders may be transferred possession of firearms even if they are not a dealer.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The answer is yes, and it is covered by clause 25(1)(c).

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: We are talking about what is colloquially known as gunsmiths, are we not? Is that the term? When we are talking about a 'firearms refurbishment permit holder', would that person be a gunsmith—someone who specialises in the repair of firearms?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The answer to the member for Newland's question is no, because a refurbisher is different to a gunsmith.

Clause passed.

Clauses 26 to 28 passed.

Clause 29.

Mr GARDNER: This clause relates to registered firearms which are required to have identifying marks. My question is in relation to issues that have been raised with me by collectors, in particular, who are contemplating older firearms in their possession.

The identifying mark required by clause 29(2)(a) is a combination of a number and a letter or letters that is of at least four characters and unique to the firearm. The hypothetical collector might have a firearm that is old and unique and does not have a four-letter identifying mark. It might have a two-number mark—for example, 09 might be the identifying mark—and the requirement of four letters or numbers would potentially devalue the firearm significantly.

I note that 29(3) provides the registrar with the opportunity to say that an identifying mark, in the case of the very old firearm that just has a 09 mark, might meet the requirements of clause 29 if the firearm is identified in some other way approved by the registrar. However, it is a purely subjective clause.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: Yes, sure. The opposition has said that it is not going to be stepping back from existing public safety provisions. I think it would be drawing a long bow to suggest that this technical requirement is a pure public safety provision, but the minister may be able to satisfy my concern.

A number of people have identified this concern: if they have an expensive item, they want to know that the registrar will be looking for a way to be inclusive of their needs rather than only in exceptional circumstances allowing them to have their firearm without a four-number mark accepted. In keeping this as it is in the act, can the minister confirm that it is the government's intent that the registrar be as flexible as possible, so long as there is no public safety concern?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The answer is yes, because the Firearms Branch is not keen to have somebody's firearm devalued. That is why that provision is there.

Clause passed.

Clause 30 passed.

Clause 31.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Gardner–2]—

Page 40, line 34 [clause 31(2)(a)(iii)]—After 'licence' insert '(including, subject to subsection (10), where that person is under the age of 18 years)'

Amendment No 11 [Gardner–2]—

Page 40, line 35 [clause 31(2)(b)]—After 'club' second occurring insert '(including, subject to subsection (10), where that member is under the age of 18 years)'

Amendment No 12 [Gardner–2]—

Page 40, line 37 [clause 31(2)(c)]—After 'club' second occurring insert '(including, subject to subsection (10), where that visitor is under the age of 18 years)'

This is to do with the acquisition and possession of ammunition. All of this is subject, of course, to the exemptions that are identified earlier in the act, so junior shooters are provided for.

However, in subclauses (10), (11) and (12) of clause 31, people under the age of 18 are specifically identified as committing an offence or there being an offence in relation to their purchasing or possession of ammunition. My understanding of the way the act is framed is that they may have ammunition, for example, while they are on the grounds of a sporting shooting club or a range under supervision, in the nature of a junior shooter.

The amendments that we propose provide absolute clarity that the reader of the bill who just reads this clause and may just see subclauses (10), (11) and (12), which identify the ownership of ammunition as being a problem for minors, is not under any concern that the regular supply of ammunition, as happens at the moment in the supervision of the club, is prohibited. By the inclusion of these three sentences in this clause, it clarifies that those junior shooters are still going to be able to be provided ammunition, so long as it is done in the manner prescribed.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I agree and we support the amendments.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 32.

Mr GARDNER: Clause 32(8)(b) has been suggested as possibly being superfluous by a number of stakeholders. We had a discussion before about the possession of firearms being governed by both regulations and the registrar. Is the minister able to clarify the purpose of the inclusion of the registrar's flexibility here as well, or is it just a rollover of the existing provision in the existing act?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Clause 32(4) provides:

When granting a permit, the Registrar must not restrict the kind of ammunition that can be possessed unless it is, in the Registrar's opinion, necessary to do so in order to comply with subsection (3).

By giving the power to the registrar to impose conditions, it enables not only conditions to be imposed for that section but also, more importantly, collectors to have ammunition for their yearly shoot, or else there would be no power to do that and they actually could not do it at all.

Mr PEDERICK: I need a bit more explanation around clause 32—Permits to possess ammunition. I am not sure what it is in regard to, because under clause 31 you can acquire and possess ammunition, but in clause 32 it is saying you need a permit, with application to the registrar. I just need that sorted right out.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In clause 31 you can actually purchase ammunition which relates to the class of firearm you have, so that is not an issue. If I am a class A firearm licensee, I can purchase ammunition for that firearm. Clause 32 is about collectors. Ordinarily, collectors cannot possess ammunition. This clause enables that to happen.

Clause passed.

Clause 33 passed.

Clause 34.

Mr GARDNER: Clause 34 is in relation to the restriction on quantity and possession of certain ammunition. This is the rule where you can have 12 months' supply for your reasonable needs. Subclauses (1), (2) and (6) particularly talk about reasonable needs, which I think is this new provision. Perhaps I can ask it in the simplest possible terms: what does the minister understand is meant by 'reasonable needs'?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It depends on individual cases. For example, if you are an Olympic sportsperson and you go and practice shooting every weekend, you may need thousands of rounds of ammunition. If you are a hunter and you have a pattern of hunting once every so often, you may need a lot less. The alternative was to put a cap, which the gunnos did not think was a good idea, but there has to be some sort of reasonableness. You do not want people actually amassing ammunition or having arsenals of ammunition unnecessarily.

Mr GARDNER: So the purpose is that somebody must be able to explain their use of the amount of ammunition over the coming 12 months.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is right, and that enables them to purchase stock for 12 months.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, can you explain what would happen to people who might already be in possession of more than 12 months' worth of ammunition under 'reasonable use' if this bill is passed and comes into effect? If a person already has more than 12 months' reasonable use of ammunition and in a year or two down the track it comes to light that they have this and they say, 'Well, actually I stocked up a few years ago,' what would happen to that person?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: There is actually a requirement under the current act. What they need to do is surrender that under the amnesty, to bring the stock down to 12 months.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Will they get reimbursed for that?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, there is no compensation.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Will the government be advertising that, making the general public well aware of that? I suspect that there would be a lot of people out there who for non-nefarious reasons would have more than 12 months' worth.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We certainly will promote that but it is actually a current provision. It has been in the act for some time. We would promote it and we would then promote people to do the right thing and comply with the law.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So you will let them know.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We will certainly let them know. It is current regulation 36. We will promote the whole new bill and we will encourage people to comply. It will be very easy to comply: you just surrender it under the amnesty.

The CHAIR: No further questions on clause 34?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Just one quick one.

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

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I think it is my third question.

The CHAIR: You have had three, I am counting.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is a supplementary then.

The CHAIR: Nice try.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, what would happen to that ammunition that is surrendered?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is destroyed. The firearms branch is not in the business of dealing.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I did not think that.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is destroyed, yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 35.

Mr GARDNER: This need not take long. I just want to clarify that the code of practice for security storage and transport is intended to be just one code of practice to be developed here, not separate codes of practice for each of them. I just want to clarify that this is a code of practice that will be developed along with the regulations by the Rob Kerin working group that has been identified.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It will be prepared under the regulation, which Rob Kerin will chair. I do not wish to limit it. The group that formulates this regulation might say that it might be easier just to put in different categories for people. That might be an easier way, rather than people trying to work out which is theirs. They might come under a certain category. I think the assurance comes from the process that we will adopt and get in to that new regulation.

Mr GARDNER: The minister has probably just answered my other question, which was: is there already a draft in place or is it going to be entirely up to the working group to develop that code of practice or codes of practice?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is not in place and it is to be prepared. We have not presupposed any provisions of this bill being enacted.

Mr PEDERICK: I am not sure if this is the clause where we ask about where it is supposedly easier for farmers to transport guns and whether that will be designated—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

Mr PEDERICK: I think it was in your speech, where you talked about how it may designate different storage codes for different numbers of guns. So, that is all in here and we will just have to watch that as it is rolled out with the Kerin group. One comment I make, and I think I made it in my speech (and this is a comment more than a question), is that there have to be reasonable codes of conduct because if it is made too hard to transport or store guns—and I know they have to be stored securely as you do not want them getting into the wrong hands—it becomes too hard and people throw their hands in the air.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I do not disagree. One of the key aims of this whole bill is to make it easier for people to comply with the law and to be very practical, and that is why we are cutting back quite a bit—I know it is an overused term—on a lot of the regulation in this, particularly for farmers, who will benefit from the ability to share storage and also the access storage for husband and wife, etc.

We are doing that because, as you indicated yourself earlier, some farmers are technically breaking the law at the moment. We want to overcome that and make it as practical as possible and make it easier for people to comply with the law.

Mr PEDERICK: I brought this up during the briefing, and I think I know the answer I am going to get: how are we going to keep people from breaking the law who have the .410 or the .22 behind the door for snake protection?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If the police do an audit, it is an offence. I am sorry, there is no way around that. I am reminded of a case one of your colleagues spoke about tonight. It is not a minor breach. A minor breach is having one piece of ammunition, not having a gun not stored. As I said earlier, two-thirds of guns stolen come from rural areas, where people unfortunately feel they are safe but they are not. Unfortunately, criminals know that and they target people in rural areas, and that is why it is important to make sure that they comply.

Mr PEDERICK: I understand that this code will give us the regulation for if you suddenly have to go into town and you have a gun in your vehicle or something like that.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 36 and 37 passed.

Clause 38.

Mr TRELOAR: This is a question that has been forwarded to me by a constituent. It relates to clause 38(2):

A person who alters a firearm so that, as a result of the alteration, the firearm becomes a firearm of a different category (whether temporarily or permanently), is guilty of an offence…

What the constituent has put to me to ask the minister tonight is that to deactivate a centrefire firearm or any other category will then deem them to a different category. That is the assertion he is making. I seek clarification on that. What this constituent is suggesting is that this will actually stop people carrying out deactivations which, in essence, is converse to the intention of the bill.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It becomes a deactivated firearm but in its own class, whichever it originates in, and then it is subject to the provisions of deactivated guns.

Clause passed.

Clause 39.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 13 [Gardner–2]—

Page 46, after line 29—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) Without limiting the purposes for which, or the circumstances in which, a sound moderator may be acquired, owned or possessed pursuant to an approval of the Registrar, approval may be given by the Registrar for a person to acquire, own or possess a sound moderator for the purpose of culling feral pests.

I talked about this amendment in my second reading speech, and I therefore move it in my name.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We are opposed to the amendment, but we have an alternative amendment to deal with it.

The CHAIR: You think of everything.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We are trying to be really constructive.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Police–1]—

Page 46, after line 39—After subclause (4) insert:

(4a) The Registrar may only grant approval for a person to acquire, own or possess a sound moderator if the Registrar is satisfied—

(a) that—

(i) the person intends to possess or use the sound moderator for the purpose of culling or destroying animals on Crown land in accordance with a contract or agreement with an agency or instrumentality of the Crown and the person genuinely requires the use of the sound moderator in order to fulfil his or her obligations under the contract; and

(ii) there is a genuine need by the agency or instrumentality of the Crown for the person to use the sound moderator for the purposes of the contract; and

(iii) there is no reasonable alternative to the use of the sound moderator by the person for the purpose, or in the circumstances, for which the approval is to be given; or

(b) that—

(i) the person is the operator or employee of a pest control business who intends to possess or use the sound moderator in the course of that business for the purpose of culling or destroying animals in a built-up urban environment; and

(ii) use of the sound moderator by the person is genuinely required in order to avoid disturbing the peace; and

(iii) there is no reasonable alternative to the use of the sound moderator by the person for the purpose, or in the circumstances, for which the approval is to be given; or

(c) that the person is a licensed dealer who intends to possess the sound moderator for the purpose of selling or hiring out the sound moderator in the ordinary course of the dealer's business to a person who holds a written approval of the Registrar under this section to acquire, own or possess the sound moderator.

Amendment No 3 [Police–1]—

Page 47, after line 4—After subclause (5) insert:

(5a) An approval under this section must also specify the circumstances under which the approval will cease to have effect for the purposes of this section.

Amendment No 4 [Police–1]—

Page 47, after line 18—After subclause (8) insert:

(8a) Subsection (8) does not apply in relation to a sound moderator that is in the possession of a licensed dealer for the purpose of sale in the ordinary course of the dealer's business.

(8b) A person who is in the possession of a sound moderator is not required to produce it to a police officer under subsection (8) if the sound moderator is hired by the person from a licensed dealer and it has an identifying mark as required by that subsection.

Amendment No 5 [Police–1]—

Page 47, after line 21—After subclause (9) insert:

(10) The regulations may make further provision in relation to the grant, variation and cancellation of, and the imposition of conditions or limitations on, approvals under this section.

The CHAIR: Are there any questions on these amendments?

Mr GARDNER: No, only to identify that the opposition will have a look at the detail of the amendments between the houses and consider whether or not in the upper house we will continue with our original amendment or proceed with these. I think they certainly do provide some useful clarity; whether it is a starting point or an ending point, we will arrive at between the houses.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 40 passed.

Clause 41.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Clause 41(3)(a)(iii) talks about the assembly of ammunition, that is, reloading. Essentially, it says that it is okay to assemble ammunition as long as the legal person doing it all the right way, etc., is doing it for another person to use:

…in a firearm in circumstances in which the other person is authorised under this Act to use the firearm but not required by this Act to hold a firearms licence…

I am sure there is a good answer; I just do not know what sorts of circumstances they would be.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: This states that a person can assemble ammunition for a person who is not licensed but is covered by an exemption under clause 8.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Sorry, minister, without knowing clause 8, what is that?

The CHAIR: Clause 8 was at the beginning. We all read clause 8 much earlier in the night.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The other person who is under your supervision, etc.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So a youth or someone like that?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 42 passed.

Clause 43.

Mr GARDNER: Clause 43 relates to interim firearms prohibition orders issued by a police officer. The Law Society had some questions in relation to this clause. I wonder if the minister might respond to some of the issues that they raise. The Law Society states:

…the issuing of an interim firearm prohibition order puts the recipient at risk of committing a very serious offence of up to 15 years imprisonment. Unless it is urgent, an interim firearm prohibition order should be issued by a court, acting independently and judicially in the sense that all relevant matters are to be assessed, given the appropriate weight and then ruled upon.

The Bill gives police officer…the power to make an order in the nature of a judicial order, but need not provide reasons.

Does the minister want to respond to the Law Society's concerns?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise that these are existing provisions in the act, but the important thing is that in the case of, say, a domestic violence situation, a police officer should be able to issue an interim order on the spot. If you require a person to go to a court to get an order, I think that would put a barrier in front of a situation where the police can defuse a very explosive or dangerous situation.

Clause passed.

Clauses 44 to 46 passed.

Clause 47.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 14 [Gardner–2]—

Page 55, after line 15 [clause 47(1)]—After paragraph (f) insert:

(fa) to refuse to approve a person as a company's principal or secondary nominee or to revoke such an approval; or

I talked a little bit about this in the second reading. I think that company nominees would be a reasonable subset to also be included as reviewable items, so I support the amendment.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We agree and support it.

Amendment carried.

Mr GARDNER: I will not be proceeding with amendment 15, because it is consequential on amendment 13, which did not pass. There are a number of issues that will be dealt with in the regulations that are not dealt with in the bill that could potentially have value if they are reviewable by the tribunal. I particularly seek an undertaking from the minister, and obviously there is a working group, but we will work through those regulations. Is the minister able to confirm that it is the government's intent to include through regulation that the non-recognition or revocation of recognition of a firearms club, commercial range operator or paintball operator could be a reviewable decision under the regulations power of 47(1)(g)?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

Sitting extended beyond 22:00 on motion of Hon. A. Piccolo.

The CHAIR: Is there another question on amended clause 47?

Mr GARDNER: Yes. Given that I did not see the minister's red light go on when he was answering the last question, I identify that I heard him say 'yes' in relation to my last question.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, I did.

Mr GARDNER: In a similar vein, is it the government's intent to include through regulation that the non-approval or revocation of approval on the grounds of a recognised firearms club, recognised paintball operator, or range of a recognised commercial range operator also be a reviewable decision under clause 47(1)(g)?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes again.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 48.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 16 [Gardner–2]—

Page 56, after line 1—Insert:

(a1) For the purposes of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, a review under section 47 will be taken to come within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction but, in the exercise of this jurisdiction, the Tribunal will consider the matter de novo (adopting such processes and procedures, and considering and receiving such evidence or material, as it thinks fit for the purposes of the proceedings).

The minister responded to my comments on this at the end of his second reading speech and so rather than rehashing everything that was said in my speech and the minister's speech, perhaps I will bring in some new level of information because the minister identified in that response that the SACAT has the capacity to do merits-based consideration of the registrar's decision. In doing so, he must take it into account, and he read out the relevant section.

What this amendment seeks to do, and what the opposition's preferred course of action is, is to have a de novo review—a full merits-based review—as if the tribunal is putting itself in the place of the decision-maker. The rehearing would not have to take into account the original decision. It would be as if the tribunal is considering the matter afresh. That is the difference that we seek and the one new piece of information the minister gave in his response was the concern that this would unnecessarily change the SACAT Act in the way that the SACAT is designed.

My understanding and advice is that there is precedent for this, particularly in relation to the review of the Valuation of Land Act 1971 by SACAT. So, it would not be unusual. I appreciate that the SACAT, as a tribunal, does have this merits-based power, so I do not want anyone to be under the misapprehension that there is not a merits-based review taking place, but we think ours is better.

The CHAIR: Modestly, he said!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well, you are wrong on this occasion. I have to oppose this amendment.

Mr Pederick: Shame.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is not a shame because I was involved in the committee which investigated the creation of SACAT—

Mr Gardner: There is an emotional connection to it.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is dear to my heart, that is correct, and we had long discussions on whether there should be a de novo limitation on things, rehearing etc., and SACAT went through parliament with the support of the opposition because it gives the tribunal the power to hear new information. All that the rehearing means is that it takes that into account and, in effect, in practice it means the decision-maker's decision is forwarded to the tribunal. I am pretty sure it is no different to the AAT at the moment. They are not de novo, they are rehearings, so we modelled the SACAT on the AAT, which is the federal tribunal that has worked very successfully for over 30 years.

The problem with de novo is that it is important that, when making an application to the registrar, the applicant puts their best foot forward. If you have a whole brand-new hearing, there is no incentive to put their case forward to the decision-maker. You create bad public policy by doing that, so I would strongly urge the committee to reject this amendment and also ask the opposition to reconsider their position because, overall, this gives firearm owners more rights of appeal than the existing provisions do.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 49.

Mr GARDNER: I have a question about the Law Society's concerns on the matter relating to the level of delegations that are appropriate. The Law Society (and I will quote from their submission) opposes a member of the police force issuing firearm prohibition orders. They go on to say:

To the extent that clause 49 applies to enable a police officer to issue such an order, the Society submits that the power to delegate should be limited to the assistant Commissioner level. As currently drafted, the Registrar may delegate any power under the Act to any person, including a police officer of any level. This will mean that the delegated authority will be able to issue the prohibition orders as well as review decisions to issue prohibition orders.

First, does the minister take issue with any of the Law Society's interpretation of the bill; and, secondly, if not, does the minister have any response to their suggestion of the level to which delegations should take place?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Actually, this provision is in the act at the moment, and the difficulty you have is if you are going to limit the delegations in the act, you would then have to have a whole schedule of limitations, because you are effectively saying the assistant commissioner would have to deal with routine matters. Most of the work is actually done under delegation. The day-to-day working of the Firearms Branch is done by officers of all grades. If you are saying that you are going to limit the delegations—

Mr Gardner: The Law Society is saying that.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, if the Law Society is saying that, then it will slow the process down and you will have to wait months and literally years before an assistant commissioner can deal with the matter. But also, across the state, you want your police officers in your regional police stations to deal with a whole range of matters as well if required. It actually works against people in the regions by having the delegations so high up.

Clause passed.

Clauses 50 to 53 passed.

Clause 54.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Police–1]—

Page 58, line 21 [clause 54(3)]—Delete 'residential'

Amendment No 7 [Police–1]—

Page 58, lines 33 to 35 [clause 54(6)]—Delete subclause (6)

Mr GARDNER: The opposition has a range of concerns with clause 54. I appreciate the minister addresses some of those concerns with these two amendments, which the opposition supports, and the opposition will consider the changes that they have made to the clause between the houses in the event that this clause survives the vote that will soon happen on the clause itself.

Amendments carried.

Mr GARDNER: I went into this in some detail in my second reading speech, so I do not propose to do so at length now—

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: —but I do have some specific questions. I will encourage the member for Colton, and all members in fact, to go back to that second reading speech and read my comments on clause 54.

The Hon. P. Caica: I heard them. I'm hardly going to read them again.

The CHAIR: Some people actually memorised them.

The Hon. P. Caica: I would hardly read them again after listening to them.

Mr GARDNER: I think it will do you credit, sir, to read them again. I appreciate some people do not retain as well as others. If you vote for this clause then—

The CHAIR: Now, no need to reflect on members.

Mr GARDNER: —I will know that you have not retained as well as you should have.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr GARDNER: I do want to ask about clause 54(5). We have just deleted, as per the minister's amendments, subclause (6), which is about restoring the common law right to protect oneself against self-incrimination. I wonder if the minister would care to defend subclause (5) on similar grounds, as to how that does not offend against our understanding of what is reasonable for members of the public to be asked, given that there is a maximum penalty of a $20,000 fine if somebody fails or refuses, without reasonable excuse, to answer a question put by the registrar?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If you take out subclause (5), which actually removes a penalty, there is no incentive for a person to comply and the registrar has no power to enforce it.

Mr GARDNER: Just in identifying this, I make the point that it is very clear that this whole clause is providing powers for questions to be asked for property to be sought. We will have a look at what impact the amendments that have just been moved have on the clause. Notwithstanding that the offending bit on common law right against self-incrimination has been removed, it does provide police with some unusual powers in the event that somebody has applied for a licence or a renewal.

So, 65,000 South Australians are going to be faced with the prospect that, just by the act of applying for a licence or a renewal to go about their lawful daily business, these new provisions have been provided and powers have been given to police in this way without any thought being given to a criminal act even being potentially in the making. The minister's answer may well stand as is, and we will consider whether the clause as it remains is still suitable, but I do indicate that the opposition will be opposing this clause in its current form in this house. We will contemplate between the houses whether we do so in the Legislative Council as well.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Perhaps I will provide an answer by giving you an example. If you were concerned about the way a particular club or range was operating, you could then compel, for example, to use any CCTV which is maintained at that club. That gives you the power. This is for regulatory purposes, not criminal purposes. You need a power to do that, and if you are going to have a power, there have to be some sanctions, otherwise people just will not comply. It is about regulations: it is not about a criminal offence. It is actually making sure that people are complying with requirements under the licences, etc.

Mr GARDNER: I suspect that the minister's example does not quite work, because I think what he has identified would potentially put that club or the nominees at risk of a criminal offence. If there was suspicion about that, then I would have thought that the police officer's general warrant would cover it. If the minister wishes to provide any further defence as to why it is necessary to retain clause 54, then I invite him to do so, otherwise we can proceed to a vote, unless other members have other questions.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: This is designed to ensure that, where a person has a licence, whether they should actually maintain the licence. So, it is collecting the information for that purpose—it is regulatory. To give you an idea, similar powers in terms of collecting or demanding information exist under the teacher registration act, the education and early childhood services act, the health practitioner regulations and the children's education and care services national law.

There are a number of acts where it is about ensuring that, if a person is going to be maintaining their licence, you have the power to collect information. It is not designed for criminal offences to actually determine whether a person should maintain their licence: it is a regulatory matter. But you are quite right—if it is a criminal offence, you use your general warrant powers.

Mr PEDERICK: I am a bit confused, and this question might be easily answered. If this is not a criminal offence, we have in subclause (5) a maximum penalty of $20,000 or imprisonment for four years. How does that fit?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The sanction relates to the fact that you have not complied with the regulatory investigation itself. This is actually forcing people to comply with the investigation. Again, it is not for the criminal offence but to provide the information required to determine, in terms of a licence inquiry, whether or not the person should maintain their licence.

Mr PEDERICK: I am not sure about this. Perhaps I just do not get it and perhaps it is a bit late, but there is still a fine or a gaol term. If it is just a regulatory offence, I cannot see—

Mr Gardner: It is a criminal offence for failing to comply with the regulation of the act.

Mr PEDERICK: Okay.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 55.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 18 [Gardner–2]—

Page 59, line 19 [clause 55(2)(b)(i)]—Delete subparagraph (i)

I spoke about this matter in my second reading contribution, so I will not do it again now.

Amendment carried.

Mr GARDNER: I just want to identify that this is a very significant concession that the government has made and I appreciate it.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 56.

Mr GARDNER: In regard to clause 56(1)(a), I am again identifying that the Law Society has expressed some concerns in relation to the powers of a police officer or warden to require production of licence. The Law Society identifies that currently a person who is carrying a gun must also carry their licence, which can be inconvenient for hunters and primary producers. Clause 56 of the bill is in similar terms, although it would allow two days for the licence to be produced.

The Law Society considers that it would be more convenient if a person in possession of a gun could produce a clear and legible copy of his or her licence when called upon to do so. That way the original licence could be stored in a safe place with less chance of it becoming lost, and a copy of the licence could then be cross-referenced with the register of licences. I wonder whether the minister has any reason why the Law Society's suggestion has not been taken up.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise the committee that this is currently the law, and I cannot answer why the Law Society has recommended what it recommended. You would have to ask them.

Clause passed.

Clause 57.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, I refer to 57(1), which provides:

The owner of a firearm must, at the request of a police officer, produce the firearm for inspection at a specified place at a specified time or within a specified period.

Is that specified period going to be something that the Rob Kerin working group determines? The reason I ask this is that there are many people in my electorate who work away from home a lot. I am not questioning the right of police to make the request, but the time would be relevant.

In my own case, hypothetically I am often away from home for a week at a time. Many of my constituents are away from home, and a long way away from home, for three weeks at a time for work. If a request was made, 'Come in two days or come in a week,' for many people that would be very impractical and/or impossible.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: All I can say is that it is an existing provision in the existing law and I have not had any complaints about police officers being unreasonable in the use of their discretion. As I said, a lot of these provisions are existing laws, and certainly this is not one which has come to my attention which people see as onerous. The reality is that a police officer will use their discretion because they will try to achieve the outcome they need to achieve.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: For clarification, that is within a specified period as determined by the officer in that exact situation, not something that will be set into the regulations later on?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, it is not proposed to change that.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There would be an expectation that the officer would set that period with all due consideration to the individual circumstances.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Exactly.

Clause passed.

Clauses 58 and 59 passed.

Clause 60.

Mr GARDNER: I have a general question to invite the minister to outline the circumstances in which he envisages the issuing of a public safety notice might be undertaken. It is set out in the bill in legal terms but, as this is a fairly new concept, I would not mind a little bit more flesh on the bone. I do not think the second reading explanation quite went into the detail that a lay reader of Hansard who is interested in how this bill impacts on them might be interested in.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: You asked for some examples. If you went to a gun dealer and the gun dealer presented their stock in a way which enabled unreasonable access to a person coming into the store, you could issue an order until it is remedied. Another example would be if you went to a range and, if for some reason there were a safety concern about the range, you could issue an order until that defect were corrected. Both provisions, by their very nature, are designed to maintain public safety.

Clause passed.

Clauses 61 to 63 passed.

Clause 64.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, clause 64(2) under general amnesty:

A person who surrenders an unauthorised item under this section (other than a prohibited firearm accessory)—

that certainly makes sense—

may make application to the Registrar for the necessary authority

Would there be any extra considerations that the registrar would give when assessing that application if the firearm surfaced under an amnesty, different to if it was just a normal acquisition?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It would be treated like a normal acquisition.

Clause passed.

Clauses 65 and 66 passed.

Clause 67.

Mr GARDNER: Clause 67 is in relation to firearms clubs, commercial range operators and paintball operators. My understanding of the present situation with licensing provisions for gun clubs and so forth is that the Minister for Police is involved in this. This new act removes the Minister for Police from the process and identifies that it is all just up to the registrar. I invite the minister to identify why he does not feel that he, as the minister, or the minister in general, needs to be part of this process any longer.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is essentially just reducing red tape. The minister would act on the advice of the registrar, which happens to be the Commissioner of Police. It would then come to my desk and sit in my office. It just delays things. Invariably, I have not actually amended any requests that I have received from the commissioner anyway, so I really cannot see any value to that. In most cases, once the registrar is satisfied, they only come to my office for me to sign off on, and that is what I do. I just sign off on it; I do not actually add any value to the process. We are just formalising what should be the proper practice and reducing red tape.

Clause passed.

Clauses 68 to 70 passed.

Clause 71.

Mr GARDNER: Forgive me if this question is more appropriately asked at clause 72. I promise I will not ask it again if I can ask it now. In relation to vicarious liability and new provisions on vicarious liability, it was described in the minister's second reading as:

Inserting vicarious liability provisions which state that company directors and nominees are guilty of offences committed by a company unless proved that the director or nominee could not have reasonably prevented the commission of the principle offence by the company.

Can the minister provide an example of the sort of harm that this remedy seeks to fix? What do these provisions look like in practice?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If, for example, you had a dealer who is a company and they had really poor records that enabled an employee to actually get rid of a firearm without anyone noticing and it ends up in the wrong hands, this is designed to make sure that the directors of the company, the owners of the company, put the appropriate measures in place and it makes them responsible, which is appropriate. Ultimately, the company directors are the people who actually own the business and they should be the ones who put the measures in place to make sure that things are correct.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, would the same provisions apply to a government agency?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The Crown is exempt from the act, like many other acts. It also recognises the proximity or the lack of proximity of decision-making as well, such as a dealership, company directors or employees. If you are referring to a minister of the Crown or CEO, they can put things in place, but in this case they are specifically exempt from the act.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: With that application it just occurred to me whether with DEWNR, SAPOL or other government organisations that have firearms for good reasons the same would apply, but you have answered that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 72 to 74 passed.

New clause 74A.

The CHAIR: Minister, you have a new clause—

Mr GARDNER: I have one.

The CHAIR: No, we are going to look at this one first.

Mr GARDNER: Mine was filed first.

The CHAIR: He is the minister; he has precedence. It would be good not to argue this late. He is the minister and I am advised he has priority, but you can oppose it.

Mr GARDNER: Mine will make much more sense if it is done before his.

The CHAIR: It is not up to you. We have made the decision here.

Mr GARDNER: Isn't it the decision of the house?

The CHAIR: I am advised this is the way we do it. Now, if you want to, at this late stage, disagree with the table—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: I am taking advice just like everybody else in the room and I am advised this is the best way to do it. On your behalf I have already had a long conversation with the Clerk and come to this decision but, as you say, this is your house.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Police–1]—

New clause, page 77, after line 2—After clause 74 insert:

74A—General defence

(1) It is a defence to a charge of an offence against this Act if the defendant proves that the alleged offence was not committed intentionally and did not result from any failure on the part of the defendant to take reasonable care to avoid the commission of the offence.

(2) This section does not apply in relation to a person who is charged with an offence under any of the following provisions:

(a) section 9;

(b) section 10;

(c) section 16(5);

(d) section 19;

(e) section 22;

(f) section 27;

(g) section 31;

(h) section 34;

(i) section 37;

(j) section 38;

(k) section 39;

(l) section 40;

(m) section 41;

(n) section 42;

(o) section 45;

(p) section 55;

(q) section 56;

(r) section 57(1);

(s) section 60;

(t) section 61;

(u) section 68;

(v) section 69;

(w) section 72.

(3) This section does not apply to—

(a) a person who is charged with an offence under the regulations if the regulations declare that this section does not apply to that offence; or

(b) a person who is charged with an offence consisting of a contravention of a provision of a code of practice if the code declares that this section does not apply to that contravention.

Mr GARDNER: Perhaps I might ask a question in the form of a proposition that the minister might respond to. In fact, I will start with the question because that is appropriate. Does the minister have any response to my view that the opposition believes very passionately that the reinsertion of the general defence into the bill is important? I went into this in detail in the second reading speech so I will not re-plough all of that ground, other than to identify that it is not just the opposition who believes this. It is also something broadly felt within the law-abiding, firearms-owning community and the Law Society.

This amendment, which the minister has moved, reinserts the general defence and then subsequently identifies 23—off the back of my hand in terms of numbers—exclusions from the general defence which makes it a somewhat general defence at best. The Law Society identifies in detail in their submission—I think I did talk about that in my second reading—that the general defence is important because it means that, if somebody is behaving honestly and makes an inadvertent mistake, then they will not be unduly impacted.

While the opposition appreciates that this somewhat general defence has been put forward by the minister and if ours—I do not know whether I will get to move my alternative 74A now—is not successful later we will consider between the houses whether this somewhat general defence has enough in it. I have had a look at the 23 restrictions only for a moment because we have been busy debating the bill since I have seen the list. We will have a look at them. Perhaps my question to the minister could be: does the minister think that our amendment, which does not have these exclusions, would be more appropriate?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No.

Mr GARDNER: Does the minister wish to provide any further argument that members might reflect on when considering this matter between the houses, to convince us that these 23 exclusions are necessary?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am also open, as the member would know, to hear a good case but I would have to be convinced that a person who is trafficking in firearms should have a general defence; a person who breaches their conditions has a general defence; and a person who actually deals in firearms but is not licensed to deal in firearms should have a general defence.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: A person charged with these things?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, whether people charged with these matters should have a general defence. I am happy to negotiate some of these things but you need to convince me why that person should say, 'Oh I didn't know I was trafficking in guns.' So you ask, and we now have trafficking provisions resulting from the McPherson case, and you want to give that person a defence that he did not know he was passing on the gun to somebody, which ended up in somebody getting killed. That is what you want me to accept. I will not accept that. If you want to amend some of these, you had better have some good cases that are fairly minor matters. If they are major matters, you then put public safety at risk.

Mr GARDNER: I thank the minister for his answer on that and identify again that in relation to the specific offences—the date of the list has been filed—we will have a look at that between the houses. Perhaps between the houses, and I would be very surprised if the minister had it on hand, he might also seek advice that could be provided to us on the instances where the general defence is being used in some of the charges that he has identified.

New clause inserted.

Mr GARDNER: Can I just ask your advice, Chair. Given that we now have a 74A and the nature of my original amendment was to insert a 74A—

The CHAIR: Just the first part.

Mr GARDNER: Yes, just the first part. Can I still move that?

The CHAIR: You do not have to because it is already there. It is exactly the same wording and it is already the first part of the new 74A.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I think his amendment seeks to actually remove all exclusions, which is different.

Mr GARDNER: We will worry about that between houses.

Clause 75 passed.

Clause 76.

Mr GARDNER: Clause 76 relates to the service of notices and some of the modernisation of the bill allowing service by email or fax—and faxes are indeed modernising from where the bill was, and this should not be hard. If a person does not wish to be served any particular type of notice by email or fax, then they can be served by mail, as I understand. They do not provide a fax number, they do not provide an email address, then they will be served by mail, as they are now.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, they can be. I note, Madam Chair, you made a comment, but at the round table there were people saying they only wanted it by mail because they cannot guarantee fax or email or other methods, even though it is accepted by the courts.

Mr GARDNER: Just in relation to that, and I am quoting from the bill:

..notice or document will be taken to have been given or served at time of transmission).

I appreciate that is not a legal novelty, it exists elsewhere, but what protections are there in the event that the email address or fax number is incorrectly entered? If a dispute is entered into, can police be required to show proof of transmission including the number or email addresses?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Absolutely to both.

Mr GARDNER: Why can somebody who is served at their house when they are not home be deemed to have been served if it has been given to somebody who is 'apparently over the age of 16 years' as per clause 76(1)(b)? Why not 18 years?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is just a provision in the current act.

Mr GARDNER: Again, this can be provided between the houses if you want, but I am wondering if the 'apparently over the age of 16 years' provision exists in any other acts around the place.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised yes.

The CHAIR: Where?

Mr GARDNER: Yes; I invite the minister to come back between the houses or in the next 10 minutes if you want, but feel free to come back to us later.

The CHAIR: Between houses?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We will come back later with that information.

The CHAIR: Later or between houses?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Between the houses.

The CHAIR: That is much better; we have to be precise here.

Clause passed.

Clause 77.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: This is on regulations. I have had a number of constituents contact me worried that so many of the provisions of the act are embodied in regulations rather than in the legislation. I was just wondering if you could go through in some detail the consultation process that you propose. It has been mentioned largely, and there is already a lot on the record, but if my constituents wish to have some say in the drafting of the regulations, how will they do that?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: A group will be convened by the Hon. Rob Kerin, who will undertake the process. My view is that all the various stakeholders who have been involved so far will be invited to make submissions. There will be such meetings or gatherings as required to discuss it in the same way that I have undertaken the round tables, but they will be chaired by the Hon. Mr Kerin rather than me. I would seek—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well, there was a perception—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It will be the case that he will have such meetings as required to satisfy himself that the regulations are workable and fair and reasonable and meet the objectives.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can see no reason why they would not be broadly advertised in some way. There will be some sort of media campaign, yes.

Clause passed.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The Security and Investigation Industry Act 1995, section 46(1)(c), is 16 years for the serving of a notice.

Mr GARDNER: Supplementary: seeing that the minister has identified an example, are there any others?

The CHAIR: We will get back to you between houses.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Sorry, how many examples would you like to satisfy your interest?

Mr GARDNER: To understand whether this is a novelty or if this is an outstanding piece of law spread throughout our statute.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: There are many. It is an outstanding piece of law right across all our statutes.

Mr GARDNER: I will hold you to that.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: You can hold me anyway you like.

Clause passed.

Schedule 1.

Mr GARDNER: I move:

Amendment No 20 [Gardner–2]—

Page 84, after line 21—Insert:

(2) Despite sections 14(1)(c) and 28(1)(c)—

(a) no application fee is payable in relation to an application for a licence authorising possession of a firearm, or an application for the registration of a firearm, if the firearm was, under the repealed Act, a deactivated firearm and—

(i) the applicant was in lawful possession of the firearm before the commencement of this clause; and

(ii) the application is made before the end of the transition period; and

(b) no application fee is payable in relation to an application for renewal of a licence authorising possession of a deactivated firearm made after the end of the transition period if, under paragraph (a), no application fee was payable in relation to the application for the grant of the licence in respect of that firearm.

(3) In this clause—

deactivated firearm means a device that was not a firearm for the purposes of the repealed Act only because it had been rendered unusable in a manner stipulated in the regulations under that Act or by the Registrar.

I discussed this in the second reading. It is in our view important that, while the government has signalled that they have an intent to not charge during that first 12 months for the imposition of new regulation on everyone who has a deactivated firearm, it is going to be inconvenient and annoying for many people. We have discussed the public safety benefit of having an understanding of where all the deactivated firearms are, so we do not need to traverse that any further. As I have said, it is in our view inappropriate—and the government has recognised that in the first year there should not be a charge—that there should be a charge for their renewals either.

We also want to make sure that it is in the legislation itself rather than just relying on the government's word. I am sure the minister will follow through, but who knows, the minister might change and we might have somebody new who wants to charge people before the regulations are concluded. We want to put this in the legislation, and that is why the amendment is there.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We agree with the amendment.

Amendment carried.

Mr GARDNER: I have a couple of quick questions and these are my last, so if anyone has anything to ask about the schedule, they might want to think about that quickly before they run out of time. Did the government have any advice from SAPOL or from other policymakers as to how many new firearms permits, how many new licensees, are anticipated as a result of these changes for deactivated firearms coming under the act?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Unfortunately, no. Because they are deactivated they are not required to be registered, then we have no knowledge. I can say that we believe they are a small subset, or smallish subset, but if your question is leading to the need to process applications, the necessary resources will be put in place to make sure they are processed in a prompt manner that would mean minimal inconvenience to the people who are registering them.

Mr TRELOAR: Minister, we may have touched on this before, but just for clarification, under this new act where new registrations need to occur, what is the time frame allowed for that to take place?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Are you referring to deactivated guns?

Mr TRELOAR: If there are any new registrations at all that need to be made.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, 12 months.

Schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light—Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (22:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank all members of the house, particularly the members of the opposition, for their good spirit and cooperation. I think we have done the same by accepting many amendments and, hopefully, if there are any outstanding issues between the houses we can sort them out. The opposition has made it very clear they do not seek to weaken the existing public safety provisions of the existing acts, and I am happy to work on the new ones. Hopefully, there will be cooperation over the next few days and between the houses we can resolve this and expedite its passage through parliament and have a safer community.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (22:48): I thank the minister for those words, and I identify that there has been a very interesting set of discussions in the Liberal Party room on this matter. I have had engagement from pretty much all my colleagues, particularly those who represent regional communities. Indeed, many of the metropolitan members represent many sporting shooters as well and, of course, all members have concerns and interests in public safety.

So, this was a very stimulating, a very informed and engaged set of discussions coming to the position the opposition has taken thus far on the bill. I thank the minister and his staff and officers, and the SAPOL officers for their assistance during briefings and discussions on the matter.

I particularly want to note and thank again, as I did in the second reading, the very many stakeholders who contributed. A number of those stakeholders contributed vast numbers of hours to the minister's roundtable process over the course of more than a year, from September last year through to the discussions that have informed the bill thus far. They continue to provide submissions and suggestions to members of parliament while that shifts now to the Legislative Council over the next couple of weeks for further considerations.

Those stakeholders are volunteers for their organisations and make their suggestions and contributions both in the public interest and on behalf of other volunteers and members of their organisations. Without their support, I think the whole process would have been less useful. Without the significant engagement of those volunteers, I think the bill would be in a less positive form.

The government has, where there has not been agreement with opposition amendments, for most of them suggested their own compromised positions or put forward their own positions which are now incorporated into the bill. The opposition will contemplate the way that has changed the bill in between the houses and make decisions ahead of the next sitting week on whether we will continue with our amendments as we have put in this house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair thanks everyone for their cooperation as well.

Bill read a third time and passed.