Firearms Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 November 2015.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (11:43): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to speak to the Firearms Bill. At the outset, I acknowledge the hard work of the member for Morialta in another place as our shadow minister for police in putting together all the opposition's amendments and the Liberal Party's position in regard to this bill. Mr Gardner, the member for Morialta, has done an outstanding job with what is, I believe, a very difficult bill. In putting the interests of all and keeping them together, John Gardner has done an outstanding job and I put that on the record at the outset. He has shown that he is a very capable fellow.

I note that many of our constituents, particularly in regional pastoral areas of the state, have serious concerns about the new restrictions on firearms, given that they rely on them so heavily for their livelihood. Concerns of farmers and law-abiding gun owners have been worked into the opposition's amendments, and it seems that the government has been willing to accept many of them. However, there remain a number, which I will move in the committee stage of the debate.

The introduction of this bill has six goals, as per the minister's introductory comments and the police briefing. They are: to improve public safety and prevent crime, reduce red tape, overcome deficiencies, facilitate a nationally consistent approach to firearm control, increase functionality of the act, and modernise the act. I find it a touch ironic that we are meant to be streamlining firearms regulation, yet this bill is longer than the act it replaces.

From the outset, I should state on the record that the opposition agrees in principle with the government's intentions in regard to the bill. Those six goals are commendable; our concerns lie in how we achieve them. As I mentioned, there is a real concern that many of the new provisions are heavy handed and will adversely affect law-abiding firearms owners. The Liberal Party, we hope, has done enough via our amendments to appease those concerns whilst also helping to achieve the government's goals.

This is a complex piece of legislation and perhaps it would be worth not rushing it through this place before the end of the sitting year. I acknowledge that some of my crossbench colleagues, particularly the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, who I believe not only has amendments but also a number of questions for the government during the committee stage of the debate. I am interested to hear these comments also.

As I mentioned, the opposition has a number of amendments which are filed in my name and which, I believe, have already been circulated. These amendments are similar to those moved in the other place by the member for Morialta which the government, at the time, refused to agree to, for whatever reason. However, there were a number that we agreed to and I congratulate the member for Morialta on his work already to date in improving this bill.

It is important that the bill improves public safety. Any safety measures which are in place in the current act we will not seek to scale back. However, in terms of new measures to be in place as a result of this bill, it is the opposition's view that they should be clearly laid out in this bill rather than in future regulations. The rules should be clearly defined and hard to change for the peace of mind of the legitimate firearms owner.

These rules should not be in the hands of one person, nor should they be easy to change on a whim. I note that the bill keeps the general defence which exists under the current act. This is a win for legitimate firearms owners, especially when many of these rules are new. However, I will be moving to remove the exemptions to the general defence which the government has introduced in this bill.

This bill has gone from 20 pages, in 1977, to 85 pages today. It is not a seamless document and many of the amendments are tacked on. The opposition welcomes that a new streamlined act is being written; however, we are a bit suspicious of the many powers and rules left to ministerial regulations. The government will be conducting a working group, to be chaired by the Hon. Rob Kerin, which will include a number of groups, but it goes to show how lengthy this process is—but this process and this bill we must get right for the sake of the 65,473 South Australian responsible firearm licensees.

In terms of a specific explanation of each clause, the minister has entered that into Hansard and many of the practical changes to the enforcement and licence system will be dealt with via regulation but I will briefly attempt to go over some of the clauses here. Public safety notices will now be available to senior police officers to issue the owner-occupier of a regulated business, such as a dealership or range, requiring them to take action where there is a public safety concern. This will remain in force for 72 hours.

In relation to firearms prohibition orders, the registrar may issue a prohibition order against members of criminal organisations or against people who are subject to a control order under the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act. This is clearly to stamp out gun violence amongst bikie gangs. Sadly, when people are determined to break the law, or operate outside it, not much can be done except to remove them from society.

Self-audits are a new part of the regulatory system which force gun owners to audit firearms in their possession, to assume everything is accounted for before licences are removed. This is to prevent the ever-increasing number of stolen firearms entering the black market. I am informed that the number is between 230 and 250 firearms per year that are stolen. In many cases, under the current system firearms licence holders may renew their licences without checking if all firearms are currently in the licensee's possession.

New disqualifications have been introduced for those wishing to be employees of dealers. These provisions fit into the oft-used legal threshold of a fit and proper person, which is one of the tenets of both the current act and this bill. However, the registrar is given investigative powers under this bill to determine whether someone is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

The opposition opposed clause 54 in the other place but was obviously defeated. I indicate that I will be moving an amendment to delete clause 54, but my understanding is that the government also has an amendment to clause 54 which seeks to reinstate the common law right to silence (and against self-incrimination) which may go a way towards ameliorating our concerns. However, there remains a fear that farms may not be considered residential for the purposes of being exempt from the need for a police warrant for property searches, which is extraordinary. This will be explored in the committee stage of the bill.

In relation to the red tape reduction goal, the act and this bill as it stands currently ban sound moderators or silencers. I believe there are practical examples where sound moderators should be used, such as the culling of feral pests close to built-up areas. I am also interested as to why moderators on .22 calibre rifles cannot be used for the culling of rabbits, especially in a rural situation. They are such an environmental pest and anybody who has had any experience with shooting rabbits would understand that a silencer is a very effective tool.

This is what we should be working at with this bill: adapting provisions to allow for the legitimate use of firearms and firearm-related equipment whilst also stamping out the misuse of firearms. I inform the council that I have a couple of amendments to this end, namely to allow for the use of sound moderators, which I will detail at the committee stage.

There are sweeping changes to the permit system, with more generic licensing being introduced and the requirement to link a licence to a serial number being removed. This is very straightforward and allows market fluidity for the legitimate acquisition of firearms whilst also reducing red tape.

Other classes of licence have been added to ease the acquisition of firearms for theatrical, artistic and ornamental reasons. However, so-called deactivated firearms will require a licence under the new system, as they currently do not. It is my understanding that many are very easily reactivated, and this exact thing occurred with 4,000 deactivated firearms in Queensland that were distributed throughout the criminal underworld, compromising public safety.

I acknowledge that the government has adopted the opposition's amendment that there be no charge for the registration of a deactivated firearm. There will be a category for regulated imitation firearms but this detail remains to be seen. Perhaps this also could be explored at the committee stage.

The bill introduces a code of practice in regard to transportation, which may affect farmers, and I hope the government can strike a compromise between community safety and practicality. New provisions in the bill will enable maintenance and interstate transmission of data between jurisdictions. This will assist in determining and identifying those who should be disqualified from holding a licence.

I note that there is currently an amnesty in place for those who have unauthorised access to a firearm to hand it in to a police station. I would certainly encourage those affected to take up the offer. I believe this is a very good outcome.

The modernisation of the act can be seen through a number of reforms, including the additional licence categories of professional shooter, commercial range and shooting gallery. Communication by fax and email are now allowable under the new bill. Expiation notices will now be issued for minor offences; that is, those that would not result in disqualification. I believe that this is a very good outcome.

Finally, police offered examples of red tape reduction or exemptions for farmers, which seemed common sense to me. They were the allowing of licensed farm employees to have access to a farm safe for joint storage and also relaxed regulations in regard to transportation, especially between paddocks.

There are a number of amendments that I have not mentioned, but I will detail all of them at the appropriate point during the committee stage. There were a few issues that were basically practical concerns of farmers, those who have a legitimate commercial need for firearms. Many of these were brought to my attention by constituents of the many farmers within our parliamentary party room. I can say that almost all of them have been addressed by the member for Morialta's amendments, which were agreed to in the other place. The remaining issues should be addressed by my amendments in this place, and I encourage all honourable members to have a close look at them.

There is just one question that I am hoping the minister will be able to address before we commence the committee stage and that is, again, my concern that we always look to regulate and be very tough on licensed firearm owners. What I would like to know is how many licensed firearm owners have actually committed offences, perhaps in the last five years, all of them with regard to firearms misuse, and how many of them have presented to actually be a danger to the community?

My understanding is that it is almost never the legitimate firearms owner who causes a problem in our community. It is almost invariably criminal people and criminal gangs who operate outside the law. I am not sure that any amount of regulation and change is going to have any effect on the way those particular people operate, but again we will ensure that we have tight controls on those people who consistently do the right thing. With these words, I commend the bill to the council. I look forward to the committee stage and I look forward to a very sensible outcome for registered firearms owners.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (11:56): I rise to support the Firearms Amendment Bill 2015. The bill will replace the Firearms Act 1977 and make related changes to other acts. Over the years, many changes have been made to this act. In fact, 11 sets of changes, resulting in hundreds of individual amendments, have been made to the act. The time has come to replace it.

Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. It comes with responsibilities. Gun owners have a responsibility to ensure that said ownership does not endanger public safety. The bill before us puts this principle front and centre, where it belongs. There are around 309,000 registered firearms and around 17,000 registered handguns in South Australia. Around 250 are stolen each year, and more are reported missing. The Australian Crime Commission (ACC) estimates that around 250,000 unregistered firearms and 10,000 handguns are in circulation in Australia. The ACC has stated that theft is the main way of new firearms entering the black market.

The bill aims to help prevent firearms entering the black market through theft by improving gun control requirements placed on licensed owners. A code of practice provision will clearly set out the security, storage and transportation of firearms and ammunition. The level of security required will be proportionate to the risk associated with the firearms that the owner has.

It is not only firearms on the black market that pose a risk to community safety. Firearms that are owned by licence holders also involve a level of risk. At the same time, firearms are necessary in certain occupations, including farming and pest control. It is important how we manage this risk to ensure that the community is safe and firearms can be used where they are necessary.

This balance will be met through a requirement that applicants have a genuine reason to possess or acquire a firearm licence. To grant a firearm licence, the registrar must be satisfied that the applicant has a genuine reason to acquire a particular firearm—except for a firearm with an A classification—and that that genuine need is not already met by a firearm the applicant already has.

Broadening whom the register may issue a firearms prohibition order against will also help to protect the community. The bill will allow the registrar to issue a firearm prohibition order against members of criminal organisations. This is important, as once a person is subjected to a firearms prohibition order, they must surrender their firearms and there are penalties in place if they do not do so. Whilst subject to a firearm prohibition order, it is also an offence to acquire, possess or use a firearm.

The bill also adds new offences to help reduce the level of firearm-related crime. These include the following offences, amongst others. It will be an offence to unlawfully possess or assemble ammunition and an aggravated offence if an unlicensed person possesses a firearm and has committed a certain offence in the Controlled Substances Act 1984.

I have been told that these firearm reforms have undergone extensive consultation, beginning with seven round tables over a 12-month period between September 2014 and August 2015. The community and a number of other stakeholders participated or were invited to participate, including the Adelaide Pistol and Shooting Club and the Law Society of South Australia, just to name a few. Following the initial consultation, a draft of the bill was also released for comment. After receiving feedback on the draft bill, around 40 amendments were made to the draft and are reflected in the bill before the council today. It is time to make these changes to our firearms controls which centre on community safety.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (12:01): I rise very briefly to add my contribution to the Firearms Bill. The Firearms Bill seeks to completely rewrite the current Firearms Act, which was first introduced in 1977. Undoubtedly, much has changed in terms of gun control since 1977 and as a result of Port Arthur and other similar events. On the same note, firearms themselves have changed since 1977 and it is only right that acts are periodically reviewed and amendments made as necessary.

I understand from the government's second reading that there are six key issues that the bill seeks to address, namely to improve public safety, reduce red tape, overcome deficiencies, adopt a national approach, increase useability and modernise the act. I do not intend to go through each of the objectives of the bill and analyse the matters that address each of the aforementioned issues as they have already been done by both the government and the opposition in another place. However, broadly speaking, I am supportive of this bill. SAPOL have often been criticised for their lack of consultation or of failing to listen and compromise following consultation, and it seems that this has not been the case in this instance. It is good to see a more collaborative approach has been taken.

I think that Australia is a world leader in gun control, and am pleased that, since 1996, we have not had to face many of the atrocities that others face overseas, especially in America with regard to mass shootings. We need to ensure that any changes made to firearms legislation have the balance right in terms of recognising the needs of legitimate firearms owners, be they farmers or recreational shooters, and protecting the public.

The current act has been adequate, but I had been beginning to hear complaints from firearms owners about complexities of the law. I am glad these are now being addressed. However, improvements can always be made and I am glad that one of the focus points of the bill was to ensure that the act will be made more user friendly so that there is less ambiguity and obligations of firearms owners are made clearer. Unlike some in this chamber, I have not had the privilege of undertaking a law degree and can relate to frustrations experienced when trying to trawl through legislation which is written in legalese.

I have been contacted by the Combined Firearms Council of South Australia who have raised a number of issues, particularly surrounding non-handheld items. I understand that they have been working closely with the opposition and with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, who have both filed amendments to this bill, and I look forward to considering those at a later stage. With that, I commend the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Mr President, I draw your attention to the state of the council.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (12:07): I rise to speak to the Firearms Bill on behalf of Family First. This is a bill that has been a long time in the making, and first and foremost I want to put on the public record our appreciation of the work done by hundreds of volunteers—legitimate, law-abiding firearms owners—who have been working cooperatively with the government for several years now. In fact, well before minister Piccolo was appointed to the position of police minister a group called FLAG had been working with previous police ministers, their advisers and also with SAPOL to proactively work in a balanced way, they hoped, for a new firearms bill. Today we are now debating, and I believe will finish, the Firearms Bill—or I hope so, if there is agreement with the government on a series of amendments to try to get more balance and fairness into this piece of legislation.

The intent of the legislation—and I think everyone in the state would agree, with firearms legislation—is that it needs to ensure we keep firearms away from criminals, we keep firearms away from people who are in a situation where they should not have firearms. However, law-abiding people who are licensed and registered have an entitlement to the use of firearms, whether it be for sport (including Commonwealth Games, Olympic Games, and also events like the World Police and Fire Games, which are international and are sometimes even held in Australia) or in cases like mine.

I again declare, as I have been doing for most of the time anyway—I see that with the new code of practice that is going to come in for members of parliament that we will be declaring all of our interests, so I will get into the habit—that I am a firearms owner, and my son and I are both licensed to operate certain classes of firearms.

I am not in a sporting shooters club or anything like that, because that is not where my interests lie, but, when you have a farm, you do at times get feral animals to dispose of, and you get a permit. Also, sadly, you have to euthanise animals from time to time. My point is that, for many of us who are farmers, it is a tool within the toolbox that you require to operate your business.

The background is that the current Firearms Act 1977, which was proclaimed on 1 January 1980, has since been modified 11 times. Over my 20-odd years in this parliament, I have had to speak on this bill quite a few of those 11 times. I would like to think that if we can get this bill sorted out—hopefully by tonight, or certainly by next week, if it has to go to that—we will not have to debate another firearms bill.

I think there would be a lot of hardworking police officers who would be delighted if they could have some consistency on a piece of firearms legislation that they could work with and devote their time focusing on getting unregistered firearms away from criminals and people who put the community at risk. I just want to say that the legislation we already have, and this legislation that we are now debating, is probably some of the leading legislation for a balance when it comes to firearms of any nation.

Tragically, right at this point in time, police in California are dealing with another massacre involving firearms. When you have a look at the situation in the United States, they would only have to have a look at what we do in South Australia and Australia to see that there is a better, more balanced way of managing the whole issue of firearms. I am sure there will be more pressure applied over there. One day, the President will show some real leadership, and perhaps have a look at what we do here. I say that from the point of view that I think what we have in South Australia and Australia works pretty well.

The Firearms Act was widely complained about by many. It is difficult to read, it is difficult to interpret, and often raises more questions than it answers. In fact, some of my friends in policing who are not in the firearms section and studying it all have said they struggle to understand what they should be doing with the existing Firearms Act from time to time.

The people who I think know the legislation better than most are probably the Combined Firearms Council of South Australia. Some of those people are very active. I put on the public record, because I have worked with them in their roles for a very long period of time, the commitment of Mr Ray Carn and Mr Mike Hudson, on behalf of many of the close to 65,000 licensed firearms owners in this state.

It is important that changes occur to the Firearms Act. There have been numerous roundtable events and consultation, and representation from most stakeholders has occurred. Previously, changes to firearms legislation arose from public concern after tragic events—obviously, the most high-profile sadly being Port Arthur and the Tonic nightclub. Changes have been largely geared towards dealing with illegal criminal behaviour; however, there has been significant concern shown by licensed firearms owners that they are losing some rights and privileges as a result of illegal behaviour.

I think that is the challenge for the parliament, for police and for the minister to get that balance right, and I advise the house now that we will be supporting the amendments of the Hon. Terry Stephens. With those and the amendments that I have put up—and I think they are the only other amendments being tabled—and with what is being sorted out by the government, if we can fix that we will have something that is pretty good for the police, good for the community and also fair and reasonable for law abiding citizens who have a right to own firearms.

We recognise that there is a genuine need to balance the public safety requirements with the needs of the law abiding firearms owners. The government has advised that the main purposes of the bill are to: (1) improve public safety and prevent crime; (2) reduce red tape—that would be good to see for a change some reduction in red tape somewhere. You only have to pick up the paper today to see it looks like we are becoming more of a nanny state with more red tape about to be introduced by the government, so it is good to see some reduced red tape. The other purposes of the bill are to: (3) overcome deficiencies; (4) facilitate a nationally consistent approach to firearm control—and just on that, there is criticism from time to time that police may be arguing that something is needed for national consistency and yet in other states the legislation is such that we are perhaps leading the way.

I put on the public record that that is always going to be the case because different jurisdictions, different police commissioners through their senior officers group meetings, and also different ministers through the Australian Police Ministerial Council are going to take a lead role, as will the commonwealth from time to time through the Attorney-General and/or the Prime Minister as we have seen, whereby one state has to get ahead of other states. You cannot expect them all to bring in the same consistent legislation at once. I do not personally have a concern if we happen to be ahead on some of those areas because I am sure that other states will be ahead on other areas as well.

The goal, wherever possible, is to get that national consistency approach to firearm control. The fifth aim of the government is to increase functionality of the act, the sixth to modernise the act, and seventh to improve public safety and prevent crime. There were submissions made and much has been said about the proposed bill by a variation of firearms owners. Our own party Family First received 79 written submissions, stacks of emails and quite a lot of phone calls, and I attended a meeting myself and also had my policy adviser attend all the roundtable meetings that the minister held, so we were certainly engaged in what was happening with the consultation.

Probably the most complained about issue was the inclusion of firearm ownership being a privilege. Most firearms owners feel that in using the word 'privilege' the government has removed what has always been a lawful right to own firearms. I personally think it is a motherhood statement. I am not hung up on it myself. I know the minister is very keen to have some focus on the factors around privilege.

I have tabled an amendment that could be a middle meeting point to address where the minister wants to go with this and where the law abiding firearms owners want to go but I believe that if you are a law abiding firearms owner, then personally I do not see the word 'privilege' being the right word. I think it is a democratic right in a democratic nation to be able to have it but, be that as it may, with a little bit of fine tuning, I think we can still achieve the intent that the minister has with that wording.

Another strongly held view is that this bill will affect legal firearms owners more so than illegal firearms owners. The law and regulation will have no impact on criminal activity. Concern is also that too much is left to regulation and that the registrar has far too much power. I would have to say that I am concerned about the fact that there is a lot of this that is going to be taken out of the hands of the parliament.

If one day we could actually get an agreement in parliament that you can disallow parts of regulations and not have to move to disallow the whole lot of the regulations, I think that would be something sensible. I have tried to put up a bill on that before, and I would hope the government might lead the way on that; it would be more effective and efficient for everybody.

Right at this point in time, all the hard work is done by volunteers and the minister's office. The minister's adviser has done a good job on this, and I put that on the public record. He has been very cooperative, and the senior police officers within firearms have also done a very good job, so there has been a lot of effort there.

If these regulations are too draconian, if these regulations actually go outside of the areas of intent within the legislation, then I put on the record right now that I will have no problem whatsoever in moving disallowance because that will be the only tool available. That would be unfortunate, but, with this, the government is asking us to trust that they are going to get these regulations fairly and equitably in place commensurate with the actual intent of this piece of legislation.

Because of the complexity of this piece of legislation, of all the work I always loved doing as a legislator when I was minister with responsibility for police, the only piece of legislation I never enjoyed was the Firearms Act. I have not seen too many people actually excited about it because it is so complicated and complex but, in trying to simplify this act and get it modernised, we are, as a parliament, if we pass this legislation, putting a lot of good faith into those people who are going to do the regulations.

I try to be as fair as I can, but there are times when I have had to challenge minister Piccolo. There may be more times in the future but, on the issue of the round table, I said to the minister, 'What are you going to do because, with these regulations, we do need to have a round table like you had in the development of the act because, otherwise, all hell will break loose?'

To be fair to the minister, he said, 'Yes, I agree with that.' He said there will be a round table on all of the regulation development. What he has also done, as has already been highlighted but I will put it on the record again just to complete this point, is appoint the Hon. Rob Kerin to be the independent chair of that round table. I would encourage—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: You trust him, don't you?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I worked with him. He was my boss for some time, so I know him well. I trust the Hon. Rob Kerin will look at the balance. He is a country person himself, and he understands the issues, so I hope that there will be a very collaborative and cooperative approach to how the regulations are developed, because I would much prefer it all to be done and dusted and we get on with other things and do not have to be in here moving disallowance because that would be the last thing the police would need when they are trying to manage a new piece of legislation.

There were concerns about search and seizure provisions being highly objectionable with the potential to impact sporting shooting, especially if regulations are set to limit the amount of ammunition a person can have. For example, 5,000 rounds would easily be used in a short period of time by an Olympic athlete in training for the Commonwealth Games, the Olympics or any other major competitions.

One of the biggest issues will take a little bit of debate. I have already been talking to the minister's adviser and chief of staff, cooperatively, and also the shadow minister for police about this issue, but everybody who has spoken to me was furious about the issues around general defence. They just do not understand why there has been such a change there with this legislation. I put on the record that I will be asking some questions on that when we get to the committee stage. I will probably ask the question in clause 1 because that then gives us a bit of a chance to work through that area.

Non-handheld memorial pieces have to be licensed, whereas this does not occur in other countries. I have put an amendment up about that. Sir, I know we are not able to display material in this house without your approval, but I do have some photographs of former military—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, if—

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Can I table them, sir?

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, if you know that you need my approval, why don't you just ask for my approval instead of doing it?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am seeking your approval, sir, to display these. Am I able to table them?

The PRESIDENT: You can table them, but they cannot be printed.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir. I table them so that colleagues can have a look. When you look at them, they are heavy military guns that were used by the Australian defence forces in peace time and probably in conflict. Before they are allowed to be sold, they have to be deactivated, but the reality is that they cost tens of thousands of dollars. There are a few people, not many (most probably could not afford to put the money, time and effort into them) in this state who own a range of tanks as well.

The Hon. J.A. Darley: At Echunga.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, cannons, guns, yes. The fact is that these were legally held and are legal to own. But, if they are to be registered (and I can understand why the police would perhaps want them to be registered), that should be the only requirement in my opinion, and there should be no cost to those people for that registration. They are used as military memorabilia. Some are at RSL sub-branches, including my own sub-branch, of which I am a member. We have a tank at the Vietnam veterans memorial grounds. As the Hon. John Darley said, you will see one at Echunga, and there are quite a lot of them around.

Even police officers that I know collect some of this stuff because they are very interested in military history, and they put that stuff in parades. I know one in the country who puts it in the parade when the RSL march, and it is very much appreciated. Just across the road at His Excellency the Governor's residence, I have photographs on my computer of a lot of this stuff there as part of a parade and an open day on the military and highlighting that. They are really not where the risks are. There is a lot more risk in the black market with handhelds, automatics and all the other problems we come across. They are some of the key concerns that were put to me in deliberating on this bill.

I would like to go through some of the questions now, because it would assist the minister (and I always like to assist our minister, as I explained last night, and make her life easier and also that of her adviser). Non-handheld items, a ministerial undertaking: my advice is that non-handheld items, such as firearms that require vehicle mounting (for example .50 calibre guns, 25 PDRs, etc.) and are used ceremonially at military events, having both a significant historic and monetary value, these guns are rendered, by the federal government, unable to fire projectiles, and the advice I have received is that they are never able to be used again to fire projectiles.

Due to the military nature of the ceremonies in which these guns are used, they do fire either blanks or gas. There are significant concerns held by genuine collectors that these items may have to be deactivated upon registration (fully deactivated so that they will not even be able to fire a blank or gas—that is the point, as I understand it). We understand, although I have no confirmation at this point, that via regulation the intention is to require these items to be registered to provide a special licence to possess and display the items, and I presume to use them as well, and that deactivation then may not be required. So, we need some clarification.

Will the minister give an undertaking to create what I would suggest is a miscellaneous licence or other such licence for these non-handheld items so that they can continue to be owned, transported and displayed ceremonially at historical and military events, and that these items will not have to be deactivated? Will the minister give an additional undertaking that these items will not become prohibited firearms?

The second one is the potential for non-handheld items to be prohibited. The advice that we have received is that under the current drafting of the bill, bringing non-handheld items under the definition of 'firearms' technically renders them a machine gun in accordance with the legislation and regulation. Therefore, these items, by virtue of being included in the Firearms Bill, will become prohibited items. Can the minister confirm if this is the case?

The third one is compensation. In instances where items were once legal but, under this bill or any other change in legislation into the future, become illegal, will the minister commit to either providing compensation for the loss of the firearm or the cost of deactivating? We have an amendment which allows for compensation for a surrendered firearm. I understand that the Liberals will support this compensation clause and I have sent that out to the crossbench members so I trust that they have had a chance to look at and deliberate on it as well.

I have a personal opinion that if you buy anything that is legal to buy and, all of a sudden, a government and a parliament decide that it is no longer legal to have it, under a democracy there should be a right for you to be reimbursed for the financial investment that you have made because you bought something in good faith that was legal. Sometimes we are not talking about a few dollars. I know it cannot come out of the police budget, and I would never expect that, but if there happens to be a case where there is a buyback or a specific item becomes illegal then out of general revenue there should be, in my opinion, money available for compensation.

The fourth one is ammunition. Can the government confirm that the 12-month supply of ammunition is intended to be interpreted as a 12-month supply of ammunition on any given day? That is, regardless of whether the licence has two months left or 11 months left the licensee is allowed to possess the amount of ammunition that they would reasonably need in the forward 12-month period. There is concern that members of clubs who buy bulk stock to last for a year could, for various reasons—perhaps they are ill, too busy to use their firearms, overseas on holidays or whatever—not use a portion of their supply and be required to hand the unused portion in to SAPOL for destruction.

Having spoken to parliamentary counsel, the advice is that this 12-month supply is a rolling supply and that the provision should be interpreted that a person, on any given day, is allowed to have a 12-month supply of ammunition regardless of how many months are left on their licence. I would ask that the government clarify the intention of the provision and how it will be interpreted.

The next one is manufactured firearms. Concern has been raised about whether or not a licensed owner of a firearm will be taken to manufacture a firearm if they use spare parts to repair their gun. As I understand it, the provision in the bill is substantially the same as is the current law. Can the government please confirm whether they intend the repair of guns by licensed owners to be covered by manufacturing provisions within the bill? Can the government please confirm whether SAPOL considers repair to be the same as manufacture?

There is another one on ammunition. Under the bill, the individual components of ammunition are listed separately. We are advised that under regulation there is consideration being given to limiting the amount of ammunition someone can store to 5,000 rounds, rather than the discretionary 12-month supply which is drafted under the bill. Constituents have raised concerns that, given the bill speaks of ammunition in terms of the four components that make up ammunition—and those four components are the live primer, the propellant, the cartridges and the projectiles—that when considering a cap of 5,000 rounds of ammunition, SAPOL might interpret that to be 5,000 components of ammunition or items which can be used to make ammunition, rather than 5,000 complete rounds.

To illustrate the point, if someone was to have 2,500 live primers, 1,000 cartridges, 1,450 projectiles and propellant equivalent to be used in making 50 rounds, the total of those individual components would equal 5,000. However, when put together they would fall far short of the intended maximum of 5,000 rounds.

Can the minister confirm that, should a cap of 5,000 or some other arbitrary number be determined by regulation, it is the parliament's intention that SAPOL monitors the complete rounds that are stored as per the definition of 'round' under the bill, so in no way is SAPOL to monitor the total number of individual components of ammunition? I seek clarification on that.

The transfer of possession. Currently under the bill, the transfer of possession of a firearm to another person can only occur if the person is a licensed dealer. Will the government consider an amendment to allow possession to be transferred to a holder of a firearm refurbishment permit also? They are the key questions. I do have other questions that I will probably go into in clause 1 although, if time permits, I could actually help the adviser by asking them now. I will ask them now.

Regarding ammunition, can the government please confirm why live primers and propellants have been included in the definition of 'ammunition'? Because, as I have already explained, they form components of ammunition but either combined or alone they simply cannot be ammunition?

My second question relates to firing and loading mechanisms. Can the government please confirm that the definition of 'firing mechanism' is intended to be the complete mechanism and not parts thereof? If the definition is not the complete firing and loading mechanism, can the government indicate why?

With refurbishing, can the government indicate why chroming has been used in the definition of 'refurbishing' because, on advice, it appears that chroming does not in fact occur? The more correct terminology would be electroplating or chemical coding. Additionally, this refurbishment process occurs with firearms parts as well. Can the government indicate why they have not included 'firearms parts' within this definition?

Regarding 'restricted firearm mechanism', can the government confirm whether muzzle blast deflectors, flash suppressors or muzzle brakes are intended to fall within the definition of 'restricted firearms' and, if so, why? There is concern that these items may be interpreted to be sound moderators; however, they are not. I am advised by experts in the shooting fraternity that they are not sound moderators.

My fifth question relates to 'fit and proper person'. Can the government indicate whether a minor offence, if this bill passes, will be expiated for the first time? It is an initiative that I think has a lot of good sense behind it, but I hope that there is discretion and consideration within the general orders of police when it comes to how they expiate. Nevertheless, under this bill they will be able to issue expiations for minor offences. Would it be counted against someone when determining whether they are a fit and proper person to hold a licence, because it could have unintended consequences? I think we need to have this clarified for the public record, and that is what I am trying to do here now: get on the public record through the second reading certain issues where there is some grey so that we know into the future, when the regulations are developed, exactly what is really meant.

I want to talk about possession and use of firearms. Concern has been raised that a licensed collector could fall foul of section 9(8)(b), as it is possible to have two different weapons to which a magazine that has capacity for greater than 10 rounds can be fitted. This has previously been discussed with the minister, representatives from the firearms branch and the former police commissioner, Mr Gary Burns.

During that meeting, a meeting arranged by myself, it was agreed that there was a genuine reason to exempt licensed collectors from this requirement which came about via regulation approximately 18 months ago. There was agreement that the operation of that regulatory provision created an unintended consequence for genuine licensed collectors. I ask the government to advise why licensed collectors are not exempt here, and will the government commit to exempting collectors either by legislation or regulation?

Question 7 relates to permits to acquire firearms. Can the government confirm whether the registrar is required to give reasons for denying a permit to acquire a firearm, excluding, of course, situations where criminal intelligence would prevent a permit from being granted; if not, can the government explain why this is not required.

Registered firearms are to have identifying marks: in many of the submissions we have received concern was raised that antique firearms, or firearms of historic significance, will be required to have identifying marks, which will cause a significant loss in the monetary value of the item. Will the government consider an alternative for historic items, such as tagging; if not, why not? It is a bit like having a mint $20 note: it is worth a lot in pristine condition; if it is soiled, it is probably only worth $20.

Medical assessment: is it intended that the registrar will give reasons for requiring someone to undergo a medical examination or provide a report when determining whether someone is a fit and proper person to have a firearms licence? If not, we would like an answer as to why not.

I want to put on the record some further concerns on the bill regarding drafting. I will put them on now during my second reading. In clause 37, Manufacture of firearms, firearm parts or sound moderators, of part 7, Prohibited practices relating to firearms and ammunition, subclause (7) states:

For the purposes of this section, a licensed dealer who assembles, from separate, prefabricated parts, a firearm that is designed to be so assembled, or that is designed to be disassembled for the purpose of transport or storage, will not be taken to have manufactured the firearm.

The concern of many sporting shooters is that they purchase a frame—it might be a barrel, a slide and a receiver—which is required to have a serial number attached. The shooters then register that frame with SAPOL. The frame allows for various components to be fitted or added to the gun. Sporting shooters frequently do this for competition, whereby they add components to the frame. They disassemble the gun and add a different component according to the type of competition or practice they are engaging in—sometimes, I understand, even according to the weather conditions and other technicalities.

In relation to adding additional material onto a frame, parliamentary counsel and I agree that that would be assembly and not manufacture. 'Manufacture' is not specifically defined in the bill, meaning that it would be given its ordinary meaning; its meaning is therefore to create. Adding parts to a frame, I would argue, is not creating. I would consider a late filing of another draft amendment, but I would like to see what the government's intention is prior to considering that late filing, so I ask the government to let us know just how that is to be interpreted. If the government can satisfy us based on what I have just put on the public record, there may be no need to look at that.

This has been a long drawn-out process, as I have said. It is important that we modernise the Firearms Act. It is important that we keep South Australia as a safe community. It is very important that we certainly do not see firearms in the wrong hands, that is, those of criminals and people who just want to make black money out of dealing in firearms. We all agree with that, but on behalf of 65,000 law-abiding South Australian citizens we also need to ensure that fairness occurs. I said that at the beginning of my remarks.

I know it is not an easy job out there for South Australian police. I have often said to people that if I were a police officer, there is only one person I would want to have a firearm, and that would be me, the police officer. I would feel much more comfortable out there if I were the only one. But the reality is that in a democratic society it is a democratic right to own firearms; I have said that before. We need therefore to ensure that we do not impede and work against those decent, law-abiding citizens who come from all sectors of society and all different workplaces. I have spent a very long period of time with those people, and they are very decent people.

Some of us go and watch the football and the netball, and that is our sport; some people work in the garden, and that is their recreation; others enjoy sporting shooters clubs and going out with permits and shooting; and some people are athletes, and that is their form of sport. It is a good thing, and it is actually quite a strong economic business base for a sector of this state. There are a lot of jobs involved there as well, and even from a tourism point of view you get value-adding. We do need to be balanced in the way we go about this.

When we were last in this chamber debating firearms, I said to one of the senior police officers, through the public record, at the time that it was paramount that, when this bill came through, the consultation and the work had been done so that we had, hopefully, no amendments to put up, but that realistically, if we were to have to put up amendments, they would be amendments that were sensible, balanced and would allow for the completion of this bill to pass both houses and then go on to work on the regulations so that by the middle of next year, I understand, the regulations would be completed and the police could get on with their work as administrators—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: You wouldn't want to hold your breath on it, the way this government does regulations.

The PRESIDENT: Order! No debate in the chamber, please.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thank the Hon. John Dawkins for those comments, but the police will handle these regulations, so I probably could hold my breath and I would be alright for 1 July having the whole thing finalised. I reckon they have been holding their breath for a fair few years, too, and so have the shooters, but I do take your point, Mr Dawkins.

I will finish with this point. There some amendments there now, and there is a bit of work to be done as we debate those. Having had a look at the Liberal amendments, I do not believe that they are unreasonable, and that is why Family First will be supporting the seven amendments the Hon. Terry Stephens is putting up. The government has already had lots of time to consider them, and I have been working with the government on the amendments I have put up. I know that the government is very carefully considering the amendments, and I want to put on the public record my appreciation of minister Piccolo's chief of staff and adviser, who have worked very cooperatively with me on them.

I know that some people will be disappointed that I have not been able to put up some of the amendments they wanted me to, but the reasons for that are twofold: firstly, some of the legal advice to us was that we just could not put them up or that they were already covered in the act; the other reality is that, just like the democratic rights I spoke about earlier, there are democratic rights in the parliament, and it is the art of being able to get up what you can achieve and not put up a heap of amendments the government have clearly indicated they would not accept. I think the crossbenchers and opposition would not accept some of the other ones that were put up either.

With those words, I hope that the Firearms Bill is passed and completed as soon as possible so that we can then get on with other work and that we do end up achieving our goals in modernising the Firearms Bill 2015.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.