Page 906 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Those are the main points I have. I should make a point in relation to clause 24(2)(c)(B). It has been drawn to my attention - and I had experience of this in private practice - that it is common for both sides to take out a restraining order, even though there has been no violence; it is almost a matter of course. It is pointed out that difficulties may occur as a result of that. No-one else has brought to my attention any reasonable difficulties in relation to domestic violence and the possession of weapons, but it has been suggested that subparagraph (B) might be creating an unreasonable burden. (Extension of time granted)
That could be subject to abuse, and perhaps it needs looking at further. In many cases restraining orders are taken out by both sides and, indeed, are not necessarily subject to appeals.
The concerns expressed to me have legitimacy and I have taken them up with the Attorney-General. I think he has initiated a couple of moves already. I am pleased to see his amendment to omit the word "import" in clause 72. That word was really nonsensical when one read the clause.
I believe that the new Bill is a distinct improvement on the old Bill, although perhaps a few improvements will need to be made to it as time goes on. There will probably be some teething problems with certain clauses and we may need some further amendments. However, none of the groups I have spoken to has indicated to me that there should not be weapons legislation, and I have spoken to a lot of shooting groups. The ones I have spoken to in the last couple of months have all indicated that they support this legislation but that there are certain problems.
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just for members' edification: I allowed Mr Stefaniak to continue, although there is normally only one extension of time allowed, because he was entitled to a 7-minute extension.
MR STEVENSON (11.12): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, the Weapons Bill 1991 would restrict the ownership of firearms to certain categories of people as approved under this Bill. This raises the question of the jurisdiction of the ACT Assembly. The Constitution of Australia is somewhat expanded on what many people believe it to be. It includes the Magna Carta, common law, the Bill of Rights, the writ of habeas corpus and other matters.
The Bill of Rights of 1688, adopted at Federation, with the statutes of Westminster, states as follows:
That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .