Legislative Council
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN obtained leave and introduced a Bill for an Act to amend the
Firearms Act 1977. Read a first time.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
That this Bill be now read a second time.
For as long as there have been firearms, there has been debate about who should own them,
and what they should be entitled to do with them. Different communities around the world
have addressed this issue in different ways over their history. We all know that in the
United States the Constitution protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. That
has produced what is commonly referred to as a `gun culture' in the United States of
America.
In Australia, we have not gone down that path. Although firearms are widely used and
available in Australia, we do not have a `gun culture'. Yet there are elements of the `gun
culture' existing here and, to the extent that guns have permeated our society, there is a
legitimate source of fear and unease among a great many people, particularly women. That
is because a gun which is kept for a legitimate purpose can easily be used for a sinister,
criminal or tragic purpose at times of emotional stress, depression, anger or anxiety.
The gun lobby is fond of saying, `Guns don’t kill: people do.' That is trite.
When people are depressed, angry, upset or otherwise unstable, they often try to cause
damage to themselves, a partner or other associate. They may use their bare fists, a knife
or a cricket bat and cause damage. But the potential damage will be so much greater if a
firearm is close at hand.
Research shows that death is 12 times more likely in an assault involving a firearm.
A firearm does not have to be actually fired to cause emotional and psychological damage,
lasting years. I am indebted to Rebecca Peters of the International Alliance for Women for
providing examples of how guns are routinely used in domestic situations to maintain power
over partners (usually women) and their children. Ms Peters says there have been many
examples of men:
1. Sleeping with the gun nearby and threatening to shoot the wife if she tries
to sneak away;
2. Wielding the gun during discussions about custody of children;
3. Staging a mock execution, that is, holding an [unloaded] gun to a
victim’s head and pulling the trigger;
4. Getting the gun out and cleaning it during or after arguments.
Ms Peters continued:
When a woman has left an unhappy relationship, brandishing a gun may be a means
of forcing her back into it or of obtaining access to the children. When she is still in
the relationship, a gun can prevent her leaving.
I repeat that all this can be done without ever firing the gun. Arguments of this sort
have gone back and forth in Australia for many years, but attempts to tighten control of
guns always faltered, because each State Parliament saw the matter differently and imposed
widely differing standards. Once and once only have Australia’s nine various
Governments come together and agreed to enact uniform national legislation to control the
spread of guns throughout our community.
In May 1996, the Federal Police Minister and the Police Minister of each State and
Territory Government reached an historic agreement: that for most Australians there was no
need to own or use a gun. For most Australians, firearms would be outlawed because of the
dangers they pose. Of course, all of us realise that this was in the aftermath of the
tragic Port Arthur massacre.
They followed that general rule with a series of resolutions that, in effect,
granted limited exceptions to certain people who had a legitimate need to own a firearm.
They also imposed a ban on particular types of higher-powered or multiple-firing guns.
Each Police Minister undertook to draw up legislation to go to their respective
Parliaments to enact that agreement. That was in May 1996.
We hardly need reminding that the Police Ministers were called together at that time
because of the event referred to only weeks before, at Port Arthur, Tasmania. The event
was the single most horrific use of a gun on Australian soil this century. Yet it would be
a mistake to view that 1996 agreement as a knee-jerk reaction to the tragic events of Port
Arthur. It was, in fact, the culmination and end of a long campaign by the Australian
people for greater protection in this area.
The Police Ministers’ resolutions at that meeting had overwhelming support from
the Australian population. Yet what has happened in the intervening 2‡ years? There is no
uniformity in Australian gun laws. The Premier, in his speech in another place on 24 March
this year, acknowledged as much. Professor Kate Warner of the University of Tasmania has
documented how, in the 12 months after the Port Arthur massacre, the attempt to achieve
uniform national firearm laws has unravelled. Several States have watered down
requirements such as a mandatory 28 day cooling off period for obtaining second or
subsequent firearms; and we still do not have laws ensuring that people convicted of
crimes of violence automatically lose their firearms licence and their gun.
So, it can be seen that Australian Parliaments have, in effect, defied the will of
the people. They have found themselves unable or unwilling to act, as opinion polls show
that people want them to act, to restrict the availability of guns—to turn back the
`gun culture' to the extent that it is already embedded in Australian society.
Members of legislative bodies such as this one no doubt have been furiously lobbied
on this issue. But it is our duty, on occasions, to resist the loudest lobbyists and to
act in the overwhelming interests of the quieter but much larger majority of our
constituents who want to see the supply of guns restricted.
The Democrats are moving in two ways to address this situation. My Federal
colleagues in the Senate have proposed that a referendum be held to have power over
firearms transferred from the States to the Commonwealth. In my view, that should proceed
only if, indeed, the States and Territories prove to be stubborn in implementing a good
standard of relatively uniform firearms law around the nation.
In the meantime, the Democrats are seeking to establish South Australia as the first
State to comply with the proposed uniform national restrictions that were agreed—and
I emphasise `agreed'—by Australia’s Police Ministers in the wake of the 1996
Port Arthur massacre and for this to be an example for other States to follow.
While I am doing this, the very opposite is happening in Queensland. There, the
parliamentary Leader of the One Nation Party, Bill Feldman, has advised me that he has
already introduced amendments to Queensland's Weapons Act. As one would expect, the One
Nation Bill is aimed at winding back or watering down restrictions on gun ownership and
their use in Queensland.
It is time we faced the fact that uniformity is not an end in itself. As long as the
State Parliaments continue to have jurisdiction over firearms laws, we must pursue the
outcome which is best for the people of South Australia, not the pursuit of uniformity for
uniformity’s sake.
If the Democrat Bill is successful, our State’s laws will become the model that
all Australia wanted to pursue in 1996, rather than being merely uniform with States such
as Queensland. The main points of my Bill are these: first, anyone convicted of an
intentional act of violence (with or without a weapon) in the last five years will be
ineligible to acquire a firearms licence; secondly, anyone so convicted will automatically
lose their licence, and police will be empowered to search for and confiscate their
firearm or firearms; thirdly, `personal protection' as a justification will be
specifically excluded as reason for acquiring a firearm, holding it or using it; fourthly,
the Firearms Registrar—in this case the Police Commissioner or someone on his
behalf—will be required to inspect proposed firearms storage facilities before
granting a licence; fifthly, anyone under the age of 18 years will be unable to hold a
firearms licence (but that does not preclude a person under the age of 18 years from being
able to fire a firearm under certain limited circumstances, principally in the sporting
firearm arena; quite obviously, for international and national firearm competitions there
is justification for people younger than 18 years of age to be able to fire a firearm);
and, sixthly, firearm games such as paint ball will be banned.
I will just comment briefly on that last point. Although not specifically identified
by the Police Commissioners' conference, it is quite clear that this activity of paintball
is the use of a registered firearm to aim at and hit a fellow human with a missile. It is
in direct contrast to the culture that Police Ministers want to inculcate in Australia;
they do not want to encourage an activity that provides an opportunity to hit a person
with a missile that has been fired from a registered firearm.
I have distributed consultative copies of this Bill to any parties who I believe
would be interested. I extend that offer to anyone who would like to receive a copy of the
Bill. I will happily send a copy to whoever gets in touch with me. I point out that the
consultative copy that has been distributed has been changed already in one respect. Owing
to an oversight in the drafting, the original version of the Bill included a provision
that those under 18 were not to be allowed to use a firearm. That has now been changed to
reflect my original intention, which I have just addressed, that those under 18 cannot
hold a firearms licence. However, they can under restricted circumstances be legally able
to fire a firearm.
Having said that, the rest of the Bill is the same as the consultative version that
has been distributed to interested parties. It is my intention to allow this Bill to sit
on the Notice Paper over the summer months and to receive community and parliamentary
reaction to it, before what I hope will happen in constructive debate in the autumn
session when I would like us as a State, through the passage of this Bill, to fully
implement the recommendations of the Police Ministers and to set an example for other
States and divisions to follow. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Ian Gilfillan's speech concluded on 17 February 1999
Site assisted by Intramedia Design