Page 915 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let there be no doubt that the majority of Canberra residents and our society require that controls be implemented for weapons and firearms that have a potential to take a life. While no weapons legislation can guarantee that another life will not be lost by the use of a firearm, if it saves one life, in my view, it has achieved its purpose. On that subject, in fact, you may be surprised to learn that, of the approximately 700 Australians who die each year from firearm misuse, the overwhelming majority of those deaths are self-inflicted. Of the balance, a further significant proportion of those deaths occur with a firearm that is held in full accordance with the law. Only a relatively small number of those deaths occur at the hands of people who may be considered criminals.
I do not think anyone really believes that weapons legislation will ever stop criminals obtaining weapons. I do not think there is any doubt about that. However, it will make it much more difficult for weapons to be obtained and used for criminal purposes. As I said, only a relatively small number of those deaths occur at the hands of people who may be considered criminals. Thus, by any objective yardstick, any diminution in death and injury in Australia from firearms will be best achieved by ensuring that those persons lawfully holding a firearm are not persons who are likely in times of stress or emotion to use the weapon irresponsibly.
To this end, I note the legislation passed in this Assembly last year regarding the removal of a weapon from a licensed holder who is the subject of an order under the Domestic Violence Act of 1986 or under the Magistrates Court Act of 1930. I notice that this in fact has been followed up by clause 25 of the Weapons Bill which requires the registrar to refuse to grant a weapons licence in such circumstances. At this juncture, I would like to comment on the suggestion that there is no right of appeal in those cases. That is absolutely incorrect, because clause 98(c) of the weapons legislation quite clearly requires a refusal to be subject to a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. So, any suggestion put forward here or out in the community that there is no right of appeal against this decision making process is patently untrue. I might suggest that the AD(JR) Act might also come into play in this area. It is very important that such decisions be subject to review, and that is something that is clearly identified in this Bill.
Another issue that has been raised with me, and no doubt all other members - I note that Mr Stefaniak referred to it today in his speech - is the owning and use of crossbows. I am aware that the Victorian legislation allows for the crossbow to be licensed; but in New South Wales, I am advised, a weapon such as that will be classified in the same way as this legislation proposes it be classified in the ACT. However, I am advised that negotiations on this matter have taken place with representatives of the ACT and District Archery Council and, as you indicated in your
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .