Page 902 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
taken into account in this Bill. In relation to people having an approved reason for requiring a dangerous weapon, paragraph 5(1)(m) states:
in the case of a dangerous weapon, other than a pistol grip weapon or a self-loading centre fire rifle of a military type -
(i) is a recreational shooter or hunter in the Territory and has the written consent of a lessee, occupier or other person referred to in paragraph 85(a); or
(ii) is a recreational shooter or hunter in a State or another Territory;
I think that is a very sensible, practical position and is not onerous at all for sporting shooters. Indeed, most sporting shooters do have to shoot outside the Territory. It is my understanding that shooting is prohibited, perhaps under another Act, in most instances in the Territory. Most areas are shooter free and have been for some considerable time. So, most sporting shooters go to a friend's place, usually in New South Wales or even further afield. I think that provision is a very useful improvement.
Another innovation that I think is going to be very important in the future - the provisions have been around in one form or another for 14 years and there will probably be a few teething problems as things are worked out - is the advisory committee. The Attorney-General will set up an advisory committee to look at problems that emanate from this legislation and to make suggestions on improvements. I think that that also is a good, innovative idea and that we will see further refinements and improvements to this legislation. There are a couple of issues the committee might be looking at in the near future.
Since this Bill came before the house I, along with other members of the Assembly, no doubt, have been approached by a number of shooting groups and individuals who have expressed concerns. I am pleased to say that most of those concerns are the same, and some of them appear to be quite legitimate. Some perhaps result from a lack of appreciation of how the Act will be interpreted, and the fears in some cases may be groundless. Certainly, on a sensible interpretation of this Act, I think that would be the case.
The question of possession, which was mentioned by an earlier speaker in this debate - it might have been Mr Connolly - is certainly one of those. The courts in the ACT are quite clear on what possession of a dangerous substance is. There were a number of drug cases in the early 1980s which clearly stated what amounted to possession of dangerous substances. There might have been
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .