Response to Department of Justice on Victorian Regulatory Impact Statement
April 1997
Mr. Howard Burrowes,
Assistant Director,
Police and Strategic Development Division,
Firearms Policy Branch,
Department of Justice,
G.P.O. Box 4356QQ,
MELBOURNE, VIC. 3001
Dear Mr. Burrowes,
Re: REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT - FIREARMS REGULATIONS 1997
As an Association with in excess of 17,000 members in Victoria we are, as you are aware, very concerned with the new Laws/Regulations and thank you for the opportunity to comment.
The Executive Summary contains a statement that the national agreement called for "nationally uniform approaches to firearms licensing and firearms registration". The intent is commendable and would have our support if, in fact, we could see this happening and a benefit being derived there from. To the contrary we see States almost competing for the distinction of having the most restrictive firearms laws in the nation and barriers being put up with regard to reciprocal rights - which we understand was not the intention of ‘national laws’, in fact the reverse was to apply.
In many discussions with the Prime Minister and at press conferences which the Prime Minister has stated "the intent was not to penalise the law abiding legitimate firearms owners and user".
The effect of the Firearms act and proposed regulations hardly reflects this intent and does, in the minds of many firearms owners, act very much in the reverse. We are a responsible Association that welcomed the opportunity to be involved in consultation but the outcome appears to have paid little heed to the concerns/issues raised by the owners and users through this Association thereby making a mockery of the Prime Ministers statement.
Also we are asked for comment on proposed Regulations that have yet to address major issues such as licensing procedures and an appeal process when already members of this Association are having problems with licence renewals when nothing is in place?. Surely commonsense dictates that the existing system should be retained until the new system has gone through the process and is ready to be implemented?
Looking at the proposed Regulations we comment:
1. Primary Producers licences for category C longarms
The need to ensure that Police are notified about such activities for co-operative pest destruction is onerous and will lead to non-compliance. Foxes or wild dogs do not give notice of attacking sheep and appropriate/immediate action is called for by the Primary Producer who may require assistance with the problem from a neighbour and cannot give the appropriate written notice to the police within the time required (or for that matter even verbal notice in some areas). Surely if a category C licence is issued to a Primary Producer it is under certain terms and conditions (as is any licence issued) and the Primary Producer must comply with those conditions or lose his/her licence. Accordingly the licence is issued conditional upon using that firearm for a specific purpose on his/her own property or co-operatively within the Shire boundaries for pest suppression.
2. Licensed Firearms dealers - record of information
a) Details to be recorded appear onerous. The intent appears to be that dealers will be forced to comply with extra unnecessary paperwork when much of the information will be on the Permit to Acquire. This does not seem to be in the spirit of the intent of the new laws.
b) There appears to be constant reference to magazine capacity which is curious when a number of magazines may be available for the one firearm (eg 5,10 or 15 shot) or the capacity of a tubular magazine can vary dependent upon the type of cartridge being used.
c) What is the Reference Number?. This item is unknown to dealers.
3. Fees
a) The proposal differentiates between Categories - why?
b) The increase in fees is seen as extravagant at 80% for Category A and 100% for Category B. This is further exasperated if you add a Handgun licence and Collectors licence to the equation.
Many firearms owners that have Category B requirements also have handguns and/or collections. This proposed fee structure is seen as a specific disincentive in the financial sense to firearm owners who have put years into a legal and respectable recreational activity of using and collecting firearms - many of which are of great historical value.
c) The new act was to be part of a NATIONAL uniform licensing and registration system but we see absolutely no uniformity between the States. Victoria and South Australia appear to have the highest fee structure whilst NT and Queensland the lowest with the other States somewhere in between? The cost relating to establishment and maintenance of the National system would, you would think, be the same from State to State so why would the fees not be the same?
The question has also arisen as to why Vic Roads can keep track of a drivers licence for $13.30 a year, including demerit points and convictions, and we are being charged a minimum of $27.00 a year?.
d) Junior licences are proposed to run for up to 3 years.
Minimum age for a Junior permit is 12 years old. Assuming the junior passed all the licence pre-requisites would it not be cost effective to issue the Junior licence for a term to expire at 18 years of age when a full licence is required. This would give a maximum term of 6 years and reduce administration costs involved for renewal with the same income of $10 per annum (eg 4 year Junior permit would cost $40 and a 6 year permit $60).
e) Permit for silencers or prescribed items.
Under what conditions are silencers permitted and what are prescribed items?
f) Firearms collectors and ammunition collectors licence fee.
An annual fee is considered unreasonable for these persons. Many are preserving history, provide a community service and participative role in such things as Anzac Day displays and other Historical and Heritage re-enactments/displays and will probably also incur some form of Category licence as well. We acknowledge that registration of these collectors is considered part of the overall system and Firearm collectors will, in many instances, require a permit to acquire and then registration of the firearm but why an annual fee?. If they desire to display their collection they have to pay another fee - where does it end? Surely a one off registration fee is appropriate for the relatively small number of collectors involved.
g) Pensioner concessions.
There does not appear to be any concession for pensioners. We have many pensioners that participate and we recommend that consideration be given to Pensioner Concession in line with the current act (and in every other walk of life).
4. Costs
A once-off system development cost of approx. $5.7 million will be met by the Government and that is fine.
On page 5 of the RIS you mention that there are currently approx. 300,000 licensed firearm users, 4,100 licensed firearm collectors and 350 licensed dealers in Victoria. On page 17 you then mention that the estimated total recurrent cost of the new Victorian firearms regulatory system is expected to be $7.7 million annually.
With many of these firearm users being multiple users they will be paying more than one licence fee.
However, if we applied only the Category A fee of $27 per annum to the 300,000 licensed firearm users in the State the revenue would be $8.1 million. Therefore, we ask why the additional fees and what will the additional revenue be used for?
Commercially the user pays system is acceptable but the fees need to be seen as fair and reasonable and collected to cover costs - this does not appear to be the case on the information/figures provided.
5. Firearms under Collectors Licence
There does not appear to be any procedure in the proposed Regulations for Firearms held under a Collectors licence to subsequently be transferred to Category A or B or a Handgun licence as is set out in the current Regulations.
6. Acquisition of Firearms
‘Permit to Acquire’ will be required in all instances except where the person is simply borrowing the firearm. There are two issues that arise here the first of which has been discussed at previous meetings with the Police Minister:
a) why the 28 day cooling off period to an existing firearm owner? We concede that the first purchase may require some additional ‘investigation’ (although we still maintain this should have all been carried out at licence time) but what is the objective of the cooling off period thereafter? If the licence holder already owns one firearm and all the appropriate checks have been done on the person why double up on the administration by having two contacts when one would suffice - particularly if the applicant is a member of a recognised Club?. If there was anything untoward or, for instance, Registry or the D.F.O. felt there was a need to talk to the licence holder this could be recorded on the Computer or a direct call/letter could be initiated.
b) The interim system of ‘Permit to Acquire’ being issued by the Dealer appears to be operating successfully. Could this not be continued on the basis of subsequent firearm purchases ie. after the first purchase and particularly to members of recognised Clubs.
7. Ammunition (Sales)
The new Laws/Regulations will preclude us as an Association from selling ammunition direct to members unless we take out a Dealers licence - another cost to members.
The purpose of the Association selling ammunition is to cater for members needs but also for Juniors and Clubs such as the Scout Association and a number of Cadet groups that attend our Ranges.
The provision of this service is not one of profit but one of convenience for members, junior and other visitors to our Ranges.
Ammunition is properly controlled and appropriately secured overnight etc. and licence production is sought in the required manner before any sales are undertaken.
We seek consideration to continue this service without the need to take out a Dealers licence.
8. Prescribed bodies representing shooting organisations
We are concerned that Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Vic) (SSAA) is not included as one of the prescribed bodies along with Shooting Sports Council of Victoria Inc. (SSPV) and Victorian Amateur Pistol Association Inc. (VAPA). VAPA is a member of SSPV so would automatically have representation through SSPV but neither the SSAA(Vic) nor the Australian Deer Association (ADA) is a member of the SSPV and therefore has no representation despite having a combined membership of some 18,000 licensed shooters which is at least equal to the number of collective members of the SSPC and VAPA.
We would suggest a more equitable arrangement would be deletion of VAPA (who would remain involved through SSPV) and inclusion of SSAA(Vic) and we would incorporate the ADA in our representative process for nomination on the Firearms Appeals Committee.
Yours faithfully,
R.A. (Bob) Cooper
Director (Policy)
Home > Research archive > 1997 > Response to Department of Justice on Victorian Regulatory Impact Statement