HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FIREARMS (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 October 2013.)

Dr McFETRIDGE: I draw your attention to the state of the house, sir.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:44): I rise to speak on the continuation of the Firearms (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I declare that I am not the lead speaker, but I would like to contribute to the debate. I rise to convey some of the concerns that have been raised with me through many of my constituents, many of those being primary producers and many being members of gun and rifle clubs. Basically, this bill seeks to introduce a range of new criminal offences and penalties relating to firearms.

I declare my interest: I have a firearms licence, in the A, B and C categories, for primary production and control of feral animals. It has been a vital tool for managing properties, particularly with the development of new farm country. Obviously, we have to look out for birds that are destroying nut crops, grape crops and citrus but, just as importantly, we are looking at eradication of foxes and rabbits that are doing serious damage to farm country and, also, livestock.

I think it is important that South Australia continues to crack down on serious and organised crime and this bill appears to bring South Australia into line with other South Australian jurisdictions in certain areas. What I do not want to see is this bill cause unintended consequences to law-abiding firearms owners.

With the news that the government had rushed this bill into parliament—as I understand it, it was late on the last Thursday of sitting—straight away, I was contacted by a number of constituents who expressed major concerns about the bill as it currently stands. They are concerned about the bill's implications upon the legal and responsible firearms owners and users. This amendment bill will overlap and impact on farmers and firearms owners, and it could potentially impact on people who are collectors and have a small collection of firearms. In some cases, people have large collections.

It concerns me that this blanket approach will impact on the wider community and not the people it is intended to target, that is, the criminal element which seems to have no regard for the law at all. They act irresponsibly and under their own steam, and they are the people who are committing the crimes, usually using unlicensed, unregistered and illegal firearms. They come from the underworld and potentially threaten the lives of innocent bystanders. I need to put this into the right scale of what we are talking about. What I do not want to see is that blanket approach affect these businesses, particularly the small businesses that sell firearms, the gun clubs and the primary industry sector.

I guess one of the concerns that I have had, as a gun owner, particularly, is that there was no consultation with the community on this bill. Obviously, there was some form of consultation with the group FLAG. The Firearms Legislative Advisory Group spent a number of years giving evidence and input into this amendment bill yet, when it came time to look at the introduction of the bill, their advice and longstanding commitment to being a part of this process was ignored. I think that is a sad indictment on the way that this has been set about.

The Combined Shooters and Firearms Council of South Australia was disappointed they were not consulted or given sufficient notice about the bill. The group represents thousands of lawful firearms owners, from active shooters to antiques collectors. As I said, it is also about hunters and gatherers, as I call them; and it is about the duck shooting fraternity. What impact is this going to have on those people using their firearms for their pastime or hunting? Whether it is a sport or hobby, we accept that is the way those people spend their pastime.

Many areas of the amendments in the bill will impact on lawful firearms owners. I have had community members come to me, as I said, stating that competitive shooters often alter their firearms to gain competitive advantage within the law. However, this bill could impact upon this. If this bill is going to impact on competitive firearm owners or competitive gun clubs, what is that actually doing to the sport? Obviously, this is the other side to what the implications of this bill could mean. Again, we need to be clear exactly who will be impacted on. I know that this bill is targeted at the unlawful ownership and use of firearms, but we need to be clear just exactly who will be impacted on.

Another constituent raised the issue of seizure of equipment under this bill. Police will simply be able to seize guns upon suspicion. Amendments to the bill include creating trafficking offences, increasing police powers with regard to searches, firearm prohibition orders, prohibiting some currently legal firearm accessories and the ability to seize any equipment capable of being used to alter or manufacture firearms.

We say that obviously it appears that having a silencer is illegal and, as I understand it, the possession of a silencer is illegal, but there are some concerns about the manufacturing of a silencer. That needs to be clarified because, let's face it: we can have a manufactured silencer and a lot of them come from Europe. In Europe, silencers are mandatory. Here in South Australia, I have seen issues where people have makeshift silencers: they use a cordial bottle or a cool drink bottle. What type of accessory will be illegal?

The Combined Firearms Council also believes that, if further suitable amendments are put in place allowing exemptions in some areas for members of recognised clubs conducting recognised shooting disciplines and collecting, that would minimise its concerns. The firearms council is saying this because it appears that they have been left out of the final consultation when it comes to this amendment bill.

In 2008, the government established the Firearms Legislative Advisory Group (FLAG), as I have already said. The advisory group was made up of 15 delegates from all major firearm groups with representatives from SAPOL. FLAG met continuously for four years and reviewed the entire Firearms Act and regulations and none of the recommendations made by FLAG have been included in the bill. I again raise the question with the minister that these people have given four years of their time. I am sure that the minister would not acknowledge that four years of their time was just a waste. Obviously the minister has an agenda and it was not to include the FLAG group.

A particular area of concern is the seizure and forfeiture of equipment. That is clause 12, which provides for the insertion of new section 27AAB. The clause provides police with the authority to seize any equipment, device, object or document reasonably suspected of being used or intended to be used to alter or manufacture firearms. The Registrar may institute proceedings for the forfeiture of the equipment before the court.

The Registrar may sell or dispose of the equipment forfeited to the Crown. The concern here is around the term 'intend for use'. My constituents have informed me that they believe it is unfair for a person to be punished for owning equipment that could be 'intended for use'.

Moving now to searching premises, currently SAPOL has the power to break into a property if there is enough evidence of suspicion of holding illegal firearms, so we need more clarity about what powers the police have in this matter and what sufficient justification actually means. We do not want to see a neighbour who has a gripe who reports that his neighbour has an armoury in his house or shed, really when he only has a chip on his shoulder, and I do not want to see people being labelled as criminals through something like a neighbour with a chip on his shoulder.

As to the detachable magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, this is a new clause prohibiting a person from acquiring, owning or possessing a detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds without written approval from the registrar. Most primary producers have a 22 in their gun safe, and I speak to many of them. They would have a shotgun. Most 22s have a 10-round magazine—some have bigger magazines, some have smaller—but that now means that every primary producer is now looking to have to be approved or registered now that they have a rifle that they are using for their primary industry business and now they have to have another piece of paper registered to say they have a 10-shot magazine or a larger magazine.

A large number of these firearms users possess magazines, as I have said. What will that mean for those people with historic collections? I understand that there are some exemptions but this needs to be made more clear. For example, we have a paintball company in the electorate of Chaffey and the equipment holds a sufficient amount of magazines. Will that impact on a commercial business?

People spend a lot of money on magazines within the law and they now may be deemed illegal and confiscated without compensation. They could potentially be fined, they could be brought into court because they were not aware of these new amendments. How will every firearms owner know exactly what the law is going to be without having up-to-date literature that will be sent out?

Another concern that I have is regarding TAFE. Obviously TAFE is the only training facility here in South Australia for firearms certification. Has TAFE been notified? What will the cost be to amend all of the workbooks within TAFE? It is not just about bringing in these laws to target the people who shouldn't have firearms, illegally have firearms, illegally use firearms, it is also about the training institutions. They have not been notified.

That does cause concern that this is something that has had serious consultation with the representative groups and yet we do not see anyone from the training institutions being a part of it. I have more concerns and I am sure that the lead speaker will have the opportunity to ask questions in committee.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (15:59): I rise today to raise concerns of my constituents who have made contact with me. I represent an outer metropolitan area in Adelaide; in fact, I have many gun clubs that are located in my electorate, including the State Shooting Park in Virginia. The patrons of Penfield Pistol, Rifle and Archery Club does fantastic work in educating scouts and guides about firearms safety, and has done so for many years. Thousands of children have benefitted from that. I am in the process of obtaining an A, B and H class licence and am under instructions for that.

I also have attended the Queen's shootout at the Lower Light Range. A number of other collectors have made contact with me, and I flag that I intend to ask a number of questions in the committee stage of this bill to ensure that their interests are represented, as it is a legal and very skilful recreational pursuit. I have farmers in my electorate who are using it as a tool of trade, who are responsible and need to know that their interests are ensured in this bill, so I flag that I will be asking questions in committee.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (15:59): I will be the opposition's lead speaker, and I am very grateful to the member for Chaffey for rising to his feet when I was otherwise occupied—

The Hon. L.R. Breuer: Where is your commitment?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —in my office, member for Giles. I rise to speak on the Firearms (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2013. Let me just put on the record that unfortunately it was only possible for me to get a briefing from the government and from SAPOL today.

As the member for Chaffey quite rightly said, it does appear that there is a great rush on the behalf of the government to push this legislation through. It was tabled last sitting week, and I offered times when I would be available in Adelaide last week for a briefing between the sitting weeks, and I made it very clear that I would not be available, unfortunately because of some funerals, to attend a briefing in Adelaide on Monday or Tuesday. The result was that I was offered a briefing on Tuesday.

That was a fairly clear message from the government in regard to how they wanted to do things. I understand that the government is busy, I understand that SAPOL are very busy, and I understand that the firearms branch is extremely busy, but it certainly sets a pattern, and I am not alone in this view. The government seems determined to rush this through before the end of sittings. It does have an optional week, which it could use if it chose to, so it will be very interesting to see how that goes.

Nonetheless, I did get a good briefing this morning, and I appreciate the fact that the two officers from SAPOL who came along were both very open in regard to answering the questions. In opposition, we really do understand that SAPOL have a tough job to do—a very tough job to do. It is a very natural desire, and the opposition supports that desire, to get as many firearms as possible—ideally, all of them—out of the hands of criminals, including illegal owners and users of firearms, because even by just possessing an unregistered firearm or possessing a registered firearm without a licence, or any of those various combinations, and doing nothing with it, you are still a criminal.

We support wholeheartedly SAPOL's desire to clean things up. The government is clearly very concerned about the publicity it has had lately in regard to bikies and organised crime—and I think that is for good reason—and they are trying to really push this through. We support the police in their desire to do the work they do. I understand that the police broadly, quite rightly, really focus on what they want to achieve and what they need to achieve to fight crime; good on them for doing that, but there are other issues that come along with this legislation.

It would be pretty handy for all of us if it were possible just to say, 'Please, give SAPOL whatever tools they need to go and get the crooks. Have as much power as you like.' We would all be happy with that if there were no unintended consequences that went with that path of action. It is the unintended consequences that really are the focus of the concerns of the opposition and also the broader firearms-owning community.

In the government's rush to get this legislation through parliament, it just has not consulted. It just has not consulted with the people who count on this issue. I understand SAPOL's view that we are not actually trying to impact upon the legal and responsible firearms owners and users: we are trying to impact on the crooks. So, we are not consulting with the other groups because we are not actually trying to have an impact on them. I understand that, but the reality is that there is an impact, and there is certainly a lot of concern out there about the impact of this legislation on people.

I have had an enormous amount of feedback from the public on this bill, and the one single common thread—certainly not the only important issue, but the one consistent theme—was no consultation; a lack of consultation with us. It is interesting to contrast our government's approach on this issue to the New South Wales government's approach. All state governments are grappling with this issue at the moment. It is a tough issue and one that cannot be avoided; it needs to be addressed. I read from an extract of an email that was sent to me with regard to New South Wales:

The Police Minister officially announced on Tuesday last week that Deloitte was conducting a review of firearms registry, and that stakeholders would have an opportunity to have an input into the review. There is now a way for individuals to have their say on the registry by way of the government's 'Have Your Say' website. There is a questionnaire here that you can complete and/or you can make a more detailed submission by email. The Police Minister presumably passes these submissions on to Deloitte. Deloitte are contacting the major associations directly to interview them.

That is a very, very different approach to what we are having here at the moment. I understand that what is being consulted upon in New South Wales is not exactly the same material that is in this bill here, but it is part of the same general bucket of firearms concerns: registry, licensing, operation, manufacture, adjustments—all of those sorts of things.

I am not trying to say that the government and SAPOL have never consulted, because that is not true; they have not consulted on this bill. The last significant area of consultation that I am aware of with regard to firearms from this government was the Firearms Legislation Advisory Group (FLAG). That was a group of, I think (I stand to be corrected) 16 interest groups or thereabouts that was put together to represent, ideally, the entire community of legal and responsible firearms owners and users.

That group had SAPOL as a member, which I think is entirely appropriate; it is a difficult thing for SAPOL, because you want to participate in the group but you are also the key agency receiving recommendations from the group. Nonetheless, I think SAPOL would have had a very positive, constructive contribution to make to that group. That group put forward its recommendations I think in the middle of 2012 (June or July), and those recommendations, I am told, have never been addressed. I am told that no feedback—no feedback whatsoever—has been given to those recommendations from FLAG.

It might well be that the government's sees its involvement and interaction with FLAG, even though it seems to have been suspended for approaching a year and a half, as ongoing consultation. But, in the midst of the suspension of that ongoing consultation, it does not seem appropriate to be slipping in the Firearms (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill without going back to that group, which really worked very hard to try and put forward some responsible recommendations.

I am not suggesting that the government need accept every one of those recommendations. I am not suggesting for a second that you go out, you consult, you receive your feedback and, by virtue of that process, you are obliged to go along with what you get back. Certainly, that is not the case, but I think you are obliged to respond to it before you put legislation forward on exactly that topic.

So, I find that process of consultation or lack of consultation extremely concerning, given that really everybody who could possibly have an interest in this was included in FLAG and is represented by the Combined Firearms Council, all the way from antique collectors, who may perhaps never have fired a firearm or had a shot but for their own reasons love collecting, storing, displaying and viewing that sort of equipment, through to active hunters, who for their own reasons like to go out as often as possible and use firearms for hunting.

While I am talking about the range of people involved, let me also say that I think it is very remiss of the government not to have consulted with disabled sporting bodies, because one of the very important parts of this legislation deals with the accessories and/or modifications of firearms. It is quite understandable and quite a natural thing to think that disabled people would require modification to firearms so that they can pursue whatever legal activities they would like.

That is most typically competition shooting, from the grassroots—from outer metropolitan clubs, as the member for Taylor said, all the way through to far-flung parts of our states—ideally all the way up to the Paralympics. It appears that people who would advocate for and represent disabled competitive legal, responsible shooters have not been consulted at all about a bill that directly deals with the modification and accessorising (for appropriate reasons) of firearms.

As I said before, the police quite rightly focus on their priorities. I know they would give consideration to the broader issues, but it is their job to ask for legislation that helps them perform better in preventing (ideally) and, if not preventing, pursuing criminals and criminal activity. It is not necessarily their job to think about all of the unintended consequences, but it is the government's job and it is the opposition's job to consider and deal with the unintended consequences from this sort of legislation. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are a lot of unintended consequences to do with this legislation and there is a great deal of concern among the legal firearms fraternity about those unintended consequences and what they might lead to.

So, as strong as the opposition's support is for the police to do their job, it would be irresponsible of us and it would be irresponsible of me not to deal with those unintended consequences. I have had a brief discussion with the minister and also the minister's advisers during the briefing this morning and said, 'Look, if as many of these unintended consequences as possible can be clearly ruled out in a way that gives everybody confidence that what is actually in the bill and could apply to them will not, then I would be quite happy to support in those areas.' I have made an offer to the minister and shared some information with him about the types of assurances I will be looking for, and I hope that he is able to provide those assurances.

Just so that the house and all members are clear, I will just give a very brief summary of the key aspects of this bill. One is possession of a prohibited accessory, as in clauses 4(1), amending section 5, and clause 14, inserting new section 29B. The bill creates a new definition for a prohibited firearm accessory, which means 'an item, or an item of a class, prescribed by the regulations that may be fitted to or used in conjunction with a firearm'.

Straight away you can understand that sets alarm bells off, because what is going to be in the regulations? The government has that information but the public does not know and the opposition does not know. Quite understandably, that sets alarm bells off. A person found in possession of prohibited firearm accessory would be guilty of an offence with a maximum penalty of $10,000 or imprisonment of two years, which is pretty serious, yet we do not even know what those accessories might be.

It is hard to ask us to agree to that sort of a fine if we do not actually know what the fine might apply to. If the offender has physical control of the prohibited accessory in a firearm it would be considered an aggravated offence, which incurs a maximum penalty of $75,000 or imprisonment of up to 15 years—yet we still do not know what is on the list.

Clauses 4 and 13: possession of a silencer or other mechanism. Under section 29A of the Firearms Act 1977 it is already an offence to possess a silencer or a mechanism that can be fitted to a firearm to convert it to an automatic firearm or enable it to fire grenades or explosive projectiles. None of us would be suggesting that anybody in their right mind in today's world outside of some sort of military conflict needs to be firing grenades or explosive projectiles.

Clause 11: manufacturing of a silencer. This is a new offence making it illegal to manufacture a silencer. Penalties range from $35,000 or seven years' imprisonment to $75,000 or 15 years' imprisonment, depending on the class of firearm. As the member for Chaffey mentioned, there are many accessible household items which could be used as a silencer, and it is probably worth pointing out that I guess there is really no such thing technically as a silencer, there are certainly noise inhibitors or noise reducers, but, as it reads, potentially a towel is a silencer. As the member for Chaffey mentioned, potentially a fruit juice container is a silencer.

Clause 9: trafficking of firearms. The Firearms Act currently contains no provisions relating to the trafficking of firearms. While it is an offence to possess an illegal or unregistered firearm, there is no specific offence for supply or acquisition of the firearm. This bill introduces a traffic offence for a person acquiring or supplying an illegal firearm and that is pretty straightforward. We would not oppose that.

I do not oppose the intended desire of that, but the unintended consequences are certainly very concerning, particularly when for a first offence that involves one firearm the maximum penalties are as follows: for a prescribed firearm, a fine of $75,000 or imprisonment for 15 years; if the firearm is a class C, D or H firearm, a fine of $50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years; and for any other kind of firearm, there is a fine of $35,000 or imprisonment for seven years. It is all serious stuff and applied to a criminal, go your hardest—absolutely go your hardest. But unintendedly applied to a responsible person—no, that is not appropriate.

Clause 7: possession of a loaded firearm. Section 7 of the Firearms Act 1977 makes an aggravated offence if an offender is in possession of an illegal loaded firearm or had an illegal firearm concealed about the person. This amendment seeks to include the term 'loaded' or 'in the immediate vicinity of a loaded magazine that could be used in conjunction with that firearm', and I will come back to that again, because, quite genuinely, the intent of somebody illegally, irresponsibly walking around with a loaded firearm, we don't want that, but what could this bill actually mean in its current form?

Clause 14: possesses detachable magazines with the capacity of more than 10 rounds. As SAPOL and the minister's advisers and the minister know, this is an area that has caused a great deal of concern out in the community. There is a new clause prohibiting a person from acquiring, owning or possessing a detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds without written approval of the registrar. The proposed amendment has caused much angst, as I mentioned before, and I will come back to some of the details associated with that.

Clause 12: alterations to firearms and reactivating a deactivated firearm. This clause makes it an offence for a person without authorisation from the registrar to alter a firearm that has been rendered unusable to make the firearm capable of being used, and to alter a firearm making it a different class. Penalties range from $35,000 or seven years imprisonment as a maximum, to $75,000 or 15 years depending on the class of the firearm.

This clause also makes it an indictable offence to attempt to reactivate a firearm or change the class of this firearm; maximum penalty $15,000 or four years. The common thread here is people trying to reactivate or change classes of firearms, for the wrong reasons, and I have no concern about trying to prevent them from doing that and catch them if they still do it, but there are unintended consequences that need to be dealt with.

Clause 15: power to search and detain a vessel or an aircraft. The Firearms Act currently provides police with the authority to stop, detain and search a vehicle within which police suspect on reasonable grounds the person has possession of a firearm or firearm part. This clause extends this provision to include a marine vessel or an aircraft, in addition to road vehicles. I think that is pretty straight forward. It does not really change much at all other than the type of vehicle or vessel than can be searched. There are concerns out there about how police may choose to suspect on reasonable grounds, but that is a different area for debate.

Clause 5: police authority to stop and detain a person to serve a firearms prohibition order. This clause provides a police officer with the authority to require a person to remain in a particular place for up to two hours if the police officer has reason to believe that a firearms prohibition order applies to that person and, if the person refuses to comply, police can arrest or detain the person for up to two hours. I think that makes good sense. I would be very concerned if police had good reason to believe that an individual was the subject of a firearms prohibition order and they were wrong. It might happen but I guess they would not be wrong too often on that, and I would certainly support them in their desire to implement that prohibition order.

Clause 12: seizure and forfeiture of equipment. This clause provides police with the authority to seize any equipment, device, object or document reasonably suspected of being used or intended for use to alter and manufacture firearms, firearms parts, or silencers. The registrar may institute proceedings for the forfeiture of equipment before a court. The registrar may sell or dispose of the equipment forfeited to the crown. The term 'intended for use' is really what causes a lot of concern here. Again, certainly, if it is intended for use, then so be it, but how that is determined is a very difficult issue.

That is a very quick summary of the issues in this bill, broadly speaking. Let me turn to some of the concerns that have been provided to the opposition, and I would like to think that most of these would have also been provided to SAPOL and to government members as well, because the people who I have been in contact with, and who have contacted me, are all doing it for the right reasons. These are not criminals trying to thwart parliamentary process so that they can escape justice. These are people doing this for the right reasons so that they can do everything they can as responsible and legal firearms owners and users.

I do not want to be unfair to anybody but, of the feedback I have received, I have considered most seriously the 19 submissions that really had some meat to them and that appeared to be very well thought out and considered. I am not including in any of the information I am about to share the person who says, 'Bloody police, bloody government cracking down on me. I don't want that stuff.' I have left all of that out. These are the 19 people and/or organisations that I think have shared very responsibly their concerns on behalf of themselves and/or the people they represent.

As I said before, every single one of these people and organisations has said that the lack of or no consultation is one of their significant concerns. I have already gone into that, so I will not delve into it too deeply again, but that is a worry. You do not have to be Einstein to know that if you do not consult you will end up with unintended consequences that affect the people you did not consult with. There is a range of useful general comments I will share with the house. I will not share exactly who made each comment, but these are some general comments:

Four year process with Firearm Legislative Advisory Group (FLAG) all recommendations ignored/no response from Government.

Another one is:

The wording of the Bill is vague and unclear in its intent. A clear indication of rushed drafting, which is likely to result in bad law.

The possible effect of unintended consequences' on legitimate shooters and our sport.

Proposed legislation left in Police hands through regulations.

I think what that is really trying to say is that the greatest area of concern for this particular person is, 'What is in the regulations? Give us the detail. How can we possibly be expected to be comfortable with what parliament is considering at the moment if we don't know really exactly where and when it's applied?' Another one states:

The unfortunate consequences are that the law-abiding firearm owners are not differentiated from the criminals while having to face ever more complex restrictions...

As I said before, I will be very grateful if the minister can rule out some of these unintended consequences that exist at the moment. That would be terrific. Another comment is:

It has become increasingly clear that this is a pre-election attempt at political grandstanding on the perceived law and order issue, rather than any serious attempt at controlling or curbing real criminal activity.

Another one states:

They have not taken the opportunity to fix the interstate dealer problem as 'promised?'

The bill will make certain items of currently legal sporting equipment illegal, and contains no provision for compensation. This is not acceptable and is but one of the issues that I have with it.

I copy the tourism minister—

this submission went to the tourism minister as well—

because I thought he'd like to know that, as a result of how hard it is to legitimately pursue my hunting hobby in Australia, my wife and I are choosing to take our big break in New Zealand, where it is easier and more socially acceptable. That's approximately $US10,000 that I won't be spending in South Australia.

Another comment is:

There are a number of items in this Bill that will affect law-abiding firearm owners like myself as both a collector of historic firearms and as a sporting shooter.

This is the last one that I will share with the house:

Broad and at times vague nature of the Bill which will impact on law-abiding firearms owners even if that isn't the intention of the proposed legislation.

That last comment really does give us the summary in a nutshell, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, as you know, that is where the majority of my concerns lie. I am going to go through some specific concerns, as opposed to the general concerns I have just shared with the house. These come primarily from the Combined Firearms Council which you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a former police minister may know is a group that does its very best to represent every single sporting club and sporting organisation in our state on these matters.

They put an enormous amount of work into this and have done so for many years. These are not people who have just come lately to this topic and been riled up or inflamed in some way. These are people who have put an enormous amount of time and effort into firearms legislation. They are not the only people I listen to: I will be very clear on that.

They are not the only people I think have a good voice to offer on this issue, but they are the single largest representative body. Let me step through some of their concerns. They have concerns in regard to possession of a prohibited accessory. I will not tell members everything, just the key and pertinent bits. They say:

The definition is meaningless without access to the proposed regulations. Shooters add one or more accessories to their firearms to enhance accurate shooting and the ergonomics commensurate with their own capabilities and the tasks they undertake. The definition and section 29B and all reference to prohibited firearm accessories should be removed from the bill until a satisfactory definition has been drafted.

I believe what they mean is that it should be drafted within the legislation as opposed to being contained in the regulations. In regard to accessories, I advised previously that I have had the chance to have a brief chat with the minister, his chief of staff and adviser on this matter, and I have been given a list of typical firearms accessories that are used by responsible, law-abiding firearms users for perfectly responsible, law-abiding purposes.

I would be very grateful if the minister, when he has the opportunity, could confirm that none of these accessories would be deemed to be caught by this legislation if it were successful, subject, of course, to them being used responsibly and legally. I am not suggesting that I am after a list of accessories that for any purpose are okay, but a list of accessories that are used for positive reasons.

Sights:

alternative foresights. including hooded, coloured, luminous and adjustable;

alternative backsights, including open, aperture, adjustable, folding, multi-leaf, luminous;

telescopic sights, including fixed power, variable power, illuminated, red/green dot, range adjustable, range finding, image intensifying;

laser sights;

fibre optic;

sight mounts and rings, including dovetail, quick detachable, multiple, adjustable, Picatinny, tip-off and see through.

Triggers:

adjustable and match grade, typically for weight, travel, over-travel, length and position adjustments;

upgrade to manufacturer's trigger for adjustments, single or dual stage;

set triggers, single or dual;

Let me share with the house that I have an accessory on a stock of a shotgun that I own, which I purchased at a clay target shooting competition, and I consider myself to be a very law-abiding, responsible person. All it does is make an adjustment to the end of the stock, which helps me because I have a fair distance between the crook of my shoulder and my cheek and eye, which are the two places where you mount your stock on your shotgun when you are shooting clay targets. This is a very real-world situation.

Stocks:

custom stocks to fit the user;

adjustable, being timber with butt plate and/or cheek piece adjustment, or synthetic with multiple adjustments, or aluminium with multiple adjustments and supplementary ergonomic grips;

synthetic: timber replacement, including timber laminate, fibreglass, carbon fibre, plastics, aluminium;

coloured: having colour and texture such as to minimise visibility to animals when hunting and reduce shine;

textured or rubber/plastics coated so as to provide for enhanced grip;

special inletting and internal fixtures so as to provide superior action bedding and fully floating barrel;

special inletting and external fixtures, providing mounting points and/or rails for fitting slings, lights, palm rests and bipods.

Tube stocks:

metal stock systems providing adjustments, fully floating barrel and surrounding for end/hand guard;

recoil pads, butt hooks, ammunition holders, built-in or attached.

Barrel options and accessories:

different lengths and diameters to suit different types of competition and hunting;

muzzle attachments including weights, brakes, still air tubes, false muzzles (muzzle loaders), adjustable and interchangeable chokes;

other attachments including light mounts, sling swivels, colours and textures including non-reflective finishes and coatings, corrosion resistant.

The last category is bipods and rests:

bipod attached, fixed, removable, adjustable for height

rests, not attached.

They are things that I hope the minister will confirm for the house that, so long as they are all used legally and responsibly, will be specifically excluded from being caught by this legislation because, as it has been proposed to the house, they could actually all be captured by this legislation.

The next area of broad concern is possession of silencer and/or certain parts of firearms and manufacturing of silencer—this is clause 4 and clause 13. I am not suggesting for a second that anybody should be allowed to use a silencer for any nefarious, illegal or inappropriate activities, but I will share some responsible feedback that comes to me:

There are a number of times when an unusable, damaged part of a firearm needs to be remade or repaired. If people have the ability or the machines to do this, there should not be a law preventing the manufacture of parts for the purpose by a licensed owner or on registered firearms.

But that would not be allowed by this legislation. In addition:

A .17HMR calibre firearm is classed as class B, yet a .22 magnum is classed as A class. There are types of firearms where these calibres are sold as interchangeable barrels used on the one firearm. This law will make this practice illegal and parts ownership an offence. If parts are not the main operating component, (e.g., receiver) of a firearm they do not present a threat to the community, therefore should not be subject to an offence.

Let me be very clear there: there are certainly some attachments to a legal firearm which I would not ever support legal or illegal firearms users having, but there are also a lot of very reasonable, responsible times where attachments and interchangeable parts that could change something from one class to another should be acceptable and, under this legislation, they would not be. Another piece of feedback on this issue states:

As a Gazetted collector organisation, our emphasis is on all facets of historic firearms. This includes many and varied accessories. This proposed legislation is [too] vague in what accessories will be covered.

Just moving on to trafficking of firearms, some pertinent feedback states:

How will dealers be handled in relation to visiting South Australia for Arms and Militia Shows...

Presumably that would apply to people visiting shows in other states as well, because they would still have to travel through South Australia. The feedback continues:

No licences are required for ownership of deactivated firearms in South Australia. South Australia has different deactivation criteria to other states. If I buy a New South Wales or Queensland deactivated firearm, it is illegal in South Australia until I get a deactivation certificate from SAPOL (after physical inspection by SAPOL armoury). The transport, deactivation and possession by a South Australian purchaser could be deemed as 'trafficking'.

Another piece of feedback on this particular issue:

Trafficking of firearms as proposed can also affect members as there might be firearms in another state that members wish to purchase, as licensed firearm owners there is the ability to borrow the item for up to 10 days, without the need of a purchase permit, this would allow the firearm to be transported to the purchasers home state and deposited with a dealer until paperwork can be processed. Transport of this firearm could be seen as 'trafficking' under this legislation even though both the firearm is registered and the possessor is licensed.

Moving on to possession of a loaded firearm, let me be very clear that I do not support at all the need for a person to possess a loaded firearm for any irresponsible purpose or, as this legislation proposes, to have a firearm in the vicinity of a loaded magazine for any inappropriate or irresponsible purpose. What is the 'immediate vicinity'? I will read this bit of feedback:

Does this mean within reach, in the same house, same street or what?

It is a difficult issue because I can very well understand from a police perspective that a certain set of circumstances may not be a concern under legal responsible use, but under another set of circumstances quite remote proximity could be a very genuine concern for SAPOL. The problem is that the general responsible legal public out there does not know how they are going to get caught up in this part of the proposed legislation.

Moving now to clause 14 regarding possession of detachable magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Significant numbers of licensed firearm owners with class B firearms presently legally possess and use magazines of larger than 10 rounds.

In the case above for Class A and B firearms, many have been altered lawfully to accept removable magazines of larger capacity and some of these alterations are irreversible. If these new measures were applied, then these firearms would be unusable. Licensed firearm collectors presently legally collect historical military firearm magazines with larger than 10 rounds capacity. They are of real significance to their collections, are rare and of great value, like snail drum magazines for WWI Vintage Luger pistols.

As a constraint measure against serious and organised crime, the proposal will have no appreciable effect as persons illegally in possession of Class C and D firearms already have the large capacity magazines. In summary, possibly some thousands of presently law-abiding citizens will either face being liable for prosecution and horrendous penalty or face loss of hundreds to thousands of dollars through surrender of magazines.

Regarding the immediate concerns impacting on members:

The restriction of certain magazines will affect our members, especially those with collectible firearms designed to have a magazine (greater than 10 rounds where applicable) missing. Our members are also concerned that there is no compensation proposed for items declared illegal under this new proposed legislation, this seems to be an unconstitutional proposal as these items were legally owned before the proposed legislation.

I chose to leave that one until last because it is a really important issue. The compensation that could quite understandably be sought by legal firearms owners who have magazines which can carry rounds in excess of 10 is potentially enormous and it is also unknown. I was very concerned to hear in the briefing that we had this morning that SAPOL do not actually know how many magazines there are out there in the public that are legally and responsibly owned and used in connection with firearms activities.

They just do not know how many are there, so it presents a few problems. How on earth would you ever know when you had got them all back? You cannot possibly try to estimate the unintended consequences and how many people would genuinely be affected by this, if you do not actually even know how many are out there. As I said before, you do not know what the cost either to the person who stands to lose that magazine and/or to the state is if the government were to enter into some sort of compensation scheme, which it has not suggested but, as I just read out from the last contribution that I shared with the house, these are all pieces of equipment that are currently legally owned, and to make them, all of a sudden, illegally owned is very likely to bring on calls for compensation.

Regarding clause 12: alterations to firearms and reactivating and deactivated firearms, here is a piece of feedback from a president of a club:

I have three metal turning lathes plus a wide selection of hand and power tools that I use in my day-to-day activities as a plumber. All could be construed as firearm part manufacturing and alteration equipment.

Another piece of feedback:

Many collectable firearms are bought in a poor condition with parts either broken or missing. Some parts are no longer procurable and therefore need to be made. A person with the skill and the machinery should be able to make parts or carry out alterations to firearms that are legally owned without the fear of loss of their legally owned equipment.

One of the really key components of this section is how it applies to firearms that are changed so that the firearm would actually fit in one class instead of another class. I understand very clearly from the briefing from SAPOL and the minister's office this morning that the intention of this part of the bill is clearly that it will only be used when a legal, responsible firearms owner changes a firearm so that it moves from one class description to another class description.

There is still the issue of interchangeable barrels and how the same firearm may potentially fit into two classes at the same time quite legally and responsibly. So, if we just put that aside for the moment, I wholeheartedly support police in their desire to stop anyone—legal or illegal owner and user of a firearm—deliberately, deceitfully changing a firearm so that it changes from one class to another.

I would be very grateful if the minister could make it really clear, when the time is right, that that is the only way in which this part of the legislation would be used, because it is causing an enormous amount of concern out there. I support it, if it is applied in the way that I am told it is intended, but what needs to be made clear is it will not be used in other ways—the unintended consequences that people are concerned about—and I would be grateful if the minister is able to do that.

On seizure and forfeiture of equipment, under clause 12, a concern here is it is so vague it gives the police unfettered powers of search and seizure with the only apparent requirement on the part of the police being reasonable cause to suspect a future intent to maybe commit an offence. I am sure that police do not go out of their way to dream up a belief or a suspicion of future intent, but it is a very difficult area for people to get their heads around, that they could potentially be the subject of a police officer coming to that conclusion, potentially incorrectly. So, that is a very understandable concern here. Another bit of feedback—another concern:

As a firearm owner, and happen to be a qualified machinist who owns his own metalwork machinery, this legislation makes it too easy for a police officer to suspect an offence has, was or is being committed using these machines, as I carry out my own deactivations and repairs to my own firearms. The machines and equipment should not be subject to forfeiture.

I think people would really understand those sorts of concerns very well. I know I have taken a fair bit of the house's time, but I have deliberately condensed the information that I have been provided, and I have also condensed my own concerns. I have deliberately left time for my colleagues to make contributions on behalf of their electorates and constituents, but let me say that I really do appreciate that people have gone to great lengths to provide responsible feedback.

As I said to you before, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have excluded any feedback that I received which I though was a bit marginal or a bit unreasonable. The only information that I have shared with the house is a small portion of what I believe was brought to me responsibly, and I thank the people who have done that. Lack of consultation is the real concern—lack of consultation leading to unintended consequences.

I do not suspect that the police want to do anything other than get out there and catch crooks, and make our community safer by removing illegal and irresponsible firearms and their owners, users, traffickers, accessorisers, modifiers, etc., from our streets, and that is fantastic. But, the government having received nearly a year and a half ago feedback from the advisory group that was established to give it feedback on all of these matters, not having even responded to that feedback, and in the interim coming forward with this bill, really does leave a bad taste in the mouths of the responsible legal firearms owners.

I am particularly concerned about that lack of consideration and consultation, all the way through, as I said, from the historical collectors who may never have ever fired a firearm in their lives, through to active hunters and disabled sportspeople. But, it is that lack of consultation that has actually caused the great concern about unintended consequences.

I would also like to ask the minister to respond, if he is able to, in his address, with regard to exactly where the sources of illegal firearms are. Where are the illegal firearms that this legislation seeks to take off our streets coming from? I think that is a really grey area, and I think it is difficult for police, it is difficult for a minister, and it is difficult for anybody to know where all these illegal firearms are coming from. Of course, given that difficulty, it makes it very, very hard for legislation that attacks that problem appropriately without creating unintended consequences.

I will leave it there; I know there are others who want to contribute. I thank the house for their time. I thank my staff member, Mr Chris Hanna, who is a very thorough and capable person, and who supports me in all of my shadow ministerial responsibilities, for his support. I also thank the minister for the genuine discussion that we have had brief opportunities to enter into, and I thank SAPOL for their sharing everything that they possibly could with us, but there are a lot of concerns about this legislation.

The opposition is not going to oppose the legislation in this house because, essentially, that would be a fruitless activity anyway. I certainly would have loved to have brought forward suggested amendments to this house but, in light of the fact that I was only able to have the briefing this morning between 10 and 11 o'clock, it was impractical even to consider trying to bring amendments to this house. I think it is very likely that we will bring amendments to the other place. The opposition is not supportive of the legislation in its current form, but it will not oppose its passage through this house. We will deal with it in greater detail in the Legislative Council.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (16:55): First of all, I declare that I am a registered gun owner and a legal one. I have consulted widely with the various gun clubs within my electorate, with hunters, farmers and also the Combined Firearms Council of South Australia. When the Premier announced this bill, he clearly stated that the objectives only related to possession of firearms within serious and organised crime and that it would not target licensed firearm owners. That is not correct, as it clearly does impact significantly on law-abiding citizens and firearm owners.

As far as I am concerned, this is a bit of legislation that has been rushed into this house and is being attempted to be rushed through this house. It is sloppy, there has not been enough consultation, and if that consultation had been done properly with all those various groups, perhaps I would have been able to support the legislation, but in its present form I cannot. There is no talk about any compensation for those people who have purchased legally all their guns and various other items, and of course there is no indication of what the cost could be if there were to be compensation.

I certainly agree with the intentions of the bill, and I do not care how hard the government is on organised criminals and the activities they go about. I certainly applaud the government whenever they attack those criminals, and we have to make sure that they cannot be armed, but really I think we should be attempting to find out how the hell they are getting all these guns and address that situation, rather than bringing in legislation that affects some of our law-abiding citizens.

I will not go over the issues that have already been raised by the speakers who were before me, but I might say that I never really like it when legislation comes before us and we do not have the regulations so that we do not get a clear understanding of exactly what is intended. I just reiterate that I support the intention of the bill, but in its present form I will be voting against it.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:58): I rise today also to speak on this bill, the Firearms (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I compliment the other speakers on their contribution and also congratulate the shadow minister on his diligent work and also his considerable contribution: well done for that. Like others on this side, I look to declare an interest in this particular piece of legislation. I am a registered firearm owner. I hold a class A and B firearms licence. I have had that for some 35 years, I think, since I left school in fact. I went farming and I gained a gun licence—

Mr Whetstone: Is that all?

Mr TRELOAR: Yes. 'Is that all?' says the member for Chaffey. Maybe I look older than that. Certainly, many of the primary producers in the electorate of Flinders—particularly the farmers and fishermen—use firearms regularly as a tool of trade. It is part of their ongoing management and vermin control. Also within the electorate of Flinders we have gun clubs, pistol clubs, clay pigeon shooters, duck shooters, other sporting hunters and, of course, collectors. All these people need to be considered in this legislation and I, like others, am very much getting the message that there has not been adequate consultation on this.

I attended the briefing that was offered by the minister this morning, and I thank his staff and those present today for the opportunity they gave us to question them more clearly, but I suspect there will be much more detail and more questioning during the committee stage and also in the other place.

For the sake of my constituents, I will make a few comments on the bill itself and reiterate some points that have already been made. I think it is important that people understand what is being debated here, what is being proposed, and what likely legislation is to come out of this. The first clause I would like to talk about is clause 4(1), section 5. This bill creates a new definition for a prohibited firearm accessory, which in fact means:

...an item, or an item of class, prescribed by the regulations that may be fitted to or used in conjunction with a firearm;

A person found in possession of a prohibited firearm accessory would be guilty of an offence, with a maximum penalty of $10,000 or imprisonment for two years. I think the theme that comes through in all this proposed legislation is, in fact, the penalties that can be incurred should there be a breach.

Clause 4(2), section 5: pursuant to section 29A of the Firearms Act 1977, it is already an offence to possess a silencer or a mechanism that can be fitted to a firearm to convert it to an automatic firearm or enable it to fire grenades or other explosive projectiles. My feeling is that grenades are already illegal, so I am wondering why it even needs to be considered here. The bill makes this an aggravated offence for offenders found with both a firearm and a silencer or mechanism, or with a silencer or mechanism attached to the firearm.

It is illegal to manufacture a silencer. This is a new offence making it illegal to manufacture a silencer, and penalties range from $35,000, or seven years' imprisonment, and up to $75,000—significant penalties. The Firearms Act 1977 currently contains no provision relating to the trafficking of firearms, and I think this is something that particularly needs to be picked up on.

While it is currently an offence to possess an illegal or unregistered firearm, there is no specific offence for supply or acquisition of a firearm, and this bill introduces a trafficking offence for a person acquiring or supplying. Obviously, this is an attempt to target those who are involved in organised crime and the criminal element that involves itself in the trafficking of firearms.

Section 11 makes it an aggravated offence if an offender is in possession of an illegal loaded firearm or had an illegal firearm concealed about the person. Clause 14 is another new clause prohibiting a person from acquiring, owning, or possessing a detachable magazine with the capacity of more than 10 rounds without written approval of the registrar. I know there has been a bit of discussion about that today, but in my mind this is fair and reasonable. My feeling is that if you, as a primary producer or hunter, cannot manage to hit your target within 10 shots then you need to have a pretty good look at yourself.

The SPEAKER: Ten shots?

Mr TRELOAR: Ten shots, yes indeed.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: It is a sad indictment, yes. I would be somewhat sympathetic to that particular clause.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: There might be 10 targets.

Mr TRELOAR: 'There might be 10 targets,' says the member for Stuart; there are all sorts of challenges out there. The proposed amendment has caused much angst amongst many registered firearm users and much discussion across the chamber here this afternoon, and it has also caused concern amongst collectors and firearm organisations.

Clause 12: this clause makes it an offence for a person without authorisation from the registrar to alter a firearm that has been rendered unusable to make the firearm capable for being used, and to alter a firearm making it a different class. Once again, the penalties are significant—$35,000 or seven years imprisonment. The Firearms Act 1977 currently provides the police with the authority to stop, detain and search a vehicle within which police suspect on reasonable grounds a person has possession of a firearm or firearm part.

Clause 5: this clause once again provides a police officer with the authority to require a person to remain in a particular place for up to two hours if the police officer has reason to believe that a firearms prohibition order applies to that person. Once again, as we go through the legislation we are talking more and more about the powers the police have to actively pursue those involved with illegal firearm activities.

Clause 12: seizure and forfeiture of equipment. This clause provides police with the authority to seize any equipment, device, object or document reasonably suspected of being used or intended for use to alter or manufacture firearms, firearm parts or silencers. Once again this an issue that has caused some consternation amongst constituents of members on this side of the house at least. I know the member for Stuart mentioned that, and I am going to very briefly talk about a couple of pieces of correspondence that I received from constituents of mine.

The first one is from a firearms collector based in Port Lincoln, and his concerns no doubt will be addressed through the committee stage and by the minister when the times comes, but I might highlight them here today for the sake of the record. This particular gentleman writes and says:

There are a number of items in this bill that will affect law abiding firearm owners like myself as both a collector of historic firearms and as a sporting shooter.

Often these people overlap into different categories and I have to say that many of these people often regard firearms (as I do myself) as a particularly beautiful piece of machinery. In particular, he is highlighting the lack of consultation—there is that issue that has come up time and time again—prior to the formulation of this legislation and the minimal, if any, timeframe allowed for comment on this bill. In his second point he refers to the prohibited firearm accessory, which means an item or an item of class prescribed by regulations that may be fitted to or used in conjunction with a firearm. This gentleman comments, 'This could mean anything and everything.' As a bona fide collector, he has accessories for historic machine guns, e.g. rusty barrels from World War II, etc. He says:

The unintended consequence of this vague legislation is that these historic items will become illegal & accordingly I will have to hand them in without compensation.

His third point:

...firearm includes a device that would be a firearm within the meaning of this Act but for the fact that it has been rendered unusable in a manner stipulated in the regulations or by the registrar.

As part of his collection, this gentleman has a number of historic and rare deactivated firearms. He has deactivated these items in accordance with the law so he can freely display these items.

This law will force me to store the items as if they were usable firearms. The wording as currently in the Bill is most ill-conceived and I would suggest by persons with little awareness of the unintended consequences of this hastily put together legislation.

Different states and territories in Australia have differing legislation pertaining to firearms. One of the things we talked about this morning was the potential to harmonise some of these rules at least. It is not going all the way, obviously, because the state has jurisdiction of this, but just because a firearm is deemed illegal in South Australia should not stop the acquisition and transport of that firearm to South Australia for legal ownership in accordance with South Australia law. Another comment states:

Permit for acquisition: Manufacture of firearms, firearm parts or silencers. There are a number of times where an unusable damaged part of a firearm needs to be remade or repaired. If people have the ability or machines to do this, there should not be a law preventing the manufacture of parts for the purpose by a licensed owner on registered firearms.

I will move away from that and refer quickly to another piece of correspondence that I received from the Port Lincoln Firearms Collectors Club. They wrote to me, and I am sharing this with the house and putting it on the public record. They highlight that they have recently been made aware of a new bill being tabled in parliament for consideration—once again, they say, 'without notice and without any consultation with stakeholders likely to be affected by its measures'. They state:

There are a number of proposed amendments in this Bill that we feel will adversely affect our members and possibly unforeseen effects until further in-depth consultation can be completed with our members. We feel that the proposed amendments have been formulated without due consideration to a true consultative process with little time to fully take into consideration the full consequences of the proposed changes to the law. Immediate concerns impacting on our members include:

Ownership/possession of parts of firearms: the interpretation of parts & accessories is unknown, so we can only guess what will be made illegal.

Definition of a firearm to include unusable firearms (deactivated), the idea of owning a deactivated firearm is to be able to own, display and increase a collection's diversity through the purchase of other items. This law will force owners into, display, storage & purchase restrictions that we feel are unnecessary because of the deactivated nature of the firearm. It will also force a deactivated machinegun into the prescribed firearm category, thereby disallowing ownership.

Trafficking of firearms as proposed can also affect members as there might be firearms in another state that members wish to purchase, as licensed firearm owners there is the ability to borrow the item for up to 10 days, [currently] without the need of a purchase permit, this would allow the firearm to be transported to the purchaser's home state...Transport of this firearm could be seen as 'trafficking' under this legislation even though both the firearm is registered & the possessor is licensed.

Alterations of firearms, Seizure and Forfeiture of equipment, etc. Many collectable firearms are bought in poor condition with parts either broken or missing, some parts are no longer procurable and therefore need to be made. A person with the skill and the machinery should be able to make parts or carry out alterations to firearms that are legally owned without the fear of loss of their legally owned equipment.

As a gazetted collector organization our emphasis is on all facets of historic firearms, this includes many & varied accessories, this proposed legislation is so vague in what accessories will be covered. Also, we wonder why grenade launchers are a problem when live grenades are illegal to own anyway?

I had not thought of that, but there you go.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: Grenades are illegal, member for Hammond.

The restriction of certain magazines will affect our members, especially those with collectible firearms designed to have a magazine (greater than 10rnd where applicable) missing. Also some members have in their collection deactivated historic military firearms that used a magazine of greater than 10 rounds, when displaying these firearms in a wartime display, extra magazines are important to add a sense of authenticity to the display. There is also the possibility that imitation magazines designed for non-firing replicas will be taken as magazines under this legislation by over zealous Police Officers.

I am quoting here. They continue:

Our members are also concerned that there is no compensation proposed for items declared illegal under this new proposed legislation,—

That is a fair and reasonable point. They conclude that this seems unconstitutional. The Port Lincoln Firearms Collectors Club Inc. agree with the need for sensible, well balanced legislation, as we all do as members of parliament, as has been highlighted by everybody who has made a contribution so far, particularly with regard to serious criminal activity. They state:

But in this instance we feel that there are many unintended consequences with this new proposed legislation that will adversely affect our law-abiding firearm owner members and other innocent members of the community.

That is just one of many letters that both I and other members on this side of the house have received over time. We have highlighted a few concerns. I do not usually read out correspondence from constituents but, given the fact that time and time again the lack of consultation was highlighted, I felt it was appropriate to raise those issues today and put them on the record. I look forward to the minister's response when the time comes. I think we have two more contributors, so I look forward to further discussion.

I will leave you with one observation that I made. It does not relate at all to this particular legislation, but it does relate to guns. At the Remembrance Day service that I attended just two days ago, I noticed (and I had noticed previously at an ANZAC ceremony in April) that our cadets were standing very proudly at the War Memorial looking smart and polished in their uniforms, and were at arms, but, instead of holding a .303 rifle with the bolt removed or a deactivated army issue SLR, they were holding a plastic toy gun. It struck me as rather odd that we have got to the point where we require that these sorts of stipulations are put in place on days of remembrance. The diggers who were there were horrified, and I am sure those who were not there would have been turning in their graves. That is just a thought to leave with members.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:15): I rise to speak to the Firearms (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2013. I, too, wish to note the concerns that other members on this side of the house have put in regard to this bill. I do not think anyone could argue with the fact that we want to round up criminals and criminal weapons and illegal guns, but I think there are many, many unintended consequences of this legislation. It has certainly upset people across electorates, and people are just unsure where they stand in regard to many of the clauses in this legislation. Certainly, at no time, do we condone criminal activity or the activities of outlaw bikie gangs.

I struggle a bit with the part of the legislation that limits the magazines that can be used for bolt action rifles. These could be .22s but they also could be larger calibre weapons. Some of these weapons have been adjusted so that they can take bigger magazines and, from what I am told, magazines, depending on the rifle, can be 10, 15, 20, 30 or even 40-round magazines. I guess for criminal activity, I would not think—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Come to the point, please.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I will. I will get to it. I cannot see too many bikies using bolt action weapons—I just cannot see that happening—or outlaws, that is, anyone practising criminal activity. If they were going to do illegal acts, I am sure they would have some sort of semi-automatic or automatic weapon which is, more likely than not, illegal. So, I struggle with this part of the legislation that will impact on a lot of gun owners. A lot of gun owners were impacted after what happened at Port Arthur. Port Arthur was a terrible tragedy for many people and the families who have lived since. The gun laws that came in then impacted on a lot of people, especially in rural areas.

We need to have sensible gun laws but we need to understand that people in the bush, and a lot of farmers, use them as practical tools of trade and for vermin control, and there are also a lot of professional shooters and a lot of people in sporting clubs who use some of these weapons. I guess the thing that concerns me with this business about restricting the magazine size above 10 rounds is whether it will mean that some of the class B firearms will essentially become class D if they can only use it as expanded magazines. The problem is whether people, as a consequence of this legislation, will want access to class D firearms, and I read from a police website which states that the access to class D means:

This will be limited to an applicant who gains their livelihood wholly or partly from professional shooting and the applicant needs the firearm to destroy animals in the course of professional shooting. If the applicant does not satisfy the legislative requirements to have possession of a class D firearm, the applicant will not be granted a firearms licence to possess these firearms.

I think there is something there we need to clear up, especially during the committee stage, regarding these firearms that have been adjusted to take bigger magazines, and I know that some can take bigger magazines without adjustment.

I am also very concerned with the fact that, in the handback provisions in the bill, there will be no compensation whatsoever. Some of these magazines that these people have invested in as legal gun owners in the community are worth hundreds of dollars. I just want to read into Hansard some correspondence from one of my constituents:

I write now as a concerned firearms owner. I have legally owned and used a number of different classes of firearm since I was a teenager. I am now on the wrong side of 60! I have been a responsible hunter and target shooter for over 50 years, and wish to continue this sport until I am no longer able. I have served in the Australian military for a combination of 21 years and have instructed in the safe use of firearms and weapons to soldiers and cadets since the early 70s I am still actively involved in the ex-services community, through my involvement with a number of organisations, the local RSL and the RSAR Association being just two.

I have always obeyed the various laws governing the use and possession of firearms, and have made sure that my firearms are stored in secure containers, as per the legislation. At one time I owned around 30 firearms, ranging from handguns, high powered rifles, military style firearms and shotguns. After the Federal Government's knee jerk reaction to the individual atrocities committed at Port Arthur, I, like many thousands of other law abiding gun owners, handed in certain firearms that were then deemed to be 'unacceptable' to the government. I 'lost' about 15 of my prized possessions at that time that were ostensibly going to be passed on to my children, or sold as their inheritance when I no longer desired to own them.

Although I was paid what was deemed by the government as being reasonable compensation, their value to me was far more than currency can provide! My family and I have lost that value forever!

I trust, as a former farmer and land owner, you have at one time possessed firearms yourself, whether it be for vermin control or pleasure? I'm trusting that the following affects you as much as it does me and other responsible firearms owners?

For the sake of the record, I am still a landowner and I have a class C firearm—a pump-action shotgun—and a little .410 shotgun.

Mr Treloar: For the snakes.

Mr PEDERICK: I will never admit to that. The letter continues:

As a member of the South Australian Parliament, you are obviously aware of the Firearms (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2013, which was tabled during the sitting of the House Of Assembly (No. 210) on 30th October 2013...The so-called reasons for the amendments to the Firearms Act 1977 is to prevent firearms and associated equipment becoming available to bikies and purveyors of serious crime. This is great, if only those persons are affected, however the consultation process with authorised owners has been severely neglected by the government and the reasons given by the Premier, SAPOL and the Attorney General in recent media releases, that the new amendments will not affect lawful firearms users, is blatant lies. Many areas of these proposed amendments as they are written will affect me and many thousands of others responsible firearms owners.

After Port Arthur, we were made to hand in most military style semi automatic firearms with magazine capacities over 20 rounds. To compensate for this many firearms owners resorted to bolt action rifles with magazines of 10 or more rounds capacity. Now the amendments, once again as they are written, seek to make these magazines illegal, in that they must be surrendered to SAPOL for no compensation whatsoever!! How can this draconian move be legal? Some firearms owners have spent hundreds of dollars on magazines for their rifles, and to now have a proposed amendment seek to take away these items with no compensation is ludicrous!

The letter goes on:

After reading the proposed amendments to the Firearms ACT 1977, I see the government only pandering to a few individuals who would seek to disarm the entire population, with the exception of the police! How is the surrender of firearms magazines with a capacity of 10 or more rounds going to stop the current illegal activities carried out by outlaw bikie gangs? The new amendments seek to allow police to break into anyone's premises to conduct a search, if they have belief that certain items may be present! How is the breaking into, and search by SAPOL of my premises while I am not present going to affect the drug running and extortion of bikie gangs?? There has got to be better ways to police drug trafficking and drug manufacturing without assuming that all responsible (read legal) firearm owners are the cause of the problem.

I have had only 1 visit from SAPOL in my many years of being a law abiding, responsible firearms owner. In 2010 two young police officers knocked on my door in the evening and asked to do a stock take of my firearms. I obligingly let them in and showed them to my gun safe which I opened for their inspection. They advised me that I wasn't the 'legal owner' of one of the shotguns in my possession, however after I produced the original registration form (dated 1980 and signed by L. Draper, Commissioner of Police) which stated I was indeed the legal owner, they said they would check their records and get back to me. True to their word, I received a phone call two days later, and the young officer advised me there had been a mistake in their computer records (which I presume had been in place since 1980) and that they would rectify the mistake at once.

Just in line with that comment, I will make a comment on my personal experience when I purchased my pump action C-class grade weapon 14 or 15 years ago. I did the right thing. I picked it up, it was still in the box from the firearms store, I put it on the counter at the police station, did all the registration, no worries. I took it home, no problem. The next thing I got a message that I needed to ring the local police station. I rang up and they said, 'There's a problem with the registration of your weapon,' and I said, 'I'll go out to the box and I'll read you the number that is on the box,' which I did. He said, 'Well, it doesn't match our records.'

I said, 'Well, that is not my problem. I put this on the counter in front of one of your sergeants and I said that I have complied with everything I have to do.' Yet, the right number could not be written down. This is a real issue for gun owners when I see it brought to me by a constituent, and I had it happen to me, because there is a whole range of other things that can happen when police come to a person's residence in light of looking at firearms offences. It is something to note and it can create real issues for people when they have done the right thing. To continue quoting from the letter:

I have and always will comply with the law, but I refuse to accept this amendment in its current form, until the government and the law makers consult properly with the responsible people who will be most affected adversely by these proposed changes.

My concern is that Parliament is being asked to pass legislation that will prohibit peoples lawful property, and not define the true nature of their way of thinking. None of the proposed amendments has anything to do with bikies and serious organised crime. If the government and SAPOL were serious, they would simply ban bikes and those associated with bikes from having any type of firearm or weapon whatsoever! If the bikies flaunt this law, then they should suffer the full force of the law and its consequences!

I certainly agree with that statement. Quoting again:

This alone is enough not to support the Bill until these Regulations are known and proper consultation with stakeholders occurs. I ask that you argue my case and the case of thousands of other responsible citizens, and not support this bill.

In regard to this constituent, I asked him how many weapons could be affected by this issue about the magazines that are over 10 rounds? He made the point that this could potentially be thousands of rifles in South Australia. He made the comment that he is led to believe that there are over 100,000 registered firearm owners in South Australia. In regard to the sorts of weapons this man knows are held legally out there:

A large number of my friends own bolt action rifles that accommodate 20 round magazines, and the magazines are similar to the type used in M16 rifles and SLR-type firearms, although these firearms are no longer legal to be owned by persons with A and B class licences. Their magazines at this time are.

There are some real concerns with the ownership of firearms and what will happen under this legislation. I fully understand some of these clauses in regard to possession of a prohibited accessory. In light of that, there has been lots of feedback that the shadow minister (the member for Stuart) has given us, and feedback we have had from our constituents, in regard to the many different types of firearm accessories that are legally owned by firearm owners that could be captured by the regulations through this amendment, because of the broad scope of the definitions in the amendment.

Then we have the possession of a silencer or other mechanisms. It is already an offence to possess a silencer, but this bill makes it an aggravated offence for offenders found with both a firearm with a silencer or a mechanism, or with a silencer or a mechanism attached to the firearm. The problem here is that there are evidently some easily accessible household items that can be used as a silencer to significantly reduce the noise produced by discharging firearms, and there is concern that responsible firearms owners could be unfairly captured.

There are also quite heavy fines in relation to the trafficking of firearms and possession of a loaded firearm. Again, possession of detachable magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds will come under this clause in the bill. Getting back to the issue of the magazines above 10 rounds that will not be allowed if this goes through, this is a new clause prohibiting a person from acquiring, owning or possessing a detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds without written approval of the registrar.

The proposed amendment has caused much angst amongst many registered firearm users, collectors and firearm organisations. Large numbers of firearm users possess magazines with a capacity larger than 10 rounds for many types of uses, including display. I was informed of one use by a gun dealer today, which is that the International Practical Shooting Confederation has a discipline which needs to have magazines with more capacity than 10 rounds.

There are also historical firearm collections, particularly from both world wars, with very valuable magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. There are also some class A and class B firearms that only accept magazines with more than 10 rounds, and this provision would render them unusable.

As I said when talking about compensation, there is none. There is a transitional clause attached to the clause in the bill which provides a person who owns or has possession of a magazine with 10 rounds or more six months to either obtain written approval to retain the magazine or surrender it. Firearms groups believe that people should be compensated for this loss.

I would like to think that perhaps there could be another change instituted here—and I have been informed that it should be able to happen—which is to put a block in these magazines so that they do not have to be discarded completely. Put a permanent block in so that, if this legislation goes through, at least the magazine is still there and, obviously, they would have to comply with the 10-round legislation.

The bill extends the provision of police power to search and detain vessels and aircraft. There is also the clause about seizure and forfeiture of equipment. I brought this up at the briefing, which we had only this morning. Regarding the term 'intend to use', every workshop in the state—any decent workshop—would have an angle grinder and some drills, saws, lathes, etc., and any of this equipment could be used to make up firearms parts or manufacture firearms, so I am told. I am not into doing it myself.

Mr Treloar interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. As the member for Flinders just said, every farm workshop could become a place where, next thing, you have a raid where four or five police cars turn up and everyone is wondering what the heck is going on. There needs to be some sense in this. I have talked about more than 10 rounds being used in a magazine. The maximum penalty for not complying with that is $10,000 or imprisonment for two years.

I have checked the bill, as I found out from the briefing this morning, to see what powers police officers have. They can already come into your premises to inspect if there is suspicion about weapons, but this bill proposes:

A police officer may, with such assistance as he or she considers appropriate, use such reasonable force as is necessary to—

(a) break into any premises, vehicle, vessel or aircraft in order to gain entry or conduct a search under this section; and

(b) if reasonably necessary for the purposes of conducting a search, break into or open anything in or on the premises, vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

That clause has certainly raised a lot of questions out there in the general law-abiding community. Just in winding up, there are certainly a lot of concerns that will be raised during the committee stage. We on this side of the house do not condone blatant, unlawful activity, but, for the life of me, I do not think too many bikies would be using bolt-action weapons.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:35): I rise to speak on the Firearms (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2013. It is a bill to amend the Firearms Act 1977, principally in two ways: one is to expand the number and nature of offences in respect to firearms; and, secondly, to enhance the enforcement agency powers (namely for South Australia Police) for the purposes of enforcement.

I will not traverse the detail of those, because they have been ably covered by our lead speaker and other competent speakers in this debate. Suffice to say, though, that the Firearms Act itself is one which provides for a licensing and registration permit scheme based on the fundamental premise that firearms are inherently dangerous pieces of equipment if in the wrong hands; if in immature or inexperienced hands, they can be a danger to themselves, let alone others.

It works on a principle similar to those we have for prescription drugs and explosives. There are various sets of rules for the protection of the community, and under this regime, as has been the case for decades, firearms must be approved, and the person in possession of them has to be licensed. The act provides for various review and appeal processes. If someone thinks they are unfairly excluded from the opportunity to have a pistol, air rifle or any other weapon—there is a whole list of rules that apply for different firearms—there is an appropriate process of appeal.

The concern that has been raised on this bill appears to be in two categories. One is: why has it been necessary for the government to introduce this so hastily without apparent consultation with the relevant stakeholders? I should say, added into that, it is not just South Australia Police; perhaps there are some of the sporting shooters, collectors clubs or firearms groups that have been consulted, but it seems, from the myriad of correspondence that all of us as members have probably received—I have certainly received more correspondence than I would expect to from local constituents in Bragg; they are members of groups such as the Combined Firearms Council of South Australia Inc.

These are people who live across the state in metropolitan and rural areas, and I do not doubt that others who have written and complained to me (and I am sure to other members) also use firearms as a sporting shooter and collector, but also those particularly in country regions who use them for stock disposal or vermin control. There are a host of quite legitimate activities and occupations of persons who currently comply with the Firearms Act rules, and they feel quite clearly and consistently that they have been ignored in the haste to introduce and progress this bill, and, secondly, they think that they are captured unfairly, and to some degree inadvertently, on their assessment of the proposed amendments.

By the tenor of some of the letters, they are quite angry and so they are very suspicious, but it is fair to say that most of what I have received is in the thrust of feeling aggrieved that they have not been consulted and really expressing their concern that they would be caught up in the flavour of being inadvertently captured by legislation which, on the face of it, was intended for an entire other purpose.

On consultation, I should add that I am a little bit concerned that nowhere have I received any indication from the government or during the offered briefing, which I was not at this morning but at which I understand there was no indication from the Firearms Review Committee, which I would have thought, as a committee of the government, would have had some say on this matter. They might have some other ideas about whether or not what we have currently is working well or is inadequate.

For the benefit of members, the Firearms Review Committee comprises members of the various professions, as required under the act. There has to be a legal practitioner of seven years' standing; a person nominated by the Commissioner of Police; a person who, in the opinion of the Governor, has wide experience in the use and control of firearms, a medical practitioner; and various others who relate to the discipline and profession of firearms.

This group is also a review panel in the appeal process for people who presumably feel that they should have some remedy against a decision of the registrar. It is comprised, under the current published list of Heather Dodd, Robert Hamdorf, Yvonne Hill, Geoffrey Hyde, George Katsaras, Richard Warwick, Jayne Basheer, Owen Bevan, and Elizabeth Kosmala, who I recognise as an Olympic champion of—

Mrs Vlahos: Yvonne is, too.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, I understand from my fellow member that Yvonne Hill is there and has experience in firearms from excelling in that as a sport. I do not know why that has not been the case. I hope the government has consulted with this committee and has ascertained from them whether the proposals here are going to be helpful or useful for their operation. I would have thought they would have had a regular appraisal of the enforcement of this act and would be eminently experienced to be able to provide advice to all of us here in the parliament. There is a complete absence of that.

Let's just look at what the government says. The second reading contribution opens with the following statement:

Possession and use of illicit firearms are significant elements of criminal activity in South Australia. Trafficking of firearms, including the movement of firearms across borders, is an ongoing concern for police jurisdictions, as are the links to organised crime. Entrepreneurial criminals also exploit emerging technologies to support their activity.

That is it. We are supposed to change the law based on that; that is, there is activity occurring out there with the use of firearms, presumably illicit firearms, meaning those who possess firearms who do not have a permit to have them or, alternatively, the firearms are not registered to anyone, or both. It is out there, apparently.

We all saw the media hype that went around this on 30 October of the importance of having this extra legislation in the armament to deal with bikies. Well, I put this to the parliament: the police in this state know where the bikies are. They know mostly who they are. They apparently know that they have illicit firearms in their possession. They apparently know that there is activity happening and that there are some other entrepreneurial criminals, whoever they are, who are exploiting emerging technologies and presumably have some backyard operation for the manufacture of weapons. Why are they not doing anything about it? They have a whole host of laws that they are capable of exercising as we speak.

Whilst members will say that this raises a concern about the capacity to stop, break or enter any vessel that is being talked about in the amendments of this bill, the police already have these powers on premises. So why are they not doing anything about it? I raise this question quite seriously. We have a whole host of laws that deal with firearms, and we know there is a problem. The minister has told us again in this parliament that there is a problem out there and they have a whole host of laws that can deal with it, and yet they are not.

There is no suggestion in here that they have to have this particular law change to enable them to cover a specific event that has caused some concern. They may well be able to disclose in private briefings that there is a particular activity occurring in which manufactured weapons are being taken out by fishing boat and they need to board and take possession of them. We are none the wiser.

We have no idea what they are talking about. Yet the minister has told us that there is a problem that already the possession of illicit firearms is a significant element of criminal activity in South Australia—it is here. If you read the media, it is in bikie groups. The police know where they are, they know where they live, they know what they are doing, and they know that they have illicit guns. Do something about it.

On the very next day, the government with its glorified 'we're going to do something about bikies' mantra in the press and in this parliament—another minister in this government tables the report on the Coroner's finding of the death of a woman in 2009 who had been shot with a firearm by her husband and listed a litany of failures on behalf of the police to protect that woman. The very next day we hear, 'We table the report on the inquest into the deaths of Robyn Eileen Hayward and Edwin Raymond Durance'—the next day.

So while there was the flurry of, 'We're going to take on the bikies', this woman died in 2009 and a report had been given by the Coroner as to what I would describe as a disgraceful litany of abandonment of that woman with a whole lot of laws, including firearm laws which were failed to be acted upon (and I will refer to a few of them in a moment), and what did the government do?

In all their glory and attention on what they were going to do about bikies they table a report about the death of a woman who had been killed by her estranged partner on 27 February 2009 as a response to the Coroner's report of 23 January 2012, and on 31 October they put their response in. So: died in 2009, Coroner's report in January 2012, a report to the parliament on what the government have done about it on 31 October 2013, which is 20 months later—and guess what they say at the end of the recommendations of the Coroner? They say:

The Government is currently reviewing aspects of the Bail Act and has taken the Coroner's recommendations into account.

What a disgrace! What a disgrace! This is a recommendation of the Coroner that they need to tighten up the law in relation to the Bail Act. They needed to do a whole lot of other things, and the government goes on to say:

The Intervention Orders (prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 came into effect on 9 December 2011 and the Statutes Amendment (Serious Firearm Offences) Act 2012 came into effect on 4 March 2013 creating a separate category of offenders called 'serious firearms offenders'.

That relates to bail, and I will not go into the detail of it. The point I make is this: years later, on the very day after they are covering themselves in glory about what they are doing on bikies, they table a report saying they are thinking about what the Coroner said about the circumstances of the death of a woman in 2009 who had been shot dead by her estranged husband.

He was ultimately shot dead by police officers during the time of apprehension, and I make no reflection on that at all, but just to give you a bo-peep of what had failed that woman in this circumstance. The offence and, ultimately, the death of the woman, occurred in February 2009. The month before, the accused, Mr Durance, had been arrested, and was subsequently named in the report and shot. A history of domestic violence was then disclosed against a number of different women going right back to 1995. The more recent was a 2006 partner who had made a complaint to the police, so a litany of history was exposed to the police.

On 4 January 2009, Mr Durance was arrested for assault (in the month Ms Hayward was shot dead) and no criminal history check was undertaken by the arresting officer, nor was one requested by the bail authority. The bail conditions were similar, as previously. One major error. Number two, the Coroner points out that it was a condition of bail that he reside at a specific premises, and no-one thought to check that the premises where he had to live were the very house that the subsequent victim lived in. Thirdly, there had been a domestic violence risk assessment of this person identifying a score of 97. I do not know how much higher out of 100 you can get than 97—presumably 98, 99—but a pretty high risk. As the Coroner says:

However, neither the domestic violence risk assessment form, nor the result, was conveyed to the Constable on duty or the Bail Authority, prior to Durance...

What is going on here? Finally, another bizarre twist to all of this is that the Coroner goes on to talk about the firearm used having been apparently a rifle owned by another party, and reference to it having been brought onto the property, etc. The report says:

Whilst no licence or record was held by Mr Durance in relation to the rifle, the inquiry revealed the information was held by the Domestic Violence Service which indicated Durance had access to a firearm. Further, the father of Ms Hayward, who resided with the deceased, had knowledge of the rifle and had seen it on occasion. However, the night Mr Durance was arrested, no statement was taken from Mr Hayward, despite the fact that he had witnessed the assault. When questioned as to why the statement was not taken from Mr Hayward on the night of the assault, the investigating officer indicated he would have taken a statement from Mr Hayward if Durance had entered a guilty plea upon Durance's arraignment. The Deputy Coroner considered that, had a statement been taken or had further investigation been undertaken, it may have revealed the existence of a rifle and that this would have been highly relevant to the decision to grant bail.

How wrong can people get it? Here is the death of a lady in 2009, who has been the subject of a coronial inquiry and, years later, we get a government, who on day one is covering itself in glory about what it is going to do about bikies with this piece of legislation; and on day two is bringing into the parliament a statement to tell us that, after all that, they are going to review aspects of the Bail Act. Well, we have five days of sitting left—four after the next hour or so—and where are the amendments to the Bail Act?

Not a single piece of information, not a letter, not a request, not a draft—nothing—to come to us and say, 'Look we would be keen to advance this. This is what we should be doing. This is what the priority should be of this government.' Not what appears to be on the face of it a lot of legislation which will inadvertently harm the innocent, and do nothing else to ensure that we deal with what is apparently a problem, that is, the possession and use of illicit firearms out there in the bikie world.

So I say get to work on the powers that you already have; and come to us with a real and clear explanation if you need extra powers to do something different, not just some paragraph here that does not tell us anything; and, thirdly, give us some assurance that you have spoken to those who might be even inadvertently at best, caught by this legislation, before you bulldoze this legislation through. And, while you are at it, think about doing something useful like making sure that we change the law so that people like Ms Robyn Hayward are no longer the subject of reports that are tabled all too often in this parliament.


[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. M.F. O'Brien]


The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (17:55): I would like to make several points. Firstly, this legislation is targeted very specifically at criminals and the criminal community. There has been comment about lack of consultation, and I am not going to be flippant: there obviously are concerns about unintended consequences, but the main focus of the bill has been criminals and we do not negotiate or consult with criminals.

In terms of legislation impacting on primary producers, recreational shooters and the like, we made a conscious decision that we would separate the legislation into that applying to criminals and there will be a later legislative proposition that will apply to recreational shooters, gun club members and the like. It is intended that there will be considerable consultation in relation to that bill that will run for four or more months.

There has been comment about the hasty manner in which this legislation has been introduced. I attended the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management in Alice Springs on 7 and 8 November, just last week. It was attended by the Hon. Michael Keenan, the new federal justice minister. The sentiment at this meeting of police ministers, and also attended by police commissioners, was that we had to proceed with significant haste in addressing firearms not only on a state basis but on a national basis.

The reason we have to do that is to confront, deal with and ultimately destroy the emerging organised criminal gangs that are establishing themselves within our community, particularly outlaw motorcycle gangs. We have seen the patch-over from the Finks to the Mongols. We have seen the staunch, resolute action taken in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales in dealing with outlaw motorcycle gangs. All state ministers and the federal minister were determined that we would beef up our firearms legislation to deal with this present danger.

South Australia is seen by the other states as the national leader in relation to firearm legislation. Our firearm prohibition orders are considered a national model. That was reflected in a COAG communiqué, that the South Australian firearm prohibition order legislation ought to be looked to as a model. New South Wales recently adopted many of the features of our firearm prohibition orders, and today the Queensland government contacted SAPOL for information in relation to the way in which we basically control the possession of firearms by known criminals.

I am of the view that other states will over the coming months also adopt our firearm prohibition legislation. We have been a leader in dealing with this issue. I think we are probably national leaders also in dealing with outlaw motorcycle gangs. This legislation that is before us today is prudent and targeted, and it will serve as an effective adjunct to existing legislation we are employing successfully in dealing with outlaw motorcycle gangs. In South Australia, we do not have to bulldoze bikie fortresses. They realise that our legislation is so effective that they are prepared to roll over and do the dismantling of their own volition.

In relation to the meeting that I attended in Alice Springs, the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management—which I repeat was attended by police ministers from around Australia—Michael Keenan, the new justice minister, made specific reference to an initiative instituted by the Gillard government in the establishment of an organised crime task force. The new commonwealth government (the new Liberal-National Party government) is very supportive of the crime task force. New South Wales in the last week has also made great play of the fact that they are endorsing this particular model as well.

What does the task force do? It combines the activities of state police forces and state attorney-general departments with the commonwealth. It brings together the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Federal Police, Customs and the Australian Taxation Office, together with state-based police forces and state-based attorney-general departments to deal in a concerted manner with this risk facing the nation, that is, the widespread criminal activity of outlaw motorcycle gangs and organised crime.

They are responsible for a significant component, if you like, of the illicit drug trade in Australia, the importation of illegal weapons and attempts to infiltrate our bureaucracy. We had an example in South Australia where a bikie gang member infiltrated a government agency responsible for the issuing of motor vehicle licences with the purpose of creating false identities and using those false identities for a whole range of criminal activities.

We know that we are dealing with a highly effective set of criminal organisations, many of which are at loggerheads—although, interestingly, they seem to be able to combine when they have to fund a High Court challenge. There was reference, I think, in either The Age or The Sydney Morning Herald to a meeting which I understand was held in Queensland recently where all the bikie gangs that have had public brawls came together to find the necessary hundreds of thousands of dollars that would be required to take on state legislation basically breaking down outlaw motorcycle gangs.

That is the intent of the legislation: it is to deal with this very real and present danger to not only the South Australian community but also communities in other states and nationally. We have determined at the national level, through the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management, that we are going to be resolute in controlling access and distribution of guns within criminal gangs.

All of the Liberal states around Australia are highly supportive of taking a hard line in relation to gun control as far as it relates to criminals and, similarly, the commonwealth government. I honestly believe they would be aghast to hear a lot of the discussion that has occurred in this chamber today where their ideological partners, if you like, who are currently in opposition, are opposing what they are seeking to do in their own states.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Let me just take a brief moment to respond to the minister's closing comments. Minister, you know, from everything that every one of us has said, that we also are firm with regard to our desire to stamp out organised crime and, in fact, further than that, any illegal, irresponsible use of firearms. Where we differ is with the collateral damage that we are prepared to accept along the way. We do not say that we pursue that at all costs.

You said that South Australia is seen as a leader nationally with regard to the legislation that it puts in place to deal with these issues. Let me tell you that every state I visit to discuss these issues—including Canberra last week in the ACT—thinks it is a national leader. Everybody thinks they are a national leader and I have no doubt that in certain areas, each state can claim that prize, but South Australia cannot say, unfortunately, that in every aspect of this part of the legislation, we are national leaders.

The other thing that is very important is that, in addition to being national leaders with regard to having legislation about firearms that makes it difficult—or, ideally, impossible—for criminals to use them, we should also aspire to being national leaders with regard to legislation that supports legal and responsible firearms ownership. As you know, we support you wholeheartedly with the one side, but the legislation does not yet do the other side. Hopefully, together, we can make a contribution towards that.

Clause 4 is about prohibited firearms accessories. The first question is with regard to the list of firearms which I dropped off to the minister at 12 o'clock. I did read it comprehensively into Hansard, so I do not expect the minister to have to go back through the whole list, but I would be very grateful if the minister could confirm that, with regard to that list, which is on Hansard—and I am happy to provide a copy to Hansard just to be sure that the record is 100 per cent accurate—responsible legal users of firearms who choose to use these accessories with their firearms will specifically be excluded from this legislation?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I thank the member for Stuart and he did supply me with the list which I will table, just to make it easy for Hansard. It is set out in tabular form. I have consulted with SAPOL and they have given me an assurance that the accessories that are listed would not be picked up, if you like, in the legislation, that they would not be an unintended consequence of the legislation.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you very much, minister; that is terrific. Can you please share with the house the type of prohibited firearm accessories that will be included in the regulations?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Member for Stuart, what we are dealing with is two matters. One is appearance where, by way of example, a weapon is altered by bolt-ons to make it look like a submachine gun. We believe that we do not want people running around confronting police officers, in particular, with what appears to be a submachine gun but is in fact a single action weapon. The other one is operation where the accessory can convert a single shot weapon into an automatic weapon.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Accessories fitting those two broad descriptions will be the only ones in the regulations.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, could you please share with the house the types of alterations to firearms? I am referring to alterations as opposed to accessories that will be specifically covered. Just to recap briefly, I understand from the briefing I had this morning that it is your specific intention that only alterations which would change the classification of a firearm from one class to another are what is intended to be included in the legislation, but as you know from my previous comments there is a much broader range of concerns. If you are able to make that crystal clear, we would have it on the record so that this information would be used by courts down the track if ever there is an issue and it would certainly contribute to the way SAPOL operate that, and that is the case I would be grateful.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Sorry, member for Stuart. We are actually talking about clause 12. SAPOL think it is clause 12, not clause 11.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, you are right. I apologise.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Member for Stuart, you are correct in that it prohibits the alteration of a firearm that changes the class, so we are being very specific about that and also the reactivation of a weapon. Unfortunately, through bitter experience, we are aware that weapons are being handed in elsewhere in the nation by way of surrender and are being deactivated and then reactivated and entering the black market, so we are trying to close down that particular trade.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: We support you in that wholeheartedly but, as you know, the concern is that there are very many good reasons for people to alter their firearms legally and responsibly. I am grateful for your confirmation that none of those legal and responsible activities will be captured. It is only in regard to alterations, not the reactivation issue, but only firearms where the alteration would mean that the firearm actually falls under a different class and that is not done responsibly through the firearms branch, advising everybody who needs to know and legally going and getting the reclassification. It is only those illegal reclassifications that will be covered by this.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Exactly, member for Stuart. Well put.

Mr PEDERICK: In regard to clause 12 and section 1B regarding altering a firearm and that as a result of that alteration the firearm becomes a firearm of a different class, I guess my question is a little hypothetical. As I outlined in my speech, some people have altered firearms at the moment quite legally to take more than 10 rounds, bolt action weapons, so I would assume by default if those weapons can't be done something with, altered back to a satisfactory state or somehow they can use them if this legislation goes through with magazines of less than 10 rounds, that they will be illegal weapons under this clause.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Member for Hammond, I think in essence what you are asking is in relation to an alteration that would allow a weapon to become self-loading.

Mr PEDERICK: I am still talking about a bolt-action weapon, but they have adjusted them to take bigger magazines. They are still bolt-action weapons, but they have had to make adjustments to those weapons because they want to use bigger magazines. They have adjusted some of these since the federal laws after Port Arthur.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Putting any size magazine on a firearm is not going to have any impact. It is not going to change the class.

Mrs VLAHOS: In relation to collectors of militaria who currently collect items from, say, World War II, such items have large capacity magazines and other items. I understand that some exemption process is contemplated for such owners in the transition period. Can you explain the exemption process?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I think we have moved on to clause 14 on that particular issue. Have we exhausted clause 12?

Mr PEDERICK: I just need a little confirmation. What concerns me is that, from what my constituent wrote to me—and obviously he had military experience and has lots of friends in the same situation—they have altered these rifles to take bigger magazines. My concern is if these rifles cannot be altered back. I do not know; they probably can be, more likely than not, but I am not entirely sure. If these rifles cannot be altered back to take a magazine that holds only 10 rounds, I assume that they would be deemed illegal under this bill, if it becomes an act, and they did not get an exemption.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I think the way it has been explained to me—and it is kind of understandable—the firearm itself is legal, but the magazine is not, and if the firearm cannot be modified to take the smaller magazine, then there is provision within the bill for compensation. The owner would be compensated.

Mr PEDERICK: So, you are indicating the owner would be compensated for the actual firearm?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: That is correct, yes.

Mr PEDERICK: Would another option be, as I mentioned in my speech, to put permanent blocks in magazines?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Yes, a very sensible and logical proposition. SAPOL have advised me that, during the surrender period, what you are suggesting would be a more than acceptable course of action.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, you mentioned compensation. It is the first time that has come up, and I am not aware that compensation is actually in the bill. The question from the member for Hammond related to a firearm that had a magazine with a capacity of in excess of 10 rounds. If that firearm owner had to surrender that magazine and could not find a replacement with 10 or less rounds that would fit that firearm, so that firearm was essentially rendered useless—legal, above board but inoperable other than by putting one bullet at a time into the barrel—would compensation be paid to that person?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Yes, compensation is within the existing act in schedule 1, but I think the suggestion of the member for Hammond that the way out of this quandary, if you want to call it that, is just to mechanically put blocks into the magazine solves the issue.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I agree—that is a good suggestion. Mr Chair, the next clause that I am interested in is clause 14, which I think is the same as the member for Taylor, but I also have some questions about compensation, so I will leave it up to you whether we talk about that now or as part of clause 14.

The CHAIR: It is either now or later. I don't have a strong conviction with regard to that so, if you want to talk about compensation now, you may as well do it. You have already started along those lines.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Okay, my questions about compensation relate specifically to magazines.

The CHAIR: Right.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I know that the member for Hammond introduced magazines into this clause's discussion because it was actually about the operability and the modification of the firearm. Clause 14 is specifically about magazines. I have got questions about magazines and I have got questions about compensation that relate to magazines, so I am happy to go to 14 if that works and that suits the member for Taylor.

The CHAIR: Yes, save it for 14.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

Mr PEDERICK: In relation to new section 27AAB—Seizure and forfeiture of equipment, etc., I know many of us talked about this in our speeches. Subclause (1) provides that:

If a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that an offence against section 27 or 27AA has been committed, is being committed or will be committed, the officer may seize any equipment, device, object or document reasonably suspected of being used, or intended for use, for, or in connection with, the commission of the offence.

I think this section deals with the bit about angle grinders, drills, lathes and other equipment. It is a fairly broad interpretation, if it was taken to the nth degree. I wonder what protection law-abiding citizens have against this clause if this goes through. I certainly can understand, if there is reasonable suspicion and it is criminal activity, that it needs to be held up, but as we indicated in our contributions from this side there are thousands of workshops across the state that could be captured under this clause.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I will correct and clarify a statement I made a little earlier: I have been advised by SAPOL that there was a provision in the existing act in relation to compensation. We have now had a look at that clause, and it refers to a period of six months after the previous enactment, so I think we will have to look at the issue of compensation. I am pleased it has been raised. I think it is an oversight, given the fact that it is in the act applying to a previous raft of measures allowing compensation to be paid within a period of six months.

In relation to the issue of equipment devices or the like, machinery used to either manufacture a firearm or significantly modify a firearm, it says quite specifically in relation to the commission of an offence that, if no offence has been committed and no charge has been laid, this particular provision would not apply. I go back to the statement I made a little earlier: this legislation is targeted specifically at criminals and criminal activity. At some time in the new year there will be, in all probability, another raft of legislation in relation to firearms that will deal specifically with recreational users, and there will be a significant period of consultation in relation to that body of legislation, but today we are actually dealing with criminal activity.

As I said, there would have to be an offence committed or, I have been advised, where SAPOL through criminal intelligence has been able to determine that an offence may be created if they become aware that a workshop is under the operation or control of a criminal gang and are intending to manufacture submachine guns. On the basis of that intelligence the equipment could be seized.

Clause passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Mrs VLAHOS: A strict reading of this clause makes no mention of an legally licensed gun owner's ability to continue to own a category H firearm more than 38 calibre, such as metallic silhouette shooters—they can—and collectors and students of modern arms can legally own these firearms too. Will a strict reading of 14(1)(a) be honoured?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Member for Taylor, there is not a 14(1)(a)—there is a 14(4)(a) and (b): are you referring to the subclause (4)?

Mrs VLAHOS: The clause I was referring to earlier, that I asked the committee chairman to raise, was under clause 9, and then I was told I would have to come back to 14(1)(a). So, you have not told me that I was to raise it under 14(1)(a), and that is the reason I am raising it, committee chair.

The CHAIR: What I was planning to do with regard to clause 9 is that, at the end of all these clauses, I will get you to move that we recommit, so we will come back to clause 9.

Mrs VLAHOS: I thought you were talking about 14(1)(a) too.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: I have questions about 14.

Mrs VLAHOS: Okay, then I have another two that can fit into that clause too. I asked previously, and the minister has not answered, about the collectors of militaria currently collecting items from World War II.

The CHAIR: Is that at clause 9 or clause 14?

Mrs VLAHOS: It can fit under either of those.

The CHAIR: Well, ask it now, then.

Mrs VLAHOS: Again, for Hansard, can collectors of militaria currently collect items from, say, World War II, such as items of large capacity magazines and other items? I understand that some exemption process is being contemplated for such owners in the transition period. Can you explain what the exemption process is?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Member for Taylor, all that would be required is that the collector of militaria lodge an application with the Registrar of Firearms to seek permission to have possession of that particular weapon. It will be fairly straightforward.

Mrs VLAHOS: If a person wishes to alter a firearm from one category to another—namely, say, category H—what approval process will be required?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: The same process, member for Taylor: they will be required to make an application to the Registrar of Firearms. As I indicated, this legislation is targeted specifically at criminals. We will be very diligent in ensuring that bona fide collectors of militaria or firearms are not adversely impacted by the legislation.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, you mentioned that this legislation is clearly targeted at criminals and, as I have said many times, we support you in that. In clause 14, and I think in another place as well, it talks about magazines, and that is something that will clearly affect non-criminals. Everybody, whoever they are, will potentially have to hand in their magazine if it has the capacity for 11 or more rounds. That is clearly not criminals. I take your word that it is an unintended consequence, but I will not be able to accept, through the complete course of this legislation through both houses, that amendment, certainly not without some form of compensation.

I am really concerned for many reasons; one, as I have said, is that it is clearly affecting legal, responsible people, and that is not where this legislation is meant to be focused. It is a completely unknown quantity of impact at the moment. At the briefing this morning, I was told very directly that SAPOL and the government have absolutely no idea how many legally owned magazines there are out there in South Australia that would fit this category, so there is a certain impracticality about how you are actually going to go about collecting them all up. There is almost an unintended vindictiveness about it, too, that if you do not get them all up you have turned all these legal firearms owners into illegal firearms owners purely because they have one of these magazines.

To hand in a magazine affects people in many ways. You could be a historic collector who never, ever fires a firearm, but that magazine is the historical match with the firearm that is precious to you, all the way through to somebody who might have a very genuine need, as a primary producer, for more than 10 shots. That would certainly be the reality in the electorate that I represent and in many other places.

It could also go all the way through to another person who might be a recreational user who is quite prepared to hand in that magazine, but it is not necessarily a simple matter just to go and get another magazine that suits your rifle or pistol, but I am specifically thinking about rifles at the moment. They do not all just snap in and out of each other; they are not completely interchangeable.

That person might have every good intention to say, 'Yeah, no worries. I'm not happy but here is my magazine. But now what do I do? I can't get another one.' That harks back to the question the member for Hammond asked. I appreciate what you have said about essentially blocking out a certain amount of space so that it would permanently reduce the number of shots that could be fired or bullets that could be loaded.

However, I do not imagine that SAPOL is going to be too comfortable with that either. In terms of all the sorts of things that you have said and all the unintended consequences that come with this legislation, I do not really believe that it is going to be an acceptable solution to SAPOL or the government to say, 'But, you know, we'll just block them out and we'll find a way that can't be reversed', and all that sort of stuff.

There are a lot of really genuine, real world reasons why this is a big problem. It is not because people just want to go off and be able to shoot as many bullets as they like out of gigantic magazines and pretend they are Rambo. It has nothing to do with that. There are a lot of really good reasons why this is a very significant impost on people.

I flagged in my second reading speech that the opposition is very likely to come back with amendments in the upper house. I am sure this will be one area of amendment and, if the government happens to not be open to supporting a responsible amendment along this line, then I have no idea how the government would even consider the volume and the amount of compensation that is quite likely to be required.

I appreciate the comments that you made before and I accept the clarification that you made with regard to the existing act, but it is not going to be a practical solution to leave it as it is or adjust it by adding compensation. You would not even know what impact on the budget you might be having, let alone how you are going to ensure that it is actually usefully complied with by the whole community. I will ask you very directly: is this a part of your amendment bill that you would be prepared to withdraw?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: It is certainly one of the provisions in the bill that we would be prepared to discuss. I received a reasonable amount of correspondence on it as well, and I have to say a lot of correspondence I think was ill founded. However, this did have practical consequences, and I was alert to those consequences.

What we are trying to address is the ability of people to intimidate and even inflict injury on individuals by drive-by shootings. If you cast your mind back probably 12 or 18 months ago, we had a spate of them—every second night there seemed to be one—and the media was saying that something had to be done about firearms. You may well remember that there was great community concern about the number of drive-by shootings that was occurring.

We know that the modus operandi of outlaw motorcycle gangs is thuggery and intimidation. In addition to the sale of drugs, they also have a fairly lucrative line of business which is collecting overdue debt. One of the ways they terrify people into paying up is either by direct physical violence or by pumping a number of shots through their front door. That is what we are attempting to deal with.

However, I understand that there is obviously potential for an unintended consequence, and I hope that between the houses we can work out a solution—if there is a solution—that can address the concerns that I have and the concerns that SAPOL have to significantly reduce the incidence of drive-by shootings but, at the same time, address those concerns held by legitimate, law-abiding firearm owners in the community. How we do that is yet to be revealed to me, but we can talk.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you for that, and I certainly support you in your desire to stop a drive-by shooting if it is one shot. I don't know that the person is going to be necessarily more intimidated if 12 or 13 shots are fired or 7 or 8 shots are fired into their door or their living room window or whatever. I am not convinced that this part of your bill really is going to get to the heart of what you are trying to do right there, but I do support your ambition in that regard, and I am grateful that there is room to discuss this between the houses. I will certainly be pleased to participate with you in that regard.

Mr PEDERICK: In relation to tube magazines that hold over 10 rounds, I am assuming because they are part of the rifle they will be still deemed legal?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I think we are talking about 29BA. There is a potential remedy there seeking written approval of the registrar to acquire, own or have possession of a detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, so the act actually has provision to apply for permission to have a detachable magazine that can handle more than 10 rounds. It has to establish a case.

Mr PEDERICK: I understand that, but I am just trying to verify. I am talking probably more like a .22 rifle here. I am not even sure if their tube magazine would hold more than 10 rounds, but I am assuming that a tube magazine is part of a rifle, so I am assuming it is non-detachable, so I am just wondering how the legislation fits around that particular weapon.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Member for Hammond, the bill only applies to detachable magazines.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you for that. Just one more in regards to that: how difficult will it be for sporting shooters—will they need to be in a club—to get authorisation from the registrar? Or, in fact, people who compete in these international practical shooting confederation events, what will be the difficulty for them to get an exemption for their high-powered bolt-action rifles that have a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds and which are necessary for competition?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: We are cognisant of this issue, particularly in relation to international competitions where the magazine size is in excess of 10, and all that will be required is an application to the registrar. It will be fairly straightforward.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Mr PEDERICK: Subclause (9) provides:

Section 32—after subsection (3b) insert:

(3c) A police officer may, with such assistance as he or she considers appropriate, use such reasonable force as is necessary to—

(a) break into any premises, vehicle, vessel or aircraft in order to gain entry or conduct a search under this section; and

(b) if reasonably necessary for the purposes of conducting a search, break into or open anything in or on the premises, vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

Could you explain how this clause differs from the current section in the act?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: What the amendment does is clarify and extend the powers that police have. Firstly, police, under the current act, have the power to break into a premises, but then if they encounter a locked cabinet they suspect contains firearms and they have to call in a locksmith to gain access, under the current act they do not have the power to go that second step. Having gained access, they are pretty well prohibited from further forcible entry into cabinets or the like. It also extends the power from buildings into cars, vehicles, vessels or aircraft, which is not in the current act.

Clause passed.

Clauses 16 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

Mr PEDERICK: This is still about the possession or ownership of magazines. I am glad that during the committee process we have worked out that perhaps be mechanical blocks could be put in magazines so that, if this bill becomes legislation, people do not have to surrender those magazines, which have potentially cost them hundreds of dollars, that are over 10-shot magazines.

What concerns me is that, unlike what happened federally several years ago, under clause 6(b)(ii), if people so wished, or if they could not be bothered to put a block in the magazine so they can still keep the magazine, they have to surrender that magazine. Compensation was mentioned earlier, and I certainly would like to think that appropriate compensation should be made in regard to weapons that essentially have been legal until this act is enacted.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Definitely, member for Hammond. I definitely take on board your comments. As I said, the act as it currently stands has provision for compensation for, obviously, a project that was undertaken sometime in the past, where it was felt that compensation ought to be offered, and the period of compensation was six months. We can look at that between the houses.

Clause passed.

The CHAIR: The member for Taylor has indicated that she had a couple of questions at clause 9 so, with the indulgence of the committee, we will reconsider clause 9.

Clause 9—reconsidered.

Mrs VLAHOS: Thank you. It is only one now. Going back to the issue that I was raising before about a strict reading of 14(1)(a), a strict reading of this section makes no mention of legally licensed gun owners' ability to continue to own class H firearms above .38 calibre such as mechanic silhouette shooters can. Collectors and students of modern arms can currently legally own these. Will you honour a strict reading of 14(1)(a)?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I am just having a little trouble finding the reference. Could you read out the first couple of words?

Mrs VLAHOS: I am happy to approach the minister and show him.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: The member for Taylor is seeking some assurance that the provisions currently in the act in relation to .38 calibre and class H weapons would remain in place as per the act as it currently stands. I can give the member for Taylor that assurance, and I understand she wants to be able to convey that to firearm clubs within her electorate. I think she can give that ironclad assurance.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (18:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The opposition lead speaker wants to make a couple of concluding comments, and I am prepared to give him that leeway.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (18:55): Thank you, minister. I could have done it at the end of the committee stage, but I thought that this was slightly more appropriate. This is an important issue, and I really do understand that for the police it is an important issue; they are trying to do their job. I understand that for the government, in trying to support the police and for other motivations, it is an important issue. But it is also a really important issue for the legal and responsible firearm owners out there. I did not delve too much into the committee stage because I had the good fortune to have unlimited time when I was speaking. I hope that the government will very seriously consider the things I put to them during my second reading speech.

The legal and responsible firearm owners and users must not be considered to be some group that is getting in the way of the government and the police trying to do what they do for good reasons. The minister talked about trying to be a leader and aspiring to be a leader in the nation with regard to legislation that allows our police to pursue crime. I say again that we also must aspire to be a leader in the nation with regard to allowing our legal and responsible firearm users and owners to go about what they are typically allowed to go about.

You cannot stop road fatalities by making everybody drive at 40 km/h; you cannot stop obesity by putting everybody on a diet; and you cannot stop organised crime and criminals using firearms illegally by penalising everybody else who does use them responsibly. I welcome the commitments you have made during this debate, minister, and I thank you for those. I look forward to working well with you between the houses and, hopefully, we can come to a good resolution on this in the other place.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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