Brian Burston (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by Senator Leyonhjelm in relation to the Adler shotgun. When people complain about politicians who are more concerned with appearance than reality, who are disconnected from normal people and who are more interested in scoring points than fixing problems you would struggle to find a better example than the way this debate has been handled and the lies and misrepresentations that have been spread about.

The weapon itself at the heart of this debate should be entirely uncontroversial. If any firearm has a legitimate purpose this one does. Aside from the entirely safe and responsible practice of recreational target shooting, many farmers rely on firearms to deal with pests and feral animals that endanger both stock and the natural environment. Shotguns are in many cases the best weapon for dealing with these predators. Against a moving target at close range, they are far superior to rivals and handguns. There is a legitimate need for shotguns in rural Australia if we are to protect both our farmers' livelihoods and our national wildlife.

There is also a legitimate purpose for medium-capacity shotguns. It is common for some feral animals—pigs, in particular—to move in and about in medium-sized groups. It is not at all uncommon to see a group of five or six feral pigs running around together. If you have a shotgun that holds just two shells, the most you can hope for is to get two of those pigs. A pig that gets away is a pig that will likely inflict some very painful and very gruesome deaths on other animals. So let's have no silly talk about animal cruelty here. The cruellest thing we can do is to let these vicious predators roam unchecked. There is a legitimate reason for this gun to be sold in Australia. Not everyone will be in a situation where this gun is necessary or useful for them but some will be, and they should have the right to access it.

On the other hand, is there a compelling reason to block it? Could allowing this gun lead to massacres such as the tragic event at Port Arthur? Could it be used by underworld figures as part of their criminal activity? The simple answer to that, of course, is no. Long arms such as rifles and shotguns are tremendously impractical for committing crimes. Looking at FBI statistics from the United States on gun violence—and I think we would all agree that the US has a much bigger sample size in this regard than we do—there were 12,000 murders in 2014, the last year for which we have data. Of those murders, 262 were committed by shotgun. That is about two per cent. More people were killed with blunt objects. By comparison, there were 1,500 murders with knives in that time—about six times as many. But surely no-one is silly enough to suggest we should ban kitchen knives?

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19 : 30

The simple fact of the matter is that long arms are very unsuitable weapons for criminal activity. They are big, cumbersome and difficult to conceal. But even these statistics overstate the danger of the Adler seven-round shotgun. While handguns are far and away the weapon of choice for gun murderers, it is true that a small number will use sawn-off shotguns. By cutting off the barrel of the gun, a shotgun can be made more concealable and more suited to crime. It is uncommon, but it does happen. And this is where a significant proportion of the 262 shotgun murders come from. However, the Adler seven-shot shotgun cannot possibly be used in this way. This particular weapon has the magazine built into the barrel of the gun. If you were to attempt to saw off the barrel of one of these guns, you would ruin the weapon and make it unusable for anything.

So, this is a gun that has a very valid and legitimate purpose, and which is exceptionally unsuited for carrying out violent crime. If any gun should be allowed in Australia, it is this one. Indeed, the five-shot version is perfectly legal, and it is also perfectly legal to purchase a magazine extension to increase the capacity of that version to seven. So, there are already perfectly legal seven-shot Adler shotguns in the country. Where is the murder spree? Where is the chaos and violence? But God forbid those larger magazines are built in instead of added on. That difference, we are to believe, will kill us all. The rhetoric around this issue has been hysterical. The Leader of the Opposition, among others, has claimed that allowing this weapon would be watering down John Howard's gun laws. What utter nonsense. Guns of this nature were never banned under Howard's prime ministership. This is not John Howard's legacy; it is Tony Abbott's and Malcolm Turnbull's. John Howard's laws were targeted at automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The Adler is neither of these. It is a manually reloaded, lever-action, single-shot weapon.

We are not talking about a machine gun or an assault rifle here. Yet we see responsible gun owners treated like trigger-happy psychopaths, for the crime of wanting to practise responsible pest management. It is like there is a cloud of unreality that hangs over this building, and the people in it occupy an entirely different world to people outside. They live in a world where peace-loving Australians are champing at the bit to go on murder sprees just as soon as they can get a seven-round shotgun instead of a five-round one. I know there are some among the National Party here who know exactly how crazy this whole confected controversy is. And yet they feel constrained from speaking too loudly or clearly in opposition to it, because they are beholden to their Liberal Party masters. You can hardly be surprised, then, when their voters turn to parties that are not wholly owned subsidiaries of the Liberals, as they did in Orange.

Beyond the facts of the issue, there is another principle at stake. That is the principle of standing by commitments. I speak here of my crossbench colleagues, some of whom, I recognise, may have a very different view than me on firearm regulation. The deal that was struck by Senator Leyonhjelm with the government on this issue was a concrete deal, in writing, and it has become clear that the government never had any intention of honouring it. Even worse, they have had the shamelessness to claim no deal ever existed—even though the text of their agreement is now publicly available for everyone to see. We hear claims that we now live in a post-truth society, and, watching the brazen behaviour of the Liberal Party on this issue, one can feel sympathy for that assessment.

If the government is able to break faith on this issue, for no good reason and with no consequence, one could hardly blame it if it decided it could get away with it while dealing with Senator Hinch, Senator Lambie or Senator Xenophon. Governments, both Liberal and Labor, will break their promises sometimes. We all know this. But I see no reason for we crossbenchers, or for the Senate as a whole, to assist them in doing so. Say what you mean, and do what you say—that is the standard that the Australian people demand, and that is the standard that we should hold this government to. Pauline Hanson's One Nation is proud to support the motion proposed by Senator Leyonhjelm.