Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

It’s great to see you up there, and congratulations on your appointment, Mr Chair.

My question is to the Minister on Part 2, clause 18, amended section 3(1), where we’re amending the interpretation of “arms”. I’m referring here to a submission that the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners (COLFO) placed. Actually, if we’re going to refer to their submission, it’s paragraphs 15 to 18 within the COLFO submission. They talked about inconsistencies in the use of words in the interpretation, and it appears that it is quite untidy. This legislation now introduces—and I quote—“firearms or related part” to the terminology in the Arms Act 1993. Some of the terms listed under this new definition are already listed and some are slightly differently defined.

This new part isn’t operating in isolation; it’s actually operating in conjunction with the licensing and offence regimes. An example that the council gave was where a licensed firearm owner may have a firearms protection order in their home—so father and son—as long as the firearms or related parts are secured.

It seems important that when we have two different types of definitions that we need to explain what “related items” are to licensed firearm owners so that the people that can be caught up in this actually have an understanding of what it is, because some of those items are quite benign, like a sling, for example, and it’s not of any danger, but it can get people into a lot of trouble.

The definition actually needs to be consistent with the rest of the Arms Act. I just wonder, Minister, whether or not there will be education placed out there for licensed firearm owners to have an understanding of what the new term of “related part” actually means. Could you confirm if that’s going to happen, please.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I certainly can confirm that there will be clear communications and education available, including for those who are the subject of a firearms prohibition order (FPO) as well, because we want them, ultimately, to comply with the FPO.

The issue that the member raises, I think, is not an unreasonable one, in the sense that the Arms Act is now quite an old piece of legislation relative to other statutes, and it has been heavily amended over its nearly 40 years of existence.

I think, from time to time, legislation does reach the point in this House where there’s a need to have a policy-neutral redraft just to actually make sure that the Act is updated, and I suspect the Arms Act is reaching that point. The challenge with something like the Arms Act, though—having done this in a number of other legislative areas—is it’s almost impossible to do that without it throwing up a few policy questions along the way as well.

So I can’t necessarily commit that we’ll be doing that in the short term, but I do think the Arms Act, when the time comes around for the regular revision bills process—which is where they look at bills like the Arms Act that have been around for a long time and amended quite heavily—if that was a candidate for a rewrite, I would certainly support that.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 212 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Mark Mitchell’s amendment inserting new clause 18A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 be agreed to.

The question is that Part 2 as amended stand part.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2