Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 6:34:44 to 6:54:55
The committee debates the economic impact of firearm recategorization and the establishment of the National Firearm Safety Council.
Topics: Firearms, Government spending, Grants administration
Speakers: Hon Bridget McKenzie, Hamish Hansford, David Shoebridge, Hon Jonathon Duniam, Hon Murray Watt, Brian Hickey, Ciara Spencer, Jana Stewart, Stephanie Foster PSM
much. Uh Senator McKenzie, >> thank you. Um yep, never mind. [laughter] Um just going back to um the economic impact of the um firearm and customs part of the combating anti-semitism, hate and extremism bill. Was there um an
economic impact analysis done for that bill?
>> No. Was there a RZ done? >> No, Senator. Is there a reason?
>> Um, I think Senator, we we developed the um how do we best respond to both the situation that's happened. But um we've we've had for some time a range of
um developed and um the regulatory impact statement um government did not ask us to develop one um and so we have not done one. understand the economic impact of the implementation of this bill? Uh we are certainly working as I think we've indicated before with stakeholders to work out the impact and to implement the reforms um together with industry and to to work on how we do that in the best way possible. Obviously when it relates to the the gun buyback we are doing very detailed analysis of the cost implications in relation to that. That's good because you'll be able to help me with my next suite of question. It is around compensation. When we've had buybacks in the past, whether it is uh in response to 96 or again in the early um buybacks were around fair market value for firearms and that I would argue should be a pre-Bondi
um terrorist attack market value. A is the department developing up costings
based on that as a methodology rather than for instance the Western Australian model um which saw you know the private property of law abiding Australians um devalued because of a government decision. Um the department is working up options for the government including costings >> is one of the options costing according to fair market value as perator other commonwealth buybacks of hours ago and was told that the officials were not in a position to say so because that related to advice to government and that that work is ongoing.
ask given commonwealth
buyback constitutionally [snorts] stealing from citizens um which if you didn't proceed with a fair market value costing for the firearms you're going to buy back that's what this buyback would constitute. I think it's a pretty simple question for the officials to answer. >> I'm happy to let them answer the question. >> Senator, we have nothing to add to our further evidence, our previous evidence. Sorry.
>> Um what about the businesses who right now have seen a flatlining of um their turnover? Um, is the department
aware of the economic impact being experienced by particularly dealers uh and importers as a result uh of of these decisions. the at least eight stakeholder meetings that we've had this calendar year, we are hearing a range of views from industry. We're taking those views into account in the advice that we're providing to government, including provision of costing advice.
But have has industry made it clear the negative impact um that these >> some some industry senator have made those points. >> You're the one meeting with industry.
>> so has industry made that clear? Is the department clear about the negative economic impact that's being experienced right now? >> Yes, Senator. >> Yeah. Thank you. And you are actively taking that those views into account in the development of your advice to government? Yes, Senator.
>> Okay.
Um, shooting groups were excluded from the
anti-gun groups like the Alana and Meline Foundation, which the prime minister is a um patron of, were included. Um, what was the rationale for talking to anti-gun groups and refusing to meet with the industry which employs thousands of Australians uh represents
millions of law-abiding Australians and
um contributes over 7 billion dollars to our economy nationally, not to mention a few Olympians. Senator, I think the scheduling of the parliamentary hearing and who attended is a matter for that parliamentary committee. What I can say is we have met with a range of stakeholders including some of the ones that you've mentioned. >> So that isn't my question. I don't care to go to the details of PJIS they? My question was when so when a department >> drafts up legislation on uh advice from government or on request from government they don't do that in a vacuum they check the experts they understand the impacts usually you would do an economic or a regulatory impact study that wasn't done uh with respect to this legislation um probably on request from the government I haven't heard otherwise so who did the department consult outside of PJ CIS submissions in the drafting of this legislation. >> Senator, during the exposure draft stage
of the legislation, I personally um chaired a number of meetings with all the groups that you mentioned to >> So, can you just run me through the list of the groups that Thank you, Miss Spencer. >> Um certainly, and as um Mr. Dangle said previously, there are some who are not um comfortable with me listing individual organization names, but I can give you a sense of the the meetings that I did have during that period. >> Thank you. >> Um so on the um 14th of January, >> I met with what I would term firearms industry representatives. Um that included Shooting Industry Foundation Association of Australia. On the same day I met with firearms users um so similar um grouping shooters union Australia, Target Rifle Australia, and others. >> Um and on the 15th I met with um
groups um in a similar >> Sorry, when you say firearm advocacy to myself as a lawing firearm owner, I
team? >> Sorry. Um, I'm trying to find a bit of I guess firearm safety. Um, public safety medical groups >> anti-gun. >> No, I don't think that that's unfair to wait. >> I mean, you want to reduce this to proun
and anti-gun. I mean, that's pretty >> childish. I don't think because >> we're talking about groups who believe that laws should be strengthened to protect Australians from being shot. That's what those groups are. >> Wow. >> They're not anti-gun. So law-abiding firearm owners who are the ones impacted by this, who aren't Islamic terrorists,
>> I would argue that the people who are shot by guns are also gun laws. >> Why can't your government say that it was never about the gun? It is actually Islamic terrorists that shot those people on Bondi. >> That's your view. That's your view. Our view, which we've stated over and over time, over and again, >> is that it wasn't it's not Islamic terrorism. >> That's not what we said. What we've said, if you were here earlier, you would have heard me say that the government has consistently said that our response has been based on the
motive for the shootings and the means with which >> what about the bombs in the car, Minister?
>> What about them? threat? >> Well, there are there were actually aspects of our laws, if you'd bothered to read them, that went to bomb making as well. But you never made it past the front page that you signed for social media
>> because you were deflecting from the actual cause. And you still are. No, we're not. In every single comment you've made today, you've seen the
comments. >> You are blaming law-abiding firearms,
less guns, your narative safety. That's your narrative. That's not true. The data doesn't >> The data doesn't show that, Minister.
I've told you that our legislation, which you clearly didn't bother to read, exempted sporting shooters, farmers, pest controllers, a range of other groups. That didn't stop you going out there and telling those groups that they were going to be captured by the laws that they are exempted from. That's that's your call if you want to misrepresent
>> What we've always said is that this >> go well in Victoria for Just Allan. Well, some of us, some of us, like you seem to be obsessed with fighting
Victorian state elections. Some of us are actually here to do federal politics and change gun laws to protect Australians. What you're doing is
blaming law-abiding firearm owners for an Islamic terrorist attack. We've never done that. And you just did it. Two weeks ago, you did. You might care, Senator, to look at the remarks made by the brother of Peter Mah, one of the victims of this shooting at the funeral where he made the point where he made the point that this is not actually where he you don't want to listen to
what he said, the brother of someone who was killed at Bondi where he made the point effectively that the words were something like an anti-semite is an
anti-semite. An anti-semite with a gun
is what causes people to be killed. You should never have had a license and the Royal Commission will work out how they had it. >> Sure. >> But to blame and target law-abiding Australians as a result of a failure of law, you know, of firearm regulators in New South Wales and intelligence
agencies. >> Have you read the bill? >> Sorry, can we be the Sorry. Can I just inter interrupt here?
moving on. Uh we are already uh well
behind in the schedule. Uh and so if we could get back to the usual programming of asking questions and people answering questions, it' be much appreciated. I'm keen for us to get on to outcome two. >> Thank you. Um can um we explain why it might be necessary to pay less than market value for firearms or the loss of business earnings? Well, no one has said
that that that's you making stuff up >> Uh, so there's no circumstances where it would be necessary. >> What we've said is that departmental officials are preparing advice for ministers about the compensation scheme that will apply. They're not in a position to explain that because it's advice to government. You're the person who's making up what may or may not happen. Just like you made up about personal attacks, minister, shall we? >> In the act, the minister must approve
remind you of that.
>> Each state's buyback scheme, does the
a state's proposal to the >> Again, I would I'm happy for the officials to answer, but I again I imagine that that is something that advice is being prepared on. >> Indeed, Senator Minister, >> does the minister intend to approve schemes that do not pay fair business compensation? Senator, um I won't we are yet to provide the minister with consolidated advice. Um to ask questions
about his intent is premature. I'm going to finish my questions. Um will the government insist that states pay fair
market value and that they include accessories, ammunition, and business compensation? >> Senator, that's all part of the same series of questions you've been asking. Uh we've got nothing to add to our previous evidence. >> What evidence has the government considered in the drafting of the combating anti-semitism, hate and extremism, firearms and custom laws
bill? Uh considered that firmly concludes by reducing the number of legally owned firearms, there will be uh a reduction or or a subsequent reduction in um an increase. Sorry. In public safety, what evidence has been considered? >> Well, I think um that we have been consulting with our state and territory colleagues and other stakeholders as Miss Spencer outlined. Um all all of that information has gone into our provision of advice to the government. So, what data have you used that links reducing legal legally owned, stored, and used firearms to increased public safety?
>> We'll take that on notice, Senator. >> I'm looking forward to seeing that. Um,
in the bill, um, we've recategorized straight pull and butter lever release firearms to category C and D. That's actually the strictest category. Yet many
jurisdictions still categorize those as A and B. Uh why has the government recategorized these firearms for import um when they remain legal in many
jurisdictions today? >> Yes, Senator. So thank you. >> Correct. They for import purposes um categorized as C and D. So therefore under the import tests um there's a uh like an occupational test that goes with that. So uh in states and territories where police registries may certify you if you are for example a pest controller >> an appropriate primary producer uh for those reasons there's a few small sports
new ones coming in of those those firearms. I think some states have
moved in that direction. and ACTs pointed um to a willingness WA uh not fully exactly aligned but covers some of that broader question about the recategorization of those firearms is under discussion for national cabinet so I think pending those discussions that may be in all states and territories some states and territories may not
obviously move in that direction and that's something that we would consider and then provide advice to about that interaction >> so what happens to the concept of a national firearms agreement over 25 years old now when you don't have all states and territories agreeing to how
it operates because if I look at the police minister's communicate from
Friday the 9th of Jan it's quite clear
that um we're discussing proposal we're
progressing options we're discussing
options there's no decisions being made here when do you [clears throat] envisage decisions being made bodies with states and territories. I I think we spoke before about the timelines that the prime minister had uh cabinet. >> Mr. Engel, given the complexities of what's allowed through the border and across state borders and um the international border, how are you anticipating dealing with apply the law how it is. So there will be those import tests around occupation. So that doesn't apply for let's just say stock that was imported before the commencement date um uh of the changes. M >> uh and it doesn't affect the domestic regimes in terms of say secondhand market or domestic manufacturer the state laws will apply in that instance. Our role sort of ends at that import
point and then who it can be released to. So at the moment that is how we will apply it. Um obviously pending national cabinet discussions we would provide advice to government depending on where we land nationally.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um I've just got very short as last section of questions. chair. Um, when the government did its
dirty deal with the Greens to establish
the National Firearm Safety Council, I would I'm trying to understand what the membership of this council because it sounds fabulous. >> Who doesn't want firearms safety? Who's on the National Firearms Safety Council yet to be set up? >> Yeah. Um, we're still preparing advice for government about how to construct that council. So the minister I think in when we were debating the bill made that that uh commitment in the chamber that we would establish the council. Um we're still preparing advice for the minister on how to establish it. >> So there is no currently
>> Not at this point Senator >> is it going to be an independent entity or a unit within the department or have
>> We're still preparing advice Senator on
up and running? Uh that will be a matter for government. Senator, >> have you prepared the advice? Is it sitting on the minister's desk or is it still in the department? So >> we're still in the process of preparing. >> It's still in the department. That's okay. We can that's fine. Um is there a time frame to get it >> work as quickly as I think uh we like we always like to provide advice as soon as we can to to the minister's office. I haven't got a time frame at this point in time but we are actively working on it right now. >> Um so in terms of membership um will um will firearm industry um recreational shooters be members of this council? options to government and obviously the decision will be one for government. So
I can't preempt that at this point. Well, are we excluding certain people,
>> Senator? We are yet to finalize the advice and so we're not in a position to give you ministers don't always have to
act on advice. So, they could take their
own initiative and make it an inclusive >> well-rounded uh well-rounded council.
>> Minister,
um I will have lots of questions on notice. >> Thank you. I'm sure the officials are grateful for you. >> And I expect them to be answered.
Minister Watch. >> Well, as long as you don't clutter them up with questions about IKEA furniture
and microwaves, you never know. We might be able to answer a few questions.
>> I'm pretty sure. >> Thank you. That means the committee is in a position to now release officials related to outcome one and we will call
officials from outcome two. >> Thank you, sir. We will take a very brief suspension while we do a bit of a changeover.