Page 5880 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
this relates specifically to the control of feral species. Feral animals can and do cause quite some damage in our national parks in particular. Under special circumstances, when baiting and trapping processes fail, there can be a need to eradicate feral animals through shooting. Again, as Mrs Dunne noted, this tends to be aerial shooting from a helicopter, because of the inaccessible terrain and the spread-out nature of the species. Fortunately, it does not happen often, but it is occasionally the best last option.
The second reason for needing this capability is emergency disease management. Of course, this is something that we hope we do not see often, but should south-east Australia see the spread of diseases such as tuberculosis in livestock there is no doubt that the ACT would need to implement management plans in cooperation with New South Wales and that this would no doubt need to be done in a timely manner. While it is a somewhat distasteful notion, there is no doubt that the ACT would not want to be held up in this task by not having the capacity to employ suitably qualified people.
When it comes to the specifics of this bill, it sets a limit on the authorisation of six months. It ensures that the applicant must demonstrate a special need, and that cannot be fulfilled in any other way in order to get the licence. The bill also allows the authorisation to include conditions prescribed by regulation, and it gives the power to the minister to veto the authorisation. I would like to discuss the last two of these points in particular.
With regard to the setting of conditions, under the provisions of this bill, the applicant would have the opportunity to apply to hold two firearms for the purposes of carrying out specific tasks. It is my understanding that the national code for the safe destruction of animals sets out certain standards that may require a person undertaking such culling or hunting operations to carry two weapons. This, in essence, is a matter of ensuring the prevention of cruelty to animals in the unfortunate event that an animal is wounded but not killed and the weapon seizes, jams or becomes inoperable in some way. In such a case, having a second weapon is an important animal welfare issue.
The more complex of these two points is the power of the minister to refuse authorisation, and this was raised in the scrutiny report. In light of the scrutiny report, we took a further look at this issue and sought further clarification. I note that the minister has now responded to the scrutiny report. It is clear from that examination that this provision only allows the minister to stop an authorisation.
I also note that the minister has, in his response to scrutiny, indicated his discretion as minister would be “confined by the principles and objects of the Firearms Act” as well as “ordinary administrative law principles, including a requirement not to take into account irrelevant considerations and not to fail to take into account relevant considerations”. The attorney, in his letter, noted that the first principle of this act is that firearms possession and use is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.
It certainly is a serious responsibility to issue a licence for a category D firearm, and the Greens believe and agree that, for this subject matter, it is appropriate that the Assembly delegate a very broad discretion to the minister to determine whether it is appropriate to grant a licence. It is the sort of circumstance where we wondered
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video