HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FIREARMS (FIREARMS PROHIBITION ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 March 2008. Page 2065.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:37): Again, I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to this particular piece of legislation. I guess it is a much more contentious piece of legislation than the previous bill that I have just spoken to, being the Controlled Substances(Drug Detection Powers) Amendment Bill.

This bill, from my understanding, is part of an amendment to the Firearms Act, but just a small section that was part of a suite of amendments to various bills and legislation that the government introduced to control outlaw motorcycle gangs. We had a briefing last year on this amendment bill. It had some components that we found to be a little invasive into public life, particularly in respect of the transportation of guns. We note that they have been taken out of this bill and it deals now with just firearms prohibition orders.

I have had considerable consultation with a number of interested stakeholders in the community, including the Combined Shooters and Firearms Council, the Adelaide Collectors Guild, and a number of other associations like the Sporting Shooters Association, the Antique and Historical Arms Association of South Australia and the Farmers Federation, to name just a few. They have all raised a number of concerns.

Broadly speaking, the stakeholders in this debate, and the opposition, support the general thrust of the government wanting to clamp down on illegal firearms and unlicensed firearms and the illegal use of those firearms. Interestingly, when one looks through the bill there are some opportunities, we suspect, to inadvertently trap law-abiding and registered licensed firearms owners by this piece of legislation.

The opposition's understanding of the legislation is that the firearms prohibition orders will be put into effect by a police officer on the run, so to speak, if he is confronted by somebody that he suspects has an illegal firearm or is not a fit and proper person to own a firearm or to operate a firearm. He would then seek advice from a senior officer and impose a firearms prohibition order. We understand also that the police have a number of individuals in South Australia who are of interest to them in that they would apply to the registrar to impose a firearms prohibition order. A police officer out on the beat would impose an interim order, but the registrar would impose the firearms prohibition order.

I would like to turn my attention now to some of the points that have been raised in our consultation and then, at the end of this contribution, ask a number of questions that I would like the minister to answer prior to us progressing the bill through the committee stage, because there are a number of amendments that we may choose to move if we do not get a satisfactory answer.

Turning my attention to the bill, I will work through some of the issues that have been raised. At first glance this might seem to be a somewhat draconian piece of legislation, and that is why the opposition is a little concerned with some of the provisions. As I said, I will work through the bill and the issues that have been raised with me in the consultation process. I refer to page 6, part 6B, the power to require a medical examination, which provides:

The Registrar may, as reasonably required for the purpose of determining whether a person is a fit and proper person to have possession of a firearm or ammunition or to hold or to have possession of a licence for the purposes of this Act, require the person to—

(a) submit to an examination by a health professional, or by a health professional of a class, specified by the Registrar; or

(b) provide a medical report from a health professional, or from a health professional of a class, specified by the Registrar,

The part that has been raised with us is 'including an examination or report that will require the person to undergo some form of medically invasive procedure'. The words 'medically invasive procedure' seem a little severe. It may be something as simple as a blood test which, I guess, is invasive because you stick a needle into the person's vein and take some blood. However, we would like an explanation. Certain people have raised significant concerns about that.

On page 7, part 2A of the firearms prohibition orders provides that interim firearms prohibition orders will be issued by a police officer and, subject to section 2, a police officer may issue an interim firearms prohibition order against the person if the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that (a) the possession of a firearm by a person would be likely to result in undue danger to life or property but, more importantly, (b) that the person is not a fit and proper person to possess a firearm.

I know we have a definition in the Firearms Act of what a fit and proper person is, and I would like some confirmation from the minister that this definition will remain the same. We have had it put to us that you might have a couple of young men out on a Friday or Saturday night doing some spotlighting (and young women possibly, as well) who are acting a little irresponsibly: they get stopped by a police officer; they are near a town; they give the officer some cheek; and then, suddenly, the police officer says, 'Well, I'll fix you. Because you're acting irresponsibly I will issue you with an interim prohibition order.'

That actually creates some difficulty, because those young people possibly have to return home and it is an offence, under this amendment bill, to spend a night in a building or dwelling where there are firearms if you are subject to a firearms prohibition order. I guess that is one example of the interpretation of being fit and proper.

I would also like advice from the minister in relation to people being fit and proper if they commit an offence under some other act, and I use the example of someone, probably knowingly, shooting or destroying a protected animal or bird—a kangaroo or emu, for example—because they think they need to take that action for whatever reason. Under the definition, is someone who does that likely to be considered not a fit or proper person?

We would like some clear advice from the minister regarding whether the definition will be strictly adhered to and administered. The police say that they are not after genuine, law-abiding firearm owners but are after the disobedient, non law-abiding people, people who trade illegally in firearms and people who use illegal firearms. We do not want to see innocent, law-abiding citizens affected. There are some grey areas and we would like the minister to clarify that particular issue. I draw the council's attention to page 8, part 2A, clause 10A(5), on interim firearms prohibition orders, which provides:

If a police officer proposes to issue an interim firearms prohibition order against a person, the officer may—'

...

b) if the person refuses or fails to comply with the requirement or the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the requirement will not be complied with, arrest and detain the person in custody (without warrant) for—

(i) so long as may be necessary for the order to be served on the person; or

(ii) two hours,

whichever is the lesser.

It has also been raised with me during consultation that it appears that if someone were overzealous they may be able to detain someone for two hours without any reasonable grounds. If it were an illegal firearms owner or someone behaving irresponsibly, that is understandable but, again, some innocent people in our communities may be trapped by this particular piece of legislation. On page 10, paragraph (9) of clause 10C—Effects of firearms prohibition order—provides:

A person against whom a firearms prohibition order is in force must inform each other person of or over the age of 18 years who resides or proposes to reside at the same premises as the person of the fact that a firearms prohibition order is in force against the person and ask each such person whether or not he or she has or proposes to have a firearm, firearm part or ammunition on the premises.

In the past couple of years we have seen groups of young people under the age of 18 (and I will mention the Gang of 49, although I am not claiming they are involved in illegal firearms use) behaving in an irresponsible manner, thumbing their nose at the law, and it seems a little strange to the opposition that someone under the age of 18 is not subject to the provisions of this particular amendment bill.

If there were a criminal element in the community that had unlicensed or illegal weapons they may be able to give someone under the age of 18 a couple of hundred dollars and say, 'Here, put this gun in your back cupboard or under your bed and look after it for me because you're not subject to one of these orders. Whenever I need it I'll give you a yell and you can give it back to me and I'll slip you another couple of hundred dollars.' It seems strange, given that we have a problem in some communities in this state with reckless behaviour by people under the age of 18, that people under the age of 18 would not be affected by this piece of legislation. I have a range of questions but I may shortly seek leave to conclude, because I do not at present have them here to read out and I am unable to get them—

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member can ask the questions during the committee stage.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I wanted to put them on record so that the minister could do it before we got there; my apologies to the council. Page 11, clause 10C(14)(b)(iii) provides:

the person knowingly provides the premises in which any step in that process is taken, or suffers or permits any step in that process to be taken in premises of which the person is an owner, lessee or occupier or of which the person has care, control or management;

I quoted that particular passage because, if someone rented a farmhouse to someone, is the owner of the property liable because they have rented a house to someone they did not know was subject to a firearms prohibition order? Are we now to find, perhaps, that as part of a tenancy or rental agreement there may have to be a disclosure clause? We know that there are a lot of disused farmhouses across the state; farms have become larger and they are not used, but it is often better for the house to have someone living in it rather than being left empty.

We may find that people who move in may not be fully checked and may not be well known to the community. We would like the minister to provide clarification as to whether the landlord would be liable for any breach of this act if someone is living in a rented house but the landlord is not aware that they are subject to a firearms prohibition order. That raises a number of concerns. We are considering some amendments that relate to the powers of the registrar, in that the registrar is subject to the review committee. It now appears that the registrar will not actually have to refer decisions to the review committee, but only for specialist advice.

It seems to put a lot of power in the hands of the registrar. I have a number of questions which, unfortunately, I do not have here at the moment. I have outlined a number of issues that stand out. I have a number of others, including the manufacture of firearms being subject to a firearms prohibition order.

Manufacturing is just modification. When you speak to sporting shooters, hunters and gun club owners, manufacture can be a modification—maybe a different sight, different grips, different triggers and different pressure—so the sporting shooters, the Field and Game Association and people who use guns in a law-abiding fashion are concerned that they will be captured in the manufacture of guns by virtue of the fact that they change their gun in a shooting contest. Depending on the wind conditions at a rifle range, they may change their sights several times during the day and that is a modification to the gun under the act, so is that manufacturing? They are the sorts of questions I have in more detail and will be happy to put on the record tomorrow for the minister. I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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