FIREARMS (FIREARMS PROHIBITION ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 April 2008. Page 2185.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (20:52): When I spoke to this bill yesterday afternoon I did not have the opportunity to put a number of questions on the record for the minister to respond to prior to the committee stage of the bill. They are questions from stakeholders in the industry and the community who either use firearms for recreational purposes (sporting shooters) or hunting purposes, are traders and dealers in firearms, or are collectors of historical firearms. Before I put those questions on the record, I have a couple of points to conclude my remarks.

It is interesting that in the minister's second reading explanation he talks about there being a great deal of violent crime in South Australia involving illegitimate firearms owners or unregistered firearms, and that the firearms legislation of the past focussed or placed controls on legitimate firearms owners. He goes on to make a number of comments but, in particular, uses the examples of the Tonic nightclub shootings in 2007 and the Monash University shootings in 2002 as instances which may have been prevented through the use of firearms prohibition orders. In fact, SAPOL says this will give it the ability to ban someone from accessing a firearm and better equip SAPOL to combat firearms-related violence. SAPOL asserts that the introduction of firearms prohibition orders would move the focus from legitimate firearms owners to the behavioural risk created by any person having access to a firearm.

I think that goes to the nub of the concerns raised by stakeholders, in that they are concerned that the focus will be shifted certainly to legitimate firearms owners but, by shifting that focus and intention, it will inadvertently perhaps make their lives much more difficult and cumbersome, given that they are, by and large, law-abiding firearms owners.

The Hon. P. Holloway: It is the reverse.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister's interjection is interesting, but I will raise a number of questions where I think there are certain aspects of the legislation that may make it a bit cumbersome for law-abiding firearms owners. I will reiterate some of the effects of a prohibition order.

A person will be subject to the following rules under a prohibition order. They cannot obtain a firearms licence or permit, and it will be suspended if they already have one. They cannot possess a firearm, part of a firearm or ammunition. They must not be present at a shooting club, range or any other place prescribed by regulation. They may not be a member of a shooting club—and, of course, SAPOL will have to provide a list of people under these prohibition orders for shooting clubs. I do not know quite how it will do that—whether it will be by mail, on the web, by carrier pigeon, or whatever—but somehow they have to make sure that this is updated, because I would be certain that the South Australian police have every intention, if this legislation is passed, of putting a number of people under prohibition orders, and I am sure that that figure will fluctuate.

Some people who will be subject to these orders may well be able to have them revoked, and others will come on because they fall into the category. One of the issues with respect to shooting clubs is how we will make sure that they are able to access that information. Where is the breach if someone is not able to access the internet or if they join a pistol club or a gun club the day after they are placed under a prohibition order and the web has not been updated or they have not been contacted? So, we are a little unsure as to how that will take place.

I will just mention the bodies concerned. I thank the people from the Adelaide Collectors Guild, the South Australian Field and Game Association, the Farmers Federation, the Antique and Historical Arms Association, the Combined Shooters and Firearms Council and the Firearms Traders Council. I probably will be a little repetitious now, because last night I did not have this group of questions with me; I was trying to rely on memory. I think it is easier if I run through them, so that they will be more concise for the minister's staff and for SAPOL to look at.

The Hon. P. Holloway: So, we can ignore what you said last night?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, not ignore what I said last night but, certainly, this will be more concise. The first question is raised on the definition of a fit and proper person. This section of the act remains very unclear. At present, the act defines that such things as mental and physical fitness, breaches of the Firearms Act and convicted violent offenders may be taken to be not fit and proper. However, subsection (11) does not limit the grounds on which this judgment may be made.

In this bill, the term 'convicted' in this context is to be changed to 'found guilty'. The concern here is that it is the role of the court to decide that an offence is trivial and, thus, not convict the person. Should this decision not remain with the court, in the sense that, if an offence is deemed as trivial, should the conviction add weight to the argument for a prohibition order?

I will give an example. A licensed firearm holder, who at any given time may have a year's supply of ammunition in their possession for their weekend gun club activities, may forget a round that has been left in their pocket after a competition, or that it has rolled under their cupboard at home or fallen out of their pocket into their vehicle and is loose. This would technically be a breach of the act. So, what protection does this person have from such a minor transgression causing them to be the subject of a prohibition order, because they have been in breach of the act? The definition of 'fit and proper' has huge ramifications for the effects of the bill verses its intent.

The next topic is proceedings for offences. The Firearms Traders Council and the Antique and Historical Arms Association were concerned that there is already an issue for all stakeholders with the commencement of proceedings for offences. That could be aggravated by the bill. I will give an example. An actual case has been given by the Antique and Historical Arms Association.

A person was shooting in a club competition, injured his foot and attended hospital (in fact, I think he accidentally shot his foot). He was discharged six days later. Two days after that the police seized his firearms for a ballistics inspection, and 16 days later they seized the remainder of his firearms and suspended his licence. Some 130 days later, SAPOL had not commenced proceedings and the man lodged an appeal. The court heard and dismissed the man, ordered the return of the firearms and told the barrister that he ought to inform the registrar of the correct way to execute the Firearms Act.

I have heard of many other instances where the matters were dragged out without a formal hearing. The Firearms Traders Council tells me of three examples where police have seized firearms, taken licences, and taken 12 months to decide which charges to lay. In the same three cases the actions of the police have been found to be wrong.

There is a genuine consensus amongst stakeholders, to be proved not true, that some police officers are, arguably, still administering the act incorrectly. These people's livelihoods are at stake and months of inability to continue their sport or business is in the hands of the police. The Firearms Traders Council has argued that, if a matter is going to affect the livelihood of a person, the police should bring the charges against them within a short period of time, say, two months.

There should be less potential for the police to use this device to put dealers out of business if they are law-abiding citizens. All stakeholders feel a general climate of intimidation from the firearms branch. They attribute this to the fact that most officers have a limited, in their belief, understanding of the act. The bill will effectively increase the offences one can commit and, in turn, increase the potential for law-abiding firearms users and dealers to be unfairly treated. The examples I have given substantiate the general climate of distrust amongst stakeholders about this bill and gives concern that the effect of the bill will be very divided.

Regarding the powers of the registrar—I touched on this last night or yesterday afternoon—the Combined Shooters, the Firearms Council, and, in fact, all stakeholders raised some concerns. There are substantiated concerns from stakeholders and all legitimate and sensible firearms owners.

The Firearms Consultative Committee will no longer have to concur with the registrar on his or her decisions. The argument is: why should the function of the committee be abolished? That is the question I ask the minister. Why can it not continue to assent to the registrar's decisions as well as provide advice on firearms issues? There will no longer be any checks and balances. It is certainly of concern to many when parts of the act will be so subjective and ultimately left to the interpretation of just one person. Such a consolidation of powers does create quite significant potential for corruption.

The appeals process is an issue that was raised by the Firearms Traders Council. There is already concern about the change of the appeals process which currently allows someone to appeal the decisions made by the police through a review, without having to go through an expensive court process. I note that, if a person is aggrieved by a decision made by the registrar, they will need to apply to the registrar to refer that decision to the Firearms Review Committee. What argument is there to have the registrar approve this referral when it is his or her own initial decision that is being questioned? I would particularly like the minister to answer that question. The bill will afford the registrar the power to issue an order and reject any application to have this review. There will be no avenue for review outside the court which discounts the registrar.

Finally, I was asked by the Farmers Federation: if a person exhausts this internal review process and the court process, will they be prevented from making another review application or court appeal if their circumstances change considerably? This could be somebody who was living with somebody who was subject to a firearms prohibition order and they might be divorced or separated or moved interstate. I guess moving interstate would not apply because we are talking about South Australian law. Perhaps they moved to another town and are living with somebody else and their circumstances have changed. If they have already exhausted every avenue initially, over what sort of time frame can they come back and resubmit an appeal?

Again, last night I raised some concerns with the interim orders. The Combined Shooters and Firearms Council, the Antique and Historical Arms Association, the Firearms Traders Council and the Farmers Federation raised these concerns. I would like some clarification about how these would operate. I raised an example yesterday of a couple of young people out spotlighting, being smart-alecks and perhaps being stopped by a local police officer, giving him some cheek and then him issuing an interim firearms prohibition order. Are they able to return to their parent's home, or the husband or wife's home, where there might be firearms stored?

I also have other concerns about interim orders. I note that an officer who proposes to issue such an order may be required to detain somebody for up to two hours whilst seeking the advice of a senior officer. I did raise that matter last night. We can understand the intent of that when it comes to the people the firearms prohibition orders are targeted at. However, inadvertently, we may find that there are people who are trapped by it.

This advice is necessary in such a situation. However, I am concerned that in certain situations legitimate firearms may be caught up with officers who make hasty decisions, and thus the people concerned suffer considerable inconvenience, only to be relieved of the order once they have sought a senior officer's advice.

The Firearms Traders Council raised the point that police already have the power to act in an urgent life-threatening situation; in a non-urgent one, a warrant can be sought. Can the minister clarify why this is not a sufficient process and what is the necessity for interim orders?

Last night, I also raised the issue of people under the age of 18 not subject to the provisions of a prohibition order living in a house with someone who is subject to such an order. I will not repeat my remarks, but I would like an answer and some clarity on why young people have been excluded, given the potential for people in their mid-teens to act as storage agents, if you like, for those who are subject to a firearms prohibition order.

Last night, I touched on the issue of the manufacture of firearms, but I will cover it again. An offence is created for the manufacture of firearms, and this change in the act would capture firearms modifications, which certainly poses a problem. Many competitive shooters and hunters are required to modify their firearms on a regular basis. In fact, I was told that at some shoots scopes and sights may be modified quite often according to the wind conditions.

The requirement in the bill will have them report any modification to the firearms branch, and this will create an administrative nightmare. If a shooter modifies his gun a number of times in a day, will they be required to notify the firearms branch during their competitive shoot or hunting expedition? Is it just at the end of the shoot or will they be required to return the gun to its original condition? Will they be allowed to modify it for competition, as the competition and weather conditions change, and are they then allowed to take it home and store it in its original condition? We would like some clarity on this issue.

There is an amendment the minister might consider relating to a modification that does not affect the class of firearm. There is a whole range of different classes of firearm based on the calibre and the type of projectile. These modifications generally do not change a firearm from one class to another as they are within an existing class. Will the minister consider and give some advice on whether that is a sensible way to do it—that it cannot be modified from one class to another but it can be left within the class?

As to permanent modification, the opposition understands that, if you cut off the end of a barrel of a gun, that is a relatively permanent modification, as you cannot easily weld it back on at the end of a day's competition or after some event in which you have used it. So, it may well be for temporary modifications within a class to allow competition shooters to go about their sporting activity.

As to the acquisition of a firearm, yesterday I used the example of a person who owns a farmhouse and rents it to somebody. It is the opposition's understanding that, if someone comes into the farmhouse with a gun, because the landlord owns the property it will be deemed to be their gun and they will have acquired it. You could have a landlord who is subject to a firearms prohibition order and a tenant who is not and who comes in with a gun and stores it on the premises. The landlord is then in breach of the act because he or she is subject to a firearms prohibition order.

It is also the opposition's understanding that, if somebody who is a registered licence gun owner (and this is not part of the bill, but I would like the minister's advice and comment) wants to buy a new gun, currently there is a 28-day cooling-off period or time delay from when they would like to buy the gun to when they can be issued with a licence and register that firearm.

If they are an existing firearm owner, a law-abiding firearm user, and they want to buy a particular new gun for competition or hunting, why would they have to wait 28 days? It is something that has been in the act for some time, and it just seems a little strange. Certainly, one can understand that for somebody who is buying a firearm for the first time there is the need for police checks and a whole range of genuine, sensible reasons why you might want to wait the 28 days, but for an existing firearm owner it does seem a little strange.

Finally—and I did raise this last night but I will repeat it—there is the issue of clarification of the power of the registrar to require a medical examination or reports in determining if a person is fit and proper. New clause 6B provides that an examination or report may involve a medically invasive procedure, and we would like some clarification from the minister, if he could, to identify clearly the circumstances of when such a procedure would occur. That has caused some angst with some of the stakeholders as to exactly what a medically invasive procedure is. As I explained yesterday, it could well be just a blood test, and I think that is quite reasonable, but could we have some clarification on those points?

With those final questions I do want to thank the stakeholders who have come and spoken to the opposition about their concerns. I also thank SAPOL for its briefing, it has been quite extensive. I thank it for its assistance, and we support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (21:11): I rise to indicate that we have a number of questions, as does the Hon. Mr Ridgeway, with respect to this bill. In fact, the Hon. Mr Ridgeway pre-empted a lot of what I am about to say. We have similar questions and concerns that we would like to have addressed by the minister in the summing-up stage, but I will proceed with some of the specifics.

The bill introduces firearms prohibition orders into South Australia, giving police the power to ban certain persons, and their associates, from possessing or accessing firearms. Family First will wholly support any efforts made to combat outlaw bikie club-related crime, but legislation must be written in such a way that legitimate users of firearms (such as sporting shooters and farmers) are not unfairly treated.

Unfortunately, this bill makes several sweeping generalisations in its changes to current law, with legitimate users of firearms lumped in with those who use firearms for criminal purposes. That should not be the case, and for that reason there are aspects which Family First, at this stage, will oppose in the committee stage unless amendments are presented to alter the bill as it stands.

The plain fact is that outlaw bikie gangs operate (as the term suggests) outside of the law, and the firearms that they possess are often illegal firearms. Further regulation on the activity of owning a firearm will therefore disproportionately impact the law-abiding members of the community who operate within the law. The problem is that, if the law is introduced to regulate the use of firearms, the only people who will obey that law are people who are law-abiding citizens. Ironically, they are not those to whom such laws are directed.

Recent Australian Institute of Criminology data, in a report entitled 'Firearms Theft in Australia 2005-06', notes that 198 guns were stolen in South Australia in the 12 months to June 2006: approximately 100 rifles, about 65 shot guns and 15 hand guns. Police recovered only 3 per cent of those weapons. These weapons cannot be regulated. These are the weapons that are winding up in the hands of outlaw bikie gangs and other criminal elements. They are not ending up in the hands of sporting shooters, legitimate farmers or others who have legitimate reasons to hold a firearm.

If we examine the New South Wales situation, they made a very heavy-handed response to the 1984 Bandidos clash with the Comancheros, the so-called Milperra bikie massacre, which of course was a tragic and horrendous event occurring on the outskirts of Sydney. The clash at the Viking Tavern in Milperra is said by some to have started the recent history of bikie violence in Australia.

This first clash occurred at a swap meet at the British Motorcycle Club, which was also attended by members of the public. One of the groups was ambushed, with their leaders targeted. A rifle, a shot gun and a semi-automatic rifle were used in the skirmish, along with knives, bats, chains, machetes and other weapons.

Sadly, seven people were killed and 15 were hospitalised, including many innocent members of the public. Most tragically, an innocent 15 year old girl was caught in the crossfire. As a consequence, the Labor government of the day outlawed completely the possession of certain firearms. Subsequently, the New South Wales Labor Party suffered its worst electoral loss in 50 years. When its leader, Barrie Unsworth, resigned, he said:

I must accept the major proportion of the blame for the defeat, particularly in terms of my decision on the gun issue.

Certainly, in Barry Unsworth's view, it was a significant reason for his government's demise.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Possibly. The incoming premier, Nick Greiner, revoked the ban. He noted that the ban 'was clearly unenforceable and made criminals of decent law-abiding citizens'. That sort of explains some of our concerns with this bill.

Indeed, I wonder whether this bill will do exactly the same thing. I wonder whether bikie groups will continue to operate outside of the law and these laws will impact only those honest and decent members of the community who try their best to comply with the increasing number of rules and regulations that continually seem to impact on their law-abiding practices.

Since Milperra, we have had the McDonald's and Hoddle Street massacres in 1987. The same year saw the Queen Street shootings on 20 August, with Hungerford a week later. The year 1991 saw the Strathfield Plaza shootings, and we had the 1994 Nuriootpa siege and the Dublana Primary School massacre in March 1996. On 28 April 1996, tragically, 35 people were killed and 25 people were injured in the horrific Port Arthur incident. (As an aside, I was actually at that site the day after that incident and witnessed the scene very shortly after the incident happened, and I can assure members that it was horrific.)

Since then we have had the Victor Chang shooting in 1991, the tragic Columbine massacre in 1999, the Monash shootings in 2002, as well as bikie shootings on the Gold Coast, Football Park, Wright Street and recently the Tonic Nightclub. That has been capped off in very recent times by the Virginia Tech massacre, the worst in US history, with 30 dead.

The point I am making here is that, if my information is correct (and I believe it is correct), the only one of those Australian incidents that involved a registered gun owner and gun club member was Huan Ziang, who was responsible for the Monash shootings—and, by the way, he also had mental illness problems. I note that the current bill will allow medical and mental health checks on gun owners about whom police have concerns. That is completely appropriate and a measure that Family First would definitely support.

The point I am making here is that all of those tragic events I have just listed were initiated and perpetrated by people acting outside of the law. By and large (and when I say 'by and large' I mean almost completely) those operating within the law are not responsible for such events.

The main cause of bikie violence is drugs and the underworld system that revolves around their sale. South Australia still has lax drug laws, despite the laws which were passed today and which we commend. I again refer the chamber's attention to the low penalties imposed for the cultivation of cannabis in this state. It is no wonder that South Australia has been named by some as the cannabis capital of Australia. Our penalties are completely out of step with those imposed interstate in this regard. It is no wonder that bikie groups continue to cultivate cannabis in South Australia, knowing that in many cases, if caught they will only receive a maximum fine of $500 if they claim personal use which, of course, many of them do.

Any efforts to combat bikie-related crime, such as this bill, must focus on drug penalties and their activities. I quote from a press release in the name of the Premier dated 12 March 2006, shortly before the last election. It states:

If re-elected, Labor will also:

create a specific offence of cultivating cannabis hydroponically;

make the possession of firearms in conjunction with drug offences an aggravating feature of the drug offence, attracting higher penalties.

'I'm fed up with the mass production of high-strength cannabis that damages too many South Australian lives,' says Premier Rann. 'Drug use is central to crime, and it needs to be nipped in the bud, literally.'

I prepared this speech just this morning, and yesterday I was going to raise this matter as a negative. The proposed legislation announced by the Attorney-General today will go part way to meeting those election commitments, and I congratulate the government on that announcement and assure it of Family First's support subject to the details of the legislation once we see it.

I believe that strong drug laws such as the ones announced today will be most effective in attacking the income source of bikie groups. They will hurt these outlaws much more than the laws before us today, which most significantly impact sporting shooters, farmers and other people who have a legitimate need to use firearms.

The aim of this legislation before us today—and I thank Chief Inspector Les Buckley for his briefing and his assurances—is to, first, focus on the person's behaviour as opposed to the firearm; secondly, focus on criminals or people who are of risk to the community versus legitimate firearm owners; and, finally, to institute preventative and disruption powers.

I have little doubt about the chief inspector's capabilities and his assurances that he does not intend to target legitimate gun owners. In fact, I found him to be a very useful contact, and certainly a very competent individual. However, the government's difficulty is that legitimate owners are not convinced about the merits of this bill. Indeed, the Combined Shooters and Firearms Council complained that they were to be consulted on the proposed amendments but that the true consultation never took place, in their words. That is indeed quite concerning as this is a body that promotes shooting sports, collecting and responsible firearms use, and represents the interests of member firearm clubs and associations throughout South Australia. I have met representatives from the group and, in a recent letter from them, they note:

SAPOL have previously and continuously stated that they will not target lawful firearms owners but are after the bikies and the criminal element. Such assurances have proven worthless. SAPOL have not honoured their verbal undertakings. Firearms owners generally have no confidence or faith in the SAPOL firearms branch assurances.

This is a very concerning statement indeed. They have a number of legitimate concerns which are shared by Family First, and some of their concerns are similar to those outlined by the Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The first concern is that the registrar is given too much power. A great deal of power rests with one individual with respect to the fact that he or she—currently it is a he—can make the ultimate decision as to who is a fit and proper person. Secondly, the definition of 'fit and proper', based on a person's reputation, is too broad and subjective. Again, as I mentioned, it comes down to the registrar's interpretation of that matter. Thirdly, rewriting the law to target those who may have been found guilty without conviction for a very minor offence is unfair.

I think the point raised by the shooting lobby group to Family First is very valid; that is, previous to this bill, it has been the case that, whilst people have been found guilty of very minor offences, no conviction has been recorded. This bill will change that and make it that a conviction will automatically be recorded. Fourthly, the review committee, as the consultative committee, loses far too much power to the registrar—again, going back to the first point I made: the registrar becomes very important, and it is quite subjective. Finally, there are also concerns regarding the review of cancellation of licences and time required for the commencement of proceedings.

In my discussions with Rob Lowe, I understand that several of their previous concerns regarding the manufacturing of firearms have now been addressed. Industry representatives have been concerned that people who legitimately modify a firearm—again, as mentioned by the Hon. Mr Ridgway—may be caught by that provision. In particular, firearms used for competition and field use are regularly rebuilt by their owners to give better performance. I understand that the rewritten section 27(3) satisfies many of those concerns. As the Hon. Mr Ridgway mentioned, sights sometimes need to be adjusted because of the wind and what not. So, those sorts of minor modifications surely should not suggest a breach of the legislation. Again, as the Hon. Mr Ridgway said—which is the example I was going to use as well—when somebody saws off a shot gun, that is a major modification which cannot easily be reversed, and that is something that I think the legislation should legitimately address.

Last year, I wrote to the Minister for Police regarding a number of concerns that Family First had with this measure, and I thank the minister for addressing some of those concerns in the final version of this bill. However, Family First still has a number of concerns, there are the concerns that have been raised by the combined shooters, and we will certainly raise those matters during the committee stage.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (21:25): I rise on this occasion to speak to the Firearms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill. A brief outline of the bill's context may be of value to members in this chamber.

Since coming to office this government has mounted a strategic program of law reform intended to refocus the justice system on community protection of the rights of victims—and that program is succeeding. South Australia Police statistics for 2006 and 2007 show that the state's crime rate has decreased by 18.2 per cent since 2002-03. This represents a stark contrast to the record number of offences against the person and property recorded in 2001 and 2002 when our predecessors were in office. We inherited a situation where home invasions were regular occurrences, where the elderly were too frightened to walk the streets, and where criminals around the country saw South Australia as a soft touch.

As my colleague the Minister for Police noted when the latest statistics were released, the combination of a record number of SAPOL officers on the ground and the government's tough-on-crime laws are strengthening the hands of police in their pursuit of offenders—and the results are clear and encouraging. The increase in reportage of crimes against the person is likely to continue as a consequence of the new, more rigorous legislation in the areas of sexual assault and drugs, but the government does not intend to relax its vigilance.

The bill before us today represents yet another component in a comprehensive suite of specific responses to the issue of crimes against the person. It will provide police with more, and more direct, compliance and crime-fighting powers. All those present are aware of the Tonic nightclub shooting incident in June 2007, and the government responded quickly to that event, pledging new laws to combat firearms-related crime. These proposals embody that pledge. They target criminal elements—including motorcycle gangs and their associates—who turn to violence to progress their illegal activities.

I will not go into too much detail on the nature of these activities, because we are all aware of the predominant activities of drug manufacture, importation and distribution. Hand-in-hand with these, amongst other crimes, go murder, serious assault, intimidation of witnesses, public disorder offences, money laundering, and the organised theft and/or rebirthing of motor vehicles and motorcycles. Of course, firearms offences figure significantly in many of these matters.

This bill aims to realign the attention of state authorities from the regulation of legitimate firearms owners towards those criminal elements who use firearms in the commission of their crimes. To achieve this, police powers to ban access to, or possession of, firearms by persons with a known propensity for violence—or their associates—will be strengthened.

Let me be more specific: the amendments before us introduce two levels of firearm prohibition orders. The first, the interim firearms prohibition order, can be issued by any police officer with a supervisor's authorisation. Such orders allow immediate response from police, which will prevent a suspect gaining access to a firearm. The second level of firearms prohibition order is issued by the Registrar of Firearms. This order carries a full range of police powers, including stopping and searching any person subject to an order, any vehicle, vessel or aircraft in their charge, and any place of residence occupied by that person.

Firearms prohibition orders can also be applied to persons with no history of violence or other serious crime. As an adjunct to these provisions, a reporting obligation applies where a person has been identified by a medical practitioner or other prescribed person as being at risk to themselves or others. A similar reporting obligation will exist where a person is suffering from a wound inflicted by a firearm.

The bill goes further, providing for a number of offences with regard to firearm prohibition orders. It also broadens a number of definitions within the act—for example, that of 'possession of a firearm'—and creates certain aggravated offences under the Firearms Act. In addition, it will tighten controls on the manufacture and sale of firearms.

I should add that responsible, law-abiding citizens will not be affected by these laws. They will not be prevented from gaining firearms licences and owning registered firearms where legitimate purposes exist. However, it must be made abundantly clear that the government is determined to deal with those who demonstrate, through their own actions, that they would willingly use firearms in pursuing criminal enterprises.

The government considers that these amendments are proportionate to the response required in the present situation. I support the bill and commend its provisions to honourable members.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.