Page 2768 - Week 07 - Thursday, 3 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Queensland and the Northern Territory, too, in this area have much less stringent arrangements. The upper house of our immediate neighbour, New South Wales, has passed legislation to relax these rules in that state, with the support, I think, of both major parties; and that goes before their lower house. So one can assume New South Wales is going to come in line with Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory.
I do not believe we should fall behind, and bona fide licence holders should reasonably expect to receive a better service there. However, the opposition does recognise that an application for a permit to acquire provides the registrar with an opportunity to undertake a quick recheck of the record of a licence holder. Invariably, once you have a firearm and you are a licence holder for five years and you acquire another firearm, all the work has been done. But it is conceivable that you might have been convicted of an offence between acquiring your first firearm and your second firearm.
So we think that the registrar should have an opportunity to undertake a quick recheck of the record of a licence holder. That may involve a simple request to police to check their records. So I think it is reasonable to expect the registrar should be allowed a little time for that review. Our amendment is simple. It will require the registrar to issue or not to issue a permit to acquire by no later than 14 days after the date of the application. That is ample time, I am told, for the registrar and the police to make the necessary checks for a second or subsequent weapon.
I hear what the attorney says, but certainly police officers I have spoken to say that usually these checks are done in about five days. Whilst the Sporting Shooters Association, who saw me in relation to this, would obviously like us to come fully into line with other states, especially Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, in this regard, they do not have a particular problem if it was a shorter period. Anything is better than what we have at present. Fourteen days is a reasonable compromise. It enables those rechecks to be done, but it also is a much more reasonable period if people who are involved in competitions need weapons for a certain type of competition.
I note what Dr Foskey said earlier in terms of how many weapons people should have. I did ask that question of the sporting shooters. People engaged in competitions and serious shooters could have as many as between about 20 and 30 weapons quite legitimately. I would imagine the vast majority of shooters have nothing like that and I think that is entirely appropriate. I do think there is merit in what she says in relation to ensuring that people do not have an absolute plethora of weapons if they do not need them. But I throw that one in simply because, in the course of this conversation, it came up.
That having been said, I think 14 days is a most reasonable compromise. It does ensure the necessary checks are in there for the authorities. It is something that our registry is more than capable of doing, but it is a little bit fairer than what we have at present for legitimate shooters. And whilst it does not completely take away that period for second or subsequent weapons, which other states do, I think it is a very reasonable compromise. I commend it to members of the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .