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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1471 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

It is not intended to affect anyone's rights beyond what was intended by this Assembly; but it is certainly the case that it does affect the people's right, that has long been held, to hold weapons. It was the whole thrust of legislation around Australia to modify that right; in fact, to effect some form of cultural change. It certainly does affect people. I understand that there has been a strong response to the requirement for the surrender of weapons. Gun owners, generally - not perhaps totally - have complied with that legislation, and they are to be complimented for doing so.

I want to raise in this debate a couple of responses that I have had from very responsible gun owners, one of whom sent an open letter to members of this Assembly only the other day. In fact, it was this gentleman who took a case to the ACT courts, which he successfully fought and which has brought about this legislation today. He makes what seem to me to be a couple of valid points, and the Minister might comment on them. He makes the point that, if it were not guns that were being bought back but motor vehicles, you would expect a different valuation for a Holden Calais as against a standard Holden Commodore. That is the point he made about his weapon. His weapon was as purchased from a shop. He disputes that it was modified. It was, in my terms, an up-market version. He believes that there ought to have been a list price for compensation for that weapon. It seems to me to be a valid point. At the time of the debate, I acknowledged that it was important that compensation be paid to encourage people to surrender their weapons, but in that circumstance not every owner in Australia relinquishing a weapon would receive the level of compensation that might be determined by a very accurate assessment of its worth.

He makes another point, and this is one about which I am interested in hearing from the Minister. He says that the Minister is concerned that weapons could come into Canberra and then be challenged through our court processes; but that could not happen, because they are illegal weapons and could not be brought into Canberra. The Minister might respond to that point for me. It is clear that this gentleman is a genuine Canberran who has complied with the legislation.

There was another, very detailed, case brought to me. It raised, among other things, the fact that there is no appeal. I can understand that, if appeal rights were written into that legislation around Australia, there would be a very big load placed on whatever appeal body was established. This other writer, who also surrendered his weapon, makes the point that acquisition should be on just terms. I think it would be the intention of this Assembly that the terms should be as just as could be achieved in the circumstances.

I want to take the opportunity while debating this Bill, which is an amendment to the Firearms Act, to raise a question brought to me by another constituent concerning three starting pistols that he has had. This is a sports official who is now officiating at the very highest levels in athletics competitions, and for that he needs appropriate starting pistols. In his case, he has two .445 calibre Webley revolvers and one .38 calibre Webley. These are weapons that I understand he needs in order to start at very senior levels. He hopes to be a starter in the Olympic Games. To my mind, he certainly has the background of experience to be able to do that.

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