HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Firearms (Digital Blueprints for 3D Printing) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

Debate resumed.

Mr BATTY: Just before the break, I think the minister indicated that commencement is intended to be around 31 January. In that context, is there any reason why we are sort of rushing this through the parliament this evening and suspending standing orders to pass a bill that has only been introduced today in a context of waiting some 19 months since it was first announced in the media?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I thank the member for Bragg. I understand it is because we want it through so police can do the work they need to do to get the permit system up and running.

Mr McBRIDE: Minister, in regard to commencement, my question really just goes back to the member for Bragg sort of insinuating this process of how we landed here today. The question I have is: who have the government or SAPOL consulted with from the public regarding these amendments around the electronic 3D printing of weaponry, and did SAPOL, or whoever did this consultation, have any feedback?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I thank the member for MacKillop for the question. In answer to the previous question from the member for Bragg, I outlined a couple of tranches of consultation that were done. One I would characterise as a broad kind of consultation, and from that came the need for more targeted and specific consultation.

Specifically in terms of the targeted consultation, we have seen the Combined Firearms Council, the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia, Michael Swan, Graham Tweeddale, a member of the Antique and Historical Arms Association, the Department for Correctional Services and Jamie Clarke as well. I think I characterised earlier the kind of main themes of the feedback being around governance, but also those who are exempted under the bill that we have before the chamber now are asking questions around whether or not those exemptions went far enough. It was the decision of SAPOL, through that process, that those exemptions did go far enough, and that is what forms the bill that finds its way here today.

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you for the answer, and it is a good answer, too, minister. I am not here to be critical of your response. In regard to this process, if we have firearm manufacturers in South Australia that are licensed—I think they are referred to as either gunsmiths or weaponry specialists—do we know if they have been consulted widely in this space, knowing that this sort of new technology that is coming on board could be some of the tools that they will use as their tools of trade?

I just have a little bit of feedback, minister. I think there have been either individuals or manufacturers of weaponry in South Australia, be they very small, as they might be, still fully licensed and still operating perhaps Australia-wide but have not been consulted about the opportunity that they may be able to participate in the new technology that is coming and perhaps may also find it really difficult to do their business and move with the times with these new amendments around the Firearms Act, 3D printing and the like. So the question to you, minister, is: do you believe that the consultation was very broad, wide, well-considered and covered every aspect of firearms manufacturers and legal licensed dealers that deal in firearms in South Australia?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I guess my general answer to your question, and I will try to give a more specific one after I say this, is that, yes, we think the consultation was broad and pretty all-encompassing in terms of different stakeholders and interest groups that would reasonably be expected to have a view on this and want to be consulted. I think the second, more targeted round of consultation is probably a sign that that was taken very seriously.

The example that you give of those who might be legitimately manufacturing components for a gun through the use of a 3D printer will be able to continue to do so if they have a licence because they will be exempted from that. That was one of the questions that the superintendent was asked at the press conference we did yesterday around circumstances in which that can be done, because there are legal circumstances in which a licensed gun manufacturer or a firearm owner could 3D print components for a gun. The difference is that the ones we are seeking to outlaw here, in terms of the blueprints that would make them, are the illicit, untraceable firearms that find their way onto the street or onto the black market.

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you for that answer, minister, and again I appreciate where you are coming from. I only have three questions, and this is my last one, which is about that consultation and recognition. I have been fortunate enough to be in politics and I go around to my schools. I see some of the technology that is rolling out in the tech studies area—3D printers. Most of it is only plastic. I do not see metal as I would think that firearms would require, so I do not suspect at this stage that I am going to see guns potentially being hijacked by year 12 or year 11 students, or patents, let's say, and them printing out their own metal guns. The question then, minister, is: will the universities' technology-driven campuses—it could be TAFE or universities or other types of technology centres—be allowed to be in this area of capturing weaponry, as I am going to call it, rather than just guns?

Think of what is going on between Romania and Russia and the use of drones. Technology is changing. I know what we are seeing here, and I can understand where the government is coming from with these amendments to protect citizens from ill thrift or ill behaviour that would not be good for our community. Will this amendment allow legal identities to be in this new technology space, not knowing what that might look like in five or 10 years' time, to develop either weaponry or gun-like products by 3D and computer-manufactured printing systems that would be seen as being able to take the life of any person or many people? Will this inhibit that type of technology and advances and science and perhaps stop or hinder that type of progress?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thank you, member for MacKillop. Without foreshadowing any questions that you or the opposition might have on the next clause, I see where you are coming from in terms of: will an unintended consequence of what we pass here prohibit technological advancements in the manufacture of firearms that would be used for essentially legal purposes? Just to foreshadow, clause 3(4)(d) includes an exemption:

(d) the possession of a digital blueprint by the defendant—

(i) was necessary for, or of assistance in, conducting scientific, medical, educational, military or law enforcement research that has been approved by the Registrar in writing for the purposes of this section;

So I think that is the intent of that around not preventing what would be legitimate technological advancement in the areas the members of this place would expect to be reasonable.

Mr BATTY: You have indicated that the intention is for this bill to commence on 31 January and that is because SAPOL has to undertake certain work over the coming three months, which is fair enough. We are trying to pass this bill urgently today to enable SAPOL to be able to get on with that work. My question is: why did we not introduce the bill three months ago and then the bill could have commenced today, and SAPOL could have been undertaking that work for the last three months? Was it something SAPOL wanted to introduce earlier and for whatever reason it has not been?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I thank the member for Bragg for his question. I can really only answer it in this way and I do not mean to seem tricky in my words at all. I have been the minister for a month. This is only my fifth sitting day as minister. It was put on my agenda very early in me becoming the minister. I identified it as something we needed to do and I have done everything I can to get it here as fast as I can, including the suspension of standing orders, to try to get it through. I note it will only get through with the support of the opposition, which has been indicated as well, and I thank you for that.

Mr TEAGUE: It is tempting to give that a mark to the member for MacKillop's profit. I would have said that was a good answer and credit to you, minister, for doing this on your fifth sitting day. This could be quite brief, but for the purposes of the record: we have mentioned two rounds of consultation. When did those occur? Presumably that was not in the last five sitting days.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I do not think they were in the last five sitting days. I would have to seek advice on when they completed. Was your question: were they in the last five sitting days?

Mr TEAGUE: No. I am presuming they were not conducted during your short time.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: No, they were not. I would have to get advice about when they started and when they finished but there were two six-week blocks, as I understand it, the general one and then a more specific one. It has also been indicated by SAPOL that further work around what they would need to do—I presume if it is to successfully pass this place and the other place and become law—around the permit system and how that will work, which I understand is quite a complicated piece of work, perhaps more complicated than any of us, including myself, on first blush would understand it to be.

Mr TEAGUE: As the member for Bragg said, and I join in that, one might understand the three months that have been sort of said as being required by SAPOL to put it into practice. As the committee stands at the moment, we know there was a government media release quite some long period of time ago and we have heard there have been two rounds of consultation that happened sometime, but the committee does not yet know when, presumably—well, not even presumably—after that media release. The media release might have been informed by some of the consultation, for all we know.

But if we go back to the time of the media release, we are now obviously objectively a long time after that—someone might have said 19 months—and we have no indication before the committee as to why it has taken until now, except, as the minister says, pronto upon the minister becoming minister it is presented as a priority and he gets on with it—top marks. But the conclusion has to be, from the perspective of South Australians, that we have just witnessed a travesty of process and the third minister ago, who authored the government media release way back in the day, and everyone since seem to have sort of sat on their hands and here we are.

On the face of it, until the minister comes back to the committee with the information about why it took time with the consultation, or some other reason for nothing having happened, South Australians are within their rights to say, 'The government has let the police down mightily here.' Now we are sort of at the point where we have three months of work to do ahead of what sounds like the earliest possible commencement.

If I might just add one further observation about what the committee has before it so far, it is that we also have no coherent explanation at all for the introduction today and the suspension of standing orders and the pressing on. That might be just a bit repetitive, but that seems to be the situation that South Australia finds itself in. We can all say that one of the unintended consequences, perhaps, of the necessity for the change of minister has been that this has come our way. I would certainly invite the minister to correct any of that summary.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I thank the member for Heysen. I will probably take a fair bit of that as a comment, to be perfectly honest. I am not criticising you. There are a couple of things I might say in response to that, over and above what I have already said in response to the question from the member for Bragg. One of those things is that, despite your characterisation—I think you described it as a travesty—we will be only the third place in Australia to have this legislation. Only New South Wales and Tasmania are before us. So I think it is bit of a long bow to say that we are dragging the chain, given that there is a whole range of other states and territories that will not have this legislation in place and we have done two pretty thorough consultation rounds.

I was going to add to that as a final point that this legislation, as is so much legislation that deals with new and emerging technologies, is a lot more complicated than it sounds when you first explain it. Certainly, when it was explained to me, I thought this should be relatively straightforward, but it is not when it comes to operating a permit system and things like that and making sure the exemptions are right.

I have had the benefit of spending time with the superintendent and actually seeing some of these firearms that have been printed from a 3D printer and understanding what is happening out there. I also understand what the member for MacKillop got to the crux of in his question around those who are legitimately using 3D printers to print parts and components for firearms, and we do not want to infringe upon their right to do that.

Quite a bit of detailed work has been happening outside of the consultation period to make sure that what we are debating here today will actually work. As I said, I cannot speak really to what happened before me, other than to tell you about the consultations. In between houses, should we get there, I will seek to try to furnish you with more information. But, as I said, in a short period of time, since being fortunate enough to be given these extra portfolio duties, I have progressed this to this point, where I am hoping that even possibly tonight we will see it pass this place and go to the upper house and we will be a step closer to South Australia becoming just the third jurisdiction in Australia to have laws prohibiting digital blueprints for the 3D printing of firearms.

Mr TEAGUE: Minister, I might put it in the circumstances of coming just now to the role. Is it the case, on coming to the role, in first briefings and advice/request meetings with the commissioner you are presented with this as a priority of police that has not yet been done, perhaps handed the media release from back in the day and told, 'This needs to be done pronto,' and you have picked up and then got that done over the course of these few short weeks? Or is it something different to that or anywhere in between? Did the commissioner and the department have the draft all ready to go and there was nothing much more to do except press play and make it a priority for the government? Did you have substantial work to then respond to a level of priorities/urgency from the commissioner to say, 'This is our priority number one'?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am just conferring with my own staff member to try to recollect the very busy and unexpected few days after being lucky enough to score myself an extra portfolio duty. What I can say is that one of the first questions I asked of SAPOL upon being sworn in was, 'Given we have about 12'—at that stage—'sitting days left in the sitting calendar and we are approaching the state election, are there legislative imperatives or priorities that you need me to consider? If there are, let's move those on, because we don't have a great many sitting days left and I would like to get those through,' and this is one of those things. I think I have another two bills, not necessarily police ones, I am eager to progress as well. So I am trying to make sure we get all the things done that we need to get done and do the things we said we would do as a government before the sitting year is over.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr BATTY: This is the more substantive clause where we find the offence for a possession of a digital blueprint for firearms. I think the minister has spoken about these digital blueprints becoming more prevalent. You might have given this data before in the parliament or in the media, but how many digital blueprints for firearms have we found over the last year?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The figure I used publicly, which I am informed is correct, is in 2025, 14, and since 2020, 42.

Mr BATTY: In 2025, we found 14 digital blueprints for firearms. What has happened in those circumstances? In the absence of this legislation presumably nothing has happened and it has not been an offence and we have let these people carry on with holding digital blueprints for firearms.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I will have to take on notice individual cases, but I am reassured by the superintendent in terms of what action was taken in regard to those in 2025, it has been the same case since 2020 because we have had 42 of these since 2020.

Mr BATTY: Yes, except since February 2024 we have had a suggestion that we need new laws to target this very problem and since that time, in 2025 alone, we found 14 of them, and we have not acted until today. Do you think that has put community safety at risk?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if there were indeed, as I have said, 14 in 2025 and, therefore, a need for legislation, then surely the same stands to be true from 2020 when you guys were in government as well, when the opposition were in government, if these blueprints were being found then as well.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to the fact that technology is moving quickly, we are seeing our schools and universities pick up this technology and teach the next generation. The question I have is: if by chance some year 11 and year 12 students printed out a fake replica of a gun and it looked very much like the real deal, will these students face the full breadth of the law of these new amendments or would they face the old laws, the sitting laws at the moment, where if a replica gun is used in public and is threatening people, it has almost the same consequence as if it were a real gun? Could you please give us an example of what this might look like if a group of schoolchildren produced a replica gun with their 3D printer?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Setting aside the obvious issue here in terms of how I would like to think we would respond in the education system if we had kids printing off guns, even if they are replica ones or so-called toy ones, which would be a very serious matter indeed, what I can tell you is that, in that scenario that you have explained to the house, that person would be dealt with under existing provisions for possession of the firearm, but then if they are found to be in possession of the blueprint, they would also be dealt with under these provisions for possession, potential dissemination and/or creation of the blueprint used to print the firearm.

Mr McBRIDE: I thank the minister for the answer; believe me, it is a good answer, and I am not here trying to catch you out. The next question I ask relates to students—I am going to say year 12s and under. If we put that as a broad base, you as education minister know too well the breadth of student I am talking about, year 12 and under. If they find these sort of blueprints in curiosity, perhaps a brainwave of peer group pressure and curiosity, and go out there and do this, I am trying to get an understanding (and I hope you have as well, minister, in this space). You know, minister, the inquisitiveness and fascination of students as technology moves.

Does the minister have any precautions in the system that says, 'Mr Year 11 and Mr Year 12 student, you are looking at gun replicas and 3D images and 3D designs—this is a serious sort of offence. If you continue on in this vein and go down and put this through your printer, there could be some really severe consequences'? Maybe these students will not know what they are unless you have those sort of precautions out there to advise what is basically curiosity taking place amongst year 11s and year 12s.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thank you, member for MacKillop. I understand your point and I have just raised that with the superintendent, who said one of the other things that will be occurring if this should pass this place and the other place between now and 31 January, when we are anticipating that it would be proclaimed and be in operation, is an education piece, which I think is three month's worth, to essentially address the issues that you raised, which are important because you are right: it is new and emerging technology, especially in terms of young people who might think it is a bit of fun or a bit silly to be printing off all sorts of stuff on 3D printers.

One of the things that most alarmed me in the conversations with SAPOL and the superintendent was that my understanding is that you do not necessarily need a very special 3D printer to do this or necessarily need very special material to go in the 3D printer to do it—you can print off something pretty crude that can still fire a projectile or even a traditional bullet from a stock 3D printer, which I think is obviously a concern. Short answer to the question is that there will be an education piece that will run between the bill passing, should that happen, and proclamation.

Mr McBRIDE: One last question, with these blueprints—and I see 37A(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) talks about firearm parts, accessories and the like. Minister, there are gun owners out in the state, they are gun collectors, the guns could be 100 years old plus because they are family heirlooms. Not everything lasts forever and I need a new part for that gun that I no longer can buy on the open market. I could go and buy or get possession of a 3D metal printer that could do me a new bolt, trigger, something for this gun. I am a licensed gun owner, I have licensed gun, it has historical value, so if I produce or go and get that one little part that I need for this gun that is worn out and no longer manufactured anywhere else, would I be breaking the law with these new amendments we have here and, if so, why?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thanks, member for MacKillop. Yes, that is a genuine scenario that has been considered, that exact scenario that you have just described. The existing licence held by that person who might own the heirloom or antique firearm would permit them, under this legislation, to print a component or part for their legally licensed weapon.

The CHAIR: Good answer, good.

Clause passed.

Schedule 1.

Mr BATTY: I do not have any further questions, Chair, but I want to take the opportunity to thank the minister's advisers and SAPOL for their work on this, not only for the last 19 months but in assisting us with it today as well, and for the briefing this morning. I am very grateful. We had a committee punctuated by the dinner break, so I much appreciate it.

Mr McBRIDE: I have one more question, if I may?

The CHAIR: Is it a question on the schedule?

Mr McBRIDE: It can be.

The CHAIR: Okay.

Mr McBRIDE: It definitely will be—I will try to make it that way. Minister, in regard to these amendments and changes that you put in place here, the community is very interested in the consultation that took place. Is there any way that the minister could divulge the consultation that took place and whom they consulted with, just to give confidence to what I am hearing is an element out there that feels like they have not been heard?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thank you, member for MacKillop. That is often the thing, is it not, with government consultation. I must say that my own experience is that I sometimes feel, no matter how often or how many times I do it, there might be some who disagree with what the finished article is and who will feel like they have not been heard because their points have not been adopted.

In this case there were two lots of consultation, as I said. I did read out the names, including the Combined Firearms Council, the Sporting Shooters' Association, some individuals in there as well, and the Department for Correctional Services. There was the general consultation, and out of that SAPOL deemed there needed to be some targeted specific consultation that followed as well—I think two six-week blocks. In the scheme of consultation that we do on other legislation as a government, two six-week blocks is pretty significant. I am confident, as the minister, that SAPOL have dotted the i's and crossed the t's to get this right.

I think the last question that you asked in regard to that scenario is about an existing, lawfully licensed firearm that someone wants to produce a 3D-printed component for. Those real technicalities have been considered by SAPOL and taken into account and addressed in this bill to make sure there are not unintended consequences of curtailing someone's legal ability to potentially 3D print a part they cannot get anymore. I know it happens with classic cars and stuff all the time. I can understand the need for it, and it has been protected in here.

The CHAIR: Another good answer there.

Schedule passed.

Long title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Minister for Police) (20:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Can I begin by thanking, first of all, the opposition for their support of this important bill. More specifically, can I thank the representatives from SAPOL who were here and stuck around through the dinner break to be able to provide me advice and answer the questions that were asked: Superintendent Lauren Leverington, who is the Officer in Charge of the Firearms Branch, and Sergeant First Class Peter Stephen as well. I want to thank them both for their expertise and the large amount of work they have done on this.

This is quite intricate stuff once you get down to some of the potential scenarios, as the member for MacKillop asked about. I understood it was those kinds of scenarios that took up a fair bit of time in the consultation, around people who were not seeking to do the wrong thing or do anything illegal, such as people who are legally licensed gun owners who might want to use amazing new technology to be able to print a part they could not get.

I want to thank both Superintendent Leverington and Sergeant First Class Stephen for the very thorough piece of work they have done. I thank the members for Bragg, MacKillop, Heysen and Flinders and those who asked questions. I am pleased to see that this will, I hope, progress now and soon find its way into law.

Bill read a third time and passed.