Mr BARRY JONES(9.00 p.m.) —I rise to indicate strong support for the proposal to increase the Medicare levy to provide a fund to meet the cost of compensation for firearms which are surrendered following the adoption of uniform laws by the states and territories in the terms agreed on at the special meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers Council on 10 May. Paragraph 11.2 of the briefing paper of the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) points out:

No reliable figures of total numbers of firearms in Australia are available. Estimates for all firearms vary from 3.5 million (as suggested to the National Committee on Violence) to over 10 million. Best estimates of the numbers of military-style semi-automatics suggest around 350,000 throughout Australia. Best estimates for other semi-automatic, self-loading or pump action longarms suggest around 3,000,000.

The pro-gun lobby rally in Melbourne on 1 June attracted 70,000 protesters and there were 35,000 in Sydney last weekend. These numbers are not very surprising when a group of people has been cynically manipulated into believing that they are under threat. Specific interest is a powerful motivator for turning out. Citizens opposed to violence and the gun culture have deep but general concerns, and that makes them unlikely to take to the streets.

At its rallies the gun lobby has been promoting eight major fallacies. One: Shooters are equated with farmers. Farmers use guns as a necessity, not for pleasure, to protect or put down stock and to eliminate feral animals, including rabbits. But they do not insist on using military style weapons. Why should sporting shooters? The burden of proof to justify gun ownership and use must always be on the proponents.

Two: Shooters are equated with soldiers. If the leaders of the gun community are at war, they have declared it on Australian democracy and the great majority of Australians, who abhor killing and killing machines. Australia has never relied on armed guerillas and it is impossible to imagine a situation where we could possibly need them. It is not part of our history or tradition.

As the honourable member for Adelaide (Ms Worth) pointed out, the gun was central to the US frontier tradition but not to ours. Four US presidents were shot to death by gunmen and three more were shot at. One British Prime Minister was killed by a gun. No Australian Prime Minister, not even a Premier, has been killed by a gun. To equate the use of automatics and semiautomatics for private pleasure with the operations of Australian forces in both world wars is a grotesque distortion of our history. Using national shrines for pro-gun demonstrations was particularly offensive.

Three: Shooters are equated with police. Sporting shooters are not guardians of social order. That is not their role, never has been and never should be. We do not want and do not need vigilante groups. A well-trained, professional, careful police force is able to guard civil society.

Four: Gun ownership and use are equated with freedom. This is a spurious and alien tradition promoted by the National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful lobbies in the US, which has helped fund pro-gun protests in Australia. Guns threaten life and liberty. In the US homicide rates are nine times higher than in Australia. The UK tradition—asserting that guns threaten a peaceful society—is far more appropriate. There is no constitutional right in Australia for citizens to use guns. The 1689 Bill of Rights confined gun ownership to Protestants, not Catholics, and only in conformity with the law. The right was not absolute.

Five: `Guns never hurt anyone.' This is Ted Drane's curious line. But guns are machines for killing and wounding; that is their primary purpose. A madman with a gun can inflict infinitely more damage in a few moments than a madman with an axe or a baseball bat. The roles of the human agent and his instrument are inseparable. I say `his' because gun ownership and use is overwhelmingly a male characteristic. The minute's silence for Port Arthur victims at gun rallies has been nauseating in its hypocrisy.

Six: `Shooters are victims.' This is an example of special pleading. What is needed is full disclosure, rigid control and uniform laws throughout all states and territories, ensuring that weapons of mass destruction cannot be just bought over the counter. Where weapons are surrendered, there will be full compensation.

Seven: `We are not guilty.' This has been a recurrent theme on campaign banners, and some have gone further: `What next—concentration camps?' Nobody is being charged generally or specifically with anything. There is no guilt by association. The old common law principle asserted that the right to use dangerous instruments and to have access to guns, poisons or explosives imposed a duty of care, and the community was entitled to be aware of risk—hence the need for full disclosure and transparency. Much of the objection of the gun lobby has been directed at registration of firearms, including an inventory of where the weapons are, how many there are and their capacity. But does anyone claim that compulsory registration of motor vehicles or that a poisons or explosives register overturns the presumption of innocence?

Eight: `They're going to take all our guns.' Fears about the effects of compulsory registration of guns and uniform laws and regulations across all states and territories are wildly exaggerated. The argument is that, if govern ment—that is, the community—knows where the guns are, one day they will all be confiscated. Again, there is no basis for this, and the Attorney-General's paper asserts the contrary. The proposed ban essentially applies to military style weapons. A common thread running through this is the obsessional view that we face Armageddon, that an armed citizenry is the only line of defence against a baffling and threatening world and that government in a sense is part of the enemy and therefore government has to be resisted.

The role of the armaments industry, another powerful lobby, deserves sharp scrutiny. In this time of political unity about gun controls, it is disappointing to reflect on lost opportunities in the past. John Cain attempted to bring in tough gun laws in the 1980s and was then vigorously opposed by the Liberal and National parties. In 1988 Barrie Unsworth, then New South Wales Premier, proposed tighter state and national gun laws, and strong attacks by the Liberal and National parties defeated his efforts and contributed to his defeat. As he turned on his heel, he said something that was eerily prophetic: it will require the act of some lunatic in Tasmania to realise that all this has to be revisited. He was absolutely right. We should have had national agreement on firearms in 1988. It would have been a pretty good bicentennial present to the nation. Eight years have now passed with many lives lost.

This is an issue where Labor offers total unqualified support to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). On the issues of gun control and uniform legislation, there is no Liberal, National, Democrat or Labor position—or even an Independent one. We are one, deeply united in support of a peaceful civil society. Every state or territory government, of whatever party, has agreed.

I appeal to gun owners, of which there are many in my electorate: do not allow yourselves to be manipulated into adopting the rhetoric of hysterical rebellion against and defiance of the law and democratic practice. That is not a view that is accepted by the great majority of gun owners, but I think they are being manipulated in a quite sinister and utterly cynical way.

We need to understand why guns are so essential to a significant number of men. It seems to be part of defining masculinity. Why is it that some men feel weak, impotent, unhappy and threatened without guns? We really need to know—and so do they. Masculinity is not under threat, but it needs to be redefined and talked about openly. There is much concern that, with the increased recognition of the rights and opportunities for women professionally, males feel threatened. The phenomenon of the `angry white male' is becoming a political reality. This is by no means confined to Australia; it is true of North America and in much of Europe as well.

Bullets are not a substitute for words. It is a sad reflection that some men feel that if they cannot articulate their position their guns will do it for them. Incoherent male rage led to Dunblane and Port Arthur, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Manchester bombing and other acts of revenge by those who see themselves as powerless and see the gun or the bomb as an alternative means of expression. They are saying, `You can ignore me but you can't ignore my weapon. When I have a weapon in my hand, I speak with authority.'

Obviously, there are many thousands who say, `The capacity to kill is integral to my sense of freedom and happiness.' There is a real hostility and lack of comprehension about those who take a different view. It is particularly disturbing to see the insistence that children must be recruited to perpetuate the gun culture. I say to the gun lobby, `Think again; don't declare war on civil society. Reject the old rhetoric of division and threat.' If the gun lobby want to run candidates, let them. That is their democratic right. I certainly hope the gun control issue can be resolved peacefully. We should avoid confrontation and encourage dialogue, where possible, but without weakening the agreement already reached.

If there is one criticism I could make of the government, it is for its late response in explaining what was intended. The documentation in the Attorney-General's paper is very useful but I do not understand why so many weeks have gone by without making that position quite clear. There has been an extraordinary degree of confusion in the minds of many voters. Much of the confusion is innocent; much is the result of manipulation and deliberate misinformation. But here we have a great opportunity to speak for the parliament—to speak with one voice.

I am very anxious not to offend against the 10-minute limitation which seems to have been informally agreed on. I will simply say that on behalf of other members of parliament I express my sense of outrage and horror at the intimidatory pressure that has been put on some of our colleagues. It is an absolute, unmitigated disgrace. The people associated with it ought to recognise what damage they are doing to their own cause and to the cause of democracy in Australia.