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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 (Hansard) 16 May) . . Page.. 1405 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I must say also that the campaign that has been waged by the gun lobby over the last few days has not done its cause any great good. I am not sure to what extent members around the chamber have received correspondence from members of the gun lobby, but I certainly have received a great deal - a stack about this high has now been run up in my office. I think it is also worth recording that the sentiments expressed in a great many of those letters and faxes have in many ways undermined the case they sought to make. The points of view, the comments, in many cases were extreme and, I think, unrepresentative of the mainstream of Australian society, particularly in the wake of Port Arthur. One comment sticks in my mind. One person from Queensland - perhaps that is not so surprising - wrote, "God, guns and guts made this country. I intend to fight for all three". Comments of that kind were, unfortunately, quite common.

I might say, though, that I am not sure that those sorts of sentiments were typical of gun owners generally in this country. It is my expectation that the vast majority of people who, for whatever reason, own guns will obey these laws fully and, what is more, understand the spirit behind them and the reason we need to take the step of enacting them around the country at this time. I believe that we will see substantial compliance with the changes this package brings about.

Ms Follett made the point that she has always been proud that the ACT has had the toughest gun laws in the country. So have I, and I believe that nothing will change as a result of the fact that this legislation is coming forward as part of a package. I emphasise that the things that I indicated on Tuesday were agreed at the Ministers meeting were minimum standards, and States are free to go beyond those standards, if they wish. Indeed, in the ACT's case we most certainly will do so. To give one very small example, it was agreed by Ministers that a person who had a conviction for an offence involving violence in the preceding five years would not have a good ground to obtain a licence or, if they had obtained a licence, would have that licence cancelled and their weapons seized. In the ACT we already have a provision that requires that period to be eight years. I have no problem at all in leaving those provisions as they stand, rather than moving down to that national agreement. I think it is quite likely that the end result of this exercise will be that the ACT retains the toughest gun laws in the country, but with much more companionship at that level of toughness than we have had in the past.

I note the comments made by Ms Tucker about the fact that there are a great many more guns outside the scope of this legislation, at least in terms of those guns that are now being prohibited. I should emphasise a couple of things, however. The level of control on those guns that are still permitted to be held by individuals will be much more extensive than it has been in the past. The requirements for obtaining a gun licence, for continuing to hold one, for storage of guns, for training, for possession of those guns, and a whole series of issues will be much tougher than they were before. I think it is also important, when we look at the fact that there are still many guns outside the scope of this package, to bear in mind that we have taken a very large step in even banning the guns that have been affected by this package.

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