Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the government for their indulgence in allowing the opposition to speak first on this disallowance. Owing to private circumstances, I will not be able to speak on it later on. However, in my remarks I will pass on to Senator Moore, who I trust will be able to assist in that regard.

I will indicate that, fundamentally, the opposition reject Senator Leyonhjelm's position on gun control. We take the view that these are issues that go beyond, as he said, his concern about the way in which he has been treated by the government in negotiations on other matters. This is fundamentally an issue which we believe ought be the subject of a bipartisan approach, and that is the approach that we have taken on this question. I am particularly disturbed by Senator Leyonhjelm's statement that, on a matter that he said was not of great principle to him, he was prepared to trade his vote in return for government action in lifting the ban on the importation of the Adler shotgun.

It strikes me as extraordinary that a senator would stand in this place and quite openly announce that he was prepared to trade his vote on a matter which he said was not one of principle to get the government to support him on such a controversial question. Of course, he feels that this is not just about the regulations concerning the use of this particular weapon but about much more substantial questions about the disarming of people in this country. He said to us that it was a question of trust. I find this an extraordinary proposition to put in the open chamber. I have not quite heard anything like it in the many, many years I have been here now. I find it an amazing situation that this is a matter of libertarian principle from my colleague here, and it is a principle in whose pursuit the senator is prepared to trade his vote.

What is even more disturbing, though, is that the government was prepared to entertain this and was prepared to accommodate Senator Leyonhjelm on these questions. Whether or not the government has now reneged on the deal, the fact that the proposition was actually entered into as a serious one is one that should be of great concern to this chamber and, I would suggest, more broadly within our community.

In the aftermath of the Port Arthur shootings in 1996, there was a cross-party understanding that we should restrict the ownership of firearms in Australia. This is not America. We in this country do understand the importance of not privatising personal security. We take the view—and I think there is widespread public support on this matter—that there ought not be a proposition that the individual is responsible for arming themselves as a means of providing security, that it is a legitimate function of the state to regulate the use of firearms. While recognising that licensed firearm dealers, by and large, are very law-abiding people, the need for us to individually arm ourselves comes from a philosophy which I think is an anathema to the political culture in this country. Community protection and individual personal security—I want to emphasise this—should never be a matter that requires privatised action. It should be the responsibility of the state to ensure that people have that personal security.

What strikes me is that Australians have come to accept that principle. In the United States we see a completely different attitude. In fact, what we see is enlightened people in the United States pointing to Australia to show what can be done by government to enhance opportunities for ordinary people to live safely. We only have to look at the statistics of the number of people killed in this country with the use of firearms and compare it to the number of people killed with firearms in the United States. It is 10 times more likely to be the case that a person will be killed in the United States than in Australia. What is the fundamental difference? The fundamental difference is one of philosophy—that the public accepts it is necessary for the state to regulate the use of firearms. This is one measure that John Howard got right. This is a measure that ought to be supported by this parliament. It is a measure I trust the parliament this evening will follow through on and that it will reject this particular measure that Senator Leyonhjelm is proposing for a disallowance. I will leave it at that point. Thank you very much.