Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (27 March) . . Page.. 741 ..

Debate resumed from 26 March 1996, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MS FOLLETT (4.44): Mr Speaker, Labor will be supporting this Bill brought forward by the Attorney-General. I express my thanks to the Attorney-General and to the staff of his department who provided me with a very comprehensive briefing on the provisions of this Bill. It is a Bill that did give me considerable concern when I first saw the provisions contained within it, because it makes a number of changes to the Weapons Act and I believe that those changes need to be very carefully considered.

Mr Speaker, I would like to put on the record the fact that I believe that our community ought to have the most stringent and restrictive weapons legislation that it is humanly possible to have. I also consider that that kind of stringent and restrictive approach ought to be echoed at a national level. It is very much to be regretted that other States and Territories do not have anything like the protections that we have in the Territory in regard to the ownership or the use of weapons. Mr Speaker, I trust that consideration of uniform and strong gun control laws will continue. I know that it has been a matter that has been taken up in various ministerial councils. I trust that there will still be a concerted effort towards making national laws which, far from being a lowest common denominator effort, actually do reflect some of the very strong approaches to this matter that have been taken in our Territory.

There are, as I said, a number of provisions in Mr Humphries's Bill, and I might address just some of them in order to put the point of view that Labor has taken on it. One of the provisions concerns a change in the classification of silencers from "prohibited" to "dangerous". This was an issue that very much concerned me, as I was most unwilling to see any weakening of control over the use of silencers in our legislative regime. Mr Speaker, Mr Humphries has circulated an amendment which, I take it, he will be introducing in the detail stage of the debate. Mr Humphries's amendment does overcome many of my concerns, because it makes it very clear that the new provision relating to silencers relates to the use of silencers by only a very narrow range of organisations - in particular, the RSPCA, the CSIRO and other such specialised scientific organisations. The reason for the use of silencers in those circumstances is, of course, for the humane culling of animals. I really would have to agree that the use of silencers in those circumstances could well provide for less suffering, less terror, on the part of the animals. So I support it. But, in general terms, I would never want to see silencers become routine or commonplace in our community, and I trust that that will not ever happen.

The Bill also introduces a new clause that says that veterinary surgeons are no longer exempt from having to apply for a dangerous weapons permit. This is a provision that I support wholeheartedly. I can see no reason why vets would be treated differently from any other class of person applying for a dangerous weapons permit. Indeed, to insist that they go through the same process reinforces the need for the very strictest controls on weapons in our community. There are also some new factors which are to be taken into account when the registrar is considering an application for a weapons licence.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .