HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-11-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FIREARMS (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The CHAIR: Mr Brokenshire, you have an amendment at clause 4?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Just for clarification, I do have an amendment at clause 4. I advise the committee that, based on proceedings that have occurred as a moving feast over the last few days, I will be moving only one amendment, and that is amendment No. 4 standing in my name: clause 9, page 5, line 19. Other than that amendment, I advise that I will not be moving the rest of my amendments.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, you have [Brok-2] amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 and you will not be proceeding with those?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: There are lots of consequential amendments to those as well, but I will not be moving any amendments other than amendment No. 4, which is to clause 9. I am just advising the committee that I will no be moving my other amendments.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, we have [Brok-2] amendment No. 5, clause 9, page 5, line 19, delete '10' and substitute '28'.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: That is the one I am moving, yes.

The CHAIR: We have not got there yet.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I indicated, the opposition appreciates the cooperative work between the minister and the shadow minister and, as a result, the opposition and government have an understanding of what respective members will support.

Since my previous contribution on this bill, the opposition has received advice from the Law Society in relation to this bill. It does not incline us to any amendments, but the opposition thought that it might be useful for the public to have the benefit of the Law Society's advice and the government's response. So with the indulgence of the committee, I will put the issues raised by the Law Society. There is one issue on clause 5 and I understand one issue on clause 12, and in both cases I would seek the response of the government to the concerns of the society.

The Law Society specifically holds concerns in relation to clause 5 which relates to proposed section 10B. This relates to the firearm prohibition orders issued by the Registrar. The Law Society's concerns are that the clause provides a low threshold for the exercise of police powers. If a police officer merely has reason to believe that a firearms prohibition order applies to a person but the order has not yet been served on that person, the officer is authorised to order that person to remain at a particular place for up to two hours.

The society suggests that this section be amended to ensure this power is only exercised if police actually know that the order exists, is applicable to the person concerned and is necessary for the officer to effectively serve the order in the circumstances. The society suggested alternative words. I understand the government is aware of the suggestion of the society, and I would appreciate it if they could provide advice.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice I have received is that the legislation addresses 'reason to believe', which is a higher threshold than 'reasonable suspicion', and I am advised that members should be assured that this power will not be taken lightly and that the commission will ensure police general orders will reflect that understanding.

Clause passed.

Clauses 6 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Amendment No. 5 [Broke-2]—

Page 5, line 19 [clause 9, inserted section 14(3)(d)]—Delete '10' and substitute '28'

This is a fairly simple amendment, but it is one that does assist bona fide law-abiding licensed and registered firearms owners. It simply deletes '10' and substitutes '28'. Basically, that gives more desirable and workable loan periods in the stakeholder sector, taking it to 28 days and not 10. That is now the only amendment I will move, based on discussions I have had with the opposition and government today.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment. We believe that it is reasonable in that it moves to decrease the administrative burden on the licence holder and makes it less onerous for licence holders.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 10 and 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Consistent with my earlier question, this also is a question that arises out of the late received advice from the Law Society. My understanding is that section 72AB relates to seizure and forfeiture of equipment. The clause inserts a new section 27AAB that allows a police officer to seize equipment that was used to illegally modify or illegally manufacture a firearm.

The Law Society has raised concerns about what they perceive is several potential unintended consequences of this clause. In that context, I would ask what the government might expect in terms of ensuring that police seizures of equipment are appropriate. The example given to me was that an offence might be committed by a previous owner, the equipment might have since been sold, the equipment was used without the owner's permission and/or knowledge, or the legal owner could be a financier. Effectively, that is three examples: the modification done by a previous owner, the modification done without the owner's permission or knowledge and, thirdly, where the legal owner is a financier, not the person who has immediate control of the item.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the intention is that the seizure provision will generally apply to those persons who set up backyard operations for the purpose of manufacturing unlawful devices, such as a silencer, or illegally altering firearms. These tools of the trade, such as lathes and other equipment, are directly used or suspected to be used in the commission of an offence. If the equipment is owned by, say for instance, an innocent third party, and there is no compromising of the public safety, the equipment could be subject to forensic analysis but not necessarily sought to be forfeited; rather, the equipment would be returned to the party not involved in the crime.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for her response.

Clause passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Wade–1]—

Page 11, lines 19 to 27 [clause 14, inserted section 29BA]—Delete section 29BA

In my second reading contribution, I indicated the opposition's concern in relation to what the bill calls 'certain magazines'. This amendment seeks to delete new section 29BA, which is the second section proposed to be inserted by clause 14. Effectively, amendment No. 1 removes the ban on magazines. This amendment, as I understand it, was agreed between the Minister for Police and the shadow minister for police, and again I commend both members for their diligence in making sure that the bill was both appropriate in terms of dealing with the threat to public safety that is involved by illegal firearms and practical and workable on the ground.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As previously indicated, the government supports this amendment, and I think we have already outlined the reasons for that.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I just place on the public record that Family First supports this amendment. In speaking to this amendment, I want to put on the public record a couple of relevant things. There has been a huge amount of effort by lots of members of parliament in both houses: by the shadow minister, by the minister and by those of us in other parties who have responsibility for this portfolio area.

This legislation came through very quickly. It came through with an incredible lack of consultation. All members know my passion and support for the police. That said, to keep the goodwill up between the police, the government, the parliament and law-abiding, legitimate and genuine firearms owners, there is a bit of work needed to be done, and I will leave it at that. Suffice to say that I have it confirmed from the shadow minister that whoever wins the next election it is acknowledged that there will be basically a rewrite of the Firearms Act finally tabled in the parliament for debate.

I know there has been a lot of work done by a lot on this, including the FLAG group, but my experience is that we need to keep rapport and goodwill between legitimate licensed firearm owners and police. I have been concerned over the last period of time that they may not be as strong as it has been in the past and as a former police minister I have found that when that rapport is strong and there is good open dialogue between SAPOL, and particularly the firearms branch, and law-abiding citizens, we get much better outcomes that we are after as a parliament.

I support and commend the government and everyone who is supporting this bill from the point of view of the focus on getting unlicensed firearms and accessories, etc. off the streets. I support the police and the government in any attempt and approach they can make to ensure that criminals are not out there risking the safety of good law-abiding citizens.

I just wanted to put that on the public record because I know that next year this bill will come back in and I would like to think that there is a fairness test for law-abiding people when it comes to firearms. I think I have made it clear enough with that and I will not be saying anymore in the debate, but let us hope that as a result of this bill we can see the criminals behind bars and the law-abiding citizens of this state carrying on with business as usual.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I certainly acknowledge the sentiments being raised by the honourable member. In my second reading contribution I indicated that the work of FLAG involves a lot of unfinished business in relation to this act, and certainly the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's range of amendments raise a whole series of other issues which represent unfinished business.

I am not surprised that the shadow minister for police has indicated his interest in ongoing reform of the bill, because the opposition certainly associates with the sentiment that the police deserve every support that we can give them in upholding the law and that law-abiding citizens need to be respected so that laws that are designed to target people who use firearms inappropriately and against the law can be targeted, not law-abiding citizens.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 15 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Wade–1]—

Page 14, lines 1 to 13—Delete the clause

I would suggest to the council that it is, effectively, consequential. It removes the penalty for the ban that we have, in turn, removed in clause 14.

Amendment carried; clause deleted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (12:54): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


[Sitting suspended from 12:55 to 14:16]


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