FIREARMS ACT

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:58): I move:

That the regulations under the Firearms Act 1977 concerning regulated imitation firearms, made on 17 December 2009 and laid on the table of this council on 11 May 2010, be disallowed.

I move this motion today with some regret, since it had been my hope that the minister and SAPOL would have been able to work with our constituents and the many other imitation firearm owners around South Australia to resolve this issue. Regrettably, my constituents tell me that the matter is still not resolved. In the worst cases, people have had imitation firearms seized, retained or they are being threatened with prosecution under laws that could have got off to a much smoother start had the consultation been done properly.

As I highlighted in previous debate on largely similar regulations we previously disallowed, there was a consultative committee for this kind of issue, but it was bypassed by the government and they went straight to regulation. It is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse, and the government has had the nerve to attack people, including myself, who have expressed concern when the horse quite rightly starts kicking up about it.

My constituents say that the first attempt at the regulations was an abysmal catch-all approach, full of unintended consequences, with no compensation or procedure to make the regulations work. Those, of course, were disallowed. They also complain that the minister began to consult only when a disallowance motion was imminent.

After the first disallowance, my constituents offered further consultation to the minister to establish workable legislation to target the genuine items of concern while avoiding all the unintended consequences. I want to highlight to the council in particular the two replica firearms that SAPOL have expressed concern about which, even with these regulations as they are at the moment, are still available in other states in Australia. They should be addressed at COAG level. The point is that no-one—myself included—to whom I have spoken disagrees that they should be unavailable; they should be removed, but the unintended consequence is that it now makes some law-abiding citizens (some with generations of collectors' replicas) criminals. I have never seen this in all my years involved with issues around firearms.

However, my constituents were advised late that the minister would not even reply to the firearms council's letter. These new regulations were introduced after parliament rose (again, my constituents complain, without any consultation) and they have been varied only to a very minor degree, despite the Legislative Council's support for the disallowance, which got through, and the firearms council's recommendations for consultation and specific provision for compensation. My constituents assert that these new regulations are problematic because they are unduly wide, with catch-all provisions as before and they operate entirely at the discretion of the registrar (which will be the delegate registrar), and that was unworkable.

We have serious problems out there with firearms. Hardly a week goes by when we do not see tragic events. These are firearms that the firearms section of the South Australia Police should be getting off the streets. They are black-market firearms. That is the sort of focus that we need with firearms, yet the focus at the moment is on replicas and imitation firearms. Now we are advised that the delegate registrar will actually examine them on a case-by-case basis. I know from experience, when I was minister, that it was the same as it is now. There are not enough resources in the firearms section to even manage what needs to be managed on a daily basis—which is why we see so many of these black-market firearms in South Australia—let alone the delegate registrar examining these particular replica and imitation firearms on a case-by-case basis.

There is no compensation provided either, and that is the thing that really concerns many people. In the time that I have been involved with the issues of buyback and firearms management, I do not think there has ever been a case where no compensation has been offered. No procedure to manage the new system is provided and, in this second case, there has been no advertising or publicity, so the public do not know the new laws. There are many people out there who are now effectively criminals, hence leading the public to unknowingly break the law.

Perhaps a cynic might argue that it was adverse publicity the government did not want during an election campaign. The Combined Shooters and Firearms Council of South Australia has been accused of being the only group that complains about this legislation. However, I can testify that I have had many constituents—and I am sure my colleagues have, too—who are independent members of the public, not members of the council or members of sporting and shooting associations, who are very unhappy with the government's actions.

The fundamental overarching principle here is one of consultation; after all, the Premier himself has said that Labor will listen. The CSFCSA (Combined Shooters and Firearms Council of South Australia) has for many weeks been attempting negotiations in consultation with the government regarding these new regulated imitation firearms amendment regulations. A late meeting was called for 1 pm last Wednesday 19 May 2010, only after I had flagged the possibility of moving this disallowance.

It is also worth noting that these regulations were tabled a little over two weeks after the initial ones were disallowed by the Legislative Council, with no consultation in the intervening period, despite the offer to the minister to assist in the redraft. They were tabled after parliament had risen, so that they could not be discussed, changed or disallowed. Apart from definitions, they are largely unchanged from the previous version and, therefore, many of the same problems still exist. Workable solutions to problems in the initial variation regulations arrived at in discussions between the SAPOL Firearms Branch and the Combined Shooters and Firearms Council in November 2009 were not incorporated in the current variation regulations.

The definition of what constitutes a regulated imitation firearm appears, on the surface, to be more precise but, in fact, it is still open to a fair degree of interpretation; so much so that five months into the operation of these regulations SAPOL Firearms Branch has in many cases been unable to advise what are or are not regulated imitations.

I put on the public record that I have had police officers contacting me personally expressing frustration at not knowing what to advise people when they come into the police station. It is just not satisfactory.

To date the registrar has made decisions on some areas of operation and interpretation after limited consultation. However, there is no formal documentation that we can obtain (other than possibly an email or verbal advice to an officer) advising the public of these decisions. There is still confusion within both SAPOL and the wider community as to how these regulations are to operate because much of what is happening depends on police policy, particularly that of the deputy registrar, as I understand it.

There are still no compensation provisions in the variation regulations or provision to waive licence and registration fees. In some cases the deputy registrar has used his discretion (from elsewhere in the act) to waive these fees but it is on a case-by-case basis. This information comes from a meeting on 20 May 2010.

Too many of these variation regulations rely on how the registrar or the deputy registrar interprets them. Because of changes in personnel within SAPOL, the interpretations will also change. The delegate registrar has already issued quite varying decisions in his interpretation of the amendments with conflicting interpretation of a number of major points in the new legislation.

Blank-firing imitation handguns and the people who misuse them have been the issue all along. These variation regulations drag in items that are legitimately held for collection, display and other purposes. I have spoken to people from the RSL who are very concerned because replica firearms have been handed in (by people who were involved in conflicts) and put on display to show the sort of weaponry that was used in particular wars and conflicts. As I said, these variation regulations drag in items that are legitimately held for collection, display and other purposes, where the real thing is either too expensive, illegal or inappropriate. To place them in the same class as real firearms largely defeats the reason for owning them.

Deactivation of imitation firearms has not been addressed and the matter of licences for imitation firearms has not been resolved. The storage of imitation firearms, in my opinion, is not necessary and is expensive. Locking up things like wooden replica pistols means that they will never be put in a china cabinet (where they often are displayed).

It is worth noting a few other closing points to illustrate how ill conceived these regulations are. At present, as we understand it, timber firearms will not be exempted purely because they are timber; the CSFCSA has been given different interpretations from different officers in the same meeting as to what is a regulated firearm under these regulations; remarkably, there is talk that persons wishing to retain or obtain a genuine imitation will still be required to undergo a full TAFE firearms training course or an approved full firearms club training course, notwithstanding that the firearm cannot be fired; and imitation firearms seized under the now disallowed laws are still being retained by SAPOL and indications are that there is no intention to return them nor pay any compensation.

I close by saying that this is a very regrettable exercise and, had consultation taken place properly, these regulations could have enjoyed a smooth path through parliament. In my experience, I have found that if you work with the sporting shooters associations and other peak bodies you get good outcomes, because they are not radical people. They are not the sort of people involved in criminal activities (such as we have seen again in recent days) that have tragic outcomes. These are people who are legitimate firearms owners. The cases we are talking about here involve people who have replicas and imitations.

Sadly, as evidenced by what I have outlined now and in debate on the previous disallowance motion, the only language I believe the government seems to understand is this action in the council. I urge members on the next Wednesday of sitting to support the disallowance in order to ensure the government gets this right for fairness and equity to all South Australian citizens.

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