Page 790 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 92 makes provision for compensation where a dangerous weapon is taken to have been surrendered under clause 53.
Mr Duby: You mean that it is more than a distortion?
MR CONNOLLY: It is considerably more than distortion; it is an outright lie. Mr Speaker, that deeply concerns me and I think it should deeply concern members of this Assembly. There has been an attempt not to allow an ordinary and rational debate on this issue of weapons control but to stir up unfounded fears; to put it about that this Bill is not what it is - a reasonable and sensible process of regulation - but some fundamental assault on liberties. That, of course, is because Mr Stevenson was distributing again at this meeting this sort of nonsense coming out of the American gun lobby. A document circulated at this meeting, this shameful meeting - because the convenor of the meeting was ashamed to put his name to the dodgers - contained material that basically says that any control at all on guns is wrong, that the ideal society is one in which everybody packs a pistol and law and order is sorted out by individuals taking the matter into their own hands and shooting it out. That sort of extremist nonsense has no part in this society.
It is of interest to me and reassuring to me that the people that I have spoken to in relation to weapons legislation have been very keen to disassociate themselves from this sort of American nonsense. They have been very keen to say, "Look, we are responsible shooters. We believe that there ought to be a degree of responsible control of firearms, but we are alarmed at what we are told is in this Bill".
The fact is that what they have been told is in this Bill is not in this Bill. What is in this Bill is a very sensible attempt, in the Opposition's view, at addressing this very difficult problem. We are prepared to be supportive of the efforts of the Government and put our weight behind this Bill.
Mr Duby: It is landmark legislation.
MR CONNOLLY: As Mr Duby says, it is, to an extent, landmark legislation; it is an improvement on the position in other parts of Australia. I would hope that the debate will proceed on the basis of the facts, not on the basis of these misstatements and assertions. As a result of these lies and nonsense that have been put around the community, as I said before, a lot of good and decent citizens of this Territory have been terrified that in some way their rights are being infringed. When I have had the opportunity to speak on a one-to-one basis to people, they have been, by and large, reassured. I hope and trust that as this debate concludes the Attorney-General also will go through this legislation. If Mr Stevenson is prepared to put in this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .