FIREARMS (FIREARMS PROHIBITION ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 April 2008. Page 2254.)

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (17:09): I thank those members who have contributed to the debate on this bill. I do have some advice here on some of the issues raised, and if further information is requested we can deal with that when we debate the bill in the committee stage next week. There were a number of issues that required advice. First, concerns were expressed against the term 'medically invasive procedure' (section 6B(1)), and an explanation was requested. The provision of medically invasive procedures permits the invasive taking of blood, if needed, to determine whether a person is using drugs or is under the influence of alcohol. So, that is the purpose of that particular provision.

A request was made for the minister to confirm that the definition of 'fit and proper person' would remain the same. The interpretation of 'fit and proper' is expanded in the bill by inserting a provision that allows the Registrar to consider the 'reputation, honesty, integrity and associates of the person' when determining whether they are unfit. This is directed at people who engage in criminal behaviour.

Provision is also made for the inclusion of specific regulations to prescribe offences where a person would be deemed to be unfit. These regulations will be developed at the conclusion of debate on the bill and will require further consultation with stakeholders. For example, people who commit murder could be automatically deemed unfit. I also add that, as regulations, this chamber would have the opportunity to consider them further.

We were also asked for advice on whether people who committed offences under another act would be deemed unfit. People who commit offences under another act may be deemed unfit for the purposes of firearm prohibition orders if possession of a firearm, firearm part or ammunition would be likely to result in undue danger to life or property. They may also be deemed unfit if their actions demonstrate a disregard for the law and it is in the public interest to prohibit their access to firearms on safety grounds. This is subject to the circumstances of the situation.

Advice was requested on whether the definition of 'unfit' would be strictly adhered to. This question has been raised, as the firearms community are critical of the Registrar's application and interpretation of 'unfit'. As the administrative decision maker, the Registrar acts with goodwill to determine whether a person is unfit based on the facts in each matter. It is a discretionary administrative power.

I was asked why people may be detained for a period of two hours to serve an interim firearms prohibition order. This allows time for police to compile the order and deliver it to the person. If this power is not provided, the person would be able to leave and avoid the controls of the firearm prohibition order until they could be located by police. This could create an unreasonable risk to public safety.

I was also asked: why does the bill not apply to people under 18 years? My advice is that it applies to juveniles and adults. FPOs can be issued to people under 18 years of age if they meet the criteria provided. The bill places an obligation on the person subject to an FPO to inform adults with whom he or she resides of the fact of the FPO.

I was asked: is the owner of a house liable because they have rented a house to someone they did not know was subject to a firearms prohibition order? My advice is that landlords are not liable in this situation. There is no requirement for the landlord to ask or be told about a firearms prohibition order. I was also asked: is the landlord liable for any breach of this legislation if someone living in the rented house is subject to a firearms prohibition order? I am advised that the landlord is not liable just because someone with a firearms prohibition order lives in his or her property.

I was also asked: can firearm owners modify their firearms? This is addressed by section 25 of the Firearms Act. Firearm owners cannot modify their firearms if the alteration alters the class of firearm; if this occurs, the registered owner must give notice to the Registrar in the prescribed form. An inquiry was also made as to whether SAPOL would be prepared to provide an undertaking that it would use firearm prohibition orders only against people engaged in organised crime, bikie gang members, criminals and when they believe that a person is a threat to another person or property.

SAPOL is committed to managing the proposed legislation within the provisions of the law and in accordance with the aim to target the illegal firearms market, as opposed to legitimate firearm owners. This includes the enforcement of this legislation against people engaged in organised crime, gangs and criminal behaviour and if people are an undue risk to another person, themselves or property

I commend the bill to the council. As I have said, I would be happy to discuss these and other issues in more detail when we begin the committee stage next week.

Bill read a second time.