Page 904 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and I think he found them all to be very reasonable people with relevant points to make. He expressed a concern that Mr Stevenson might well have been sensationalising the whole thing. I certainly found the people I saw to be very reasonable people with valid concerns, and I brought those concerns to the Attorney-General's notice.
Perhaps some improvement could be made in clauses 24 and 25, which relate to persons not having been subject to recognisances for a period of eight years or, if they have ever been to gaol, having been out of gaol for a period of eight years. I certainly have no problem with most of that. Clause 25 is very clear and quite properly makes a distinction between indictable offences and summary offences. That clearly would have the effect of excluding someone who might have served a short gaol sentence for a PCA offence - a drink-driving offence - or maybe a serious traffic offence but not an indictable offence. That person may well still be a fit and proper person to hold a firearm. That is sensible because I think it is important to differentiate between summary and indictable offences, especially traffic offences, which do not necessarily involve crimes of violence and certainly not crimes of dishonesty.
However, there may be a few interpretation problems with section 24, which I am sure the registrar can get over. The Government Law Office assures me that that will be the case, but I think the distinction might be less obvious there. It would be unfortunate if a person who had received a suspended sentence within an eight-year period or who had been subject to a term of imprisonment for something such as a PCA offence but in all other respects was a fit and proper person should be precluded from holding a firearm. That is something that could be looked at.
Clause 91(1) deals with the sale of weapons and ammunition. I understand that a person selling a firearm, if he has, say, 40 rounds of .22 ammunition, might be able to give that away to the person buying the firearm. If that is the case, and I assume it is, the people who brought that concern to my notice have nothing to fear. If there is a problem there, perhaps it could be addressed. I do not necessarily think there is; but it is important that when someone sells a firearm in accordance with this Act he is able, if he has any surplus ammunition, to pass that over to the buyer.
In relation to clause 51, questions were raised with me about a provision to enable a licensee to keep his licence pending the result of an appeal. It is a similar situation to a drink-driver who appeals against his conviction and keeps his licence until such time as that appeal is dealt with. Again, if there is a problem there I hope it can be addressed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .