SA Premier’s Ministerial statement on gun laws
by Hon John Olsen
Premier of South Australia
24 March 1998
Mr Speaker:
Gun control is as emotive as it is important.
The loss and suffering from Port Arthur is not something any of us can forget - and nor should we.
The events of Port Arthur signalled that enough was enough in relation to guns.
So while they can never forget those images, every South Australian should feel secure in the knowledge that this Government has a solid, a never-wavering commitment to gun control.
My Government is determined to continue to do everything possible to strictly confine gun use and gun type to those who have a legitimate requirement to own and to use specific firearms.
We want to guard against ever again seeing the widespread availability of semi-automatic weapons - a situation, on which there can be no argument, did lead to the tragedy of Port Arthur.
But, there are issues that must be resolved if gun control within Australia is to be uniform.
The Prime Minister's media statements last Friday on the subject of uniform legislation were not accurate.
The local, and some of the national media's statements also continue to be inaccurate, and misleading, despite the information given to them by Governments.
It is this confusion which I want to deal with today.
I want to deal with it because it is causing deep concern in the community where there should be none.
Today Australia does not have uniform gun laws.
I repeat - Australia does not have uniform gun laws.
Whatever the people of Australia have been led to believe, whatever members of this parliament may believe, Australia has never had completely uniform gun laws.
Uniform gun laws were indeed the desire of the Prime Minister after the Port Arthur tragedy.
But he and his Government, despite their continuing public comments to the contrary - are very well aware that it never happened.
It should have. No argument.
But it didn't.
What happened is that different States and Territories went away and constructed their own legislation in ways that translated the Prime Minister's demands into a form most acceptable within their own communities.
That has led to schemes which are no longer uniform, and raises issues which now must be resolved.
And they must be resolved because of the ease of crossing State and Territory borders - to avoid onerous laws - this is one area where to have anything less than uniform laws is a mockery.
As long as that is the way gun laws remain in Australia, there is the very real risk that gun laws will over time be watered down surreptitiously.
I do not want to see any watering down of gun laws.
For whatever reason, in the past few weeks the Prime Minister has in his public statements not acknowledged the reality of our present situation.
As has most of the media apart from The Australian and the Melbourne Age, both of which have produced intelligent analysis of the differing gun laws across the nation.
If we are to have uniform gun laws, as I strongly believe we should, then it must be decided which jurisdiction's legislation is the most effective and workable.
In saying that, it should be remembered that there has been NO criticism to date of the laws in Queensland, WA and the Northern Territory.
Yet there was criticism of Victoria when it decided to introduce changes to bring it into line with those other administrations.
There has also been criticism of Minister Evans' comments in South Australia.
That is grossly unfair.
How can we say one is watering down gun laws when the other laws are not criticised?
We can't.
It's illogical.
Either we move to their position, they move to ours or we all find an appropriate balance.
That must happen for uniform gun laws to happen.
That is why, while I am adamant there will be no watering down of the substantive provisions in our gun law, I cannot say that there will be no changes of an administrative nature so long as the high level of community protection in South Australia that presently exists is maintained.
South Australia has indicated it is having examined possible slight changes to what was originally proposed.
I stress that no decision has been made, I will explain why this examination is occurring by giving two examples.
The first relates to Field and Game clubs. Such clubs were denied access to semi-automatic weapons while the Australian Clay Target Association was given access under strict controls.
Yet each group operates under the same principles, the same extraordinarily strict guidelines, the same determination that guns must only be in safe hands.
This has been a matter of much controversy for sporting shooters particularly in the lead up to the Olympics.
Members of each group strive for Olympic perfection.
Some States which were slower than South Australia to put their legislation in place - Queensland, WA and the Northern Territory - were persuaded by the lobbying of the Field and Game clubs that they too should be exempted to ensure fairness of all accredited gun clubs.
This move raised no community anger, then, or now.
Who is right and who is wrong in that decision is what must now be considered by Police Ministers and by all Premiers and Chief Ministers working toward the end result of national uniform gun laws.
The other example is the 28-day waiting period for approval to acquire a second or subsequent firearm.
Some States have determined that it is an added but unnecessary piece of red tape for a second and subsequent gun licence, and has no useful purpose.
The argument is that once the first 28-day waiting period before taking possession of a gun has been fulfilled, an identical security check on the same person takes only a few days in relation to subsequent acquisition.
There is no way any applicant could build an arsenal as a result of reducing the 28-day period for a second or subsequent weapon.
The checks are the same, they simply take less time because all the major paperwork was done the first time.
At present South Australia provides for a discretion to waive the 28 days.
Since September 1996, 24 permits have been issued in South Australia in less than 28 days.
Two were for national championships.
The others were for employment or urgent agricultural reasons.
Most other jurisdictions allow some discretion.
So, it needs to be understood that across Australia, the 28-day period for second and subsequent guns is not inflexible.
These two examples illustrate the discrepancies across Australia.
There is absolutely no reason why these issues should not be debated.
I would hope that when South Australians see that there are no uniform gun laws and accept that we must work to achieve uniformity, they will understand the Government's position.
At this point we are willing to consider all points of view on these two issues.
It should be noted that the Prime Minister has so far no made any criticism of the gun laws in States and Territories which are different from ours.
So, as I have said, the debate now is about what laws presently in existence become the national uniform gun laws.
The ambit claim of the gun lobby is South Australia - the 52 amendments they presented to the South Australian police - have not been seen by me, and I want to reinforce here today that from what I have heard about them, I do not accept them in any shape or form.
However, the gun lobby remains no different from any other interest group in our community in that they have a right to put their case to elected Government.
They asked to put their case. They have and it has been turned down.
In finishing I will repeat what I have said earlier.
We do not have uniform gun laws. We must.
It is the Government's view that this should evolve from discussion with interest groups, community debate and ultimately consideration by the Australian Police Ministers conference, and Premiers. Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister.
Home > Research archive > 1998 > SA Premier’s Ministerial statement on gun laws