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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (27 March) . . Page.. 747 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Proposed new paragraph (fa), after proposed paragraph (f), insert the following proposed new paragraph:

"(fa) by inserting after subsection (4) the following subsection:

`(4A) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a natural person is not to be taken to have an approved reason for requiring a dangerous weapon that is a silencer unless the person is a person to whom paragraph (1)(ha) or (na) applies.'.".

Mr Speaker, these amendments deal with the question of silencers, making it clear, as I think Ms Follett referred to in the course of her remarks, that they should be carried only by employees or by persons engaged by the RSPCA or the CSIRO, prescribed research bodies or veterinary surgeons, for very specific uses. They are not intended to enable other aficionados of the silencer to have access to them. These uses are appropriate, and I commend those amendments to the Assembly.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Debate resumed from 14 December 1995, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That the Assembly takes note of the papers.

Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned.

Debate resumed from 14 December 1995, on motion by Mr Stefaniak:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MS McRAE (5.11): It is with regret that I say that we do actually support this Bill. I would much rather be in the position of leading the vanguard on banning this stuff; but at the moment the community does not seem to want to ban it. So, in the spirit of the previous Boxing Control (Amendment) Bill, as it was put up - that it is better to control it and control it efficiently than to try to ban something that quite clearly still has a level of

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