HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FIREARMS (FIREARMS PROHIBITION ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 May 2008. Page 3111.)

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (11:02): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition in relation to this bill, which has already passed the other place before coming to us. It is with some pleasure that I indicate our support for this bill because I think it does a couple of appropriate things. It is about the control of firearms and, of course, the control of firearms has been the subject of a fair amount of discussion in this state and elsewhere in Australia for a number of years, probably most notably since former prime minister John Howard's banning of firearms after the Port Arthur massacre some years ago.

One of the problems that has arisen in relation to firearms has been that many people in the community legitimately have an interest in firearms—members of shooting clubs and the like—and, no doubt, they have lobbied the government as frequently as they have lobbied members of the opposition in relation to the unfairness of some of the operation of the laws in relation to firearms. As I said, I am pleased that the effect of this legislation is to refocus (I think was the term used in the second reading) the attention of police, because it is not the people who are the licensed, legitimate firearms owners and who are involved in shooting clubs who are the problem.

The firearms which present a problem in our community are the ones which are usually not licensed anywhere, obtained by criminals through a black market system and used for criminal purposes. This legislation enables the making of prohibition orders against people who should not have firearms. So, instead of focusing on the firearms themselves and making all sorts of regulations about how they might be managed, the legislation sets out a regime wherein, basically, two levels of orders can be made in relation to the possession of firearms.

As I said, this bill has already passed the Legislative Council. In fact, I was interested to note that minister Caica introduced this bill and explained its second reading, I think in the absence of the Attorney, early in the month. One thing that was notable about his speech (for me, anyway, given my peculiar background before coming into this place) was that his second reading explanation was identical to that of minister Holloway in the other place.

It is remarkable to me for two reasons: first (and it is a very personal one), when I was in the business of writing speeches in relation to bills going before the New South Wales parliament, I was under strict instructions never to present the same speech. I had to write the same thing—sometimes quite a simple concept—in at least six different ways, because we actually read first, second and third readings—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: I could do that, as the Attorney points out, and I did; I had to do that. So, it was a little surprising to me to find that, after introducing the bill, the minister's speech was identical to that given in the upper house. However, I have noted on a number of occasions that the Attorney's explanation in relation to amendments moved in the other place and the response of the government would usually be word for word for what was said in the other place.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney indicates that he is wounded by my comment in that regard. The other thing that surprised me, though, was that, given the date of its introduction, this bill did not refer to the more recent incident. The second reading starts out talking about the incident at the Tonic Nightclub which, of course, occurred last year, and more recently we had, again, in the streets of Adelaide the shoot-out, and it is really that sort of thing which this bill is attempting to address. I welcome it, as I said, because it does focus police attention on the bad guys, not on the people who are the legitimate firearms owners. It is trying to make sure that the wrong people cannot get hold of guns or, if they can get hold of them, they can pretty soon be stopped because of the regime established in this bill.

The regime essentially sets up, as I said, a two-tiered system, wherein a police officer of the rank of sergeant or above can make an interim order. Thereafter, and within 28 days, that must be notified to the registrar, and the Registrar for Firearms can then decide whether that order should then be made into a full-blown order. It works, I guess, something like the current situation for people getting a restraining order. Normally, if they are in fear, a person can go to the police station and ask for a restraining order against a particular person. That may be issued immediately and served on the person against whom it is directed, but it does not become final until the matter goes before a magistrate and gets decided at that level. A similar sort of regime is established in this legislation.

As I said, it is primarily directed to people who have criminal intent in relation to weapons—firearms—but it is not entirely directed to those people. Another class of people need to be covered, that is, those for whom their mental state may make them unsafe or unfit to have possession of a firearm. Indeed, one thing done by this bill is that it introduces a compulsion on gun clubs and on medical practitioners to notify the registrar of people they feel fit into that category.

In terms of the second reading, I was somewhat surprised at the level of understatement in both second readings—in this house and in the other place—where, under the heading of 'environmental context', the following explanation is given:

In South Australia the majority of violent criminal behaviour with firearms does not involve legitimate firearms owners, nor legitimately owned, secured and registered firearms.

To me, that is a massive understatement, because there is no doubt that the vast majority of violent criminal behaviour is not carried out by legitimate firearms owners. It goes on to say:

There is some conjecture as to the quantity of illegal firearms circulating in the community.

I would be interested to know whether there is actually any conjecture. We all know that there are illegal firearms circulating in the community, but I do not know that anyone attempts to establish just how many there are. Certainly, when I had the so-called 'secret squirrel' meeting with a former bikie, he informed me that, if they wanted to have a hit against someone, their preferred method would be to bring in someone from overseas on a holiday, supply that person with a firearm (an illegal, unregistered firearm), have the deed done, and that person would leave at the end of their holiday. So, as I said, I was a little bit surprised at some of the comments made in relation to the conjecture about firearms in the community.

One of the interesting things about the proposed orders and the consequences of the orders was that some of the offences will apply not just to the people against whom the order is made but also to other people who may in some way be associated with them. So, if you look at the range of offences, once someone is subject to a firearms prohibition order it is an offence, obviously, for that person to possess a firearm or to attend at any shooting range or firearms dealership. It is also an offence to reside in premises if there is a firearm on the premises—and that clearly applies to the person against whom the order is made—or to bring a firearm onto premises where a person subject to a firearms prohibition order resides. To that extent, therefore, that could apply to any third party who knowingly comes onto premises where a person who has been made the subject of an order is residing. Similarly, it is an offence for a third party to supply a person subject to a firearms prohibition order with a firearm.

As was pointed out during the second reading, at the moment the law concentrates on specific firearms offences, and the consequence of that is that the sorts of offences that normally go to the Magistrates Court are generally the low end offences and many will be minor technical breaches of firearms legislation: not in terms of assaults and woundings and that sort of thing but things such as failure to keep a firearm appropriately locked up or keeping the ammunition with the firearm, and so on. So, those sorts of things tend to be dealt with summarily in the Magistrates Court—and there is no real reason that that should change.

The reality of the firearms offences charged against people who are involved in violent criminal behaviour is that often, in terms of negotiating plea arrangements and so on, the effect will be that the firearms matter actually disappears in the negotiations and is often withdrawn or not proceeded with. This bill promises a more (I hate the word) proactive regime, wherein the police will be entitled to approach anyone who is the subject of a firearms order to ensure that they do not have one about their person or in the place where they are residing. I have a couple of questions, and I note that there is an amendment on file so we will be going into committee and I will explore the questions further when we are in committee.

It struck me when I read that a person subject to a firearms prohibition order can be stopped and searched on site, but so can any vehicle, vessel or aircraft they are in charge of be stopped and searched. The question that occurred to me was: what if they are not in charge of it? Will that mean that the Mr Bigs around the place will employ a driver all the time so that the driver is always in charge of the vehicle, vessel, or whatever? Similarly, the place of residence of subject persons can be inspected at any reasonable time. One wonders at what point some place at which one is staying becomes a place of residence for the person involved.

The definition of 'possession of a firearm' is inserted, and it is to some extent extended so that a person has possession if they have 'custody of the firearm'—and that is quite straightforward—or 'has the firearm in the custody of another...or has and exercises access to the firearm'—so that broadens the scope of the legislation significantly—or 'occupies, or has care, control or management of, premises, or is in charge of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, where the firearm is found'. There is quite a broad definition.

Then, unless the person, once found with that, is able to establish that that person did not know or 'could not reasonably expected to have known, that the firearm was on or in the premises, vehicle, it or aircraft...or that the firearm was in the lawful possession of another order he or she believed on reasonable grounds that it was in that person's lawful possession' they will be then taken to be in possession and, therefore, if they are subject to an order, guilty of an offence.

This bill does considerably expand, therefore, the ability of the police to directly approach and react to people who they believe may be in possession of a firearm by having them declare them subject to an order. And, of course, it is not the police themselves but the registrar who has to be satisfied on the basis of evidence or criminal intelligence that they can be made subject to an order.

I noticed also the change in the appeal processes. At present, a registrar's order can, I think, be appealed to the Magistrates Court. What will now happen is that there will be an appeal available to the administrative and disciplinary divisions of the District Court. I think it will be a much better mechanism. I have said on a number of occasions in this place that, in my experience, most magistrates have a vast ability to deliver summary justice. They have a very good nose for the truth, and they do by and large, I think, deliver well in relation to the hundreds of matters that come before each one of them on a weekly basis.

We do not have a great pool of people in our magistracy—there are some exceptions—who have a good understanding of administrative and civil law. I think, therefore, that the approach of moving it to the administrative and disciplinary division of the District Court will have the effect of providing a more structured appeal but also one where the appropriate considerations will be those that are taken into account, because at some stage there is a risk that people who specialise only in criminal law may not approach the task quite correctly in terms of an appeal from a registrar's decision.

Medical professionals and other prescribed people will be required to report to the registrar if they treat a person who has suffered a wound caused by a firearm. So, if someone has a wound caused by a firearm—and, potentially, that could be, for instance, in a bikie shootout—and they turn up at a hospital emergency department to get it treated, or they knock on the door of their local GP, or whomever it is, there is a positive obligation placed on that treating person to report that to the police. They also have an obligation to furnish the police with any projectile or fragment they remove from such a wound. Obviously, those twin obligations of reporting the incident to the police and providing the projectile, if there is one, to the police will significantly enhance the power of the police to follow up matters with appropriate investigation in a timely manner.

There are also some provisions in the legislation to place tighter controls on the manufacture of firearms. Indeed, it will become an offence to even manufacture a part of a firearm, although I would anticipate that there would be parts of firearms that might be available generally and one would wonder about how you would prove, if just a part is being manufactured, that it is being manufactured for the purpose of being placed in a firearm. But, more importantly, there will be some provisions in the bill about aggravated offences.

As I understand the aggravated offences, they are that, if you are in possession of a firearm which is loaded or, in the case of those which have magazines, if you have a loaded magazine with the firearm, or if you have a firearm concealed about your person, any of those will constitute an aggravated offence, and the aggravation will lead to quite a significant increase in the penalty that can be applied, which goes to something like 15 years maximum imprisonment, from memory. The previous summary offence attracted a maximum penalty of $10,000 or two years' imprisonment, and the maximum penalty under these aggravation offences is a $75,000 fine or 15 years' imprisonment. So, that is a significant increase, and I think that is appropriate.

The police powers are also extended in relation to asking for information in order to obtain details about possession and ownership of a firearm. My understanding (and this really comes from the briefing rather than from the second reading explanation) is that two states and one territory (ACT, Tasmania and New South Wales) have legislated to issue prohibition orders only when a person is found to be illegally possessing a firearm.

At this stage, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia do not have prohibition orders but, according to the briefing, the other states commended the idea at a legislative forum. I would expect that those states will therefore be looking very seriously at the scheme as it applies in those two states and one territory, compared with the scheme that will henceforth apply in South Australia.

It would seem to me that, if we are going to allow our police to really combat the sorts of illegal activities we are targeting (and I realise that a lot of this will be targeted at the outlaw motorcycle gangs), it is appropriate for the police to simply be able to issue that interim order and get that confirmed later by a registrar so that the possibility of avoiding a problem before it erupts is enhanced.

With those few comments, I indicate once again that the opposition supports the legislation. I think that it heads in the right direction. I think that there has been considerable concern in the community at large about people who might be inappropriate to be licensed to have a firearm. More commonly, of course, it comes to community notice if someone has a mental illness and is in possession of firearms a licence.

In fact, my understanding of existing law is that such a person could have their firearms licence taken away, but this will certainly make that likelihood much more immediate because of the provisions for the medical practitioners to have to identify and notify the person. I will be interested to hear from the Attorney-General in due course just how that will come about, because the vast majority of people who consult their general practitioner, a psychologist or a psychiatrist in relation to mental health problems would not have a firearm and would not have a licence for a firearm.

Therefore, either it presupposes that the medical practitioner will have to ask that question, 'Do you have a firearms licence?' and that the person will answer honestly; or it suggests that the medical practitioner will have to notify the registrar of every person who comes before them who has some sort of mental illness that might make them unfit to hold a licence, even if that person has never held a licence, will never hold a licence and is not interested in ever holding a licence.

That would seem to me to create an enormous amount of unnecessary paperwork, since 99 per cent of the community are not involved with firearms at all. I am a little curious as to how that will work in practice, but that is something that I am happy to explore further during the committee stage. That said, I indicate the opposition's support for the bill.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:27): I speak in support of the government's latest firearms legislation. As the member for Heysen said, this bill moves in the right direction, but the question with this series of changes to the criminal law that arises time and time again is whether it will have an unnecessary and unfair impost on innocent people. Naturally, one thinks of legitimate and responsible sporting shooters.

There are quite specifically increased responsibilities for those who run sporting shooters' clubs, and I think there are questions that need to be asked about those additional responsibilities. One can understand that if, for example, a shooting club manager becomes aware that one of the club's shooting members develops a mental illness that might cause them to act violently towards others, then it is fair enough that there be a responsibility to report that.

On the other hand, there is also an obligation there to report physical conditions that might increase the danger to others if that person is a shooter within a club. There will be real questions about how that will be implemented. It will be a difficult matter for judgment, I suggest, for those running shooting clubs who want to do the right thing, as to what to report in terms of the physical disabilities of their members. I know that the Sturt Pistol Club, for example, has a lot of elderly members who mostly seem to be able-bodied but some of its members have a range of disabilities. At least, it requires explanation from the government about what is meant by the physical incapacity that has to be reported if the sporting/shooting club managers are to fulfil their obligations under the legislation.

The other trend in some of the government's legislation is to have important decisions about people's liberties being made by an increasingly concentrated authority in a particular person. Concern has been expressed to me about the changes to the role of the Firearms Consultative Committee whereby it used to be the case that that committee would make a decision and then the matter would go before the registrar for Firearms, whereas now the registrar will make a decision and a firearms review committee will then act as a body of review.

In other words, that is an example of the decision having been with the committee now going to just one person and, if there is an issue there, it is exacerbated by the fact that an appeal then is available to the District Court, not to a magistrate, and we all know the additional expense and time that that generally involves. There are some fair questions to be asked about this legislation, although it heads in the right direction. No doubt, that will be pursued in the consideration of the bill in detail.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:32): I rise to make a few comments in relation to this important legislation. The member for Mitchell, during the course of his speech, picked up on the aspect of the unfair impact on some people. In my electorate a number of people are involved with antique firearms, and they have come to me quite regularly and consistently over a long period of time with the concern that they are being discriminated against in respect of some aspects of firearms legislation that comes before this place. As they are uncomfortable and do not feel as though they are being heard, I urge the government and the minister to listen to those people and take note of them. I think the member for Mitchell covered the subject quite adequately.

I am in favour of the prohibition orders because these bikies, scoundrels and others around the place want to bring the state to its knees with their criminal intent. It gives me great pleasure to know that they will have an order made against them and that prohibition order will hopefully take care of some of the skulduggery that they get up to, so I think that is a step in the right direction. This measure has been a long time coming, and quite clearly a lot of work has been done on it. It is pretty clear that the prohibition orders will be used on bikies (although, sadly, they could well be used on sufferers of mental illness, for example, who pose a danger to themselves or the general public) and perpetrators of violent crime. We have seen ample evidence of that around the city of Adelaide lately and, despite a lot of huff and puff, people are still going out and doing these things, occasionally making the Adelaide city centre, as well as other areas of the state, a dangerous place.

Hopefully, the prohibition orders will be a step towards fixing that up as it goes along, and that includes hold-up offences, drug dealers and similar people in society who we are better off without. If there is some way possible to tie these people up in knots and limit their capacity to cause harm or have criminal intent, specifically in the state of South Australia, I am all in favour of it, quite frankly.

Prohibition orders will have a certain amount of control over people in what they do in regard to residing at premises where a firearm is present—and a host of other things. I say on the record that I, along with probably a number of my colleagues in this place, have a number of firearms. I think I have about 10 at home in a locked cupboard. I use a single shot .22 probably once a year, but I have had them for a long period of time and the fact of the matter is that if you live in the country—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What do you use them for?

Mr PENGILLY: I will show you if you want to come out spotlighting with me, Attorney, but do not get in the way or you might get a crosshair on your head—no; I jest. The reality is, as the Attorney well knows, as the government knows and as members on this side know, a considerable number of people, particularly in rural South Australia, need to use firearms to go about their daily business.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Tell the DPP.

Mr PENGILLY: I will not have to. If you keep interjecting it will all be on the record and the department will know anyway. The fact of the matter is that people have to go about their normal business and there are cases where they need firearms. The vast majority of firearms users are honest people who use weapons appropriately and properly and for what they are intended.

I return to the issue of the antique firearms owners. We have to be careful that people who choose to go about that pursuit are treated properly and that they do not feel threatened by aspects of legislation that come through. In summing up, I think there will be scepticism by some because there is a general distrust of the government—I think there is a pretty big distrust of this government about a lot of things, but more particularly on this issue.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: If the Attorney wants to sit here and carry on with his normal amount of nonsense and not debate this bill sensibly and properly and, given that his government introduced it, he can be a fool if he wants to, quite frankly. However, I am putting a rational contribution to this debate.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I rise on a point of order. The member for Finniss referred to me as a fool and I ask him to withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I invite the member for Finniss to respond.

Mr PENGILLY: I probably did not need to say that. However, the fact of the matter is that if the Attorney wants me to retract—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please proceed. Do not make a speech about it; just act.

Mr PENGILLY: I retract the allegation, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact is that we came here to debate this sensibly and not listen to what I regard as interjections that are not helpful and just blatantly political, while we are talking about a serious—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed with the debate on the bill.

Mr PENGILLY: I am talking about the bill. We have a serious issue here about the prohibition orders to be put on firearms, and I support that. I do not think the comments from the Attorney-General are at all helpful. They are not in the spirit of what this house is discussing about the bill in a sensible and balanced way. I do support the bill and I look forward to the introduction—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I look forward to the Rann government getting busy and doing something against crime and seeing a few of these prohibition orders put in place so that the level of violence and criminal activity is reduced. Instead of talking about it the government should get busy and do something. I do not know about other people, but I am sick of hearing puff and blow and nonsense. If this is a step in the right direction, I support it.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:40): I rise in support of the legislation. It is about time the government was given some real power to do a job that is well and truly overdue, and that is taking guns off criminals. I saw a bumper sticker a few years ago which stated, 'If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.' While severe restrictions on gun ownership have come in over the years, there is now a need to make sure that those people who do want to use guns for illegal purposes and have guns in their possession illegally are caught by the legislation that we have before us today.

This legislation has been worked on for a number of years. Chief Inspector Les Buckley, who has been working on this for a number of years, is a man of great integrity and has a great deal of common sense, and I am assured by the fact that he has been oversighting this legislation that it is a workable piece of legislation. It is up to the Rann government now to resource the police and make sure that they can enforce the legislation to the complete letter of the law.

As a firearms owner, I do find it a bit of an annoyance, I suppose, to have my licence renewed and my photograph taken every year at the motor vehicle registry at Marion. I suppose the biggest problem I have is the wait in the queue. Last time I went there (in November) there were 40 people in front of me. It took just over half an hour to get to the cashier, do the business and have my photograph taken. Then the licence is posted out. Every year I do that, and if the Minister for Transport, who I know is a keen shooter, could look at some way of perhaps streamlining that process, that would be appreciated.

The legislation before us today seeks to ensure that people who own firearms are using them legally. The ones using them illegally are not the ones lining up in the motor vehicle registry for half an hour like I do. I can cite a personal case in which an employee, whom I employed in my veterinary practice and who had no police convictions whatsoever, was married to a guy who, I suppose, was considered to be member of an outlaw motorcycle gang and, in fact, he was in gaol at the time I first employed her.

All their guns were registered in her name, so as far as the police were concerned there was no issue. To the best of my knowledge, she was complying with every piece of legislation that was required of her at the time, yet her partner would have had access to those guns when he came out of prison. So, it would have been a real issue for me to say that, if this guy had not have been rehabilitated in our prison system, he may have had access to the guns.

So, what is the answer in this legislation? I do not see it here. The onus is on the person who has the prohibition order to say, 'Well, I am a banned person, so you cannot have the guns, you cannot be with me.' These people were husband and wife. She had no criminal record whatsoever and she was quite legally able to own the guns. What is the answer there?

Whilst she may not have been able to keep the guns in the house, she could have had them in storage somewhere which, for all practical purposes, would not have stopped this fellow having access to the guns. He has been rehabilitated and I know now that he is a good member of society. He does not live down Happy Valley way any more. That scenario could present a problem, and so I ask for that to be explained to the house. With that, I strongly support the bill and, as I say, commend Chief Inspector Buckley for his work.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (11:44): I rise to participate in this debate. I wish to address one or two comments in relation to the legislation. First, my concern is that there is the potential for people to be guilty by association. That in itself is a problem, because in a modern democracy if you comply with the law you are entitled to the presumption of innocence. I have no time whatsoever for the illegal activities in which some of these people are alleged to be involved—and we read about them in the newspapers and see them on the television—but you can put all the restrictions in the world in place and, unfortunately, they normally only restrict, effect or interfere with law-abiding citizens. The criminal element are not deterred.

I will give you an example. The honourable member for Schubert and I visited the Brixton police station in London (a fairly notorious area)—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No; I will leave that to the honourable member. We had a discussion with the head of the police there (about the equivalent of our commissioner) and he said to us, 'Have a look out the window, and see the illegal dealers down the street here.' They are bringing them in from Europe in container loads—even though it is illegal to own, possess or have anything to do with them. If you want one just go down the street and you can buy one.

They actually had police using surveillance cameras—similar to what we use to catch good people doing a few kilometres over the speed limit—not to trap people driving motor cars but to observe these characters carrying out these deals. Of course, in a country like Australia with our wide coastline there is always the potential for these illegal firearms; however, that is no reason to make it difficult for people who have a legitimate purpose.

Some of the current provisions in the Firearms Act are cumbersome and create difficulties—and I will give you an example. If you live out on a rural property from time to time, unfortunately, you get a visit from a friendly snake on your verandah—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: There is only one thing you can do.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I am fully aware of that, and I am coming to it. You are not supposed to have the firearm hanging behind the laundry door; you are supposed to have it locked up in a safe. So, you have to say to the snake—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Please wait here.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes; please wait. That is how stupid it is.

The Hon. R.B. Such: It could be a harmless python.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, I say to the honourable member, if he steps out on his verandah and he has a king brown there, and your daughter-in-law has three little children, I do not think you are going to determine whether or not it could be a python. I have never seen a python on Eyre Peninsula but I have seen plenty of king browns—and I tell you what, when you step on them you are quicker than Fred Astaire on your feet!

Notwithstanding that, when you know that there are snakes about people need to be able to do something about it—and the best method is a double-barrelled .410 because you can shoot one-handed. You can just walk up and go, 'boom boom', and you are rid of it. Females can also use them very easily; not like a 12 gauge that gives you a good thump on the shoulder.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No, not with a .410; you just go 'boom boom'. Double-barrelled, two triggers and you use 3-inch cartridges. I guarantee you can get one every time.

An honourable member: An axe works better.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, there are other methods. My father used to grab them by the tail and crack their heads off but I am not quite that brave, and I do not intend to learn. I have heard of people nearly having them attached to their ears because I am told they are not real happy when you grab them by the tail and try to crack their heads off. Nevertheless—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It wraps itself around the handle.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, I do not know whether standing orders permit me, but I can tell the honourable member a funny story—and I hope you will give me a little latitude, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many years ago we were in our workshop, where my brother now lives, and we spotted a snake going under the bench. He grabbed it by the tail and heaved it out. Unfortunately, the snake hit one of our associates and half wrapped around him. Now, I have never seen anyone go straight up like an F111. That person was the most nimble I have ever seen him.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How did the snake go?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The snake went to the promised land. It took some minutes to contain the person concerned. The honourable member thinks it is funny, but before last harvest I was home honing my skills for a few hours on how to be a farmer; my son had changed the filters on the header and started it up to give it a run, and I stepped behind it and he said, 'Look out', because a snake came out from the back of the header. I took one step back, hit the trailer and it took me a fortnight to be able to walk properly again.

You have to be prepared but, with some of the silly provisions that exist, you are not supposed to have the double barrel or single barrel .410 close at hand to deal with such situations. Other difficulties I see with the current legislation involve employees who are allowed to use firearms and who do not live on the property; are going home and coming back. Some of the provisions are right over the top and need some sensible changes. At the end of the day we will pass these laws. I have a firearms licence, A, B and C, and can own a certain number of firearms. I have them locked in a safe and it takes you 10 minutes to get them out and then you have to put them back and lock them up like Fort Knox. The foolishness of the exercise is this—

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Let me tell you. You go 100 metres down to the workshop and there is an oxy torch down there and most of these people are good with a hot hammer. All you are saying to them is: there is where all the firearms are. In the past we had them under our bed or in the wardrobe and no-one knew they were there, but now you have to have them locked in a steel safe. One bloke told me to put a sticker on it 'explosives', which I did, in the hope of deterring them from putting an oxy torch to it.

There is a need to ensure that this legislation is administered sensibly and fairly. Those bikie gangs terrorising certain parts of Adelaide should be dealt with firmly, as should a number of other people who have no regard for law-abiding citizens. We are passing draconian laws here, but we are not doing anything about disruptive tenants, who are terrorising, hassling and hindering. Every day members in this place are made aware of the activities of these people. Two people were seriously assaulted in Port Augusta over the weekend. You have these people jumping fences and stealing clothes, but we are not doing anything about this because the trendies, Girl Guides and others do not think that is important. Let them go—that is all right—but if you have a firearm you have the potential to be a villain.

Let us be even-handed and deal with these disruptive tenants who are harassing, hindering and making life unpleasant for a lot of hard-working taxpayers who spend most of their lives paying for their house but who have to put up with these scoundrels. It takes far too long to get rid of them; it should be one strike and you are out, because most of them are getting a subsidised taxpayer home and do not appreciate it. I have lost all patience with this lot and they should be put out quickly.

This measure is popular and I hope it has the desired effect and that common sense prevails. I sincerely hope that these laws are not made to unduly affect pastoralists, farmers and other legitimate users—people involved in gun and firearms clubs who are very keen on their sport and are good law-abiding citizens.

I hope the law will be enforced with commonsense, not a desire to bring as many prosecutions as possible or to make life difficult. In the time I have left here, I will be watching it very carefully. I do not want to start putting questions on notice, like I am about to do this week in relation to other elements in the police department. I do not want to have an obsession with other areas. A series of questions will be going on the Notice Paper and, unfortunately, they will keep someone busy, but one unreasonable act always generates another. I hope the purpose of this legislation is successful. My concern is that it is implemented sensibly and wisely in order to bring about the changes (which the community wants) without making it difficult for other people.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:56): I welcome the general thrust of this bill but, like the member for Stuart, I do have some concerns about aspects of firearms control and administration in this state. I have been shooting since the age of 15. I am still a licensed shooter. Whenever I can, I shoot rabbits and foxes on properties owned by people I have known for more than 40 years.

I would like to address the focus of this bill. The reality is that a lot of legislation comes from particular incidents in the community—which can be a good thing but also not so good. We all can recall what happened after the massacre in Tasmania involving Martin Bryant when former prime minister John Howard tightened up the gun laws. I have no problem with most of the provisions, but some of them in my view were not well thought out; and I notice this bill is a reaction to a particular incident.

In relation to the Howard gun reforms—and I was a minister at the time—I can remember quite clearly that some of my colleagues did not know what the bolt of a rifle was yet they were making decisions about what one could or could not do with a firearm. One of the bizarre outcomes of the reforms was that centre fire repeating rifles were allowed but shotguns with a repeating capability were outlawed. Anyone who shoots rabbits or foxes knows that at times you have to shoot quickly the second time and third time. It is not easy with a single shot weapon to do that, obviously, because one has to reload. That is an example of how something was not thought out properly. There was an anomaly where centre fire rifles were allowed to have a repeat function but a shotgun was not.

I strongly support provisions to have firearms locked up securely. Like the member for Stuart, my firearms are locked away in a steel cabinet. They are more secure than that because other provisions apply. The ammunition is stored separately. Once again, it is securely locked in steel cabinets to ensure that there is no possibility of someone using it for the wrong purpose. I do not have any problem with that.

We are not talking about toys but, rather, things that can kill people, so we have to be very careful and we must have proper provisions in place. From what I understand, there seems to be little impediment for criminals to get hold of and use firearms. We have to be careful—and the point was made by the member Stuart—that in targeting these bad characters in the community we do not make life unbearable for the legitimate shooter, whether it be someone who shoots clay targets or hunts vermin.

We should not be creating a situation where they are treated, in effect, almost as de facto criminals. I have received several reports from constituents and others where some members of the police force have acted in what appears to be a fairly harsh way in coming to someone's home when there has been no real evidence and no suggestion that those people have been involved in any sort of criminal activity. Some members of the police force have taken a heavy-handed approach.

Even the correspondence from the firearms branch is somewhat heavy to ordinary licensed shooters. I am not expecting them to send out a letter with butterflies on it and kisses at the bottom, but there is an inference and a tone about some of the communication from the firearms branch and what has been reported to me about the way in which some police respond to firearms inquiries, and so on, and visit homes. There is an unfortunate and unnecessary heavy-handedness about it, and that alienates good citizens who feel that, when pursuing a legitimate hobby or activity, they are being treated as criminals.

As I said, the bill primarily targets motorcycle gangs and others who are involved in serious crime and violence, and I welcome that. However, in a sense, the bill is tackling a problem at the second order level. It is the same as in the case of Martin Bryant. It was known when he was at school that he was dysfunctional; that he was experiencing difficulties and was headed for some sort of major problem down the track. So, we introduced some fairly tough gun laws to deal with the problem that related to someone's mind-set or level of dysfunction, and we punished the whole of the legitimate gun-owning community because some person like Martin Bryant in Tasmania did something quite wicked and evil.

Likewise, if there are evil, illegal activities taking place here that involve people in the community, we should be targeting them at the first level. I understand that is what the government is trying to do, and that is where the focus should be. The guns are a second level aspect of that criminal activity, but we need to tackle the first order of antisocial and criminal behaviour and give that priority, rather than the second level.

In terms of the way in which people use firearms, some of the provisions are not terribly sensible, and I made some submissions when the gun legislation was being reviewed. I shoot on a number of properties in the Mallee, where my family has known the landholders for more than 40 years. However, under the law, technically, I require written permission from each property owner to shoot on their property, which has to be renewed every six months. One might ask, 'What is the problem?'

Anyone who associates with farmers would know that they do not like paperwork and what they would call a lot of bull crap. So, technically, every six months I need to go around to all those farmers and say, 'Can you please sign a legal authorisation for me to shoot on your property?' I will not mention the language they sometimes use, but they regard it as somewhat bizarre that families I have known for 40 years have to go through this rigmarole every six months for me to legally shoot on their property.

People might say, 'Well, that is not a big drama.' Just to own a firearm is now a costly exercise, because the government makes sure that licence holders pay a hefty fee. I do not know what it will be next time it is renewed, but the government certainly slugs legitimate firearm owners heavily for the privilege of having a firearm. Once again, one could argue that that would not be so bad if some of that money was used to promote gun safety and provide facilities for people who want to, for example, shoot clay targets. However, to me, it is basically a revenue raiser and a means of getting money from legitimate gun users.

I support the overall thrust of the bill and, certainly, the focus on targeting those engaged in criminal activity. We now have a society in which most people are not familiar with firearms and I think that women, in particular, have a fear of firearms, and I do not think that is a sexist remark. Everyone should treat firearms with respect. I do not have a problem with having firearms properly secured, with the ammunition being locked up separately from the firearms. I do not have a problem with that at all, but I do express a concern from the feedback I am getting about the way in which the law is administered—and this is a point the member for Stuart made—that there can be an unfortunate approach to legitimate firearms owners; that somehow those people are almost in the category of being a criminal. It has now reached the point where people involved in the sport of shooting—and it takes various forms—almost feel as if they are de facto criminals simply by virtue of owning a firearm.

We do not want to recreate the Wild West, and we do not want a situation such as in America, where the firearms lobby has reached the point at which reason and rational discussion and action have gone out the window. We do not want the situation where anyone can walk down the street carrying a firearm and shoot it. We do not want that. I have seen that in South Africa, where you check in your firearms at the airport before you board an aircraft. I do not want to see that in Australia, where people have to carry firearms because they are fearful for their personal safety.

It is a question of balance between tackling the criminals who should not have access to firearms and ensuring those who have a mental illness do not have access, but at the same time allowing those who have a legitimate purpose to carry firearms, whether it be for recreational shooting under proper supervision and guidelines, for shooting vermin or for farming duties. I support the bill, but I do ask that the whole issue be monitored and that there be no attempt to impose an unfair and unrealistic burden on legitimate gun owners and users.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:07): I support this bill as does the opposition, but when we introduce change we always have to tread very carefully, particularly in matters such as this which can be very emotive. When we talk about firearms, it is easy to go off like a loaded gun—pardon the pun.

Mrs Redmond: Or half-cocked.

Mr VENNING: Or half-cocked, or as the butt of the joke. We could go on and on, but having rifled through my files I have seen quite a lot of information in relation to this issue over my 18 years here.

I am all about making it easier and safer for our police to address the criminal element in our community, particularly bikie gangs—not all of them but some of them, and some are quite lawless and they do not fear anything. I take my hat off to the police who go in and apprehend these people knowing that more than likely they will be armed.

Ever since the Port Arthur tragedy, firearms ownership has come under a great deal of scrutiny. Like the member for Stuart and other members, I own firearms and always have. I own shotguns, high and low powered rifles. I also had a Browning automatic shotgun, which I handed in. I thought that was rather silly because in the time it took to load the automatic shotgun (I think it held five shots), I could put a lot more shots through a double-barrel side-by-side than I ever could out of an automatic because I could load it in seconds. I thought it was a silly law because the Browning was a beautiful, magnificent, safe, single-barrelled firearm, but the law being the law, it went, sadly, and no doubt it was melted down.

I also had a pistol. Since my military days I have always had a pistol licence. I was a military trained and accredited small arms marksman; in other words, Deadeye Dick with a pistol. Therefore, I used to end up with the job of guarding the battery commander or the commanding officer because I had a concealed weapon. I was very pleased about this and I kept up my skills right until the end. I had a letter from the then commissioner, commissioner Salisbury (which I still have somewhere) to transfer the licence from a military licence to a civilian licence. I used it over many years to say, 'Hang on.'

I kept that licence until recently. Several ministers allowed me to keep it, but my own minister (who is still in this house) took it away—gone. I did belong to one of the gun clubs at Balaklava, but I did not keep up my membership, although I kept the firearm. Anyway, that has gone. Okay, that is progress, but I am very sad about that. In fact, I still have the weapon but it is welded up. It is a shame to see it welded and totally disfigured. I now have a monument to my former pistol licence. That is how it is, that is the law and I have gone along with it.

As the member for Stuart said earlier, most farmers own firearms as a critical tool for use in their farming operations such as protecting the family from snakes. There are many things for which a farmer would need to use a firearm, but snakes are one of the main reasons for possessing a firearm, especially when you have grandchildren, as I have, or even dogs. Snakes kill dogs very quickly because the dog does not realise the danger, and a quick bite even to a large dog from a large Australian brown snake can kill the dog. If I see snakes out in the bush, that is, away from the home, I leave them, but if they are anywhere near the house, particularly in the garden, I am sorry, the quicker they are gone, the better.

I used to use a shovel, until I missed one day and I had the snake coming at me. So, no more shovels. Talk about being quick: I was over that fence quick smart. You need nothing more than that to get the adrenalin going. Now I use a shotgun. The member for Stuart is right in saying that the correct thing to use is a .410 shotgun, which ladies can use. I am not sure whether my wife is allowed to use the one I own. The member for Stuart has advised me to purchase one of these just for that reason; that is, they are smaller and less powerful than a 12-gauge shotgun.

These laws do affect law-abiding owners of firearms. As the member for Stuart has said, we kept these firearms under the seat of the ute—and I used to have one under the seat of my ute. That is now absolutely totally taboo. I cannot understand the reasoning, because if I go out to shoot a couple of foxes which I know are there, I have to put it in the ute. If I am apprehended by the boys in blue, I can say, 'Well, I just put it there', but they can say, 'No, we saw it there yesterday', or whatever.

All these arguments can occur about having a firearm in a vehicle. It is a dangerous practice. I have seen them laying on the seat alongside the owner, which is not on; or worse, with the butt on the floor and the end floating around the cab. That is not on. With the jarring, it can discharge, and heaven forbid what can happen. I say that they should be under the seat, laying flat across the floor facing the outside of the vehicle (which is where they used to be kept), or in a properly made holster with the barrel pointing to the floor. These things can be done.

However, with the modern laws, we now have the cabinets as well. As the member for Stuart said, anyone breaking into your house knows what is in that cupboard straightaway. If they see a heavy steel cupboard, they know what is inside. It is not very hard to get them open, because all farms have an oxy torch—even a heavy jemmy bar will open them. I think the member for Stuart provided a piece of very good advice, which I will not repeat. I think that is very good advice and I will be doing just that.

A question arises in relation to the key to that cabinet. This is a funny one. Obviously the farmer's wife knows where the keys are kept, but when the law enforcement officer comes to check the cabinet, legally she is not supposed to know where the key is because she is not the licensed holder. Most women have been told to say that they do not know where the key is because they are not allowed access to the firearm—'My husband knows where the key is and I do not.' That has been a bit of a funny one, because often if women are home on their own, they need to shoot a fox in the chook house, but they are not supposed to have access to that weapon.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Or the ammunition; exactly right. The legislation is quite clear about having a loaded weapon or a loaded cartridge in the magazine. The magazine is detachable from some rifles, so if a loaded magazine is lying separately on the floor or on the seat of a vehicle, I think it is still classed as a loaded weapon. All these things make it confusing to the average law-abiding citizen. The situation involving a prohibition order is quite different from that relating to an unlicensed firearm owner, and I say that because the laws in this bill are pretty heavy—I think the fine is $75,000 and 15 years gaol.

All I can say is that I worry about the average citizen who gets apprehended because he has either forgotten to get a licence or never had a licence. There are still people who have grandpa's firearm—the old Hollis, double-barrelled. They still own it, have never had a licence and they do not care. They put it in the ute one day to do a quick job and they get caught with this firearm. When they are asked, 'Have you got a licence for this, sir?' and they reply that they have never had a licence, I hope that those sorts of people do not get the $75,000 or 15 years. On the other hand, that person should be more responsible, and I am the first to say that. However, the fines are huge. No doubt that is the maximum fine; I would think there would be something in the middle. Another question to ask is: how do you know whether or not a person has a prohibition order? The Attorney might want to respond.

How do you know whether a person is prohibited? I suppose the police department would know, but is anyone else entitled to know? I think that a lot of these things could be clarified in the bill. The definition of 'fit and proper', too, will also now refer to whether someone has been found guilty rather than convicted of an offence. A new power is also being included whereby the registrar may require a medical examination (that is, a blood test) to decide whether someone is a fit and proper person. I presume that is to determine whether the person is a drug addict—why else would you want to do a blood test?

This bill includes a very much widening net. Certainly, I do support the legislation, but I hope that parts of it can be clarified. The problem is that the law must be administered by the police force, but we often have conscientious, over-zealous policemen who can cause people a lot of embarrassment and angst as a result of their over-activity. Firearms are an essential part of many of our communities, particularly farmers, and not just for killing unwanted feral animals, such as snakes, but also for the humane killing of road kill. When I carried a firearm in the vehicle, often I would see that someone had hit a kangaroo. There is nothing worse than leaving a dying kangaroo on the side of the road.

It is even worse having to find something to belt them with and knock them unconscious. I could never do it. However, if I had the firearm, I would give it a pat and, between the eyes—bang! That is the end of it, and it is the only humane way to do it. It is so much easier with a pistol. You never missed with a pistol, because you just placed it on the head and—bang! That is it. I used to kill pigs. The Attorney-General probably remembers the 'Bertha, the Pig' story. I used to breed pigs many years ago, and the only humane way to kill a pig is with a pistol. It is the only safe way, because the animal is moving. Try to shoot a moving pig in the back of a ute with a rifle—it is pretty hard. There is nothing worse than half doing a job. I support the bill, but with some reservations.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:19): I, too, rise to support the bill. However, I also acknowledge that we must protect the legitimacy of shooting clubs, which have had to comply with many rules and regulations, especially since the Port Arthur incident. They all comply as clubs (especially members of black powder clubs who travel around the country shooting at events) and in terms of keeping their guns and ammunition secure in their vehicles.

How they keep them locked up in cages on their utilities is a quite intricate process. In the electorate of Hammond we have black powder clubs and pistol clubs. As the member for Morphett explained, they have very strict guidelines to keep pistols and it is having an effect on people joining these clubs but, if they are keen enough, I guess they will go through the process to be part of these clubs. There are also rifle clubs and clay target clubs in my area. The Wilkawatt gun club has quite a few members.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, the Murray Bridge rifle club at Monarto has a very professional set-up next to the freeway where they hold their events, and I am proud to be a sponsor and patron of that club. I acknowledge that I am also a licensed gun owner. I have a couple of shotguns in the cupboard. I think it was a mistake to show my wife how to use the .410 to shoot snakes—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: If you don't make it here one day—

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, absolutely. I am a fair sized target, I guess, as the member for Schubert says. But it brings to mind, as the member for Schubert said, the legality of it should my wife need to shoot a snake, and would she be allowed to? I think reality might come to the fore if she had to protect my two young boys, especially if they were home on their own with mum, and she would have to do it.

I note that this legislation will target criminals and the ones who are not tied up with holding legal weapons. It is reasonably common knowledge that criminals import illegal weapons, and I think these prohibition orders will go a long way towards pulling up that practice. I think it would be very tough to pull it up completely, but it is certainly a good move towards that. I notice the legislation gives clubs the power to evict people whom they believe could be mentally and physically unfit, and to report them.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes; they are compelled to report whether these people are unfit in any way and I, too, share concerns that these people will not be professionals, but I guess they will have to use commonsense and work out who they report and who they do not report.

I notice in the bill that you cannot own a firearm that has had the identification removed, and you can be caught purposefully removing identification. That is a good part of the bill, but I would like to make another personal comment. When I purchased one of my shotguns it was still in the box when I took it straight to the police station and threw it on the counter. It was completely unusable because it was in several sections. I did all the registration process and took it home.

Within a couple of weeks I had a phone call saying that there was a problem. I said, 'What is that?' and they said, 'The numbers do not match.' I said, 'It is not my issue, because that gun was taken straight to the station and put on the counter.' The number had been misread by the officer. So it is a bit of a two-way street. We fixed the problem, and I commend the police for chasing it up, but I completed my obligations. The registration process needs to be completed effectively, otherwise people may find down the track if it is not picked up early in the piece that it is alleged that they had a firearm not appropriately registered.

I note that there are rights of appeal, which I think is a good process. You can appeal interim orders, and there can be a review by the firearms review committee as a second stage. After that, you can appeal to the District Court if you do not think the prohibition order is applicable.

Obviously, another part of the bill relates to the manufacturing of firearms or firearms parts, which you cannot do unless you are in a licensed business or dealership. That is certainly the right way to go with the legislation. We do not want people making zip guns and the like.

Also, as far as reporting is concerned, employers and medical practitioners must report unsafe situations associated with firearms. This opens up a very broad net so that people who are in an unfit state cannot own firearms. Medical practitioners must report the gunshot wounds of people who may present to a hospital, and if there is some suspicion, such as, obviously, it is not easily explained as a shooting accident—spotlighting on a farm, or something—they need to report it to the appropriate authorities—the police, and so on.

I note that this bill helps address the issue of illegal firearms, and it will make this state a safer a place, but I hope that legitimate gun owners are protected. As other farming members—the members for Schubert and Stuart—have said, guns are an integral part of farming life and are used for vermin control. Farmers do the right thing; they keep them in locked cupboards. They keep ammunition stored in a locked cupboard in a safe place, but they do need to run their daily affairs. With that, I commend the bill.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:26): I will be brief—

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: All right, I will not be brief. I want to raise one issue in particular, because it is something that has annoyed me for many years ever since the Howard government's national gun buyback. It was a pretty handy move, but I do not think that it has actually impacted too greatly on the bad guys, but it has impacted very greatly on the good guys. We also instituted some other national gun laws at the time.

One in particular which really annoys me and other legitimate firearms users and owners is that, from time to time, somebody is encouraged to purchase a new firearm, or another firearm, maybe on the second-hand market. One of the stipulations under our firearms legislation is that if I go to purchase the firearm I have to order the gun and make arrangements to purchase it and then wait 28 days; it is a cooling off period. I understand that the logic behind this is that if somebody had an aberration and had a notion that they were going to menace somebody, or do somebody some harm with a firearm, it would prevent them from running down to the shop to the gun dealer, purchasing the firearm, and creating some sort of mayhem. In 28 days they might settle down a little bit and come to their senses.

I understand that that is the logic behind this particular issue. I can accept that, but I think it is a bit of nonsense. I cannot accept the fact that, if I have locked away in my gun cupboard at home a gun of a specific type, say a .22 calibre rifle, which is probably the most popular firearm in the state, and I want to purchase another firearm of the same calibre and, ostensibly, the same sort of gun for one reason or another, I have to wait 28 days to take delivery of it. I must admit that 12 or 18 months ago I purchased another .22 calibre rifle, having already owned one. The rabbits in the back garden were avoiding the one that I owned, and I thought I would get one that was a bit more accurate.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: It was the gun, of course. I purchased one, and I thought it was an absolute nonsense, having already owned a gun of that type and calibre, that I had to wait another 28 days to take delivery of the new rifle. It can only be described as an anomaly in the legislation. I can see no reason why a registered firearm owner, already holding a certain type of firearm, cannot go and buy another—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: In response to the Attorney-General's inane interjection suggesting that I might go and buy an arsenal, I do not have a problem if he thinks that if somebody goes into a shop and orders 25 rifles of any particular calibre somebody might ask a question, and they might be prevented from doing so.

The reality is that you can accumulate an arsenal over time; you just have to wait 28 days. My understanding is that there is nothing stopping me from going to half a dozen gun dealers, or to a hundred different gun dealers, and buying half a dozen guns from each of them, so long as I wait the 28 days.

The point I am making is that this is a serious matter for genuine firearm owners and users, and I just think it is a nonsense. I wish the Attorney-General would take it on board and maybe look at changing the law. There are a couple of other minor issues which do impact adversely on genuine firearm owners and which could be sorted out without having any deleterious effects on the intent of the principal piece of legislation as well, and it disappoints me that the government has not sought to fix them up. With those words, I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (12:31): The member for Heysen asked: will medical practitioners, including psychiatrists, be required to ask whether a person will use a firearm? The answer is that there is no mandated requirement. The medical practitioner's role is to conduct a risk assessment of the risk to the person (the patient) or other people. If an immediate risk is apparent, the medical practitioner should contact police on 000. If the risk is a suspicion that harm may occur at some time in the future, written notice can be provided to the registrar for investigation. This is already imposed by section 20A of the act, and the current reporting obligation has just been recast a little.

The member for Mitchell asked: in what circumstances would clubs be required to report a physical infirmity of a member? Clubs are required to report concerns to the registrar only if they believe that a person has a physical condition which would put him at risk of harming himself or which would put others at risk. Also with clubs, if the risk is immediate, a call should be made to 000. If it is not immediate, a report should be submitted to the registrar for investigations.

A review of the whole Firearms Act has been completed, and a recommendation has been made to rewrite the whole Firearms Act, and the process of rewriting those changes will occur after these the priority amendments are passed.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mrs REDMOND: I have a couple of questions on this clause, which is essentially the interpretation and definitions clause. The first one is in relation to the definition in subclause (11), that is:

After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) For the purposes of this Act, 2 persons are close associates if—

Then paragraphs (a) to (h) describe those who might be regarded as a close associate. Paragraph (b) onwards talk about being in partnership and things to do with corporations, body corporates, trusts and so on. My question is about paragraph (a), '1 is a relative of the other'. I want to know how one defines 'relative'. Is it a relative by blood or marriage, and does it include, for instance, kinship? Where I am heading with this is, for instance, if you have a de facto relationship, is that person a relative? If there is an Aboriginal kinship, is that person going to be classified as a close associate?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It does include one relative by marriage, namely, the spouse. It includes domestic partners, which the member for Heysen is trying to drive at with the term 'de facto'. It does not include the broader Aboriginal kinship relationships. We think that would be casting too many burdens on them.

Mrs REDMOND: I have a further question on that particular aspect. If it only includes a spouse, does that then preclude, for instance, a son-in-law and so on, and do the police or your advisers see any potential difficulty with the definition being cast as narrowly as it is?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: We will go with what we have.

Mrs REDMOND: Clause 4 inserts two new subsections (13) and (14). In particular, I wanted to explore the wording at the end of subsection (13), where it provides:

In deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person to have possession of a firearm or ammunition or to hold or have possession of a licence for the purposes of this Act, regard may be had to the reputation, honesty and integrity of the person and of people with whom the person associates.

I want to get some clarity about what is intended and how that is going to operate. I note that it does not use the term 'closely associates', although we have inserted the definition above of 'close associate'. By reason of the fact that you have used a different term by using 'associates' rather than 'closely associates', that suggests in a legal interpretation sense that there is a difference in those two terminologies. To what extent does someone have to associate and who will determine the reputation, honesty and integrity of the people with whom (potentially a perfectly innocent person) the person associates and how are they going to get the evidence of that?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The idea is to clothe the registrar with authority to take a broad view. We would think it would be relevant to the registrar's deliberation that an applicant associates with a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang, for instance, but we allow the registrar the authority to weigh these associations.

Mrs REDMOND: I have another question in relation to—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: I thought I said that.

Mr Venning: Just go on. School's out.

Mrs REDMOND: School's never out for the Attorney and me. As to subclause (12), some reference was made to the fact that we are changing the term 'convicted' to 'found guilty', and I was a little puzzled by the explanation given in the second reading, where it states that the bill provides for the expansion of the term 'fit and proper person' by altering the reference from being 'convicted' of an offence under the Firearms Act to having been 'found guilty' of such an offence. This will allow for the application of previous offences where a person has been convicted without penalty in the assessment process. It seems to me that, if they had been convicted without penalty, they have nevertheless been convicted and, therefore, I did not understand why that change occurred and what practical difference it makes.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is common for magistrates to find an accused person guilty and then proceed not to record a conviction, and I think that is what—

Mrs REDMOND: So, it refers to no conviction recorded rather than convicted without penalty, because they are two different things.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, I think the member for Heysen may be right again.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mrs REDMOND: I have a question relating to the definition of 'health professional', which provides:

(3) In this section—

health professional means—

(a) a medical practitioner; or

(b) a psychologist; or

(c) a person of a class prescribed by regulation.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: No. I am just a bit puzzled as to why a psychologist is mentioned specifically but a psychiatrist is not because, very frequently, people who are suffering from mental illness would be referred to a psychiatrist who can prescribe medication and so on. Whilst I accept that they could obviously be included by the regulation, I am puzzled as to why one specifically mentions psychologists but not psychiatrists.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, it caught the member for Heysen here! A psychiatrist is, of course, a medical practitioner.

Clause passed.

Clauses 6 to 11 passed.

Clause 12.

Mrs REDMOND: I have a question that is, again, really directed to the drafting of the amendment in clause 12, which amends section 11 of the act (possession and use of firearms). I want to know what are going to be the prescribed firearms in paragraph (a), which is where the firearm is a prescribed firearm and where the maximum offence applies ($75,000 or imprisonment for 15 years). What is a class C, D or H firearm? I should tell the committee that I am a Deadeye Dick and, in fact, I did a Defence Reserve course known as Exercise Executive Stretch some years ago with my PA.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Was it paintball or live ammunition?

Mrs REDMOND: No, it was live ammunition at a target at the Edinburgh base, using the standard assault rifle that the Australian Defence Force uses. My secretary hit the target somewhere a couple of times with her ten rounds but I got a bullseye on every one, so she has been very well behaved ever since we went away on that course together!

I fired guns on properties in my younger days and, at least in those days, I did have a fairly steady arm and a pretty good eye. However, that said, I have never owned a firearm and have no desire to own a firearm. I do not think I would ever want to shoot firearms at anything these days. However, I am curious as to what the classes are that are to be prescribed, because I assume that one has in mind some specific firearms for the prescription of such a heavy penalty of $75,000 or imprisonment for 15 years. I am curious about what the class C, D or H firearms are.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Prescribed firearms are described in the regulations by clause 8 as follows:

(a) automatic firearms;

(b) mortars, bazookas, rocket propelled grenades and similar military firearms designed to fire explosive projectiles;

(c) firearms having one or more barrels of less than 330 millimetres in length (but not handguns, air rifles, air guns or power heads);

(d) shotguns having one or more barrels of less than 450 millimetres in length;

(e) air rifles and air guns having one or more barrels of less than 250 millimetres in length;

(f) firearms having an overall length of less than 750 millimetres (but not handguns or power heads);

(g) firearms (but not handguns) designed to be reduced in overall length by folding, telescoping or any other means to a length of less than 750 millimetres and then to be capable of being fired;

(h) firearms designed to fire projectiles containing tear gas or any other lachrymatory substance—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Lachrymatory; if you had done any Latin you would know that it is designed to make you cry—

or any nauseating substance or poison (but not firearms designed to tranquillise, immobilise or administer vaccines or other medicines to animals);

(i) firearms designed as, and having the appearance of, other objects;

(j) homemade firearms.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: C, D and H. Class H means handguns. Class C means:

(a) self-loading rim fire rifles having a magazine capacity of 10 rounds or less; and

(b) self-loading shotguns having a magazine capacity of five rounds or less; and

(c) pump action shotguns having a magazine capacity of five rounds or less,

and includes receivers of firearms defined as class C firearms by a preceding paragraph but does not include revolving chamber rifles or receivers of revolving chamber rifles.

Class D means:

(a) self-loading rim fire rifles having a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds; and

(b) self-loading centre fire rifles; and

(c) self-loading shotguns having a magazine capacity of more than five rounds; and

(d) pump action shotguns having a magazine capacity of more than five rounds.

Mrs REDMOND: On that same clause, new subsection (7c) provides:

A person will be taken to be carrying a firearm or magazine if the person has the firearm or magazine on or about the person or if it is under the person's immediate physical control.

I would take it, for instance, that if we used the member for Schubert's example of having it under the front seat of the ute when he is driving it then that would clearly come within the ambit of the clause, but is it under the ambit of the clause if it is locked in the cupboard referred to by the member for Stuart? I am just curious about where one draws the line about 'immediate physical control', given that we are talking here about the aggravated offence provision.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is taken from the Summary Offences Act, where it has been the subject of judicial interpretation in connection with offensive weapons cases. What I am instructed to say is that it would mean close proximity and exclusive control, but I expect that it will be the subject of legal argument as factual situations present themselves in court.

Clause passed.

Clauses 13 to 26 passed.

Clause 27.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Page 19, lines 35 and 36 [clause 27, inserted section 26C(1)(a)]—Delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) a decision of the registrar that has been affirmed by the Firearms Review Committee; or

It is my purpose to persuade the committee that this is a technical amendment.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Good, that helps in my purpose. Currently proposed section 26C(1)(a) provides that a person aggrieved by a decision of the Firearms Review Committee to affirm a decision of the registrar may appeal against the decision. This amendment clarifies that the aggrieved person is appealing against the decision of the registrar, who makes the substantive decision about the licence, and not the committee that affirms the registrar's decision.

Mrs REDMOND: In light of that fantastic explanation, I am happy to support that amendment and endorse its fast passage.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 28 passed.

Clause 29.

Mrs REDMOND: Clause 29 inserts sections 27, 27A and 27B and I want to explore section 27A. This section has the obligation to report on unsafe situations associated with firearms by a medical practitioner, and it provides that if a medical practitioner has reasonable cause to suspect that the person they are seeing in their professional capacity is suffering from a physical or mental illness or condition, or that other circumstances exist, such that there is a threat to the person's own safety or the safety of another associated person, and that the person has, or might be intending to acquire, a firearm, the medical practitioner has to make a report to the registrar.

I have several questions regarding how this will operate in practice, because it seems to me (as I have already indicated in my second reading contribution) that most people do not have firearms and do not intend to acquire them. In fact, a medical practitioner asking that of someone who otherwise has no thought about a firearm and who has a mental condition does not seem to me to be the right way to go. It may well be that if you have a medical practitioner in the country treating people who might have firearms, and be known to have firearms, then that is common sense; however, if you are a medical practitioner in the Attorney-General's electorate, for instance, presumably most people there do not have firearms (just as they do not in my electorate). Therefore, how is the medical practitioner to know? Further to that, is it also the case that paragraph (a) talks about the person's own safety or the safety of another person but not the community at large; not a Martin Bryant situation? I am just a bit curious as to the practicality of this section.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT