Question Time

Firearms Licences

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (15:03): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Police a question—

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: I can't hear you, Terry.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: You should clean your ears out, Hon. Mr Gazzola. You obviously have potato—I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Police a question about firearms statistics.

The PRESIDENT: I am just reflecting on the quite ordinary behaviour of our Leader of the Government in this house. The problem with the acoustics in this place is that some people have trouble hearing the actual question, so, Hon. Mr Stephens, can you ask the question again.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Police a question about firearms statistics.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I refer the minister to the article that appeared on the front page of The Advertiser on Tuesday that was entitled 'Loose cannons', where it had been identified that 2,294 guns had gone missing or had been stolen over at least the past four years. The article refers to a freedom of information request lodged by the opposition; however, the numbers and the time periods appear inconsistent. Therefore, my questions are:

1. Can the minister confirm the exact number of firearms lost or reported missing, by class of firearm, in each of the previous four reporting years, as well as the number of firearms reported stolen, by class of firearm, in each of the previous four reporting years?

2. Can the minister also confirm that the figure of 2,294 firearms and the period of four years, as referred to by The Advertiser, are correct?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (15:05): I thank the honourable member for his important questions. Of course, the honourable member himself takes an active interest in firearm regulations in this state.

First and foremost, I think this government's track record, when it comes to the regulation of firearms, is outstanding; it is absolutely outstanding. We are a government that has been willing to be progressive, but at the same time considerate towards those people who are legitimate firearms holders, to ensure that we have legislation and regulations in this state that protect our community, that give SAPOL the tools and resources it needs to be able to ensure that people with firearms in South Australia are those people who legitimately need them, but at the same time provide a suite of legislation that makes it easy and appropriate for people who are doing the right thing, genuine firearms holders, who seek nothing more than to do the right thing and obey the law, are equipped with legislation that allows them to do so.

The news that was reported in The Advertiser this week is, of course, of concern. No-one within the community, least of all myself or anyone within SAPOL, would like to see a situation where there are firearms out in the community that are not accounted for. That is exactly why this government has put in place a number of mechanisms to try to address the situation, not the least of which—and I think one of the most important of which—is the amnesty in place here in South Australia at the moment, an amnesty this government would like to see continue in perpetuity, as is provided for within the legislation.

Already, over 100 guns have been returned to SAPOL to date, I am advised, through the gun amnesty that has been provided. However, this gun amnesty is a bit unique in that it allows firearms holders to return a gun with a view for it not just to be retained or destroyed by an authority but for it to be legitimised. This is a radical new step, a bold new step, but one that gives firearms holders the opportunity to legalise a gun that has otherwise been unregistered.

In respect of the regulation process that is going on now, this government wants to get the regulations right. We have provided an opportunity for all stakeholders throughout the community—SAPOL, firearms holders, those people in the parliament who take an interest in this (and I acknowledge the Hon. Rob Brokenshire and the member for Stuart in the other place)—to make a positive contribution to the development of a set of regulations which aim to make this community safer.

First and foremost, this new set of regulations, which we would like to have in place by the middle of this year, is aimed at keeping this community safer and providing SAPOL, again, with the regulations, tools and resources it needs to be able to appropriately administer the regulation of firearms in this state and police them appropriately. However, it is also to ensure that we have a set of regulations that gives legitimate firearms holders the capacity to own a firearm without fear of breaking a law through unnecessary levels of regulation.

We want to try to get that balance right. It is not going to be easy, but we have started a roundtable process with a number of focus groups which provides all stakeholders with the opportunity to make a contribution to the development of those regulations. In regard to the question the member raised on specific statistics, I am more than happy to take that on notice. I will endeavour to engage with SAPOL as soon as possible to be able to give him specific numbers regarding the questions he posed.