Jim Molan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm speaking today to Senator Rhiannon's proposition that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The need to strengthen our firearms laws to reduce gun violence.

It occurs to me that we have strengthened our firearm laws and we have reduced gun violence. The basic aspect of this that occurs to me is that the Greens have brought this motion on, but they haven't supported the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill. The Greens are saying, 'Strengthen firearms laws to reduce gun violence.' But if they were sincere about doing this then they would support our bill, which is about firearms trafficking and strengthening and refining firearms laws. The Greens are asking for something which occurred years ago and which will remain, certainly at the federal level. We must fight the scourge of illegal firearms trafficking; that's for sure. But it's not an issue of the need to strengthen our firearms laws to reduce gun violence.

Like Senator McKenzie, I know guns. I've lived with guns all my life. Guns were part of my trade, as is the case for the police force, hunters, farmers and many people. I've seen the best and the worst of guns, and I've seen them in places where they impact on society to an appalling degree. However, guns do have value in the right hands, and they have value for the right reasons. As to those who are legally entitled to carry guns and who are trained to use guns, there is no point at all in making the actions of those people, or implying that they are, in any sense illegal. We have a first-class record in this country, as every speaker so far has agreed—the Howard government's reforms in 1996 and the National Firearms Agreement. I don't support any more relaxing of firearms laws. I would not have a gun in my house, not because I hate guns, but because I have no use for guns—I'm not a sporting shooter—nor would I now use guns or need guns in what I do for a living.

We have our own example in Australia of crimes that are committed with guns. We have had massacres in this country. We have criminal use of guns. In the US, of course, we see examples on a daily basis of activities in schools related to gun crime and massacres at concerts, in bars and other places. But this is not in any way, shape or form the United States. Senator McKenzie gave us the statistics for the use of guns in murders—1.3 per 100,000 Australians, with knives and sharp implements being the main method of creating havoc and causing injury. The ability of a gun to cause death and injury is quite marked. That's why, having seen activities where this has occurred, we have strengthened our gun laws, and it's why we maintain their strength. Of course other implements that we would use in the house—knives, axes or metal bars—are available, but the difference between them and guns is quite dramatic. There is a great deal of logic in having strong firearms laws, and we already have them. A desire to have even more is very interesting. I keep on asking myself where the justification is, outside pure virtue signalling.

The Greens proposal is to strengthen firearms laws but not to remove guns. The question that I have is: is this is a generality? Are we saying we're going to remove all firearms? Are we going to say we're still going to accept certain firearms? We've all seen the basis of the National Firearms Agreement: a licence for each weapon, registered for each purpose, and owning guns is a privilege. To remove them from the hands of those who have a legitimate reason to use them and who use them as a legitimate tool is just plain silly. And any move to remove even more guns from our society is going to cost us. I ask: how much are we prepared to pay? We have reduced the risk of the use of gun violence, except for the trafficking of guns by criminals, to a reasonable level, to a world-standard level. If there is a solid business case for doing it, I certainly can't see it. This is merely virtue signalling. We need to know if there is a business case. We need to know what the risk is all about, and we need to know what we're getting for the money that we may have to pay. Are we wasting our time debating something which is now already decided? We have strong gun laws.

If the Greens want to be taken seriously, I would encourage them to produce a business case, to refine what they're talking about. There could be a case that, if you irrationally tighten up laws on guns and you force those guns underground, you in fact make the situation a lot worse.

Of course, we need to do this with the states and territories, and we all remember how difficult a process that is. We already have a National Firearms Agreement, and that is working. What the firearms trafficking bill is trying to do is to address the illegal trafficking of firearms by tough, mandatory penalties, not tighten the conditions under which the legal use of guns operate. We all agree that penalties are a deterrent. Labor has agreed in the past that penalties are a deterrent, and that's certainly part of the bill. Mandatory sentences have a role in deterring crime, and society has a right to express its judgement on the seriousness of what they consider to be a crime.

The Greens have now brought this motion into the House. They've asked for it to be discussed. It would be very good if they were prepared to support the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill. I finish by saying that if the Greens are serious about strengthening firearms laws in order to reduce gun violence then they will support the firearms trafficking bill. I make the point that the coalition can be trusted in relation to gun laws.