6 May 1996
Mr Speaker, the purpose in my speaking tonight is to briefly outline decisions that have been taken by the Government in relation to a proposal to be put to the Police Minister's meeting in Canberra next Friday to significantly strengthen laws relating to gun control in Australia.
Everyone is aware of the circumstances which have finally brought to a head a drive in the community for strong and effective gun control laws. As I've said in other places and on other occasions in this Parliament it would be wrong to simply see a response to what happened in Tasmania last weekend as being found in tougher gun control laws. The causes of that dreadful event lie deeper than simply the inadequacy of our gun control laws, They go to aspects of the kind of society that we are. They go to issues concerning violence on the screen and in videos. They also, in the view of many of my colleagues on this side of the House -and they are views that I share raise legitimate questions about contemporary attitudes towards the treatment of mental health problems and I want to make it clear to the House that whilst I don't want to form any summary judgments, if we are as a community to seriously examine the causes and provide a range of responses then we have to go beyond issues of gun control legislation. We have to go to an examination of some of those other matters, and I can assure the House that in a sensible measured way the Government will be doing precisely that.
As to the question of gun control laws, the Government is strongly of the view that we need effective uniform legislation. We need to achieve a total prohibition on the ownership, possession, sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons and that will be the essence of the proposal that will be put by the Commonwealth Government at the meeting on Friday. That we need an effective registration system, and we will be pushing very strongly for that. This decision, if it is supported by all of the States will inevitably cause inconvenience and present some difficulties for tens of thousands of law abiding people throughout this country and I think particularly of Australia's rural community a community that, more than any others, always matches the national need and rises to the occasion in times of national diffculty.
I want to say to those many tens of thousands of people who away not find the Government's position a palatable one, that it has only been done because of an over-whelming view on the part of the Government that there is a broader national interest in having in having a very extensive prohibition.
People will argue that you can draw the line between one particular style of weapon and another. I don't parade expertise in this area but I hope I have some understanding on the depth of community feeling on this issue and a desire, as I find it amongst my fellow Australians to grab this very tragic moment to bring about a profound cultural shift in the attitude of this community towards the possession and the use of destructive weapons, and perhaps if we do that as a community, we can avoid some of the trauma experienced almost as a daily fact of life in the United States. I would hate to contemplate the future of this country if we went willy nilly down the American path when it came to gun violence. I think we do have an opportunity at this moment to do something to turn that around. It will involve difficulty. Part of the Government's proposal is to have a six month amnesty period during which people will be invited to surrender their guns and a form of compensation, proper compensation will be paid.
That will involve a cost and ultimately that cost will have to, as it properly should be, borne by the entire community and not just by the people who are being encouraged to surrender their weapons. The Attorney General as the responsible Minister wviill be releasing in the course of the next day or so, and I will ensure that the Leader of the Opposition gets a copy of the document as soon as it's been finally settled, and I want to take this opportunity of thanking the Leader of the Opposition for the very constructive and positive way in which he has responded and I mean, I make no judgements about the future, he as the leader of the alternative government has his political rights as I had my political rights as a former leader of the alternative government but I do think this, above most issues that I have encountered in my years in politics has demanded as best we can in this place a bi-partisan response and the decisions that the Government has taken will not be universally popular. I accept that and there will be people who will argue they represent unacceptable infringements of individual rights.
It is not an issue that is new. It has been around for quite some years and those who might argue that in some way what the Government is doing is a knee jerk reaction have forgotten the extensive public debate that occurred after the Hoddle Street massacre, after the Strathfield massacre, those who argue that, and who will be told over the days and weeks ahead that what you need is further discussion and further debate and further deliberation, I ask them to see that for what it is, and inevitably, a code for doing nothing in the hope that the immediate anger in the aftermath of last weekend will in time subside and nothing will change.
In a sense, it's always a sombre moment in a country where you ask the people who have done the right thing to put up with inconvenience because a limited number of people have done the wrong thing, but that is the nature of a democratic society. As somebody who is a fervent opponent of regulation, I always feel uncomfortable in responding to a problem with new laws and I think this is an occasion where if we didn't, we wouldn't be matching the national concern, we wouldn't be matching the national need and I should say to the House that I have had the opportunity over the weekend of having some very positive and helpful discussions with leaders of some of the farming bodies and their attitude, and it doesn't surprise me because as I said a moment ago, they usually respond in a very positive fashion to national issues. Their reaction has been one of understanding the dilemma the Government faces.
But what in essence is involved in our proposal is a total prohibition on automatics and semi automatic weapons, a strengthening of the import regime is the seeking of an effective system of national registration, a tightening of the criteria under which people can be given licenses which I think picks up a point that was made by the Opposition, and the commitment of funds for an education campaign, a six month amnnesty period and after that a descending order of penalties including potentially a mandatory jail sentence for the possession of the more high powered, destructive weapons, including those that were used in the Port Arthur massacre and have been used on other occasions.
Mr Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to make this statement because it does involve an infringement of individual liberty by the states which is never something I like but there is a broader national and human interest involved and I hope it is an approach that will win the support of all Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate and I hope that the state governments, that they will all be represented at the meeting on Friday and I hope that they will find themselves able to respond because this is not an issue where I have sought some kind of aggregation of power to the Commonwealth. If it can be achieved through co-operation by the states, that is infinitely to be preferred and that is what T will seek, but it does involve an acceptance by the whole community, and ultimately if it becomes necessary because of the cost involved in compensation, the Government will be seeking a contribution from all members of the community because all members of the community will benefit to cover the cost of that compensation.
I commend the statement to the House.