Friday, 19 August 2022

Bills

Firearms Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr BOURMAN:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (10:43): I rise to speak on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2022 introduced by Mr Bourman from the Shooters and Fishers—

Mr Bourman: And Farmers.

Mr GEPP: and Farmers Party, is it? We keep adding titles to the name of the party. It seems that everybody is trying to get the extra half a per cent, aren’t they, out in the electoral grounds? Although when you see some of the voting patterns in this place these days—who said oil and water does not mix?

There is a very serious element to this bill that Mr Bourman has introduced, and I want to say from the outset that the Andrews Labor government is unwavering in its commitment to ensuring the firearms industry operates in a safe way. It is incredibly important that we have procedures, rules, frameworks in place for the operation of our firearms industry. We see far too many instances around the world where jurisdictions do not have proper procedures, frameworks, rules and regulations in place and we see the effect of that. And we do know, we recognise, that here in this state our sports shooting and recreational hunting industries have many, many positive economic and social benefits, particularly for our regional communities like the community that I represent, my electorate of Northern Victoria. There are many, many participants from my part of the world in those activities. We welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. The firearms industry is well regulated, and it keeps our community safe by keeping firearms out of the hands of unlicensed individuals and criminals, and we protect the image and reputation of all firearm users by doing that.

What we have got to examine in this bill is: what are we trying to achieve? What is the impetus behind Mr Bourman’s bill? What is he trying to achieve? I am sure Mr Bourman, if I get it wrong, will correct me in his right of reply—or he may well interject, I do not know. He can on occasion jump in.

Mr Leane: He can be very rude.

Mr GEPP: Not necessarily rude, but—

Mr Bourman: I can be.

Mr GEPP: Well, he can be rude, I am sure, as everyone can, but that is not my usual recall of Mr Bourman’s behaviour. I am sure that if I get this wrong he will correct the record from his perspective, but basically the bill that he is presenting us with today would remove the power of the Chief Commissioner of Police to declare a temporary or permanent firearm reclassification. That is ostensibly, as I understand it, what he is proposing. The system that operates today is that when firearms, for example, come into this country our border forces go through a classification process. Under the existing framework the Chief Commissioner of Police then has additional powers. Where the chief commissioner is made aware of, for example, a change in functionality of particular firearms, the chief commissioner can alter the classification of that particular firearm in addition to the work that is done by Australian Border Force. That is my understanding of what Mr Bourman is proposing here today.

Mr Bourman: Not quite.

Mr GEPP: Not quite, he says. Well, he will correct me when he comes around to it, I am sure.

The current act, the Firearms Act 1996, does enable the chief commissioner, as I say, to reconsider the classification when the chief commissioner gets further information. That is an important element. It is not just the chief commissioner sitting in their office making some random declaration about reclassifying a particular firearm. It is when they are made aware of and provided with information that changes the functionality of the firearm that the chief commissioner may then consider reclassifying that firearm and, through that reclassification process, making that particular firearm unavailable to licensed shooters. And it is critical because we know in the world that we live in today that technological advancement, technological change, happens at such an enormous and rapid pace. It changes all the time. We only have to think about the world we lived in 20 years ago. Contrast that with the world that we live in today, and particularly the firearms industry, where that technological change occurs at such a rapid pace.

So post the classification of a firearm that is brought into this country, after it has been classified by our border force agencies, where a technological change occurs that alters the functionality of a particular firearm it is vitally important that we have the mechanisms in place that allow the chief commissioner to review that information and where necessary then address the classification of that particular firearm. That is the current system that is in operation. I guess the question that I have—and I hope Mr Bourman addresses it in his summation—is: what is the problem that we are trying to address here? What is the problem that he is trying to deal with in terms of his bill? What is the fundamental flaw in the system as it exists today, where the chief commissioner is made aware of functionality changes, through technological advancement or other means, to a particular firearm after it has been classified by border force experts and then the chief commissioner, when made aware of those changes, determines on advice from a panel of experts—and I will come to that very shortly—to change the classification and make that particular firearm unattainable? What is the problem with that system? What is the actual problem that we are trying to deal with? I have gone to Mr Bourman’s second-reading speech, and I could not find the answer to that question. I would hope that he addresses that particular question, because importantly since 2009—that is, during the period that the chief commissioner has had the current reclassification powers—the chief commissioner has used those powers only on 11 occasions.

Mr Bourman: Twelve.

Mr GEPP: Mr Bourman says 12. I accept that it may well be 12—11 or 12. But the point is that it is not a lot. Over a 13-year period it is not a lot of occasions. The most recent reclassification goes to the issue that I hope Mr Bourman addresses in terms of what the problem is that we are trying to address here. The most recent reclassification, as I understand it, was in 2016, so some six years ago. I am not sure that there is this immediate massive problem that has emerged that causes us to deal with this today. Notwithstanding that, my understanding is that some of the firearms that have been reclassified by the Chief Commissioner of Police since those powers were put in place in 2009, so in the last 13 years, include the Alexander Arms R17 and the German Sporting Guns 522. If I have got the title of these firearms incorrect—

Mr Bourman: I’ll correct you.

Mr GEPP: I am sure you will correct me, Mr Bourman. They include the German Sporting Guns StG44, the German Sporting Guns AK-47—I am not familiar with German Sporting Guns, but that terminology, ‘AK-47’, I think is very well known throughout the community—the Walther H&K416 and the Troy defence sporting rifle. They are just some of those firearms that have been reclassified, so not a lot. As I said, the chief commissioner only reclassifies when there has been a change to functionality and it is brought to their attention. There is then a process that is undergone to review that particular classification of that particular firearm, and I am advised that on 11—but Mr Bourman tells me 12—occasions that has resulted in a reclassification over the 13-year period.

What do other states and territories do? Other states and territories allow for firearm reclassification consistent with the National Firearms Agreement, and we would say—the government would say—that the impact of this bill would be to put Victoria out of step with the rest of the nation, with other Australian jurisdictions, by removing the ability for firearm reclassification to occur. Jurisdictions including New South Wales, the ACT, Western Australia and South Australia all allow firearm reclassification to occur. Additionally, under the National Firearms Agreement, firearms for military purposes, or those which substantially duplicate such functions, are prohibited, and references to such language in the act are consistent with the language that exists in the National Firearms Agreement. The removal of the sections proposed by Mr Bourman—that is, 3A and 3B—and amendments to the definition section of the act, as suggested, would be detrimental to the intent, we say, of the National Firearms Agreement and therefore impact, from a broader perspective, community safety.

There are safeguards that exist in the current framework to reduce the impact of temporary and permanent firearm reclassifications on existing firearms licence holders, and the Firearms and Other Acts Amendment Act 2021 inserted a grandfathering provision into the act to provide for existing licence-holders to retain and renew a reclassified firearm on their current licence following any declaration of a temporary or permanent firearms reclassification. That is important. If a licence-holder has a firearm in their possession that is subsequently reclassified at a later date, there are provisions in the act which provide for the retention of that for that licence-holder and for dealing with that temporary or permanent reclassification. Those provisions will come into force on 30 August 2022, so in a matter of days.

Again, it begs that question: what is the problem that we are trying to resolve here other than, I imagine, an argument that will be mounted by those in support of this bill that once the firearms are classified at the national level by border force that classification should stand? But again it ignores the technological change which is so rapid around the world, which can very, very quickly change the functionality of a weapon, of a firearm, and requires a proper framework to exist that allows for the review of that classification to deal with that change in circumstances, and that is what the current act does. I have not heard yet anywhere in this debate any problem that exists within the system, other than some sort of fundamental philosophical view that it should just start and stop at border force at a national level.

The chief commissioner and the government do not just make these things up. Like most things that we do in government, we call on the experts to come in and give us advice. We form committees. For example, we have got the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee. That comprises representatives from the Victorian firearms and shooting industry bodies, academia, criminology and law enforcement and legal, private security, farming and other experts. There are a whole bunch of people who sit on the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee who give advice to the government, and in turn—the chief commissioner is not operating in a vacuum here—that advice is widely distributed. It is that information and that advice that we use to formulate our public policy. We continue to rely on that committee. My understanding is that the committee, certainly in this term of Parliament, has met on a quarterly basis, continues to meet on a quarterly basis and up until very recently was chaired by the member for Frankston in the other place in his capacity as Parliamentary Secretary for Police. The committee regularly meets and provides that advice.

Recently, my understanding is that the committee has agreed to establish a legislation subcommittee to work through any proposals for legislative change, and I am sure this change that is being proposed by Mr Bourman will be one of the many matters that will feature on the agenda at some point of both the committee and the subcommittee—to consider legislative change for the regulator and for Victoria Police. The group will provide ongoing advice to the Minister for Police, the member for Ivanhoe. He is a fantastic local member, Mr Carbines. I have known him for many, many years. I know Mr Leane has known the member for Ivanhoe for as many years as I have, and he is a fantastic member. He does sensational work in his local community, as does the member for Frankston, Mr Edbrooke. I think if there was a competition out of the two of them for who is the hardest working local MP—

Mr Bourman: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Gepp seems to be straying into a bit of a review of some of his colleagues rather than sticking to the actual issue at hand. It is really great that he likes Mr Carbines and Mr Edbrooke, but I do not think it is relevant.

Mr Erdogan: On the point of order, Acting President, I found it very relevant, as Mr Carbines is the minister responsible for part of the regulation of the relevant act. I think a reflection on their contributions is important to understand the whole gamut of the issue before the chamber.

Mr Bourman: Further to the point of order, Acting President, and further to Mr Erdogan’s contribution, if he was talking about their contributions to the actual issue at hand it would be fine, but it was all about local members and what great people they are. I will leave it in your hands.

Mr GEPP: On the point of order, Acting President, I was just trying to make the point that the work ethic that they bring to their local constituencies is mirrored in their work, in Mr Carbines’s case as the minister and in Mr Edbrooke’s case as the parliamentary secretary, and their diligence is brought to the table in relation to the committee that oversees the work of the firearms industry in this state.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I want to thank everyone for their contributions on the point of order. There is no point of order. Mr Gepp is the lead speaker on this bill, and Mr Carbines is the Minister for Police. But having said that—and I accept what you are saying, Mr Gepp—please return to the bill.

Mr GEPP: If I can say, I know Mr Bourman is also a very hardworking member of Parliament—

Mr Leane: On a point of order! No, enough, this is serious business.

Mr GEPP: It is serious business, and I do digress. But I do genuinely make the point that both Minister Carbines and Mr Edbrooke take this work very, very seriously, and they are very diligent in exercising their functions and responsibilities. I know that in terms of both the broader committee, the Firearms Consultative Committee, but also the new legislation subcommittee that has been formed by the committee, they will rely very heavily on those two committees for the continued policy development in this space, particularly given, as I said, the breadth of people and organisations that we have got on those two committees. All are experts in their own right, and all are very experienced in their own right. Their advice and recommendations to Mr Edbrooke, Minister Carbines and broadly the government will be very, very important moving forward.

I will wrap up my contribution in a moment. I do want to just repeat that, after listening to the second-reading contribution of Mr Bourman and reading the bill and looking at what has actually occurred over the last 12 or 13 years, I am not sure what the problem is that we are actually trying to fix here. I think it is a reasonable framework that we have in place: following the classification of firearms by our border force agencies when those firearms are introduced into this country, where changes are made to the functionality they are properly considered by a raft of experts, who then provide advice to people such as the Chief Commissioner of Police. I think it is a very reasonable framework that we have in place to maintain community safety across the board and that it is reasonable that we have the capacity in place to change that classification to meet the changing capability of the firearms that are in our system. That is what it is designed for. It is designed to keep our community members safe. It is not meant to deny people access to all firearms, but it is meant to deny people access to certain firearms where the consideration of experts is that it is not in the community’s interest for them to be out there, even in the hands of licensed firearm holders. With that contribution, the government will not be supporting Mr Bourman’s bill. I do hope he addresses some of those questions in his right of reply, because he did not address them in his second-reading speech—negligently.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:06): I am pleased to rise this morning to make some remarks on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2022. It is a bill that I know has attracted a lot of interest and a lot of support among recreational and sporting shooters in Victoria. In considering this bill I am reminded of an Australian film, The Castle. There is a well-known scene where Dennis Denuto, representing Darryl Kerrigan, appears in the High Court and argues, ‘It’s the vibe’. Not surprisingly, that does not proceed very well. But the reason I raise that is that in many respects the point of principle here, on the issue of appearance laws in the Firearms Act 1996, is really about the vibe.

The reason this is being raised is that it is about an intangible. It is about a part of the Firearms Act which has no structure or guidelines around it. This is not an issue that was addressed by the government’s speaker, but it is a point of principle that there is a provision within the Firearms Act that allows for the reclassification of firearms based only on their appearance—on the vibe, on whether they look nice or do not look nice. This is why there has been such strong interest in this bill and interest in this issue among recreational and sporting shooters in Victoria.

The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia, which I think has around 40 000 members, has supported this bill. Its members have strongly supported this bill. I think there are around 9000 emails that have been sent to Victorian members of Parliament supporting this bill that is seeking to address the issue, the principle, that there is a piece of legislation that allows firearms to be reclassified not based on what they do but based on what they look like. No-one is arguing for removal of the Firearms Act or weakening of provisions within the Firearms Act. What they are arguing for is for policy around the classification of firearms to be based on objective criteria—what they do rather than what they look like. That is why this particular piece of legislation has generated such strong interest among recreational shooters and such strong support, because of the not unreasonable view that legislation and regulatory frameworks should be based on classifying firearms on what they do rather than simply what they look like.

Mr Gepp in his contribution said he is not certain what the problem is: the provision with respect to reclassification has only been used 11 or 12 times over the decade or 15 years it has been in place. But I have to say, having seen the way some things have unfolded in this state over the last two or three years, arguing that it does not matter that there are bad legislative or regulatory provisions on the books because they are not used is not a strong position. We have seen other quite powerful regulatory and legislative provisions that have sat on the books for decades suddenly used in the framework of the pandemic. To say this does not matter because it is not used is not a strong argument. There is certainly a very strong belief that the classification of firearms should be based on rational and objective evidence, not simply on appearance. That is why there has been strong support, and understandable support, within the firearms industry and the sporting and recreational shooting community for this change to the Firearms Act to remove the capacity for firearms to be reclassified simply on the basis of appearance. That is an understandable position from the sector, that they believe any reclassification should be on functionality, not only on appearance.

Having said that, one of the challenges with this bill is that it does not simply remove the provision with respect to appearance. If enacted, it would remove the complete section with respect to the reclassification of firearms, including provisions with respect to reclassifying firearms based on their design and based on their function as well as based on their appearance. Rather than simply removing the appearance element of the capacity to reclassify a firearm, the bill seeks to remove the whole capacity to reclassify a firearm, including on those elements that Mr Gepp referred to, being design and functionality. That is where this bill runs into trouble, because the principle of not reclassifying only on appearance is an obvious one, is a logical one, is one where there is strong support among the firearms community, understandably, but the bill is actually much broader than that in seeking to remove all capacity to reclassify, including on design and on function. That is in respect of a permanent reclassification, a permanent declaration, under the act.

Likewise, the bill seeks to removes section 3A of the Firearms Act, which is in respect of a temporary declaration. Although that section of the act is worded differently to the permanent reclassification, and it is not entirely clear why that is the case—it works quite differently to the permanent reclassification—it also allows reclassification on functionality grounds, not just appearance grounds. In removing the temporary reclassification provisions—section 3A—the whole suite of those reclassification mechanisms would be removed, not simply those in respect of appearance.

We understand the intent of this legislation and we understand why it is supported. Appearance should not be the basis on which something is classified. Mr Gepp spoke about the need for a regulatory framework for firearms which keeps the community safe while also allowing legitimate recreational sporting and professional shooting activity. Appearance is not a part of that. Functionality certainly is, but appearance is not.

I might point out Mr Gepp also referred to the risk that a change like this would put Victoria out of step with the national framework and out of step with the National Firearms Agreement. In response to that I would simply make the point that the Victorian Firearms Act has been amended numerous times, creating changes from the National Firearms Agreement, so that is also not a valid argument as to why a change to address appearance laws should not be made. Other jurisdictions do not have appearance as the basis for reclassification, and that is not therefore an impediment to it being addressed in Victoria.

But, as I said, this bill actually goes far broader than simply addressing appearance. It goes into the full range of criteria by which firearms can be reclassified on either a temporary basis or a permanent basis, and for that reason we have reservations in supporting the bill as it is drafted, while fully appreciating and recognising the legitimate concerns of the shooting community that firearms should not simply be reclassified based on what they look like.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (11:15): I will be brief. The Liberal Democrats will be supporting this bill. The entire shambles of the so-called National Firearms Agreement, the mishmash of differing rules between states, was designed to pursue political goals. Firearms laws in Victoria, indeed in Australia, are not designed upon a rational consideration of risk and trust. They are not designed to sensibly keep people safe. No; instead they function to make firearm ownership so complicated, frustrating and burdensome that many people do not bother. This is not an accident. It is a deliberate policy decision to make things as difficult for law-abiding firearm owners, LAFOs, as possible. I believe that our firearms laws should make sense. They should be designed to prevent criminals from accessing firearms and to protect people from real risks. There are many areas of our firearms laws that need reform. Minimum attendance requirements for pistol shooters should go. Noise suppressors should be widely available. Toys should not be classified as firearms and require licences. Airsoft, gel blasters and paintball should all be freely available. The administration of firearm licences and registration should be removed from Victoria Police and given to a government department instead.

This bill addresses the nonsense that we call appearance laws. Appearance laws classify firearms not on calibre or capability but on looks. Firearms which under the objective criteria would be cat A or cat B are instead classified to a higher, harder-to-obtain category based on nothing more than the whim of the Chief Commissioner of Police. These misclassifications do not make anyone safer. They do not protect Victorians. They just serve to frustrate LAFOs. I will be very happy to take away this discretion from the chief commissioner, and we can lead the way for change in other states. There is a lot of nonsense, a lot of stupidity, around firearms laws. There is a lot of fear, a lot of people who want to ban them altogether, which needs to be pushed back on.

Victorian firearm owners are measurably the most law-abiding category of citizens in the state. We need to be, because at the slightest hint of an infraction we will have our licences suspended and our firearms confiscated. And, as we have been learning, once the police get hold of firearms or ammunition in Victoria, they often never come back. They get damaged or accidentally sent for destruction; they get lost. If this bill today was to pass, one little annoyance for LAFOs would be removed: we would be allowed to own firearms that we like the look of based on their capabilities. It would be a small way for the members of this place to indicate that they respect firearms owners, that they do not think we are all criminals. The Liberal Democrats support law-abiding firearm owners in Victoria and Australia. We will always stand with them and push for sensible changes to firearms laws, making things a little bit simpler and a little bit more sensible.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (11:19): I rise to speak on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2022. From the outset I wish to thank all the contributors so far in the debate. There have been quite intelligent and eloquent presentations before the chamber today. Mr Gepp in particular lit up the room, but even Mr Quilty; it is important to hear different sides of the argument. That is what a good debate should be. It has all been very respectful, and respect is important, because firearms in Australia are quite regulated. Most Australians are quite proud of the level of regulation that exists in terms of ensuring that we have an industry that can operate safely. Obviously it is not something that I do recreationally, but many people enjoy it. As our Premier said, some people enjoy playing golf; some people like going hunting or shooting. That is their prerogative, and we need to allow those freedoms.

I know growing up my interest in shooting and more broadly in the sport and in guns was probably through the 1996 Olympics. I remember when Michael Diamond won a gold at the Atlanta Olympics in a shooting event, and I thought, ‘Oh, shooting’s an Olympics sport’. Obviously it was a gold for our nation, and like all Australians I was very proud of another gold medal for our country. We performed quite well at those Olympics, and in the sport of shooting even today, whether it be double trap or the different events, Australia performs quite well and has a strong team in shooting categories at Olympic and international sporting events. Even at last year’s Tokyo Olympics we saw our shooters were amongst the best in the world and fine ambassadors for our nation.

We must understand that the shooting industry, gun owners and licence-holders are mostly very compliant. They stay within the laws. In Australia, like I said, since the national agreement on firearms in our nation in the 1990s, we have had relatively uniform laws—not exactly uniform, but relatively uniform laws. There has been poll after poll done on Australian public opinion about our relatively restrictive gun ownership laws—which Mr Quilty is very unhappy about, I note, and he made that clear, but I am one of those people who is quite happy with the current balance of the laws—and most Australians, an overwhelming 80 to 90 per cent, believe that either the current balance is right or we need actually more laws and they need to be more restrictive. So, overwhelmingly Australians support our gun ownership laws.

I do understand that the angle that this bill before the house is coming from is quite different to some of the others. I have been reading the bill. There are two parts to it, and in effect part 2 has amendments to the Firearms Act 1996. In part 1:

The main purpose of this Act is to amend the Firearms Act 1996 in relation to the Chief Commissioner’s powers to categorise certain firearms, and to make related amendments to that Act.

The commencement is to be the day after its royal assent, and it is quite technical, if you read the amendments, in terms of removing sections and adding sections. In particular the category D long arm definition is repealed, the category E handgun definition is repealed and the category E long arm definition would also be repealed in section 3 of the Firearms Act 1996; sections 3A and 3B would be repealed; and new section 223 would be inserted. So the actual amendments themselves are not expansive, but they will make a difference to the legal framework.

Why do we have such a regulated firearms industry? Well, it is about keeping the community safe. It is about making sure unlicensed individuals and criminals are prevented and protecting the image and reputation of all firearm users. The current provisions in the Firearms Act enable the Chief Commissioner of Police to reconsider the classification of firearms. This is critical to responding to advancements in firearm technology and ensuring community safety. The current 3A and 3B reclassification powers enable the Chief Commissioner of Police to act against firearms of concern. They ensure that these firearms that have been incorrectly classified initially can be reclassified as a higher classification.

Mr Bourman’s bill proposes the government revoke all existing declarations which have been made up to the point at which the amendments in the bill come into force. I think Mr Rich-Phillips touched upon this when he tried to state that this was only about the appearance of the firearms or raised what he views as inconsistencies. I understand that, and I know that some of the—did I get that correct, Mr Rich-Phillips?

Mr Rich-Phillips: No, you didn’t.

Mr ERDOGAN: I will move back to the bill before the house. I see that my colleagues in the chamber are eager to contribute. Dr Catherine Cumming has expressed a desire to speak on the bill before the house. Ms Terpstra has expressed an intention to add to the debate on the bill before the house. These are all very important.

But it is important to understand that other state and territories also allow firearm reclassifications to be made consistent with the National Firearms Agreement. Therefore we believe—and I say—that these reforms will actually make sure that Victoria is out of step with other jurisdictions, not bring us in line, as some of the advocates for these reforms have made out. I have received emails from some advocating for Mr Bourman’s changes, and I have heard from the other side of the argument too. It is interesting, because all sides of the argument are claiming that this will bring it either into step or out of step with the national framework. So it is tough, I guess, on these matters.

Furthermore, under the National Firearms Agreement firearms for military purposes or those which substantially duplicate such functions are prohibited. Reference to such language in the act is consistent with the language in the National Firearms Agreement. Removal of sections 3A and 3B and amendments to the ‘Definitions’ section of the act, as suggested in the private members bill, we believe will be detrimental to the intent of the NFA from a community safety perspective. That is the crux of the issue from my perspective. The repeal of those sections would have a detrimental effect on community safety.

I am interested in what Mr Bourman has to say on that matter. What is his justification for the need for this bill right now? I would like to hear from Mr Bourman and hear his explanation of those grounds. On that note, as I have stated, there are a number of speakers that want to contribute, and I will conclude my contribution now. I will not be supporting the bill.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:27): I rise today to speak on the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers’ bill, Mr Bourman’s licence legislation—the National Firearms Agreement. For me, I will be supporting this bill today because our firearms laws are not sensible. They are not about the calibre of the weapon, they are about the actual look of the weapon. There are many, many, many law-abiding firearm owners here in Victoria, and we need to protect that. I have over the last four years spoken a couple of times about firearms and the problems here in Victoria around the laws that we currently have. My brother has a paintball business. My brother was an Olympic wrestler. He went to America and he wrestled in college wrestling. He saw paintball and he brought it here to Australia. He thought it was a great idea. Then Port Arthur occurred. Then to play the game of paintball here in Victoria you actually needed to have a firearms licence, a shooters licence. It was really difficult many years back when that occurred. It is a bit like the taxi industry, when you make a law without actually thinking about the ramifications of the very small businesses that are there.

Mr Erdogan: Hear, hear!

Dr CUMMING: Hear, hear! Currently there are laws around when you play paintball and who has to have a firearms licence—and there is not really much discretion around what other places around the world would consider looks like a gun or appears to be a gun, like gel blasters or paintball guns—and if you actually have to carry your firearms licence. Toys like airsoft and gel blasters and paintball guns should, in my mind, be freely available. Yes, they have risks in that you need to wear goggles to protect your eyes and they should not be used in urban areas. But there are ways of facilitating games using toys that look like guns without having these kinds of laws in place, which make it very difficult for people who like to use toy guns. I am going to leave my contribution there. But to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers, I do support this bill today.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan)

Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September 2021:

I rise to speak in support of Mr Bourman’s bill to amend the Firearms Act.

I want to acknowledge hundreds of my constituents who wrote to me about this matter, all in favour of a change. There are a lot of licensed firearm owners in my electorate, and it is crucial that they have a say about legislation that affects them. It is equally essential that legislation that affects them is fair and doesn’t unnecessarily make things difficult for them.

From what I can see, the change being proposed by Mr Bourman is a modest one and would not diminish public safety, weaken our gun laws or do any of the other tropes that get trotted out to silence debate anytime someone tries to have a public conversation about the legislation in this space. It is important to note that ‘appearance laws’ are not a part of the National Firearms Agreement and do not apply to every state of Australia.

These changes would remove a very subjective power granted under the act. Less subjectivity in matters like these is a good thing; people should be able to know where they stand easily. We worked on that late last year with the Firearms and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2021 when the rules about safe storage were changed from a very subjective standard to an objective one. The shooting community supported those changes, too, because it’s pretty clear they want to comply with the law and the best way they can do that is if the law is clear and makes sense.

This bill seeks to remove the power of the Chief Commissioner of Police to recategorise firearms based on a subjective appraisal of how they look—not how they work, not what they do but how they look.

Currently, the chief commissioner can effectively ban a firearm if it looks like it could be used in the military. It seems evident to me that many firearms could look like military firearms. Surely many attributes that make guns suitable for military use would also have applications in target shooting or pest control.

Items as varied as packaged salad mixers, EpiPens, bug spray, disposable sanitary pads, tissues, microwave ovens, computers, the internet, GPS navigation and the only two tools that anyone truly needs—duct tape and WD40—all came into civilian use after being developed for the military. Something looking like it could be used in the military is a feeble reason for banning it.

I am also advised that there is no policy document, no straightforward process and no requirement for consultation or public oversight if the chief commissioner uses these powers. How can the regulated have confidence in their regulators when the rules are so opaque and subjective?

I know all too well about failures in regulation and about governments and regulators judging things on how they look rather than on what they are. After all, what looks like a cool, shiny black app is, in reality, just a San Francisco Taxi Company. But enough about people who don’t want to follow the law and back to the people who do. Removing these ‘appearance laws’ would give licensed firearm owners a level of confidence that legislation governing them is fair and consistent and based on facts, not feelings. That really shouldn’t be too much for any law-abiding group in society to ask for.

Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:31): I have got some fertile ground, and I might use up all my time trying to go through all this. I am going to start with the ‘Why now?’. The answer is why not. I get two opportunities a year to bring things to the house, and this is my last opportunity in this Parliament, so now is as good a time as any. Is this an urgent thing? No, but it is a bad thing.

There are a couple of things I want to go through. The National Firearms Agreement is a non-binding agreement, so to all these people that seem to think that we need to stick by that, every state does it differently. I just do not get this thing where everyone seems to think we must stick by it unless we do not want to.

There was another supposition that this is about functionality. It does not work that way. When a legal firearm comes into this country it goes from wherever it is manufactured to Australian Border Force, to the dealer, to the end user. Should it get changed after coming through border force, that is illegal, a crime is committed. It does not get reclassified because of that; it gets seized and the person is charged. To say that this captures changes in functionality is just wrong. Anyone who changes the functionality of their firearm to the point where it changes into another category has just committed a crime, unless they are a dealer and are doing it with the appropriate permits. That is like saying I am going to Bunnings and I need to suddenly reclassify all the plumbing gear as firearms because it could be re-used as home-made shotguns, as we have seen overseas a number of times. It either works one way or it works another way; what it looks like is completely irrelevant.

Mr Erdogan brought up something about ‘incorrectly classified’. That is another furphy, because border force do the initial classification. After border force are done with it and it is sent to the state, in a manner of speaking, then the state only reclassifies it if they think it looks wrong. That is the bottom line, and not all states do it the same. The National Firearms Agreement being a national agreement is not really proof of anything. If every state did it the same, there may be some validity in that, but the Ruger precision rifle—I can have it in this state, I cannot have it in New South Wales. I do not think I can have it in WA either but I can in other states, and it has a folding stock as well. The point is that there is nothing national about the agreement except for some higher level stuff really.

Another thing we heard is that it will put us out of step with the rest of the country. I seem to remember a lot of times in this place when we seem to be pretty big on doing firsts. We want to lead the way in—pick some reform. I see that as another load of codswallop because basically if we want to do it on some things, then we can do it on other things. Maybe it is not as funky as all the other stuff we are doing, and in fact I think Mr Gepp mentioned something, in between his felicitations for all his colleagues, about ‘Why are we doing this?’. Well, yesterday we passed a bill that we hope not to ever use. Not all bills are passed with an urgent need. Not all bills are passed with a ‘we must do this right now because’. Some bills are just done because it is the right thing, and that is the way I see this.

If I were to basically sum up the problem with sections 3 and 3A of the Firearms Act 1996 right now, I would say it is just rubbish. It is opinion-based policy, not evidence-based policy. It is certainly an evidence-free zone, because—whether it is a committee, whether it is the Chief Commissioner of Police or their delegate—it is up to the opinion of someone. Like many things in life, a firearm functions one way or it functions another way, and that is basically it. You can do what you want. You can turn a block of aluminium into a firearm if you want. You can 3D print them, so are we going to ban all 3D printers? No. So to say it can go from one to another is just a furphy.

Also I have had it said to me that the public would feel fear should they see one of these firearms. I cannot remember what it was, but with two of the firearms Mr Gepp mentioned—one was an StG44 copy and another was an AK-47 copy—it would not matter whether it was a toy, it would not matter whether it was one of those .22 rim-fire copies, it would not matter whether it was a real one; the police response would be the same, and it should be. Also it is very, very, very naughty to have the public see your real firearm, whether it is a nice blued wooden one or something that looks like a machine gun. Again, the police response would be exactly the same. Basically we could drop that function. I am pretty sure licensing and regulation have got better things to do with their time, because I would suggest that with everything that is new that gets imported into the country they have to classify or recheck it after it has come through border force.

I do accept—and I think I made a bit of an error in my second-reading speech—that since the new National Firearms Agreement there is a mention of classification due to appearance. But that is the problem: it is appearance. My understanding is that South Australia did a rejig of their firearms legislation in 2016 and did not include provisions for appearance-based classifications. In fact the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia in 2016 conducted a review of their firearms act, and recommendation 83 was to remove appearance provisions because they really do nothing.

Queensland police have a very different way of dealing with it. They actually seem to go through quite a practice, and this is a copy and paste from one of their websites:

We don’t ‘reclassify’ firearms, unless it has been identified that it was incorrectly recorded in the first place.

An error I could understand, but my faith is more with border force as they have got a lot more money than the state police departments. Also if the Queensland government wants to do it, it requires a regulatory amendment, which is at least something that can be challenged. I am not aware of anyone challenging, or at least successfully challenging, any of the reclassifications that have been going on in this state.

Basically these laws are ineffective at being effective gun laws. They do nothing at all to help public safety. I would be willing to rethink this if someone could prove to me how a law-abiding firearms owner having a gun that looks like another gun but functioning as a normal bolt-action rifle is actually a public safety risk. I would be happy if someone could explain to me why this provision exists. I think the original part was a rifle back in 2008 or 2009 or thereabouts that for some reason just seems to offend someone, and that was the H&K R8, and then it just snowballed. Eleven or 12 are not big numbers. But not one of them was changed due to their functionality, because the functionality remains the same. The functionality, from the second that they were made in a factory somewhere in the world to the second they turned up at border force, is the same, and assuming they made it through to a dealer in Victoria, for instance, the functionality is the same. It was just the appearance. Therefore it was just someone’s objective opinion that the firearm in question was more dangerous because of how it looked, not how it functioned, and I have got to say I think that is a very bad precedent for any legislation. I do believe I need to wind it up, as I am running out of time in my hour and a half. I commend this bill to the house.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.