Wednesday, 22 June 2022

Bills

Firearms Amendment Bill 2022

Statement of compatibility

Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (09:54): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Firearms Amendment Bill 2022.

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The Bill seeks to makes amendments to two sections in the Firearms Act 1996 and other consequential amendments to that act. The amendments will delete the nonsensical provisions relating to a firearms appearance and subsequent re- categorisation to a higher, more restricted category based on how a firearm looks rather than its design or function.

Proposed Amendments

The Bill proposes to remove:

(i) section 3A of the Firearms Act 1996 which permits the Chief Commissioner to temporarily re-categorise a firearm based solely on its appearance.

(ii) section 3B of the Firearms Act 1996 which permits the Chief Commissioner to permanently re-categorise a firearm based solely on its appearance.

The Bill will insert section 223 providing for:

(i) transitional provisions revoking all previous re-categorisation declarations.

(ii) discontinuation of any current prosecutions for offences relating to sections 3A and 3B of the Firearms Act 1996.

(iii) reverting licencing requirements to the correct and lower category of firearm.

The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia conducted a review (2016) of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) which has appearance-based provisions and concluded that those sections of the Act should be deleted, and further noted that the West Australian Government should negotiate at a national level to remove ‘appearance’ provision from the definition of a ‘self-loading centre fire riffle designed or adapted for military purposes’.

South Australia completed a review of its firearms legislation and pursuant to the review has passed the Firearms Act 2015 (SA). This is a re-write of the South Australian Firearms Act 1977 (SA) and importantly the concepts of appearance and design have not been included in the 2015 Act regarding categorisation.

Jeff Bourman MLC

Member for Eastern Victoria Region

Second reading

Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (09:55): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

It should be no surprise that gun laws have been an interest of mine, given they are why I first took steps that led me to this place. Whilst my interest in helping others has expanded since I first arrived here, they continue to be one of my foundational issues.

In an age when we are not supposed to stereotype others, it’s amusing to me that so many assume that I am all for no laws regarding the ownership and use of firearms—the American style of laws, as it is put, which of course is stereotyping the Americans as they have wildly differing laws in each state. I will state it again, for the record, I am not for weak gun laws, I am not for strong gun laws; I am for effective gun laws.

What does ‘effective gun laws’ mean? To me, and I’d suggest to any other reasonable person, it would mean laws that work to keep firearms from the wrong hands without punishing those who are proven, by a robust licensing process, to be trustworthy. The end result of an effective licensing process is a licence-holder who can be trusted to have firearms for recreational purposes.

That is all good and well, but in the race to see who could be the biggest virtue signaller someone came up with the idea of reclassifying a firearm not by its function, but by how it looks, meaning if it’s a pump-action firearm and it has been made to look like a semiautomatic firearm, it can be classified as a semiautomatic firearm with the subsequent licensing restrictions. If it’s a single-shot rifle that’s impossible to modify to any other function yet it looks like a semiautomatic, it can be reclassified as a semiautomatic. It’s an absurd situation.

The appearance portion of the Firearms Act was added around 2007 and 2008, apropos of nothing. It was an idea hatched in the minds of those who want all firearms, including recreational firearms, taken from civilian hands, and subsequently some politicians agreed with it and it was passed with no opposition. If there was anything that may have precipitated this, it was possibly H&K trying to import the R8, which is a bolt action as per the definition in the act, yet it looked nasty.

My amendment seeks to remove this section of the act, and this part only. There is no public policy rationale that the government has released to support the current stance; the reclassification process is subjective and ad hoc decision-making which lacks transparency and robustness. There is no consistency across states with regard to what firearms get reclassified, which is evidence of the ambiguous nature of these appearance-based laws.

There is no public safety outcome in this clause, there is no logical, defendable argument that can justify what can only be described as a farcical situation where the aesthetics of mechanical items are seemingly more important than their actual functions.

South Australia has the most recently enacted Firearms Act, in 2015, and no appearance-based provisions have been included. The Law Reform Commission of WA recently conducted a review of the WA Firearms Act and concluded that the appearance-based provisions in the act should be removed.

During the debate I’m sure we will hear about how great our laws are and how they are keeping us safe, but I will be very interested to hear how this specific portion of the act is keeping anyone safe.

I commend this bill to the house.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (09:58): I move:

That the debate be adjourned for two weeks.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for two weeks.