Mr ROBERT BROWN(10.14 p.m.) —I would like to open my comments on this matter with the observation made by the National President of the ALP, the member for Lalor, Mr Barry Jones, when he spoke. Barry Jones said, `There is no Liberal, Labor, National, Democrat or Green position on this matter; there is a human position which is represented and reflected by the concern which representatives of all those political parties—and the political parties themselves, collectively—have adopted on this question. Most people have drawn attention to the fact that, in a very real way, it is a sorry reflection on members of parliament and on parliaments in Australia generally that it took a tragedy of the dimensions of that which occurred at Port Arthur for governments to steel themselves finally into doing something positive and firm about it.

One can only speculate about the horror and fear, the feelings, the emotions had by those people at Port Arthur and others in circumstances of a similar kind over the years. I do not think anyone will forget the circumstances at Port Arthur where, for example, a mother holding her child, in the face of an approach by the gunman, appealed to him not to shoot the child and having the child killed and having herself killed; and another child, after seeing members of the family shot, attempting to hide behind a tree and, in turn, being shot. The point has been made that, in the absence of automatic and semiautomatic weapons, a massacre of that dimension simply would not and could not have occurred.

Like all those who have spoken, I am delighted that members of parliament who have been subjected to quite justified criticism for many years for failing to act decisively in connection with this question have now chosen to act collectively. I saw, as most others did, either directly or indirectly, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) just last weekend address a hostile group of people in Victoria and make it perfectly clear that there would be no retreat. Let me say that members of the National Party, in particular, should take credit for the fact that they have been prepared to withstand the threats and intimidation which have been visited upon them in one way or another in their determination to join with others to ensure that effective legislation be put into place.

I know that others have referred to this, but I also think it important that we place on record an outline of those more recent occasions where firearms have been used in quite horrendous circumstances to cause multiple deaths. September 6, 1971: Clifford Bartholemew killed 10 people at Hope Forest near Adelaide. September 2, 1984: seven people were killed in the car park of the Viking Tavern at Milperra, Sydney. January 23, 1987: Richard Madrell killed four teenage girls at West Pymble. June 1987: Joseph Schwab with a Rugar .223 semiautomatic rifle killed five people in a five-day period in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. August 9, 1987: Julian Knight killed seven and wounded 19 on Hoddle Street, Mel bourne. October 11, 1987: John van Trung Tran killed five people in Canley Vale, Sydney. December 8, 1987: Frank Vitkovic killed eight and wounded 10 in Queen Street, Melbourne. April 7, 1990: Rodney Dale killed one and wounded 13 at Burleigh Heads in New South Wales. August 30, 1990: Paul Anthony Evers killed five people in Surry Hills, Sydney, with a shotgun. August 17, 1991: Wade Frankum killed seven people and wounded seven others in Strathfield, Sydney. March 28 to 30, 1993: Leonard Leabeater and two accomplices shot dead five people in northern New South Wales. And, of course, there have been those terrible circumstances at Dunblane—another event of recent occurrence. These events have caused anguish and despair on the part of so many people but, at the same time, they have caused members of parliament and governments to become even more determined that something be done about them.

I have heard people say, as all have heard them say, that it has not been guns that have killed people—people have killed people—and that in the absence of automatic and semiautomatic weapons, these mass murderers would find other means to carry out those deeds. I do not think anyone can reasonably deny that in the absence of those automatic and semiautomatic weapons, massacres on the scale that have occurred simply would not have occurred.

I want to mention in particular just a couple of comparative statistics which, at least prima facie, indicate the enormous additional dangers associated with the number of firearms compared with the populations of various countries. In 1994, the United States, for example, having about 250 million people, had over 39,000 deaths in one year resulting from the use of firearms. That was 40,000 deaths in one year. In Britain and Japan gun laws are much more effective and much more stringent. In Britain, with 57 million people, there were 70 gun deaths. In Japan, with 124 million people, there were 34 gun deaths. The comparison there is more than apparent. It indicates, prima facie, the additional potential for tragedies of the kind that have recently occurred.

In Australia, there is an official figure of 1.67 million registered weapons. Estimates of the number of guns in civilian hands in Australia vary from between 3.5 million and 10 million. We have all been aware of the fact that those gun shops act as conveyor belts flooding weapons of that kind into the community. If they were not selling them, they would not continue to operate. We see them full of guns. Those guns continue to flow into the community. The more civil and civilised people within the community are those who have acknowledged the reality of that and they realise that that problem exists.

I know the suggestion has also been made that, to a large extent, this question has been a media beat-up. It is interesting to see the unanimity on the part of major newspapers. The Sun-Herald, for example, referred on 5 May to those young children at Port Arthur:

Last Sunday they were walking peacefully with their mother along a country road in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

The editorial went on to state:

A man of evil pulled up in his car, gunned down their mother, Nanette, and Madeline, then chased Alannah. Alannah ran and hid behind a gum tree. But the evil man shot her down at point blank range. As a grieving nation mourns their senseless killing, and the murder of 33 others, Alannah and Madeline have become sisters to us all. We must never forget them.

In reference to politicians, the paper went on:

This paper has taken the lead in calling for tough gun control laws, with major space devoted to the issue years before the Strathfield massacre in 1991. And there is no satisfaction—just a sense of grief and anger—that it has taken another massacre, like the one at Port Arthur, to instil some sense into the well-paid, and so-far gutless, people in this country who call themselves politicians.

I am pleased that we will in future be able to take `gutless' out of that paragraph and out of any reference to politicians because there has been unanimous resolve not only on the part of the national government, all parties and all political interests represented in this parliament but also on the part of the state and territory parliaments.

Mr MILES (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister) (10.26 p.m.)—I rise to thank those members of the House who have participated in this Medicare debate.

Mr Campbell —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I understand that the parliamentary secretary will actually close this debate. I stood because I have been guaranteed a generous 10 minutes in which to speak on this issue. I do not know what went wrong with the arrangements, but I want my 10 minutes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I can assure the honourable member for Kalgoorlie that standing order 68 will apply and the parliamentary secretary will not be closing the debate. I call the parliamentary secretary.

Mr MILES —I take your guidance in this regard, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Filing —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I move that the member for Kalgoorlie be now heard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am sorry but you cannot do it at this time. A motion under standing order 61 has to be moved when a speaker is called. You cannot do it at this time.

Mr MILES —This debate has seen speakers range wide and far. I just want to make a few comments about this discussion. Most people in the community listening to this debate would not recognise it as the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill because people have been mainly talking about the proposal dealing with guns. One of the great things about this debate is that there has been a multipartisan approach. All the parties in this country have given a strong affirmation to the leadership given by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and premiers around this country. This also illustrates the point that there has been a very strong cooperative approach between the states and the Commonwealth in regard to this debate.

It is quite unusual that we have a multipartisan approach to a debate and also have the cooperation of the state leaders. That is very important in this debate because it gives strength and weight to the position which has been adopted since the Port Arthur tragedy, which occurred just over six or eight weeks ago.

That tragedy has brought about a step change in consciousness in the Australian people with regard to violence. The most important thing is that we now see a strengthened will, not only at the parliamentary level but also at the community level to have a clear focus on reducing violence in this country. That is a very good thing. I think the overwhelming majority of Australians feel that the level of violence that has gradually developed in our society is very unhealthy. The step change in consciousness on this issue of violence I liken very much to the step change in consciousness that surrounded environmental issues during the 1980s. In the mid-1990s we have a step change in the consciousness within our community with regard to violence.

Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.

Mr MILES —I would like to make a few more comments at this stage. The Prime Minister clearly has a multifaceted approach to dealing with this issue of violence. He is not just dealing with guns but also, with his committee, looking into violence in regard to the media, videos, CD lyrics, TV, cinema and so on. It is all part of trying to reduce the level of violence which is in our community. So it is a multifaceted approach, and people within the pro-gun lobby have to realise that they are not the only people to which we as a government are looking to try to reduce violence within our community, that there is a multifaceted approach by the government to try to deal with the level of violence.

As I was saying a few moments ago, I believe the step change in consciousness within the Australian community does require a multifaceted approach by the government. I believe that it is very important that we as a parliament are resolved to ensure that the approaches adopted will actually be achieved and, therefore, will break this culture of violence which has developed within the Australian society. In that respect, I commend this bill to the House.