Page 916 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Attorney has also advised that it will be possible for those crossbow owners with a legitimate reason to own and use such a weapon under a regulation made under clause 22 of the Bill.
Let me also at this stage put to rest one suggestion made to me by Mr Stevenson in his letter. He suggested that one of the reasons why the Japanese did not invade Australia was that the country was an armed camp full of civilians with weapons and just waiting for the dreaded enemy to appear across the horizon. It is unfortunate that I do not have the quotation here with me, but let us just get it right for the record: The Japanese did not invade Australia, but not for that reason; it was because a battle with the American and Australian naval forces stopped the Japanese invasion fleet. So, it was not because of this land full of well armed civilians; it was because of the actions of the allied naval forces to stop the Japanese forces advancing towards Australia.
We are, and really always have been, an urban society. For example, the majority of Australians who were members of the first AIF were city dwellers and not sharp-shooting bushmen, despite a common belief to the contrary. For the record, I would like to read into the record what Mr Stevenson has said about this matter. I quote from a news release, dated 14 February 1991, which uses the same sorts of words as those used in a letter sent to me. It says:
If most Australians had rifles and were trained in their use, this would act as a valuable deterrent to any potential aggressor. It has been stated that the reasons Japanese forces did not invade Australia was because they knew our citizenry were well armed and well trained in the use of weapons. It is this action of forming a citizens militia, rather than removing the fundamental right of Australians to bear arms, that would no doubt also have the effect of reducing the rate of serious assault with guns.
There would not be one reputable historian in Australia who would even suggest that that was the case. Our society has never accepted the almost obsessive fascination that the American society has with guns, and I trust that we never will.
In closing my remarks, I would like to comment on the commitment by the Attorney-General to establish a weapons control advisory committee to assist him in the review of the operation of this legislation. As my colleague Mr Stefaniak has said, this is an important commitment which shows how our Attorney is prepared to ensure that the community is given every opportunity to participate in the development of such important legislation and its subsequent implementation. However, I do note that the review committee is not included in the legislation and I would appreciate a comment from the Attorney on whether he
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .