 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
The Hon. R.R. ROBERTS: On this occasion the Labor Opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Ian Gilfillan in his moves to change the firearms laws affecting South Australians. The Bill seeks to do a number of things. One can understand the logic of the Hon. Ian Gilfillan; I know that he puts considerable effort into considering these Bills.
The reality is that South Australians, by and large, have complied with safe gun practices for many years. It can fairly be said that South Australia led the way in firearms control up until the unfortunate incident in Tasmania, and we then asked our South Australian gun owners to comply with the Federal legislation. In many cases that meant great hardship and the loss of firearms that they had owned in some cases for many years, and in many cases they had to give up more than other gun owners who were not faced with the strict regimes that affected gun owners in South Australia. The Bill seeks to do two or three things, and one is to ban paintball, which, I understand, is a game played by adults where, for some reason or another, they fire paintballs at one another. To my knowledge no person involved in paintball has been involved in an offence with firearms. In fact, it could be said that it is a diversion which prevents that.The Hon. Ian Gilfillan also has an amendment which talks about the right to own firearms after a criminal offence. On the basis of logic it does have some attraction, but when we compare it with the argument that we have to fall in with the national regulations we would be placing a further impost on South Australian gun owners. Therefore, the Labor Opposition will not be supporting it.
There is another proposition in his Bill which states that there has to be an inspection of the storage of firearms. Again, I understand what the Hon. Ian Gilfillan is aiming to do, but I point to the requirements of the Federal legislation. South Australian gun owners were obliged to fall in with the national standards. During the debate on the firearms legislation when people were proposing what appeared to be sensible recommendations I remember that they were ruled out on the basis of the need for uniformity in gun laws across the country. South Australian gun owners are complying with that. It is the considered view of the Caucus of the Australian Labor Party that they ought not to have imposts different to those that apply to gun owners in other States. Therefore, on this occasion we will not support the Bill.The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I thank the Hon. Ron Roberts for making a contribution to the Bill. It is a rather sad reflection on this place that no-one else has seen fit to speak to it. No-one can deny that the use and misuse of firearms is at the forefront of people's consciousness, particularly today and yesterday when there were two shootings which resulted in deaths. This only highlights the ongoing effects of having a community in which firearms are about.
The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I was told that Trevor had spoken on this. The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: In which case, I apologise to Trevor. The Hon. R.I. Lucas: And to all of us. The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: No, I apologise to the Hon. Trevor Griffin. The issue I want to summarise to conclude the debate on the Bill is that we have an advantage over America and other countries that have more lax firearm laws because the data shows fewer casualties from the misuse of firearms, whether it be accidental or deliberate, since the buy-back. With that in mind, it is a pity not to have kept the momentum going. I will respond to some of the comments of the Hon. Ron Roberts. First, there is no uniformity. There was a push for uniformity but there is no compulsion for uniformity: in fact, there is a variation between the States. However, there was uniformity in the agreement of the Police Ministers and the Federal Minister in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre. Two recommended and agreed aspects are the two that are in the Bill relating to the prohibition on a person convicted of a violent crime from having ownership of a gun for five years after the offence; and that the storage of weapons should be inspected. I repeat that the legislation covering storage is futile unless there is a process to provide a reasonable form of inspection. That is quite feasible, not expensive and important.The third point is the effect of paintball. A lot of young people play paintball. The significance of paintball is highlighted by the work of Professor David Grossman, a retired lieutenant colonel of the American army. His book on killing is achieving worldwide notoriety as it relates to altering the mind-set of soldiers and people involved in combat to overcome our instinctive reluctance to shoot directly at one of our kind. The data on response percentages regarding soldiers in both the First and Second World Wars indicate that 15 to 20 per cent were prepared to pull the trigger on others they could see on the opposite side: there was a remarkable incidence either of failure to fire or firing deliberately above the enemy.
The armies of the world were perplexed by that and made it a major challenge to get a higher kill intention performance from their armed forces. That was achieved, and it was dramatically illustrated in the Falklands War where the British troops were outnumbered 4:1 by the Argentinians but were five times more likely to shoot to kill. It produced the result we all know so well: the British prevailed. The way it was done, and is still being done, was to condition those armed services personnel who will have firearms to be prepared to shoot at simulated human beings. So, they are put through a completely different process. They no longer fire at a target: they fire at human images. They are made to move from position to position. Their response time has to be measured to see how quickly they can achieve it, and they get immediate gratification by seeing the immediate impact of a hit on the image. That process has been expanded by Grossman to reflect that it has the same effect on young people who play video games where they actually hold firearms. Earlier, my example of the 14 year old who killed three people and seriously injured five others with a firearm he had not ever had to fire before dramatically illustrated that.My point is that, although paintball may appear to be an innocuous pastime, ideally it is the training that modern trainers of armed forces use to condition their personnel to use firearms with serious intent. If that mental process occurs in the so-called game of paintball, the effect is unavoidable. It may be that only a very small percentage of people will be affected by it, but you do not need very many people with firearms and a mind-set to kill to wreak the havoc of the massacres we in Australia have endured over the last decade—and, supposedly, Australia is a low gun population and a low massacre incidence country.
It does appear as if my Bill will be defeated, but whether or not that happens it is much more important that we inculcate Australia with an anti-gun culture. The pro-gun culture does not give up. They will be delighted that my Bill has had minimal interest in this place and that it falls with hardly a murmur. When I am invited to speak, as I have been at various places—in this case on firearms control (or even on the killology or the training to kill work of Grossman)—members of the Sporting Shooters Association turn up en masse to be part of the debate. They are very well schooled in the sort of argument that can be proffered to debunk the position put by people who promote stronger gun control. They are very well briefed by the American Rifle Association and have a very well prepared presentation. They debunk any of the authorities one quotes to defend gun control; they try to demolish their status. Simon Chapman, who was in Adelaide for some years and who was a strong advocate of anti-tobacco campaigns, has provided some very effective analysis of gun control versus the pro-gun culture in Australia. In a public forum they ridicule his credentials, and that is just one of many.
The failure of this Bill must not be our failure to continue to fight for stronger gun control and, moving laterally, we must take the Grossman message. Grossman spoke on Radio National earlier this morning—I did not hear it. But a lot of people are listening to the message. He is saying that we are conditioning our young, that we are preparing the potential massacre perpetrator, by allowing these simulated killing activities to be portrayed as games.
The Hon. A.J. Redford: When we were kids we played war all the time. The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Well, you might have, but you did not actually have what appeared to be simulated firearms with which you shot at human targets. The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting: The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Hon. Angus Redford raises an interesting and worthwhile point. Of course, most of us, if not all of us, have been involved in cowboys and indians and in what appeared to be the quite innocent pointing of sticks and `Bang, Bang: you're dead.' I am not arguing that all those activities are damaging the mind-set of all the people who are perpetrators of them. Nonetheless—and I think the Hon. Angus Redford would agree—preceding generations have not been perfect in so far as there has never been abuse of firearms. I do not think that it is a black and white issue, but in my opinion the warning signs stand free from any destructive argument that, if we continue to invite exposure to graphic violence, particularly for young people, there is a conditioning of tolerance which increases to the point that in some quite graphically violent films the audience in the young and mid teens actually laugh at the graphic portrayal of death, disembowelment and blood. The argument is that that proceeds to dehumanise our instinctive responses to be reluctant to hurt and injure our fellow human beings. I am sorry that it appears at this point as though, unfortunately, the Bill is doomed not to pass. I urge members to look very seriously at the value of the issues under this Bill and to join with me and many others in trying to retain, as far as possible, a gun free culture in Australia. If we do not take a proactive step, there will be a slide into Americanism, and I do not think anyone wants that. The Council divided on the second reading:AYES (6)
Cameron, T. G. Crothers, T.
Elliott, M. J. Gilfillan, I. (teller)
Kanck, S. M. Xenophon, N.
NOES (15)
Davis, L. H. Dawkins, J. S. L.
Griffin, K. T. (teller) Holloway, P.
Laidlaw, D. V. Lawson, R. D.
Lucas, R. I. Pickles, C. A.
Redford, A. J. Roberts, R. R.
Roberts, T. G. Schaefer, C. V.
Stefani, J. F. Weatherill, G.
Zollo, C.
Majority of 9 for the Noes. Second reading thus negatived.