Mr WILLIAMS (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)(11.54 a.m.) —in reply—This bill is in the nature of a tidying-up bill. It is a bill that has not attracted a great deal of attention in the debate, which seems to be a common feature of debates in the Main Committee, but it is significant nevertheless. It will enable compensation to be paid for firearms that do not fit within the description of the firearms to be surrendered under the 1996 legislation because they were of a more dangerous type—even more dangerous than the automatic military rifles that were one of the real causes of the buyback scheme. They include submachine guns and heavy machine guns, and they had been identified and handed in in a variety of jurisdictions.

The buyback scheme, which resulted from the police ministers meeting of 10 May 1996 and subsequent meetings, for the surrender of firearms for compensation, concluded yesterday. It is very pleasing to be able to report that, as of 10 o'clock this morning—that is, soon after the closing of the scheme at midnight—623,632 firearms had been surrendered and compensation to an amount of $296,874,323 had been paid.

Those figures will, no doubt, change somewhat. There will be a number of firearms surrendered in respect of which applications for licences have also been made but not yet dealt with. Those firearms may then be returned when a licence is granted. In respect of others, compensation may be payable if the licence is not granted.

In drawing attention to the success of the buyback, I mention that there was a debate in the House of Representatives last night on a matter of public importance. I made then most of the points that I would wish to make in respect of the conclusion of the buyback. The other speakers included the member for Murray (Mrs Stone) and the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson). The member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) also spoke, but took a rather different point of view which I would not commend to the House. The bill we have before us has generated little controversy. I will not comment, except in respect of a comment made by the member for Calare (Mr Andren), which I will come to in due course.

I would like to thank members for their contributions. I thank the member for Reid, the member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith), the member for Calare, the member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), the member for Capricornia (Mr Marek), the member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) and the member for Groom (Mr Taylor). You will have noted I did not mention the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), whose comments I will have something to say about in a minute. I think her contribution was regrettable.

The member for Reid raised the question of provision of information on monitoring adherence to the requirements. A number of issues arise in respect of the termination of the buyback scheme, and these will be dealt with in police ministers meetings, the next one of which will be held in November. I will certainly be writing to my state and territory counterparts as police ministers, asking them to report on their monitoring of the uniform registration and licensing system. In due course there will be a full analysis and an audit of the scheme. I have requested them also to write reporting on the implementation of the buyback, with a view to identifying any injustices that may have occurred in the administration of the scheme that could be remedied relatively quickly.

The member for Reid also raised a question of the government adhering to the promise about repaying surplus funds in the Medicare special levy. The question of whether there are going to be moneys left over is an open one at this point. We know how much money has been paid out in compensation; we know that $63 million has been paid out to states and territories and on other administrative arrangements in relation to the buyback scheme.

What we do not have yet is a final figure on the firearms compensation and we are very far from a final figure on the compensation to be paid to firearms dealers. The exercise there is rather more elaborate than in assessing compensation for the particular firearms because what needs to be identified is the loss in value of the business or, if the business closes, the value of the business that has terminated. It will take some months to ascertain the appropriate figures and make the appropriate payments.

The commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) stands that any surplus funds will be returned to taxpayers through the Medicare levy system. I apprehend that, if the amount of money that remains is relatively small, the community might have an expectation that it would be devoted to an appropriate measure rather than chewed up in administration on the return of the modest amount.

The member for Calare raised an issue that pertains to his electorate. He indicated there was some anger about Australian Defence Industries Ltd surrendering stock under the buyback scheme and acquiring payment. This is not an issue that arises under the bill under consideration. What was done was lawful under the 1996 act. He can be assured that because ADI is wholly Commonwealth owned, it does amount, in effect, to a transfer of Commonwealth moneys to a Commonwealth entity and therefore gives rise to little concern.

The member for Calare also—and he was the only one—expressed some reservations about the particular bill while supporting the general buyback scheme. His suggestion was that the money could be better spent by a commitment to recovering other prohibited firearms. I do not think what he is suggesting is necessary at this juncture. We have yet to assess the level of success of the buyback scheme. No doubt if there are steps that need to be taken as a result of the assessment, these will be taken by agreement among police ministers.

This bill complements the 1996 act, as noted by the member for Fisher. The old-style military weapons—and I use the word `weapons' advisedly; they are weapons, not firearms—were not in the minds of the police ministers following the tragedy at Port Arthur. We did not have in mind that there would be in the community bazookas, aircraft cannon, Bofors cannon and the like, which subsequently, it turned out, there were. The surrender of historically prohibited weapons for fair and proper compensation is certainly within the spirit of the national program and this bill would allow for it to be achieved.

The member for Dickson raised concerns about the adequacy of the compensation arrangements. That is not an issue that arises in relation to this bill, but the buyback scheme was administered by the different states and territories. They had different arrangements pertaining—some started earlier than others. It is evident that in each jurisdiction there were some difficulties, at least at the outset, in establishing what was the most efficient scheme. Most of those difficulties were resolved as time went by, although there was, no doubt, considerable pressure, especially in Queensland, in meeting the target within the time frame.

The member for Wakefield followed the member for Oxley and addressed some of her remarks, as I will do also. He pointed out that the government did not seek to disarm Australia, as she had asserted.

The member for Oxley indicated that the day is coming when the civilian population will be disarmed. That statement is totally wrong. The government has no intention of going down that path, nor to my knowledge does any other government or any opposition in the country. It is not only wrong, it is inflammatory, dangerous and irresponsible. I commend the members who spoke subsequently and indicated their rejection of that particular view.

The member for Oxley seems to think that the only people who will be left with firearms will be criminals. I cannot imagine where on earth that conclusion could be derived from. The uniform laws contemplate that there will be valid uses of firearms and valid purposes for holding them. That is the nub of the scheme.

There is recognition that there are genuine reasons for holding firearms of whatever category. It recognises that there are, in some cases, genuine needs for having the more dangerous category C and D firearms. That is part of the scheme and it is not intended to change it. The member for Wannon, among others, mentioned the particular uses as tools of trade to which some firearms are put and mention was also made of recreational use under very strict conditions.

The member for Oxley suggested that violence and crime are not proportional to the availability of firearms. The point I would make in response to that is that she seems to have no research to back that up. I question the assumption. But what is evident from the research is that the availability of firearms is related to the number of deaths and injuries resulting from firearms. In Australia we have between 400 and 500 deaths from firearms, the bulk of which—80 per cent approximately—are suicides. The relationship between the availability of firearms and the suicide rate in a particular community is direct. By removing more than 600,000 firearms we may, and I hope we have, set in train a reduction in the death rate and the injury rate from firearms.

The member for Oxley asserted that the vast majority of Australians have not handed in their firearms and again mentioned that criminals, one should be assured, have not. The member for Oxley is talking through her hat. The research conducted by the government, about which I spoke in the MPI in the house yesterday at some length, indicates that there is very strong support for the uniform laws. What was indicated with that was that, nationwide, there is very strong compliance and intention to comply. The vast majority of Australians about whom the member for Oxley speaks in fact support the laws and the vast majority have complied with the laws. Again, what she says is inflammatory, dangerous and irresponsible.

The member for Wakefield spoke as a user of a firearm and I think the attitude that he evinced towards the use of firearms is a healthy and an appropriate one. The member for Capricornia (Mr Marek) raised particularly the question of those who had surrendered firearms by 30 September, but whose licence applications had not been dealt with. That is a particular situation which has been addressed already, but we will closely monitor that situation and the reports from the various jurisdictions in order to ensure that there has been no injustice in the closing off of the scheme.

The member for Wannon, whom I commend as the chairman of the consultative committee, who assisted the government in the formulation of the proposals, is a very experienced firearms owner, as his speech indicated. He highlighted a number of the features of the current scheme, I think appropriately. The safety record of firearms owners, and in particular those who participate in clubs, is well-known and the responsible attitude evinced by those people is a matter of record.

He questioned the administration, giving an example of delays referred to by a constituent in Victoria. I am not able to respond directly to that, but I did indicate earlier that the administrations in the different jurisdictions did take time to settle down. That is certainly forgivable because the governments were doing something that had never been done before and, in some cases, they were setting up registration and licensing systems that did not exist in any form prior to the commencement of the scheme.

The member for Wannon has calculated the ratio of firearms handed in to population, and gave some interesting statistics. He queried whether the ownership of firearms does vary that much. It seems in fact that it does. I have been advised that New South Wales, for example, has a third of Australia's population but only one-fifth of the firearms, and that may account for the relatively low percentage figure that the member for Wannon referred to.

In Tasmania and Queensland there were relatively few, if any, rules relating to the ownership of firearms. That may account for the very high percentage in Tasmania, where there was no registration system at all. In the Northern Territory, I would suggest, it is much more likely that people would own firearms than they would in the southern states.

Victoria seems to have a different culture from other places. There has been a high ownership of shotguns in that state, particularly in the rural and regional areas, although, notably, there was a higher number of firearms handed in in metropolitan centres than there were in Victorian rural and regional centres. Western Australia and South Australia have had strict licensing schemes for some time and strict ownership rules, which may account for why their percentages are relatively low. However, analysis would provide better information, and I hope that will be done.

The member for Wannon mentioned the question of training in schools. One of the features of the uniform scheme was the development of training packages for new firearms owners. What is occurring in schools, which I had not heard about before, sounds very good. He also made particular mention about consultative committees. He suggested that there will be a need for ongoing work in relation to the safe and responsible ownership of firearms and a need to ensure that community expectations and safety expectations are met. This is an idea that I think should be taken up and examined and I propose to do that.

The member for Groom referred to some extremist views that had been expressed to him in a letter. That letter is one that I think should be referred to appropriate authorities. Those sorts of letters should not be received by anybody, particularly a public figure, from somebody who is simply making threats. He referred to some of the extremist views that had been expressed by a number of people. I reject them in the same way that he does. I think all right thinking people in Australia would reject the notion that firearms should be owned in order that there can be militia groups established who will conduct their own treason trials, as he pointed out.

That concludes the comments I wish to make on those who spoke. I commend the bill to the House and thank the opposition for its support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Bill—by leave—reported to the House without amendment.