HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FIREARMS (FIREARMS PROHIBITION ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 10 April 2008. Page 2407.)

Clause 1 passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The definition of 'fit and proper person' seems to be very vague and, largely, is at the discretion of the Registrar. There is no definition in the bill as to what constitutes a fit and proper person; there is no clarification at all. We are concerned that well-meaning people who own firearms or who choose to own firearms, who obey the law and who have the appropriate licences, etc., potentially could be targeted if they are just not liked for some reason. For some people it could be quite a substantial penalty if they were denied access to a firearm because, in many cases, they are needed for the particular type of work they do, and I am particularly thinking of people on the land. It is a very vague definition. I would like to hear the minister's comments as to how he sees that working out.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Section 5(10) of the current Firearms Act 1977 provides:

For the purposes of this act a person who has a mental or physical condition that would make it unsafe for him or her to possess a firearm or ammunition must be taken not to be a fit and proper person to have possession of a firearm or ammunition or to hold or have possession of a licence.

That subsection relates to a person who has a mental or physical condition that would make it unsafe for him or her to have a firearm. I think the implication of that would be that a medical practitioner or some other suitably qualified person would make that determination. That is how that category is dealt with. Section 5(11) provides:

For the purposes of this act a person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person to have possession of a firearm or ammunition or to hold or have possession of a licence if the person—

(a) has not complied with the requirements of this act in relation to the safe handling, carriage or use of firearms; or

(b) has been [found guilty] of an offence against this act...

Of course, that is one of the definitions we are changing. That subsection currently states 'has been convicted of an offence'. We are proposing to amend that to read 'has been found guilty of an offence against this act or corresponding legislation of another state or territory of the commonwealth'. Section 5(11)(c) provides:

Has been [found guilty]—

again, that is an amendment we are moving to this bill—

of an offence involving actual or threatened violence in this state or any other state or territory of the commonwealth or in any other part of the world;

We are amending the act to insert paragraph (ca), which provides:

has been found guilty of an offence prescribed by regulation; or

Section 5(11) provides:

(d) has been [found guilty] of fraud or deception for the purpose of obtaining a licence or permit under this act or under corresponding legislation in another state or territory of the commonwealth; or

(e) is the subject, or has in the past been the subject, of a domestic violence restraining order under the Domestic Violence Act 1994 or any other order of a similar nature made by a court whether in this state or any other state or territory of the commonwealth.

I would have thought that, under those definitions, it is not a matter of just not liking someone. I think that the concept of who is a fit and proper person is a widely used and acknowledged concept right across the legislative field.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the minister for his response; it does clarify the matter somewhat. However, the minister did raise the issue of being found guilty as opposed to 'convicted'. Of course, our problem with this bill is that, as has happened until the present time, many firearms offences are very minor and committed by people meaning to do the right thing. Members will not hear me advocating for the courts very often but, on this occasion, I will. Quite sensibly in some cases people are found guilty of a particular offence because it is true that it happened but no conviction is recorded—the offence was of such a minor nature and the person was well meaning and the offence was basically an accident. The most common example is where someone does not have a safe bolted to the floor or, if it was bolted, it has been removed to be repaired or something like that, and the inspection has happened at a time when it was not secured as it should be.

That is not an insignificant matter by any means, so it is appropriate that someone is found guilty. However, if under this clause it changes, the problem we have is that well-intentioned people who have committed these offences purely through circumstances—a bit of bad luck, they have simply forgotten or something of that nature—it would no longer matter that a conviction is not recorded against them. It would still be held against them when the time came for them to seek a firearms licence or amendments to that licence. We are concerned about that.

We think that the current system works well, but let me make it clear that, if someone is deliberately infringing and choosing not to obey the law, they should face very severe consequences. We have no problem with that whatsoever, as firearms should be treated with the respect they deserve. They can be used inappropriately, and we are certainly not advocating that.

However, when people are doing the right thing but inadvertently find themselves in the types of circumstances I have mentioned, they should not be deprived of access to an appropriate firearm, particularly if it is to be used at work or for sport and so on. That is also a significant concern to us.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I said, the only changes relate to the issue of whether someone has been convicted or found guilty. I point out to the honourable member that these clauses are discretionary. Clause 10 provides that, for the purposes of this act, a person who has a mental or physical condition that would make it unsafe for him or her to possess a firearm or ammunition must be taken not to be a fit or proper person.

However, in relation to someone in the other example, it is a discretionary provision. It provides that 'for the purpose of this act, a person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person' if the person then fulfils one of those conditions. In any case, there is appeal in the first instance to the Firearms Review Committee. It can be referred back to the Registrar and, of course, ultimately there is appeal to the District Court under the provisions of this bill. So, there are safeguards that could apply if the application of this provision is considered by somebody to be trifling or have some other error. There are provisions that allow for the discretionary power to be reviewed.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: While I am not keen to see a proliferation of firearms, nevertheless, in listening to the answer the minister gave in relation to the Hon. Mr Hood's question about 'fit and proper person', I gained the impression that someone who has ever had a firearms offence would be regarded as not being a fit and proper person. Is that the case?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I said, if we exclude the mental condition, when medical advice operates under clause 10, obviously the case of someone with an offence is a discretionary matter, and the Registrar will consider the gravity of the situation. In any case, there is the appeal mechanism through the Firearms Review Committee and, ultimately, through the District Court.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Presumably, if we are dealing with someone who has used a firearm in a domestic violence situation, for example, and they have been charged, found guilty and served some time or had some sort of criminal penalty recorded against them, if they apply for a licence to own a gun after that, it would probably be predicated against them that they would be given a licence under this system.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that, under the Summary Procedures Act, if somebody has a domestic violence order against them, they must have the firearms licence suspended. The firearms licence is suspended under that act.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I understand that it would be suspended but, if there were a new attempt to obtain a licence, would that prior offence mean that that man is no longer a fit and proper person?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that it would depend. If that person had their licence removed under the Summary Procedures Act, and appropriately so, if they wished then to reapply for a licence, obviously it would depend on the offence, the level of perceived risk and the other circumstances at the time. It would have to be a matter of judgment. You could not really do it any other way, other than to make a judgment on the facts. Obviously, if somebody has had a restraining order issued against them under the Domestic Violence Act, quite appropriately it ought to be very closely considered before contemplating giving them back a licence. An assessment would be made of the risk.

Further, the most significant part of the new bill is the introduction of firearms prohibition orders, and you would not necessarily in those cases introduce a firearms prohibition order. The matter in those cases would be considered as it would be under the current legislation. Here firearms prohibition orders are particularly aimed at the more violent criminal element, so the main part of the bill would not necessarily apply in that case, but as the provisions apply to domestic violence in most cases it would be unlikely to be changed by the passage of this bill.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I ask for clarification with regard to people not being fit and proper in relation to offences. I mentioned the example of people who have been found guilty of other offences involving firearms where perhaps a primary producer has shot protected animals or birds as a way of protecting crops or livestock.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck: Shame!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Sandra Kanck highlights the point I am making by saying 'Shame!' because some people in the community, possibly rightly so, would say that a person who shoots protected animals is not a fit and proper person to own a firearm. It is an interpretation of the relevant act as to whether a person is deemed to be fit and proper. I wonder whether somebody convicted of a drink driving offence or speeding offences, particularly if they are caught two or three times, indicates some disrespect for the law and potentially puts them at risk of being subject to being not fit and proper.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: If somebody had a series of drink driving offences it may indicate how that person regards the law and it may become a factor in regard to being a fit and proper person to that extent. As I said to the Hon. Sandra Kanck, in relation to firearms prohibition orders, which is the main focus of this bill, in the case the honourable member gave you are not likely to issue a firearms prohibition order in relation to that person. Whether you would licence them as a fit and proper person would be considered in much the same way as it would be under the current act.

The passage of this bill is not likely to change the attitude of the Registrar towards somebody in that situation. Other procedures follow it. If a person had been found guilty rather than convicted, we may change the way the appeal system works, but in relation to a firearm prohibition order I emphasise that the focus is on violent criminal behaviour and people who may be at risk to others, and there is a need to take immediate action in terms of removing the firearm to prevent the likelihood of murder/suicide, suicide and so on.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 6, line 27 [clause 5, inserted section 6B(1)]—Delete 'undergo some form of medically invasive procedure' and substitute 'submit to a blood test or some other prescribed procedure'.

This amendment relates to medically invasive procedures. I raised this as a concern in my second reading contribution as a number of people with whom the opposition has consulted were somewhat alarmed with the description of 'including examination or report that will require the person to undergo some form of medically invasive procedure.'

When I spoke to the minister's adviser at a briefing earlier in the year, he indicated that that would be more than likely just a blood test, but the stakeholders are concerned that this is more than a blood test. So the opposition moves an amendment which we would very much like the committee to consider and support, where a person would be requested to submit to a blood test or any other prescribed procedure, which allows the minister by regulation to prescribe whatever other procedure it might be, but in the event that it is an unreasonable procedure it allows the Legislative Council to disallow those regulations and gives a level of protection and comfort for some of the stakeholders who have raised questions with us, whilst allowing the same opportunities to be afforded to the police force to implement these firearms prohibition orders and make sure people are able to submit to a blood test, which I am sure is the primary reason for this clause.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The background to the wording of it is that it is the same terminology used in the Medical Practitioners Act, which essentially is why it was incorporated here, but if the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition gives comfort to the firearms practitioners we are happy to support it. Essentially he is right that it is really to cover blood tests and we used the wording of that act, but if it clarifies it then I am happy to accept the amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I am pleased to hear that response from the minister. Family First indicates support for the amendment.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I indicate Democrat support for the amendment. Looking at it I probably would have accepted an amendment that changed 'will' to 'may', but to say that people should expect a medically invasive procedure is a little concerning and what we have here with this amendment will clarify that. For the most part one would anticipate that it would be a blood test, but if by regulation it sets out other procedures, then at least someone who is applying to have a firearm will have some idea of what might be expected of them in the process.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: My concern with this clause is that it substantially alters the balance of power, if you like, in terms of who has the real decision making power. Currently, the consultative committee has a significant influence on the Registrar and has significant powers to intervene and, if appropriate, curtail the Registrar's powers or act against a decision that the Registrar has made, but this clause will substantially change that situation.

Our view is that the current situation is working well and that there are good reasons to have a committee which has significant power in its own right to challenge the decisions of the Registrar, and that changing the current situation puts a lot of power, frankly, in one person's hands. That is all well and good if that person is benevolent and there are no real issues but, presumably, that will not always be the case. So we raise that concern and seek clarification from the minister as to the intent of this clause and some reassurance that altering this current situation will not be to the detriment of firearms holders in general. As I say, we are quite concerned about this clause.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: If one looks at the statistics and what happened with the Firearms Consultative Committee, in terms of agreement, if one goes through the logistics over the past five years or so, in 2003-04, 84 per cent of the decisions were agreed to; in 2004-05 it was 91 per cent; in 2005-06 it was 89 per cent; in 2006-07 it was 85 per cent; and up to the present it has been 96 per cent. So there has been a high level of agreement with those decisions.

If one looks at the appeals against the decisions of the Firearms Consultative Committee, in 2003-04 there were four appeals, of which none were upheld; in 2004-05 there were eight appeals, of which three were upheld; in 2005-06 there were 25 appeals, of which just two were upheld; in 2006-07 there were 26 appeals, of which just two were upheld; and in the year to date there have been 14 new appeals, of which two have been upheld. In other words, in the past five years there have been just nine decisions of the Registrar that have been overturned.

I think if one looks at those figures one can see that there is an enormous amount of effort that goes on; but, of course, what we are seeking to do here is replace the new procedures so that they will go ultimately to the District Court if someone wishes to challenge them. I think that that record should give people some comfort. As I said, over the past five years just nine appeals have been upheld out of the total number of decisions.

In regard to applications, in 2003-04 there were 27,372 renewal applications received. That number dropped to 23,435 in 2006-07. In regard to applications for a variation of licence, if one looks at the 2006-07 figure, which is the last full year, it was 563. So, given the volume of applications, really the evidence is that the Registrar's decision has been overturned on very few occasions.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I agree with the minister that not all the time but certainly most of the time the committee and the Registrar are in agreement, and that seems to me to be a system that is working very well. So, the obvious question is: why change? Why do we want to remove the power the committee has with the Registrar if they are in agreement almost all of the time? It seems that it is working very well and, on the rare occasions when there is disagreement, why not have a committee with some actual power to intervene and challenge the decision?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The whole focus of this legislation is to try to shift away from the enormous amount of effort that now goes into the mundane licence applications, because the vast majority of these are legitimate firearms owners.

What we have tried to do in this bill is start to focus the attention on the criminal element, not just the illegal weapons but also those who should not have firearms but who manage to get them. That is really what we are trying to do: to shift the attention away, rather than have hours involved in just the mundane processing. We have seen from the statistics that in nearly all cases there are very few disputes over those. Rather, the effort should be put into preventive measures to try to prevent firearms getting into the hands of those who should not have them.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I just have a final comment on that. I agree with the minister. I still do not see how the change in this clause achieves that purpose. If any measures are presented to this place to take firearms out of the hands of criminals, Family First will wholeheartedly support it. I just do not see how this particular clause in the bill achieves that end.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am informed that this is really the only state that has a model like this. It has been in place since 1977, and it is the only type that does that. I think the argument really is that an enormous amount of police resources is tied up just in the mundane processing of applications, which manifestly has very little benefit in terms of making the community safer because, as I said, all the effort has to go into that.

With this new model, through the new clause 27, we are looking at the review and appeal. A firearms review committee allows someone who disputes it to deal with it there. So, rather than having this model where the Firearms Consultative Committee has to agree with virtually every decision of the Registrar, with an enormous amount of processing in that, given that there are so few issues that are ultimately of dispute, is it not better to have a model where we have a review committee accompanied by right of appeal to the District Court? So, in those very few cases where there will be a dispute, that can be the focus of effort rather than this enormous amount of police effort involved in mundane processing through the current structure. I am sure that is why every other state has moved away from it.

Clause passed.

Clauses 7 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I move:

Page 7, line 26—

Delete paragraph (b)

Page 8, lines 28 to 29—

Delete subparagraph (ii)

In clause 11 of the bill, we are adding a completely new part to the act, and that will be Part 2A—Firearms prohibition orders. This is not something that we have had before, so we need to look very carefully at this. I am very mindful of the situation in the US with guns and the massacres from time to time when people have run amok. It is really important that we have protections for the community.

This new part 2A consists of what will be three new sections: 10A, 10B and 10C. Section 10A is about interim firearms prohibition orders issued by a police officer; 10B is about firearms prohibition orders issued by the Registrar; and 10C explains the effect of the prohibition orders. There are three pages of the description of the effect of those prohibition orders, and I think we need to look at these as a package to understand it. It is because of the effect of the prohibition order (10C) that I am moving the amendments because, if we are to have these prohibition orders, we have to understand that their impact will be quite draconian.

What my amendment does in relation to 10A(1)(b) is to remove the reference to the person not being a fit and proper person to possess a firearm. This would then leave the police officer with the grounds that possession of the firearm by the person would be likely to result in undue danger to life or property. To me, it seems that, if the police officer makes a determination on that basis, the fit and proper person requirement will not be needed. Similarly for 10B(1)(a)(ii), we are left with the Registrar having to be satisfied that possession of a firearm by the person would be likely to result in undue danger to life or property, which is the same wording as 10A. In 10B we also have (b), that it is in the public interest to prohibit the person from possessing and using a firearm. Again, with 10A(1)(b), it seems to me that the requirement for the fit and proper person is not necessary. It seems that the reason you would say that a person is not fit and proper to have a firearms licence is the prospect of that person creating some sort of harm in the community; in other words, undue danger to life or property. So that is covered.

We need to look at these decisions, either by the police officer or the Registrar, in terms of section 10C, which is the effect of the firearms prohibition order. If members have not read this, I think it is important that they understand the full impact. If, for instance, a determination has been made that a person will be placed under a firearms prohibition order, section 10C(7) provides:

A person against whom a firearms prohibition order is in force must not reside at premises on which there is a firearm, firearm part or ammunition.

There is a penalty of $50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years in the case of a firearm; or, in the case of a firearm part or ammunition, $20,000 or imprisonment for four years. Section 10C(8) provides:

It is a defence to prosecution for an offence against subsection (7) to prove that the person did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the firearm, firearm part or ammunition was on the premises.

This, I suppose, ameliorates it slightly. The question that arises for me is what this means for spouses, relatives and farm employees who might be under such an order. Does it mean that they would have to be turned off a farm? If you are a roustabout on a farm and you have such an order against you and the farm owner has a gun on the property, I would read this to mean that the farmer would have to say to that roustabout, 'You can no longer work on this property.' Section 10C(11) provides:

A person who has a firearm on or about his or her person or under his or her immediate physical control must not be in the company of a person to whom a firearms prohibition order applies.

That has a maximum penalty of $10,000 or imprisonment for two years. That very much seems to be a subsection that will restrict association. Section 10C(12) provides:

If a person to whom a firearms prohibition order applies resides at premises, a person who brings a firearm, firearm part or ammunition onto the premises or has possession of a firearm, firearm part or ammunition on the premises is guilty of an offence.

That has a maximum penalty of $50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years in the case of a firearm and $20,000 or imprisonment for four years in the case of a firearm part or ammunition. We do have, again, a rider in subsection (13) about the person not being reasonably expected to know.

You can imagine the potential implications of a farmer dropping in on another farm where one of the household is under a firearms prohibition order, or even one person meeting another to go out and shoot some rabbits. It certainly does have a lot of implications. You could see people being charged under this particular provision. It may be that subsection (13) allows them to prove that they were effectively innocent, but it still means that the farmer would have to go through that process of proving their innocence.

Section 10C(14)(a) is long and wordy, but it is worthwhile listening to. It provides:

If a person to whom a firearms prohibition order applies is on or in premises or a vehicle, vessel or aircraft (other than any premises, vehicle, vessel or aircraft to which the public are admitted) when a firearm, firearm part or ammunition is found on or in the premises, vehicle, vessel or aircraft, the person will be taken to possess the firearm, firearm part or ammunition unless it is proved that the person did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the firearm, firearm part or ammunition was on or in the premises, vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

In other words, they have to go through the process after they have been charged to prove that they did not know and could not reasonably have known that that was the case.

I am thinking of an example where a group of indigenous people goes off to shoot kangaroo on the APY lands, and they give a lift to a friend or family member who is already the subject of a firearms prohibition order. There is the potential for that person to be then sent to gaol.

These are the sorts of implications of this section. This bill is entitled the Firearms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill. This section is absolutely central to this bill and it has enormous implications. Subsection (14) provides:

For the purposes of this section—

(c) a person will be taken to supply a firearm if—

(iii) 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.

Does that mean, for instance, that a farmer with a family member to whom a prohibition order applies cannot let a kangaroo shooter onto their property in case the person to whom the prohibition order applies gets hold of their gun? It seems that the key will be in any ensuing court case and the prosecution having to prove that it was done knowingly. I personally have no objection to a firearms prohibition order being issued against a potentially dangerous person.

Coming back to the amendment, using the criteria 'fit and proper person' seems to me to be much too broad to assess a person when these sorts of harsh penalties are the result. On the other hand, it seems to me that it would be justified if the assessment was made on the basis that the person having the weapon could result in danger to life and property.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The government obviously opposes the amendment to remove the not fit or proper person test because the ability to make a determination of a person's fitness to possess a firearm really is the basis of firearms regulatory schemes right across this country. The term 'not a fit and proper person' used in interim firearms prohibition orders and in the Registrar's firearms prohibition orders provides the Commissioner, in his capacity as the Registrar of Firearms, or his delegate, with the discretion to determine whether people are a risk to public safety or are not likely to comply with the regulatory requirements of the legislation. In making a determination—

The Hon. Sandra Kanck: Did you say there is a list?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No; I said if people are a risk to public safety or are not likely to comply with the regulatory requirements of the legislation. In making a determination that a person is not a fit and proper person, consideration must be given to the provisions expressly stated in the legislation, or refer to those, and to any facts or criminal intelligence that is available about the person.

In addition, those who are not fit and proper persons must not have access to firearms legally under the fit and proper persons test, and by application of prohibition orders persons who are not firearms licence holders will be prevented from accessing firearms in places such as commercial firearms ranges, shooting clubs and from other people. This power is not currently available, and officials at ranges and clubs, as well as other innocent persons, may provide access to firearms to people who, in reality, are unfit to possess or use them.

The inclusion of the not a fit and proper person provision will ensure persons satisfying the criteria are prevented from possessing firearms by providing them with a firearms prohibition order and notice that, if they access firearms, they will be subject to a criminal sanction. As has been indicated, this provision is specifically aimed at groups such as outlaw motorcycle gangs that have members who have a record of violent criminal activity.

The honourable member referred to some parts of new clause 10C. As she indicated, new clause (13) provides:

It is a defence to prosecution for an offence against subsection (10), (11) or (12) to prove that the person did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that a firearms prohibition order applies to the person.

I would argue that that provides a more than adequate defence for the sorts of cases that the Hon. Sandra Kanck mentioned.

We have a problem here with the law. There is a celebrated case where a well known member of an outlaw motorcycle gang, with a long criminal history, was found with a loaded firearm in the drawer next to his bed. When the case came to court, I believe it was his son or some family member who claimed that they knew the source of the gun and, of course, they would not say who it was. It is difficult to get a conviction in such situations because of the difficulty in proving ownership of the gun.

That is probably another issue that we have dealt with in the bill, but it does illustrate the problem that you have of these members of criminal gangs getting hold of firearms and the difficulty that police have in actually convicting them, or prohibiting them from getting firearms, and therefore preventing them from using those firearms to either commit crimes or to use them against other people.

Specifically, the provisions that are referred to by the honourable member are designed for the case where—with members of these criminal gangs—you prevent some other member of their family (wife, spouse, partner or other family member) from having access to firearms, which effectively gives it to the person with this criminal record. So, to make the firearms prohibition orders effective, we need to have a provision in here which can prevent those people getting around the law by saying, 'I didn't know anything about the firearm; it must have been put there by a member of my family'.

This new measure will provide a means of addressing what is currently, I would suggest, a weakness in the law that has been exploited by criminal elements. But, yes, of course we do need protection. It could be, in the case mentioned by the honourable member, that somebody is not aware that someone has brought the firearms on them, and that is why the defence is provided under clause 13 for such situations.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will make a few comments on the Hon. Sandra Kanck's amendment and, I guess by way of introduction, indicate that the opposition will not be supporting her amendments. I think it is obvious from the comments that she has made, and also the Hon. Dennis Hood, that a number of us have been contacted by stakeholders in the community, the law-abiding firearms owners, who all understand the minister's and the government's–I think we all share it—goal to clamp down on illegal firearms use and the undesirable element in that community. It is not only Family First; I think we all agree with the intentions of this piece of legislation.

I will foreshadow that an amendment that I have a couple of amendments later on, I hope, will give some comfort to those law-abiding firearms owners—LAFOs as they called themselves in one of the meetings I had with them. They agree that they do want the police force firearms branch to come down very hard on the people who are illegal users of firearms.

I hope the amendments in relation to the report being tabled in the parliament, and also the powers of the review committee (which I will address in a later amendment), may give some comfort to those community groups. I think that, if you had the wrong people administering this legislation with a vendetta against law-abiding firearms owners and users, there could be some circumstances whereby people are captured as a result of over-zealous application of this bill. I indicate that we are not supporting the Hon. Sandra Kanck's amendment, but I hope that we can offer some comfort to the LAFOs later in the debate.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 12, after line 10—

After inserted section 10C insert:

10D—Report on first 2 years of operation of Part.

(1) The minister must cause a report to be prepared under this section within three months after the second anniversary of the commencement of this Part.

(2) The report must relate to the two years immediately following the commencement of this Part and specify—

(a) the number of firearms prohibition orders issued; and

(b) the number of firearms prohibition orders revoked; and

(c) the number of reviews and appeals under Part 4A relating to firearms prohibition orders and the outcome of each review or appeal that has been completed or finally determined.

(3) The minister must, within 12 sitting days after receiving the report under this section, cause copies of the report to be laid before both houses of parliament.

This amendment is quite self-explanatory. It seeks to insert a new section 10D. By moving this amendment I am trying to get the minister to table a report in this place 12 sitting days after he or she has received the report detailing the number of firearms prohibition orders issued, the number of firearms prohibition orders that have been revoked and the number of reviews and appeals under Part 4A relating to firearms prohibition orders and the outcome of each review or appeal that has been completed or finally determined. Again, this is part of the transparency we are looking for, as well as giving the law-abiding firearms owners some degree of comfort that a report will be tabled in this place. We would like it to cover the two years immediately following the commencement of these provisions so that it gives them some comfort that members in this place will see the activity that has been going on.

The minister quoted some statistics a few minutes ago. He talked about the nine decisions in the past five years that have been overturned. That is the sort of information we would expect to see in this report—just letting us know that it is all working as the minister intended and as the firearms branch intended, or it is not. If something has gone awry, that might give us an opportunity to look at the bill and, perhaps, amend or change it in some way. I encourage all parties to support the amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We oppose the amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: By and large, Family First does not normally support amendments to create reports, but in this case we think that there is a case to support this move. I think a two-year window is an appropriate length of time. Again, the reason for supporting it is that the overwhelming majority of people who use firearms are responsible, and we want to make sure that they are not adversely affected by this bill in any unintended way.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I indicate Democrat support for the amendment. It will not really address the issues I raised in the previous amendment that was defeated. If, for instance, it had a requirement to talk about the number of charges under this new act and the number that had been dropped, I would be particularly interested, because members would be aware from the comments I made in support of my amendments that I was talking about people who would be inadvertently caught up under these provisions, albeit with the riders that are there in clause 10C that say that it will be a defence for the person to be able to say they did not know or could not have reasonably known. This report will not in any way provide the parliament with feedback as to how often a person is charged, and needlessly so.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 12 to 16 passed.

Clause 17.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 13, lines 12 to 20—

Delete the clause and substitute:

17—Amendment of section 15—Application for permit.

(1) Section 15(3)—delete 'subsection (4)' and substitute:

Subsections (4) and (4a)

(2) Section 15—after subsection (4) insert:

(4a) If the applicant for a permit is the owner of a registered firearm of the same class as that to be acquired under the permit, the Registrar must grant the permit as soon as practicable after receiving the application.

This amendment relates to the Registrar waiting 28 days to issue a permit to purchase a firearm. This issue is raised by many people in the farming community, as well as sporting shooters or the people who are actively involved in shooting as a competitive sport. The Registrar must wait 28 days before issuing the appropriate documentation. Of course, you may have the situation where someone is already a registered firearms owner with a licensed firearm and they must still wait 28 days. My understanding is that the original act said that you must wait 28 days. The bill before us provides:

The Registrar may grant a permit before the expiration of the 28 days after the application for the permit was made if the Registrar is satisfied...

I am talking about people who already have a registered firearm and a licence. I will use the example of a farmer who has foxes attacking his lambs. If for some reason his firearm is damaged or unserviceable, he needs to be able to get another one straight away, of the same class and the same specifications. We are not looking to allow them to come outside that class of firearm; and the same applies to a competitive shooter if, for whatever reason, their firearm becomes unserviceable and they need to buy another one for a competition and they are not able to borrow one. My amendment provides:

If the applicant for a permit is the owner of a registered firearm of the same class as that to be acquired under the permit, the Registrar must grant the permit as soon as practicable after receiving the application.

So, it is just making it a little tighter and more prescriptive for the Registrar. If someone has a firearm and, for genuine reasons, needs to purchase and gain access to another as quickly as possible to save their lambs, protect their livestock or for competitive shooting, we think that it gives them the opportunity to do so quickly.

Certainly, members of the farming community have been frustrated for quite some time about the 28-day period. They have been law-abiding South Australian citizens and done everything right for decades, but they are treated almost like criminals. I know that there is some attempt in the amendment bill to rectify that to some degree, but the opposition would like it to go further. I urge all members to support the amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The background to the clause that we are seeking to amend, both in the bill and in the opposition's amendment, is that it was part of the original national firearms agreement. My advice is that other states have tended to move away from that agreement simply because it was impractical and considered by a number of other jurisdictions as an unnecessary measure. That is why the amendment is in the bill. I argue that it would do exactly the same thing. The bill provides:

(4) The Registrar may grant a permit before the expiration of 28 days—

which was the period required—

after the application for the permit was made if the Registrar is satisfied that—

(a) it is safe to do so;

I think that, if someone has a licence, you can argue whether or not that is necessary, and:

(b) the applicant is the owner of a registered firearm of the same class as that to be acquired under the permit or there are special reasons for doing so.

The difference here is that the opposition is stating that the Registrar must grant the permit as soon as practicable. I argue that the government's amendment has exactly the same effect. I am not particularly fussed, but we think that the original provision in the bill is adequate.

We are both attempting to achieve the same objective, that is, to allow the situations outlined by the honourable member to be addressed. In fact, it was something we were going to address in the original review of the Firearms Act. I understand that this was the No. 1 issue raised in the submissions received, namely, if they have a licence, they are permitted. The purpose of the 28 days really does not have any practical value.

If the opposition's amendment gets up, we can live with that, but I argue that the government's original amendment achieves the same thing. In both cases, the Registrar no longer has to apply the 28 days in cases where the owner applies for a firearm of the same class.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I urge crossbench members to support the Hon. David Ridgway's amendment. I have been silent to date, but I applaud my leader for the way in which he has approached this legislation.

As a licensed gun owner, and as someone who is in regular contact with law-abiding owners of firearms, I have to say that, on the whole, most of them are aggrieved, because very little crime is committed by firearms owners who are licensed and law-abiding citizens; it is always the bad guys who do not live within the law who create problems.

I urge members to vote for this simple amendment because you are either a law-abiding citizen with a licence or you are not. Can you imagine a champion clay target shotgun owner who damages his weapon on the Friday before a big event but is told that they may have to wait 28 days to replace their weapon? It is just a ridiculous scenario. You are either legal or you are not.

I have spoken to a number of senior police officers about this issue, and they are in full agreement that these are not the people they are trying to capture or aggrieve. If members could support this amendment, I for one would certainly appreciate it.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I think that the minister is right in that the amendment does not change the legislation in a substantial way. However, Family First is attracted to it because its wording creates a greater sense of urgency for the approval to be granted as quickly as possible. So, for that reason, we will support the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed

Clauses 18 to 26 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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