HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FIREARMS (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 November 2013.)

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I call the Hon. Mr Wade.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I have called the Hon. Mr Wade. Some of this conversation ought to have been done earlier. I have called the Hon. Mr Wade and he has the floor.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (11:35): Thank you, Mr Acting President. I thank you for your patience. I rise on behalf or the Liberal opposition to indicate our support for the passage of the Firearms (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2013.

On Wednesday 30 October 2013, the Minister for Police introduced the Firearms (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2013. This bill seeks to introduce a range of new criminal offences and penalties relating to firearms. Amendments to the bill include creating trafficking offences, increasing police powers with regard to searches, firearm prohibition orders, prohibiting some currently legal firearm accessories, and the ability to seize any equipment capable of being used to alter or manufacture firearms.

Starting in the late 1990s, a number of national agreements were developed to encourage a consistent approach to firearms legislation. Some provisions in this bill, particularly the trafficking of firearms, are designed to bring South Australia into line with other Australian jurisdictions.

In 2008, the government established the Firearm Legislative Advisory Group (commonly known as FLAG). The advisory group was made up of 15 delegates from SAPOL and all major firearm groups. FLAG met continuously for four years and reviewed the entire Firearms Act and regulations. Since the final FLAG recommendations were sent to the minister in 2012, there has been a lack of feedback from the government to members of FLAG, and it would be fair to say that the government's bill does not include any of the FLAG recommendations.

All respondents to the opposition have been critical of the government for not consulting effectively with firearms users and firearm clubs, especially following the four-year FLAG process. Stakeholders have raised various concerns with the bill, particularly the impact on legal and responsible firearms owners and users. A number raised concerns about the impact of the as yet unknown regulations.

From my perspective as the shadow attorney-general, I welcome the bill and note that it is playing catch-up with the firearms trafficking elements of other jurisdictions. South Australia will be the last state to introduce firearm trafficking laws. Most other states have had laws dealing with firearms trafficking for more than 10 years. South Australia has had a Labor government for 12 years, and they have failed to act. Having made five other changes to firearms laws in the last six years, the government could easily have addressed this issue a number of times over recent years. Now we have the sixth change to the laws in six years, with a relatively short period before the end of the parliamentary year to debate and pass them.

While certainly not all the issues have been dealt with to every individual firearm user's satisfaction, most of the significant unintended consequences of the bill were clarified through the debate in the House of Assembly, and the government has explicitly ruled out a number of issues falling under the intended use of the proposed legislation.

There is a new clause prohibiting a person from acquiring, owning or possessing a detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds without written approval of the registrar. It also includes a six-month transitional provision during which time owners can hand them in. In debate in the other place, the minister did concede that this clause required further attention with regard to its practical implementation.

I will take this opportunity to commend the government, particularly the Minister for Police and the shadow minister for police (member for Stuart) for the work they have done between the houses. My understanding is that, following those discussions, there has been agreement on the opposition's amendment to remove section 29BA and clause 19, which make it an offence to acquire, own or have possession of, a magazine of more than 10 rounds capacity.

In conclusion, I would simply like to put one question to the minister at the end of the second reading stage. I ask the minister, on behalf of the government, whether the minister could clarify that the government will not make magazines of greater than 10 rounds capacity prohibited accessories by way of regulation. The opposition would appreciate that undertaking. With those remarks, I reiterate that the opposition supports the bill and looks forward to its consideration in the committee stage and speedy passage.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (11:40): I will have more to say during the committee stage, but I want to put on the public record some brief points with respect to this bill. Clearly, Family First supports the general principle of what the government is trying to do, and that is to ensure that, wherever possible, it is made much more difficult for criminals, outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug traffickers and illicit drug organisations and anyone, in fact, who owns illegal firearms, accessories and magazines, and to have as tough laws as possible to assist the police in keeping the community safe. I just want to make it categorically clear that, from that point of view, Family First very much supports the intent of the government.

However, as the Hon. Stephen Wade from the opposition has said, the government has done this with virtually no consultation. Not only have they done it without consultation, it has come as almost a kneejerk reaction to some issues that have occurred in recent times. In publications the government had already put out as part of a publicly-funded de facto early election campaign for the government (I think it was in No. 7) they had photographs of SAPOL officers, and they already had in there what had been decided with respect to the issues of firearms, notwithstanding the fact that it had not even gone through the parliament, but that is something we can look at later.

Going back now for several years, there has been a dedicated and committed group of sensible, law-abiding people who have worked with police and the government under the Firearm Legislative Advisory Group to look at an overall serious rewrite and debate in the parliament of the Firearms Act. That has dragged out. It started with minister Michael Wright when he was the police minister, it then went to minister Foley when he was the police minister, and now it is with minister O'Brien as the police minister. There might have even been one or two other police ministers in between those. I cannot quite remember: there have been so many police ministers under this government.

The government, in the end, for one reason or another that I will not go into, has opted not to bring in the full firearms amendments that have been worked through FLAG. However, my concern is that, due to the lack of consultation, law-abiding, bona fide and genuine South Australians who own firearms, accessories and magazines have been caught up in this. One of the problems I have seen for some period of time has been the fact that, rather than having prescriptive legislation when it comes to what occurs with a firearm, an accessory or a magazine, the government tends to prefer to have little detail in legislation and then they like to actually regulate.

That is where the problem comes in, because all of a sudden we have regulations regulating the intent of the legislation—something that, in good faith, the majority of the parliament has allowed the government to have through the legislative passage of both chambers. Then we find that law-abiding people experience great wrath at times because of the unintended consequences or how broad the regulations might be.

I foreshadow amendments that will not in anyway whatsoever, I am advised, work against the government's intent when it comes to making it tougher for criminals and people who are not registered or licensed but will restore the democratic right of law-abiding citizens who own registered firearms and who are licensed—and a lot of people are involved in this.

When I was police minister, I strongly supported the World Police and Fire Games. I was amazed at how many police officers are some of our best sporting shooters. When you look at the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games and other national and international games, you see some of the best shooters in the world. They may have a disability, but they are excellent shooters and that is their sport.

Those people need to be able to utilise certain accessories and firearm magazines as part of their sport; indeed, sometimes they need to change things between competitions or even within that shoot. It is not something I understand a lot about, but someone they are competing against may have a technical advantage, and those shooters need to be able to change some of their accessories so that they also can shoot at their best. A cloud now hangs over all that when it comes to this legislation.

The thing I find incredible is that, depending on what the parliament decides to do with respect to amendments by Family First and the Liberal Party (I am not sure whether anyone else has put forward amendments), I was advised yesterday that, if the legislation were to be passed, through intended or unintended consequences, law-abiding citizens would end up having accessories or firearm magazines removed. Whilst I have been told that the government was looking at compensation, I was advised yesterday that the government is not looking at any compensation; it is just ruling it out.

This stuff costs lots of money. I have been involved in buybacks, like several other of my colleagues in this chamber, going right back to Port Arthur; and I have been involved in all of those debates on firearm amnesties and the like. I went down to Netley when I was police minister and watched a buyback in process. I have been to Thebarton Police Barracks and watched the crushing of firearms after amnesties.

It would defy any democratic right if the parliament decides to support the government in relation to this bill, which does not support any form of compensation. Imagine what someone would think if they paid good money to legally buy a motor vehicle today and they used that motor vehicle and, for some reason the government decided a week or so later that it was going to make that particular motor vehicle illegal and that person had that motor vehicle confiscated without any compensation. To me, that defies democratic process. A strong principle of mine is that, if you allow things to be legal and then, all of sudden, you take things away, you at least have to make sure that those people are not out of pocket. I will have more to say during the committee stage, which I understand will probably be tomorrow morning—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Or tonight.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —or tonight. I want to advise all members that, in the last half hour or so, I have instructed my office to circulate explanations to the amendments. Those amendments took some time to be drafted.

I thank parliamentary counsel for putting in an exemplary effort under a tight time line, but I apologise to colleagues that we were not able to get all of those amendments out quicker than I would have liked. However, I think the way we have put the explanation of clauses to the amendments will make it easy for all colleagues. With those words, we support the second reading but we will have quite a bit more to say during the committee stage.

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) (11:50): I believe there are no further second reading contributions to this bill. This bill is a very important bill in terms of improving protections to South Australians in relation to firearms. We look forward to dealing with this as expeditiously as possible.

In relation to the question asked by the Hon. Stephen Wade, the government certainly can give a commitment to not ruling magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds a prohibitive firearm accessory—I think that is the word. So we certainly are able to give that commitment at this stage. We look forward to dealing with the committee stage, hopefully either later on this evening or tomorrow morning.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. Carmel Zollo): Is a quorum required? Ring the bells.

A quorum having been formed:

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