HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-12-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FIREARMS REGULATIONS

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (22:50): I move:

That regulations under the Firearms Act 1997 concerning prescribed firearms, made on 1 October 2009 and laid on the table of this council on 13 October 2009, be disallowed.

I have seen two of the imitation firearms that South Australia Police wanted to capture through these regulations: an imitation Alpha and an imitation Glock. South Australia Police showed me their real equivalent and, frankly, it is impossible to tell the difference. South Australia Police also say that gunsmiths have given them evidence that the imitations can be converted into working versions of what they imitate.

These are obviously imitations that all of us want to have off the streets, and I strongly support that. In fact, I asked SAPOL why the premiers and the Prime Minister had not moved to stop customs from bringing these particular replicas into Australia, because that would be the quickest way to knock these on the head. SAPOL indicated to me that it was still working through that, and that it had taken three years, with the SOG, to get to the point where they are now nationally.

Family First supports SA Police in getting these Alphas and Glocks out of circulation but, as I said, we would go even further: we want them banned from importation. Imitation firearms such as these have no place in Australia whether or not they work.

The Hon. Robert Lawson has a bill before this parliament, which I will address when we come to it and which demonstrates issues regarding disallowance motions. If the regulations we are discussing here were more specific about the imitation firearms that they want to get off the streets, and if they set up a scheme for compensation, as has been the case with other gun buybacks or seizures (for instance, when I was presiding over some of these buybacks when I had the police portfolio) then, frankly, we would have no problem with these regulations.

I need to point out that, to my knowledge, it is unprecedented that any buyback has ever occurred without compensation, and that is incredible. Consider, as an example, if people have a legal collecting hobby such as stamps and for some reason the government decides to put a ban on their collection, how would stamp collectors feel if they had to hand in the stamps and there was no compensation for them?

That is a real problem in this case I raised my concerns about it with the minister nearly six weeks ago, from memory. In fairness to the minister, he did ask for the middle ground to be found, because there is a lot of middle ground in this respect. After the minister met with the delegation, my understanding is that he instructed the department to look at finding that middle ground. That was four to six weeks ago. A lot of effort was put in by the sporting shooters council to show the department where that middle ground is. In fact, I am advised that, from the meeting they had with the department, a lot of the officers agreed that there is plenty of scope for the middle ground.

However, despite my best endeavours in liaising with the combined sporting shooters association and many other constituents who have contacted me, at this stage it appears that a compromise has not been reached. Given that this is the last private members' day before the next election, I have no choice but to now move this disallowance motion.

I do not want to spend any more time on this than I have to, because members have other work, but this is an important disallowance motion so I trust that my colleagues will appreciate me spending a few minutes on it. I also just want to say that I have had several other MPs talk to me about their concerns about this. I put that on the public record without naming them, because I would not do that, but even a couple of Labor backbenchers are pretty concerned about the way these regulations have been drafted.

Sporting clubs have been told to forfeit or get a licence for starting pistols. The licence holder for the starting pistol had to be present at all times or the starting pistol was illegally used. Similar starting pistols have been issued in the southern suburbs after consultation between the council down there and another government department where they issue them to residents to scare away corellas that are actually causing enormous damage to the environment around the Old Noarlunga area.

Whilst that was a positive agreement between, I believe, the environment department and the city council, they will not now be able to use these starting pistols because they would have to be registered firearm owners, and they would have to have safeguards and safes etc. for starting pistols.

Wooden firearms arguably are captured by this, even though they have no realistic prospect of being capable of firing live ammunition. I let my colleagues know that I have actually seen some of these wooden pistols and just one set alone, I am advised, was worth several thousand dollars. There is no compensation. If the person is not aware during the amnesty that these regulations are in place, after the end of December, that person could, I am advised, be charged with a criminal offence for owning wooden replica firearms that are actually just a simple collectors' item.

The process is so similar to registering to get a firearm that the sporting shooters tell me that people might as well register and get a real firearm which would have the reverse effect of the intention of the regulations. The language of the regulations is confusing to replica cum imitation firearm owners. I am only using the regulation phrase 'imitation firearm' for what many people would consider to be their replicas, but the regulation describes replicas as having the working movements of firearms when, clearly, replicas do not.

Importantly, the regulations do not specify the capability of the converted imitation firearm to fire live ammunition. I understand that sporting shooters have tried to take this point as a potential amendment. They have demonstrated to the government and MPs, including me, an expensive wooden replica firearm that has all the moving parts to imitate a firearm but is not capable of firing live ammunition, and nor is it capable of being converted to do so.

There are question marks hanging over museums and collectors right across the state as well as RSL clubs that have replica firearms on display. The owners of imitations, some of which were legally purchased from camping stores at Tea Tree Plaza and Marion in recent weeks, are now not being offered any compensation.

We have seen radio ads with Assistant Commissioner Killmier telling people that there is an amnesty and to hand in the replica firearms. I am advised that some imitation firearm owners, many of whom do not own any live firearms, have been forced to hand over these imitation firearms even though this has not been through the standing committee of the parliament and it is in an amnesty period. Surely, if the government had concerns about particular imitations or classes of imitation firearms, it could prescribe them specifically by regulation or by gazettal.

It was my hope, rather than having to move a disallowance motion, that that middle ground that can clearly and easily be found would be found. I am not sure whether or not I am able to table a draft, but I have a draft in my hand which has been shown to me and colleagues and which has been put to the department. It clearly shows where simple amendments to the regulations would absolutely address the concerns that the department has with respect to these firearms without all the unintended consequences.

These unintended consequences, I understand, now affect thousands of citizens who have done nothing wrong legally whatsoever and who have spent thousands of dollars purchasing and collecting them over a great period of time. I seek leave to have this draft tabled.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I will work through the regulations briefly and highlight the points that were made to the government in the spirit of compromise to reach a resolution of this issue. At clause 5, where the draft regulation includes imitation firearms in the Firearms Regulations 2008 definition of 'firearm', one problem is that an imitation firearm automatically became a firearm, even though it had not been inspected or deemed to be a firearm. The Sporting Shooters Council sought to add a requirement of inspection.

Further on clause 5, the draft regulation stated at subclause (2)(b) that the imitation firearm needed to be capable of 'chambering, firing, extracting and ejecting a blank cartridge in the same manner as a class of firearms it imitates'. The council sought to add, 'and is not capable of being readily altered to fire live ammunition' since, after all, that was the stated concern of the department in the regulation, namely, that the firearms could be converted to live fire of ammunition.

Also in clause 5, in the subsection (3) exclusions, here an inspection of the firearm was required to determine whether an imitation firearm was not a firearm, but did not include what SA Police allegedly said at times were 'curios', such as the wooden firearm I mentioned. Accordingly, the Sporting Shooters Council sought to include in paragraph (iii), Exclusion of toys and novelty items, the words 'or items such as curios, ornaments, display-only replicas or works of art' to that definition.

Clause 6 of the draft regulations states that a firearms licence could authorise the possession of an imitation firearm for a specific purpose. One would think, for instance, that this was designed, albeit in a cumbersome way, to allow the use of a starter pistol to start a running race. The Sporting Shooters Council sought to add that they wanted a person to be simply permitted to have any prescribed imitation firearm for the purpose of collection and display.

The Sporting Shooters Council sought to add a schedule to the draft regulations which, importantly, one, clarified that a person has legislated protection during the amnesty period; two, would clarify that imitation firearm owners would not be required to pay a registration fee for a relevant firearms licence for holding the imitation firearm; and, three, significantly, required the Registrar of Firearms to pay compensation for firearms surrendered, the value of which was to be the greater of the purchase price paid by the person or the valuation based on the most recent advertised selling price for that imitation.

These amendments, I believe, picked up a number of the problems that I have described already with the unintended consequences of the draft regulations. However, sadly, no proposal has been approved to change the regulations, and people are still being told to hand in the replica firearms, or in some cases, as I have said, we have been advised that they have been seized, without any suggestion of compensation.

I respect the intent of SA Police and cannot blame them for a moment for trying to cast the net widely. I strongly support the police pretty well in everything they do and, as a former minister, that is exactly what I would expect from SA Police, that it would try to cast the net widely. However, the bottom line here is that this net has been cast too wide and actually impacts so much on a lot of people who have spent, in some cases, a lifetime collecting replicas, who are now having an enormous impost put on them when everything they have done has been legal.

I wrote to the minister, diplomatically, and have continued to liaise with the department to try to get a resolution. This was never a threat, but I simply asked the minister for an urgent delegation, and I indicated to the minister that, if there could not be an urgent delegation, I may have to consider moving a disallowance motion, and I think that was five or six weeks ago.

Obviously, if I did not want to make it fair and reasonable for the minister and the government I could have just come in here yesterday and given notice and moved this today, but I did not want to do that, because these are difficult issues for a minister and I wanted to give him time to work through it. I say again, as it is important to reinforce it, that I understand the minister instructed the department to find the middle ground. For two weeks after the first meeting with the Sporting Shooters Council nothing was received and no further meetings were set up, so it has put us in a position where disallowance is now the only course.

I asked South Australia Police what it had done with the replica firearms it had seized or received in the amnesty, and I was advised that they were all receipted and tagged. From the viewpoint of disallowance, these firearms can be passed back in. To raise a couple of other points, I am advised that, in an interim period, if the department did not want to go through all the recommendations for finding that middle ground that the minister, myself and I am sure others would have desired, it could have at least rolled imitation firearms into the class A firearms category. I am advised that that would have achieved a lot of what was required. Unfortunately, only yesterday, through the minister's office the department (I assume) finally got back to the minister with a letter, which the minister then sent off yesterday to the Sporting Shooters Council.

In conclusion, this is not about making it difficult or working against the two key replica firearms that SAPOL showed me and some other members. We all want them off the streets so there is no risk. It has to be addressed nationally as well because, even with those that we want to see removed, I am advised by the department that not all states have the agreement or have addressed the issue. The problem we have is that in at least one other state they can still be purchased anyway, which is why it is important that the police ministers council, the commissioners or at least COAG, through premiers and the Prime Minister, address that issue at a national level.

When I met with the police I asked why the regulations were so wide. The response was, 'How do we describe the ones that should be in and should be out?' They said that the deputy registrar had discretion. I was involved in two buybacks—and these were national buybacks, so it involved much harder and more sophisticated legislation, and was done fairly urgently. The first one I was involved in, not directly as a minister but rather as a member, was after Port Arthur, and that was very complicated. Even in that set of circumstances they were able to find a description specific to every type and category of firearm that was to be confiscated. Further, they also identified the value of each of those firearms, depending on whether they were new, old or damaged. Nationally that was able to happen. In this case there are just a few replica firearms, and the net is incredibly wide.

Through my contacts with police I have had phone calls and discussions with a number of police officers, and I will not name them as I would not want any retribution for them. Some of these officers are very experienced, and have told me that they are having trouble getting clarity out of that section of the department on what they should be advising people with respect to the amnesty and what has to be handed in and what can be kept. If they get a licence, do the training for that licence and register them, there are costs involved. Some people who own replicas are not sure whether or not they may have to attend clubs as you do if you have real firearms.

I advise the council that police have spoken to me about their concerns with these regulations. This is an important matter, but the crux of the thing is that it could be fixed. It is also about compensation. The most important thing that really concerned me and the reason why I am moving this disallowance motion tonight is that, if you are a citizen who has done nothing wrong and you have been able to collect firearms legally, suddenly you can be told that you have to comply with all these conditions or you cannot keep them and you will have to hand them in, with no compensation. In one case, I believe that a person had over $10,000 worth of these collectable replica firearms.

I will raise two other points before I sit down. First, I spoke to one collector recently who has on the wall above the mantlepiece an original antique musket, which is very old. That is a real musket that can be kept on the wall, so that person has been told. However, if they buy a replica musket, then they have to have a special licence and they have to put it in a safe. Again that shows the anomalies and the unintended consequences with these regulations.

The final point is that, whilst I know that no-one wants to see any situation where shopkeepers, customers of those shops and police are put in a dangerous situation, if you look at the situations that we have seen several times in recent months where there have been shootings in nightclubs and, indeed, at the Netley police station, I would suggest to you that those shootings did not occur with legally registered and owned firearms. They were not done with replicas. They were done with firearms, which I understand are readily available on the black market in this state. We need to make a concerted effort to get out of the black market the real firearms which are being used in the hold-ups and all the shocking incidents which threaten the community and police.

I reiterate that I believe I have made every effort possible with the department to see the middle ground, but here it is four to six weeks after the issues were raised with them and no middle ground has been found. For that reason, given no compensation, fairness or equity for law-abiding citizens, I have moved this disallowance motion.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (23:13): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that we will be supporting the disallowance motion. I think that the former minister for police, now a member of Family First (Hon. Robert Brokenshire), has outlined the reasons very adequately and, given the lateness of the hour, I will not go over the same ground that he has covered. I think it gives me and the opposition some comfort that we have a former police minister who has dealt with these issues highlighting the—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: You're easily comforted, David.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Ian Hunter interjects that I am easily comforted. It is interesting to note that he is yet to be a minister, and I suspect he never will be the way that the Labor Party is travelling.

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member might want to stick with the script.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You might want to stop them interjecting, Mr President. I know they are out of order.

The PRESIDENT: You might want to stop responding to them, Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that I and a number of members of the opposition had been contacted by the Combined Shooters and Firearms Council. I made it very clear to the police minister that we expected some resolution. Like the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, we do not want to see the imitation firearms, in particular the two types that have been mentioned, on the streets.

At a meeting with the police I made it very clear. In fact, the Hon. John Darley was at that meeting. We made it very clear that we understood exactly what the police were trying to do with those two particular types of firearms. However, this has been cast way too wide. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire says, 'Well, the minister has done the right thing. He has asked for the middle ground to be found.' I am not sure that he is right in saying that the minister has done the right thing, because this is all about leadership and it is all about the minister taking responsibility for these decisions.

Clearly, the minister has not driven it hard enough. I rang the commissioner's office last week to advise that, unless there was some resolution about this and some sensible middle ground was found, we would be left with no choice but to support a disallowance motion if it was moved by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. I had a request to call the minister's adviser to which I tried to respond on Friday. I do work all weekend, and my phone is on 24/7, but, sadly, I did not get another response from the minister's adviser until the Monday—two days ago.

This sort of 'one size fits all' approach to capture all these firearms has left a number of people in a difficult situation with firearms for which they will no receive compensation. I have seen the wooden firearm, and it is a joke to think that something that is made of wood is captured by these regulations. A starting pistol is an issue. The police suggested to me in one briefing that, of course, you can have these starting pistols provided that someone is the licensed owner and, of course, that someone is responsible for securing it and locking it in a cabinet.

Would not the easiest thing be for the minister (who is also the minister for sport, I might add) to provide all the junior athletics clubs and all the other clubs with an appropriate starting pistol and just swap it over? We have the Active Sports grants. A whole heap of finance or grants are available to rectify that.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: There might be some in your car park in the sky. We'll just hand it out. Where do you get this from?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If you want to talk about car parks, you haven't got a car park. You have not even got an agreement—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: All you have got is an agreement to try to get two groups to work together for something that will never happen because you cannot trust your government. It is like Mount Bold, it is like Magill and a whole range of things.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Ridgway will stick to the motion and the Hon. Mr Finnigan will cease interjecting.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We know this is just a smoke screen, particularly with the stadiums. We understand that the combined shooters have made every attempt to sit down and negotiate to find some middle ground. There was no consultation initially. I sort of understand because the police made the comment to me that we need to have this wide net because people were not aware of what was going on. I think that was probably a reasonable proposition initially, but you must be prepared to negotiate back. Clearly, they have not been prepared to do that. They have not wanted to find any middle ground. We have the unintended consequences of some RSLs and other collectors captured by these regulations.

Clearly, the minister has not been serious about driving this agenda to find some middle ground. We have made it very clear to all stakeholders that we want the imitation firearms off the streets, that is, the two particular firearms that are of major concern to SAPOL. However, it is a little like we are with the Hon. Mr Brokenshire: we feel now that this is the eleventh hour. It is interesting because this issue has been raised over six or seven weeks. A number of us have been in the media talking about it.

We have had formal and informal discussions and correspondence with the minister, the minister's office and police officers, yet we have not been able to find any middle ground. It is unfortunate that a middle ground has not been found. With those few words, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the disallowance.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (23:19): Thank you, Mr President. Well—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I did indicate to the President that I wished to speak. How extraordinary that the Liberal opposition and Family First should join together here to try to put at risk not only the lives of police officers but also members of the public and consumers. It is yet again an example where the Liberals think they know better than the Commissioner of Police. When it came to semi-automatic weapons they knew better than the Commissioner of Police; when it came to Tasers they knew better than the Commissioner of Police. Here we have an example where they are putting at risk the lives of police officers, consumers and members of the public who may be caught up in the use of these imitation firearms. It is absolutely extraordinary.

Let us be clear on what we are talking about. We are not talking about the RSLs and museums and collectors and wooden guns: they are encompassed by the regulation. What we are combating here is people being able to buy replica firearms which look like the real thing and which people can use in armed robberies and violent crimes. The Liberal opposition and the Family First party want to stop those imitation firearms being the subject of these regulations.

They should talk to the families of shop assistants who might be subject to violent crimes and the families of police officers who might be caught up in violent crimes as a result of people using imitation firearms. That is what this regulation is designed to address; we all know that.

Instead, the Liberal opposition and Family First are coming in here, I assume, trying to gain brownie points with sporting shooters and others in the lead-up to an election so they can say, 'Yes, we are right behind you.' They are out there scrambling for votes. It is an absolute disgrace.

On 1 October, the government amended the firearms regulations on the advice of the Commissioner of Police because, unlike the opposition, the government does not assume that it knows better than the commissioner how to run the police force in this state. The changes make imitation firearms subject to the same licensing and registration conditions as the firearms they imitate. That is because imitation firearms pose a significant threat to the community. Their role in violent crimes can have an impact that is equally as serious and terrifying as being confronted with a real firearm. It is no less terrifying for a victim to be staring down the barrel of an imitation firearm. It is the harm and heartache it causes that we want removed from our community. It is almost impossible to distinguish these imitation firearms from the real thing.

In moving this disallowance motion, the mover (Hon. Mr Brokenshire) acknowledged that it is very difficult or even impossible to distinguish some of these imitation firearms from the real thing. That is why police and members of the public, when faced with something so distressing, can only assume that they are being threatened with a deadly weapon.

The regulations require persons who possess imitation firearms to register them and for the person to be appropriately licensed. We are not proposing that these things be banned. We are saying that they have to be appropriately licensed and registered.

Some have said that the government should have consulted widely before making these changes. Advice from the Commissioner of Police was that doing so would have given criminals ample warning to hide their weapons. South Australia Police had a good understanding of where a number of these imitation firearms were and did not want them to get away. Criminals using these imitations should not kid themselves that they are doing anyone a favour by using imitations. It is vital that the use of imitation weapons is not seen as a lesser crime. Whenever there is the threat of a weapon the fear is the same, and the people carrying those weapons must be caught and punished.

Under the changes, any person claiming a legitimate use for possession of an imitation firearm must hold an appropriate licence, register the firearm and store it in the manner prescribed for real firearms. Members of South Australia Police have told the government they have seized from known criminals a number of imitation firearms that have been converted to live fire ammunition. It is simply not acceptable that imitation firearms can be bought with absolute ease and easily transformed into a deadly weapon.

I understand that the Combined Shooters and Firearms Council has lobbied many members of parliament in relation to this matter. The Minister for Police, members of the firearms branch and the Firearms Legislative Reform Project have met with representatives of the Combined Shooters and Firearms Council on a number of occasions in relation to their concerns surrounding the introduction of these regulations. I understand that they sought government support to amend the regulations. Advice from parliamentary counsel on the amendments put forward by the Combined Shooters and Firearms Council was that its proposal would not achieve the objective sought. South Australia Police believe that, if accepted, the regulations would be unworkable and would be at odds with the firearms regulatory scheme as developed under the Firearms Act 1977.

Nevertheless, I have been advised that the Minister for Police will be seeking Crown Law advice on the Combined Shooters proposal. While the government understands the position of the Combined Shooters, it considers that a number of the concerns raised by that body are unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of the wording of the amendments. Some people have suggested that the regulations were hastily drafted. This is incorrect. This proposal was under general consideration for approximately 18 months, with a specific four month period dedicated to their development.

International and interstate solutions have been examined, and a range of issues and alternatives were analysed before this solution was settled on. Paramount in these considerations were the overlying factors of the rising social and crime issues related to imitation firearms and the ongoing national discussions by police ministers.

The overall intentions of the variation regulations are to allow controlled importation, sale and possession by those persons who have a legitimate need for imitation firearms and to impose a level of accountability on those owners. This will reduce the risk to the public by restricting ownership to persons who can show they are fit and proper to possess items which could potentially become firearms and to require those persons to provide an appropriate level of security.

Further, the regulations close a loophole that has seen imitation firearms being converted to live fire as an alternative source of weaponry for criminals as real firearms become harder to obtain. Possible consequences of withdrawal of the variation regulations are a failure of South Australia to meet national obligations on firearms regulatory matters and increased access by criminals to firearms.

Since 1 October, I am advised that SAPOL has seized 144 imitation firearms and had 354 surrendered. That means there are 498 fewer imitation firearms that cannot fall into the hands of criminals, while only 21 applications to license these imitations have been received.

The government remains committed to working with the Combined Shooters and other stakeholders to achieve a mutually acceptable resolution in relation to this matter. Furthermore, SAPOL will continue to work with the firearms community on a case-by-case basis to ensure an understanding and accurate interpretation of these regulations, to minimise angst and to assist with compliance in relation to imitation firearms.

The government has taken a thoughtful and considered approach to this matter. Where people are collectors of historical firearms and people have a legitimate need to have an imitation firearm, we are putting forward a framework to allow those to be regulated and licensed. We are not saying that they have to be banned, but we do want to ensure that imitation firearms that can be used in the commission of violent crimes are not out there.

Since 1 October, almost 500 imitation firearms are no longer out there. I would like Family First and the Liberal opposition to talk to all those who will be put at risk by this disallowance motion and tell them why it is that they are trying to do this. Tell them why they want 500, perhaps thousands, more of these imitation firearms out there as a result of this disallowance motion.

I commend those who represent the people at risk, such as the SDA. My union, of which I am a proud member, has supported this regulation for the benefit of shop assistants. Why don't the Hons Mr Ridgway and Mr Brokenshire and their colleagues talk to shop assistants and people in service stations and liquor shops and explain to them why they want imitation firearms on the street; explain to them why they want the lives of police officers, shop assistants and vulnerable people in our community put at risk by having these imitation firearms easily available, unregulated and unlicensed.

This disallowance motion is a disgrace. It is yet again the Liberal Party and other members telling the Commissioner of Police that they know better than he does; they know how to run the police force. They want imitation firearms in the community, putting lives at risk. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. I urge members to oppose this disallowance motion.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (23:29): I will be very brief, but I think a point needs to be made. Unfortunately for the Hon. Mr Finnigan, his argument is self defeating. He made the statement during his argument—and I paraphrase because I do not have the exact wording in front of me—something to the effect that the regulations are not designed to encompass collectors and people who are interested in firearms, and the like, or museums and collectors who have firearms.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is right. It was not designed to do that, but it does encompass those people. That is exactly the problem. The problem is the regulations do encapsulate those people. If it did not, there would not be a disallowance motion. It is as simple as that. That is the whole purpose of this motion: let us be clear about that.

If the regulations were drafted appropriately and did not encapsulate those people, who are just law-abiding citizens who have an interest in these matters and collect these things as museum pieces or just to have a personal collection, or whatever it may be, there would not be a disallowance motion. What is wrong with that? These people are law-abiding citizens and, if they choose to collect these things, they are entitled to do so.

The problem is that the Hon. Mr Finnigan's argument is self-defeating because he says, by his own admission, that the regulations encapsulate those people. That is the whole point of the motion before the parliament tonight.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (23:30): To assist the council, the Greens do not support this disallowance motion.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (23:30): I indicate that I support this motion to disallow the regulations, for the reasons more than adequately outlined by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire.

The council divided on the motion:

AYES (11)
Brokenshire, R.L. (teller) Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hood, D.G.E. Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W. Schaefer, C.V.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
NOES (9)
Bressington, A. Finnigan, B.V. (teller) Gago, G.E.
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. Hunter, I.K.
Parnell, M. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

Majority of 2 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

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