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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 902 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

on behalf of the ACT Government, the strongest objection to this issue having to be raised simply because some States were being recalcitrant. Had Victoria not sought to water down their laws to such an extent that they were clearly in breach of the agreement reached following the horrific events in Port Arthur in 1996, the issue would not have had to be raised at all.

The key concerns were in relation to two fundamental points of the agreement. First, the agreement requires a mandatory 28 days "cooling off" before the issuing of a permit to acquire a firearm, including a second or subsequent firearm. This is to allow a number of prerequisite checks to be undertaken on the genuine need for a person to own a firearm, or to own more than one firearm, and the applicant's suitability to use a firearm. Victoria sought to remove that requirement for a permit to acquire a second or subsequent gun, preserving the cooling-off period for only the first gun. In doing so, however, they will require a number of checks to be completed first.

The meeting resolved, without support from New South Wales or Queensland - which was bound by caretaker conventions, of course - to ask officials to develop a minimum requirement for checks to be undertaken prior to the issuing of a permit. The theory is that, if those checks are completed inside 28 days, a permit could be issued, but only once the checks are completed. I indicated that the ACT's position would be to support that work going on, because it will actually serve to strengthen the agreement on gun laws by imposing uniform requirements for preacquisition checks. But, in doing so, I indicated that I did not see it as a replacement for the 28-day cooling-off period; rather, as an addition to it. I see the opportunity to provide for those checks to be undertaken within the 28 days, as they are already done in the ACT, but that the cooling-off period will remain in our legislation, no matter whether mandatory uniform checks are added or not. I look forward to recommendations from officers for the development of those checks, which I will provide to members in advance of the next meeting, assuming we get them in time to do so.

The second issue was the application of category C permits to people outside the approved list of people entitled to access them. On that issue, four jurisdictions have widened access to category C firearms for people who do not meet the minimum standard as agreed by Police Ministers in 1996. I reiterated the ACT Government's position that category C licences would be issued only in exceptional circumstances, in accordance with the legislation, and that the legislation meets the requirements of the APMC agreements of 10 May and 17 July 1996. Regrettably, Mr Speaker, I left the meeting with the view that those jurisdictions presently allowing wider access to category C firearms were not prepared to restrict the access in accordance with the earlier agreement. I note and strongly support the Prime Minister's decision to ban the importation of category C firearms for purposes outside the national firearms controls agreement.

The ACT Government, Mr Speaker, will continue to vigilantly guard the national firearms controls agreement from subtle reductions in standards as time goes by, but that is not to say that there is no room to change the agreement if elements are not working as they should. But I have indicated publicly before, Mr Speaker, that changes to the agreement should be made only when agreed by all States, Territories and the Commonwealth,

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