Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee_2014_10!14!2956

8/10/2019 Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee_2014_10!14!2956

1/69

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Proof Committee Hansard

SENATE

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS REFERENCESCOMMITTEE

Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun related

violence in the community

(Public)

TUESDAY, 14 OCTOBER 2014

MELBOURNE

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

[PROOF COPY]

CONDITIONS OF DISTRIBUTION

This is an uncorrected proof of evidence taken before the committee.It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such.


2/69

INTERNET

Hansard transcripts of public hearings are made available on theinternet when authorised by the committee.

To search the parliamentary database, go to:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au


3/69

SENATE

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS REFERENCES COMMITTEE

Tuesday, 14 October 2014

Members in attendance: Senators Bilyk, Leyonhjelm, Ludwig, Ian Macdonald, McKenzie, Reynolds, Wright.

Terms of Reference for the Inquiry:

To inquire into and report on:

The ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community, with reference to:

a. the estimated number, distribution and lethality of illegal guns, including both outlawed and stolen guns, in Australia;

b. the operation and consequences of the illicit firearms trade, including both outlawed and stolen guns within Australia;

c. the adequacy of current laws and resourcing to enable law enforcement authorities to respond to technological advances ingun technology, including firearms made from parts which have been imported separately or covertly to avoid detection, andfirearms made with the use of 3D printers;

d. the extent to which the number and types of guns stolen each year in Australia increase the risk posed to the safety of policeand the community, including the proportion of gun-related crime involving legal firearms which are illegally held;

e. the effect banning semi-automatic handguns would have on the number of illegally held firearms in Australia;

f. stricter storage requirements and the use of electronic alarm systems for guns stored in homes;

g. the extent to which there exist anomalies in federal, state and territory laws regarding the ownership, sale, storage and transitacross state boundaries of legal firearms, and how these laws relate to one another; and

h. any related matters.


4/69


5/69

WITNESSES


BROWNE, Mr Roland, Vice-President, Gun Control Australia ......................................................................... 1

LANG, Ms Julia, Paralegal, Family Law, Criminal Law and CPV, Law Institute of Victoria ...................... 10

YU, Mr Albert, Co-chair, Young Lawyers Section, Law Reform Committee, Law Institute of Victoria ..... 10

DALY, Ms Angela, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Swinburne Institute for Social Research ........................ 17

GOLDSWORTHY, Dr Terry, Assistant Professor, Criminology, Faculty of Society and Design,

Bond University ................................................................................................................................................. 17

BROWN, Mr Rick, Policy Adviser, National Firearm Dealers Association Inc. ............................................. 28

McKAY, Dr Malcolm David Alan, Secretary, Antique & Historical Arms Collectors Guild of Victoria ..... 28

ROSSI, Mr Luca Scribani, President, National Firearm Dealers Association Inc. ......................................... 28

SCHWARZ, Mr Robert, Firearms Traders Association of Victoria ................................................................ 28

CHAN, Mr Greg, General Manager, Beretta Australia Pty Ltd ....................................................................... 39

GORDON, Mr Jeffery, Sales and Marketing Manager, Winchester Australia Ltd ........................................ 39

PEARSON, Mr Russell, Consultant, Beretta Australia Pty Ltd ....................................................................... 39

HOWLETT, Mr Barry Paul, Executive Officer, Australian Deer Association Inc. ........................................ 45

PATERSON, Mr William, Chairman, Field and Game Australia .................................................................... 45

DETTMANN, Mr David, Private capacity .......................................................................................................... 55

HAWKER, The Hon. David, Private capacity .................................................................................................... 55

STANLEY, Mr Edward, Private capacity ........................................................................................................... 55


6/69


7/69

Tuesday, 14 October 2014 Senate Page 1


BROWNE, Mr Roland, Vice-President, Gun Control Australia

Evidence was taken via teleconference

Committee met at 09:03.

CHAIR (Senator Wright): I declare open this public hearing of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs

References Committee in its inquiry into the ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gunrelated violence in the community. The inquiry terms of reference are available from the secretariat. Thecommittee's proceedings today will follow the program as circulated. These are public proceedings beingbroadcast live via the web. The committee may also agree to a request to have evidence heard in camera or maydetermine that certain evidence should be heard in camerathat is, in a private, confidential hearing.

I remind all witnesses that in giving evidence to the committee they are protected by parliamentary privilege. Itis unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to a committee, andsuch action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt. It is also a contempt to give false or misleading evidenceto the committee. The committee prefers evidence to be given in public, but under the Senate's resolutionswitnesses have the right to request to be heard in private session. It is important that witnesses give the committeenotice if they intend to ask to give evidence in camera. If you are a witness today and intend to request to giveevidence in camera, please bring this to the attention of the secretariat as soon as possible. If a witness objects to

answering a question, the witness should state the ground upon which the objection is to be taken, and thecommittee will determine whether it will insist on an answer, having regard to the ground which is claimed. If thecommittee determines to insist on an answer, a witness may request that the answer be given in camera. Such arequest may of course also be made at any other time.

With the formalities over, I welcome you here today. Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today, MrBrown. The committee has received a submission from you as submission 119. Do you wish to make anyamendments or alterations to your submission?

Mr Browne: No I do not.

CHAIR: Would you like to make a brief opening statement before we go to questions?

Mr Browne: Yes I would. I would like to highlight two points that are contained within the submission thathas been made to this inquiry. The first relates to the theft of guns, and the point I want to highlight is that, with

something in the order of three million guns in Australia, the prospects of gun theft are not insignificant. The lastdata from the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2009 put the number of guns being stolen then at 1,500 peryear plus Western Australia's contribution. It is generally regarded that there are something like 1,800 guns beingstolen in Australia each year. That means that, over the six years since the latest data from the Institute ofCriminology, that is something in the order of 10,000 guns in this country that have moved from the hands oflicensed owners and/or dealers into a pool of illicit guns potentially sold through a black market or otherwisetraded or stored. There is very little information on the fate of those guns. If the number of those guns is in theorder of 10,000 just over the last six years, it is a frightening number.

The Institute of Criminology pointed out in its 2009 report that in many cases guns that were stolen were infact being stored in accordance with the prevailing requirements for gun storage that were all introduced after theNational Firearms Agreement in 1996. The Institute of Criminology goes on to make the point that, if there aresignificant numbers of guns being stolen where those guns are stored in accordance with the prevailing firearms

regulations, those regulations are inadequate. I wholeheartedly agree with that. It is time for us to revisit therequirements for storage of firearms. Where we have large numbers of firearms stored, especially in a homewhen I say large numbers I mean three, five, 15they are a target for burglars. They are a valuable commodity.At the moment, they can be stored in a gun safe that needs to be bolted to the wall, but clearly the gun safe issimply either being unlocked or emptied, jimmied open and emptied or levered off the wall and carried away.There is a need for much better systems of security. There is a need for alarm systems to be fitted to firearmstorage in the home. There is a need for a much higher level of security for the storage in the way of a toughercontainer that cannot simply be levered off the wall.

This is a critical reform. Regrettably, this reform is opposed by shooting groups and the gun lobby throughoutAustralia. I have not been aware of any support from shooting groups for the installation of alarms and forsignificant toughening up of storage requirements. To me, that is utterly puzzling given that it is the verymembers of those shooting groups and gun lobby groups that are significant beneficiaries of tougher storage

requirementsthat is, their guns are going to have a much reduced likelihood of being stolen.These guns are heading towards gangs. They are heading off to be traded. It is something we all ought to be

seriously concerned about. They represent a threat to our law enforcement agencies, and we should not be treating


8/69

Page 2 Senate Tuesday, 14 October 2014


stolen guns in the same way we might approach, for example, laptop computers that are stolen from homes. Youcan imagine a laptop computer that is stolen may well be used innocently. It is almost inconceivable that a gunstolen is going to have an innocent use.

I also want to take this opportunity to highlight what I regard and what Gun Control Australia regards as asignificant anomaly that flows from the reforms of the National Firearms Agreement in 1996. That anomalyrelates to the availability of high-powered semiautomatic handguns. A consequence of the 1996 reforms was thatsemiautomatic rifles and shotguns were effectively prohibited throughout Australia. Exceptions were made insome instances, especially for those people who collected those sorts of guns and for people who were involved inprofessional animal population control and had a demonstrated need for guns like that. However, handguns wereoverlooked in 1996. The position then was that people could obtain high-powered semiautomatic handguns withlarge magazine capacities for target shooting. So the anomaly is this: a person cannot have a high-poweredsemiautomatic rifle for target shooting in Australia and has not been able to since 1996 because of the threat ofpublic safety, which was clearly crystallised in the events at Port Arthur in 1996, but a person can have a high-powered semiautomatic handgun that can have a magazine of up to 10 rounds. They can store that gun or moreguns like that in their home, and high-powered semiautomatic handguns present a grave danger because of thefact that they are so easily concealed. They are also firearms that frequently turn up in mass shootings, especiallyin America but also, for example, at Dunblane in Scotland, in Erfurt in Germany and in an abundance of other

examples.

That anomaly needs to be closed. We would like to see a ban on semiautomatic, high-powered handguns inAustralia. If people want to participate in shooting sports, they can participate using single-shot, purpose designedhandguns, which would have the effect of significantly improving public safety in Australia not just now but infuture decades. That is all I wanted to say, thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Browne. I am going to work through systematically with the questions, so I will startwith Senator Ludwig.

Senator LUDWIG: Thank you, Mr Browne. On the area of gun related community violence, I am just tryingto explore this: of the matters that you suggest that the committee should look at, which do you put as the primaryone? Do you say that the first step should be more or more improved gun safes?

Mr Browne: I am sorry, Senator Ludwig; I did not entirely hear the question. Are you asking me whether, in

terms of prevention of or reduction in gun related violence, I would see a priority as the introduction of gun safes?Senator LUDWIG: Yes. Is there are a hierarchy of issues that you would see that could assist in this area?

Mr Browne: Complex factors are causative of gun violence. The approach that Gun Control Australia takes isbased on a preventative model, a public health model. It is very difficult to single out one component of firearmregulation as being the most important in a realistic way because firearms regulation is part of a matrix ofregulation. Storage is just one component of that. Also, gun related violence appears or rears its head in manydifferent ways.

Storage addresses two components, in general terms, of gun related violence. The first one is suicide. Thestorage requirements that came in throughout Australia in 1996 did very well to decrease and improve the gunsuicide rate across Australia simply because guns were under lock and key. Storage also goes some way toprevent theft, which stops guns moving into a black market and probably ending up being used in street crimes,gang crimes, armed hold-ups or things like that.

I doubt that storage does anything to prevent threats of or actual domestic violence involving firearms becausemore often than not the person with the key to the gun safe is the perpetrator.

The other issue is that part of the matrix is that the big question is: what are the guns that are being stored? Arethey semiautomatic firearms or are they not? Again, that is part of a preventative model.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Mr Browne, I am interested in a couple of points you made in your submission.First of all, can you tell me how many people are in your organisation?

Mr Browne: I do not see that that question is relevant to the terms of this inquiry, and I object to it.

Senator McKENZIE: You do not have a right to reject the question.

CHAIR: You can choose to answer it or not, though, I think. You cannot make someone answer a question ifthey

Senator McKENZIE: On what grounds are you objecting to answering the question?Mr Browne: That it is beyond the terms of the inquiry.


9/69


10/69



Mr Browne: Well the alarm works the same way. If somebody enters the premises, the alarm goes off and itcan then have a variety of consequences. It can lead to a call being put through to the owner's mobile phonealerting them to the fact that the alarm has gone off or it can be an alarm that sends a message to a securitycompany telling them that the alarm has gone off and they can contact police. It can have, as I say, a variety ofconsequences.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Have you actually ever been on a rural property, Mr Browne?

Mr Browne: Yes, I have.

Senator LEYONHJELM: And how far away was anybody capable of responding? Let us assume on theproperty you were on an alarm went off. What would be the potential responses to that alarm?

Mr Browne: I spend every summer on a beef and cattle farm in central Victoria. The owners of that propertyhave a mobile phone and an alarm system, which when triggered sends a message to the mobile phone. Theowner of the property, the farmer, would be either on his motorcycle or in his four-wheel drive feeding his sheepor cattle. If he gets that message, he would be able to drive back to his farmhouse and find out exactly what hastriggered the alarm. I have an alarm on my house and I am in pretty much the same situation. If the alarm goesoff, I respond to it wherever I am.

Senator LEYONHJELM: So your friend has mobile phone coverage across his entire farm, does he?

Mr Browne: He does, yes.

Senator LEYONHJELM: And how many farms do you think are that lucky?

Mr Browne: I could not answer that.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I understand you have rural experience

Mr Browne: I thought with the NBN we were going to see large parts of Australia covered with broadbandthat would facilitate this very sort of thing. Rural areas were going to get wireless coverage.

Senator McKENZIE: The National Party looks forward to your support at the next election, Mr Browne.

Senator LEYONHJELM: The other area I am interested in exploring with you is your reference to stockpoaching. Based on your obvious rural experience I am curious as to how the misuse of legal guns relates to stockpoaching.

Mr Browne: I am in Tasmania. I am recalling one report of animals being shot in central Tasmania I thinkabout a year ago. In my view, if you use a firearm to shoot somebody else's property and you steal it, it is anillegal use of the firearm. Just like threatening your spouse with a firearm, shooting out road signs and shooting aperson are all illegal uses of a firearm.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Indeed. But if we shoot our spouse we do not call it spouse poaching, do we? Youreferred to the term 'stock poaching'. What was that referring to?

Mr Browne: Shooting animals and stealing them.

Senator LEYONHJELM: In which order?

Mr Browne: You would shoot it and then you would take it away.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I see. Okay.

CHAIR: When we have someone on a teleconference if we are going to make jokes and asides we need to

make sure that we speak up because all they hear is the laughter and it is not fair if they do not know what thecomment has been.

Senator McKENZIE: Thank you so much, Mr Browne, for your submission to the inquiry and for your timetoday. We heard yesterday from a range of farming organisations, and following on from Senator Leyonhjelm'squestioning, particularly with respect to pistols. Obviously you would appreciate the farm size in Tasmania in thatthe further you go north the bigger they get. The West Darling farmer was talking about being hours from hishome and seeing stock down, which needed humane treatment, and, as he was not able to have a rifle on themotorbike with him, how handy it would be to have a pistol. But under their regulations the farmers cannot haveboth. Do you have a comment about how farmers can appropriately use the tools of the trade, such as pistols andrifles, to manage feral pests and also to humanely treat their stock?

Mr Browne: I did not hear the evidence from this particular person so I have not considered a response norhave thought about the issue.

Senator McKENZIE: That is okay. If you could take that on notice, that is fine.


11/69



Mr Browne: No, I just wanted to respond to with the qualification that I have not thought it through because Ihave not heard the evidence. The first point I want to make is that the round of reforms post-1996 recognised theneed for farmers to put down stock that were suffering and certainly recognised the need in rural areas for animalpopulation control. Farmers have managed without being able to carry handguns, as you have described, and havehad to find other ways to deal with those problems. It is possible that there is room for exceptions to particular

licensing requirements to facilitate or enable farmers with a particular need to have a handgun in thosecircumstances. That may see the need for amendment at a state level.

CHAIR: Mr Browne, I just have to stop you for a minute as we have the media coming in. We can really onlyhave one more camera in terms of the constraints of the room. You have to go over to the other side. The peoplein the auditorium might need to move over a bit. Mr Browne, I am sorry I interrupted to and I will let you finishnow.

Senator McKENZIE: He may want to look at the arguments.

CHAIR: He may want to finish what he was saying. Mr Browne, did you have something further you wantedto say?

Mr Browne: Yes. I was going to say two other things. Firstly, what concerns me about opening up the fieldfor handguns for farmers is that hunters want to introduce and make available handguns for the hunting of animals

in Australia, which will see the opening up of a significant market for use of handguns and therefore, inevitably,significant increases in the number of handguns in Australia. We would be vehemently opposed to that. Secondly,before we got to legislative change in relation to the needs of farmers, I would like to be satisfied that the issuewas investigated and that all other possible alternatives were exhausted. One possible alternative, I imagine, is thebolt stun guns, which are used in abattoirs, that could potentially be used by farmers in the circumstances that thesenator outlined.

Senator McKENZIE: Thank you so much. In reading your submission I am wondering about the evidentiarybasis upon which you meant make quite wide-sweeping claims about the banning of handguns. It is almost as ifthe assumption is that the more guns we havepistols or long-armsin the community by licensed, law-abiding,sporting shooters and hunters and, indeed, farmers is automatically going to lead to an increase in gun violencewhen in actual fact the evidence that we have heard thus far within our committee and the vast majority ofsubmissions to this committee simply do not back up that. Mr Browne, when I read your submission it is strong

on rhetoric and very short on factual evidence. Could you provide the committee with the evidentiary basis onwhich you make your claims?

Mr Browne: Firstly, the firearms lobby in Australia is very well resourced. They have their own researcheswhich comes to the conclusion that the 1996 reforms have been unsuccessful. The changes in the types of gunsthat are available in Australia, it is said, has made no difference to gun death rates, gun suicide rates and the like.

Senator McKENZIE: With respect, Mr Browne, it was not any gun lobby evidence that we heard; it was theNew South Wales Police and the Victoria Police evidence which actually backs up what we are saying. Out of48,000 handguns, six of them were stolen, and we cannot be sure about how many of those actually ended upbeing used in gun related violence. So the number is actually from the police departments, both in New SouthWales and Victoria, and simply do not back up your claim. It is not the gun lobby. I just wanted to make sure youare focusing, not on the gun lobby, but on the police forces' evidence.

Mr Browne: In your question to me you talked about the issue in terms of guns generally. To come back to

handguns and the risk that they pose, I acknowledge that point. I agree that the research is not there to show thathandguns are turning up in disproportionate numbers of crimes, for example, in Australia at this time. I do notbelieve that my submission asserts that the research shows that at all.

Senator McKENZIE: It does. You say 'frequently misused' and 'significant number not stored'. You useinflammatory language throughout your submission that simply does not

Mr Browne: Not of handguns.

Senator McKENZIE: have the evidence base, so I am giving you the opportunity to put your evidence baseto the committee so that we can be assured of the veracity of your claims in your submission.

Mr Browne: Where in my submission do I say that in relation to handguns?

Senator McKENZIE: I can go through it and give that to you if you would like.

Mr Browne: Yes.


12/69



CHAIR: I am bit concerned about the time we have. Do you want to assert, Mr Browne, that in fact you arespeaking generally about guns and not just about handguns? Is that what you would be saying in terms of yoursubmission? We can look at your submission then.

Mr Browne: Yes.

Senator McKENZIE: Okay. I have one final question.Senator LEYONHJELM: Can I say something, Chair?

CHAIR: Yes, quickly.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I am quoting:

It tends to conceal the reality that legally held firearms are frequently misused. Examples are: domestic abuse, poaching onfarmlands, illegally taking wildlife and shooting road signs.

Do you have evidence of those? That was Senator McKenzie's point.

Senator McKENZIE: Thank you, Senator Leyonhjelm.

Mr Browne: Do I have evidence for the use of firearms in shooting our road signs and other instances of gunviolenceis at your question?

Senator LEYONHJELM: Well do you have evidence for the statement that says:

legally held firearms are frequently misused. Examples are: domestic abuse, poaching on farmlands, illegally takingwildlife and shooting road signs.

Senator McKENZIE: My final question, Mr Browne, is: looking internationally I know you quote the USstats, but I know there are a variety of European states with high gun ownership and low gun violence. I wanted toget your perspective on the Canadian experience. They decreased their regulatory environment and requirementson the long-arm and did not see any subsequent increase in gun related violence. Did you have any commentaryabout decreasing regulation on law-abiding gun owners and the subsequent decrease in gun related violenceincidents?

Mr Browne: What decrease in regulation in Canada are you talking about? I think that is an importantquestion.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Canada recentlya couple of years agoabandoned registration of long arms. I

am sure you are aware of it, Mr Browne.Mr Browne: Is that the decrease in regulation you are talking about, Senator McKenzie?

Senator McKENZIE: Yes, because every time we ask somebody to register something and jump throughhoops to do a sport or participate in an everyday activity, it is called 'regulation'. Canada decreased the regulatoryrequirements for long armsthat is, registration processesand did not see a subsequent increase in gun relatedviolence. I am just wondering if you had any comment.

Mr Browne: I think the firearms registry in Canada was dismantled about 12 or 18 months ago. As I saidearlier, regulation of firearms is a matrix of regulation. It is difficult to separate one issue. Registration has its ownimportance within the field of firearms control. It ensures that firearms that are bought and sold can be traced suchthat they are only bought from or sold to a person with a licence. Secondly, and most significantly, registration offirearms has a major role to play in the solving of crimes involving firearms. In terms of a link betweenregistration of firearms and reduction of gun violence, my answer to that is, firstly, that if there is a consequence

whereby the reduction of regulation, as you call it, leads to any change, I think that would be some years down thetrack. Secondly, I suspect it would be hard to pick how a reduction in gun violence, or any change in the levels ofgun violence, could be sheeted home directly and solely to a reduction in registration requirements.

Senator REYNOLDS: I wanted to follow up some comments from early on in your evidence in relation tothe requirement for increased regulations and legislation. The evidence we have had so far, including the AICreport that you quoted, clearly show that, of the 1,500 or so firearms that are stolen every year, the majority aredue to noncompliance with current legislation and storage requirements. The Victorian and New South Walespolice, whom we saw yesterday, were clearly not arguing for increased legislation or regulation; they were talkingabout increased compliance. On my own calculations, there are about 2.75 million registered firearms in thecountry today, so the 1,500 that are stolen90 per cent or more of which are long armsrepresent about 0.0005per cent of the firearms stock. I am wondering, therefore, on what basis you say we need increased legislation forthe majority of registered firearms owners and not increased compliance.


13/69



Mr Browne: My best answer to that is the Institute of Criminology are not pointing to compliance as themajor problem in circumstances where guns are stolen that have been stored in compliance with the regulations.You cannot have both. Maybe I am misunderstanding your question.

Senator REYNOLDS: I have the AIC report you are quoting here. It clearly says:

A critical factor in the prevention of firearm theft is owner compliance with prescribed firearm storage standards.The AIC report itself shows that the vast majority of thefts occur because of noncompliance by owners. It is notfor any other reason.

Mr Browne: Yes. If the response to that is that the police services want more resources to ensure compliance,that is well and good because that is part of the matrix of regulation of firearms in Australia. But it is clearly not apanacea to theft of guns. It is part of the picture. The remainder of the picture is that commonlyand I know thisfrom watching reports of this in the mediathe firearms that are stolen are stored in accordance with theregulations.

Senator McKENZIE: And are not necessarily

Senator REYNOLDS: Absolutely. The whole point of the AIC report, which you have quoted, is thatincreased legislation is not required. It is just a very small percentage of registered gun owners who are notcompliant. If more effort were put into compliance, then it would reduce further the rate of guns that are being

stolen. The interesting thing from the testimony yesterday that I would like your thoughts on is that at least 90 percentthe New South Wales and Victoria Police said that the latest figures were even higherare long-arms andnot pistols. The Victoria Police said they had six handguns stolen last year, and there was no evidence that anyone of them was actually used in the commission of a crime. In fact, both New South Wales and Victoria Policewere talking about organised crime sourcing their semiautomatic pistols from the illegal market and not fromtheft. Therefore the opinion I came to from their evidence yesterday was very much that the issue is theapproximately 260,000 weapons on the black market and the grey market, not the very few that are stolen fromregistered gun owners.

Mr Browne: That all went through a bit quickly for me. Surely, you are not saying that there are 260,000handguns in the black market, are you? Was that guns generally?

Senator REYNOLDS: No, it is 10,000 handguns and 240,000 to 250,000 long-arms which, as you would beaware, can be modified.

Mr Browne: Yes. You put that question to me as if there is a disconnect between guns that are stolen and theblack market. I do not accept that assumption. In my view, guns that are stolen around Australia move into theblack market. That is inevitably where they go.

Senator McKENZIE: Where is the evidence base for that? Mr Browne, if you could actually review theevidence of the police officers yesterday whenHansardcomes out, we would really appreciate your perspectivebecause that evidence really is incongruent with your assertions.

CHAIR: We are over time now. I think Senator Macdonald has a comment to make.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Thank you, Mr Browne. Clearly, most of us on the committee do not agreewith all of the facts that you have related. They are a bit contrary to other evidence we have got. I thank you foryour submission. I note that you talk about a recommendation to ensure a higher level of consistency betweenstates, and I thank you for that. Thank you for exercising your right to put forward a view. Even though most of

us do not agree with you, it is good that you are able to do that. Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Mr Browne, I have a few questions. As the chair, I have not had the chance to ask any yet. I amcertainly very interested in the evidence you have given. There have been various issues raised with you and someinformation thrown at you in terms of what the evidence was yesterday. I do not think it is necessarily a thoroughrepresentation of what was said yesterday. If you want to take the opportunity to review the evidence that wasgiven yesterday, I am certainly happy for you to do that. You may want to take some questions on notice orprovide some further responses. One example might be the statistic about how many reported stolen handgunsthere were, or other stolen firearms.

The evidence from police witnesses yesterday was that reporting of stolen weapons relies on the willingness ofthe person who has experienced the theft to report it. Indeed, they were very clear about weapons in the so-calledgrey market. These are perhaps weapons or guns that have been held without proper authorisation, because thatwas not provided when it should have been. So they are not legitimately held. There may be a reluctance on thepart of the owners to report a theft. That was conceded and definitely elaborated on by both the police witnessesyesterday. The reliability of those sorts of statistics was being agreed by the police witnesses to be highly


14/69



Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting

CHAIR: I am going to ask him.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: It is not a debate.

CHAIR: Well, it has been a bit of a debate.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I agree with you. But I do not think you, as chair, can follow that up.

CHAIR: I just want to make sure that there is a fair playing field here. You may want to have a look at thatevidence, Mr Browne. You may want to take the opportunity to have a bit more information about the Canadianexample that was thrown to you to comment on. Some of the witnesses yesterday were talking about the fact thatit is only in one state where there is regulation about ammunition and provision of ammunition. Certainly, therewere suggestions that that could be further regulated

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Is that Mr Browne's sphere?

CHAIR: because rounds are interchangeable between handguns and rifleslong-armsin some cases. Doyou want to have a look at that or comment on that?

Mr Browne: I am just noting this as I go. Thank you.

CHAIR: Do you have any understanding, knowledge or concerns about regulation of ammunition?

Mr Browne: What I would like to do is review the evidence that was given about that, take that on notice andrespond to it.

CHAIR: That is fine. It was put to you that there is no evidence that theft is a source of firearms in the illicitmarket. But I take you to the submission from the Australian Crime Commission

Senator McKENZIE: That is not what was said. Don't misrepresent

Senator REYNOLDS: That is not what was said.

CHAIR: What did you say then? Can you make thatI think you did assert that.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Can we ask Mr Browne a question?

CHAIR: I am going to ask him a question but I am interested in the fact that certain things had been put tohim

Senator McKENZIE: When we use absolute statements, there is always going to be the 0.00061 per cent atthe margin. When you encapsulate the evidence from the police yesterday that was that the vast majority of gunsthat were stolen from licensed gun owners do not find their way into gun related violence. That was the evidence.It was not that none do, but that the majority do not.

CHAIR: I think we would review the point that was put to him by one of either of you. Mr Browne, I ask youto comment on this aspect of the submission from the Australian Crime Commission:

Theft remains a primary method for diverting firearms to the illicit market. There is some evidence that firearms and firearmparts are illegally imported into Australia although Australian Crime Commission data indicates that these comprise a smallproportion of all firearms diverted into the black market.

Mr Browne: It sounds like the Crime Commission is suggesting that theft is the primary source of firearmsmoving into the black market and that certainly is the thrust of my submission to the committee.

CHAIR: And the Victoria Police submission says that:

It currently appears that illegal importation of firearms for criminal use is still the exception and not the rule.

Mr Browne: I agree with that. That is also the position that the Commonwealth took a number of years agowhen rebutting the suggestions from shooters and from the New South Wales government that there was aproblem with a significant number of firearms being imported into Australia. There is just no evidence to supportthat. That is not my view. That is the generally held view of the Commonwealth and obviously the view of theVictoria Police.

CHAIR: Are you familiar with the UK regulations when there was a handgun ban there? Are you familiarwith what occurred in the UK?

Mr Browne: I was, in fact, in the House of Lords on the evening that that legislation passed through theHouse of Lords. So yes, I am familiar with it. The effect of it

CHAIR: What I would ask

Mr Browne: After a lot of consternation after the Dunblane massacre in March 1996, where there had beentalk of a ban on high-powered handguns previously to that, the effect was that handguns were banned in Britain.


15/69



Shooters who want to participate in handgun events in Britain now have to travel to Spain and keep theirhandguns in another country, for example.

CHAIR: Would you be interested in reviewing the evidence from the inquiry yesterday? There wereassertions made and evidence led by Senator Leyonhjelm, I think, that gun crime went up after the handguns werebanned. I am interested in your view of what occurred in the UK after handguns were banned for four years andbeyond. Would you look at that? There was not anyone at the hearing who was able to address the issue raised bySenator Leyonhjelm and it would be interesting to get your perspective on that.

Mr Browne: Which witness gave that evidence? Or did it come from Senator Leyonhjelm?

CHAIR: It initially came from Senator Leyonhjelm and then was commented on. Who were you asking aboutit?

Senator LEYONHJELM: Mr Whelan, I think.

CHAIR: It was early in the daythat is all I can really say.

Mr Browne: All right.

CHAIR: Thank you. The secretariat could help you with that. Finally, there was evidence given about theusefulness of the Institute of Criminology gun theft in Australia reports, which ceased in about 2009. My

understanding is that they were funded from the Proceeds of Crime Act. Do you have a view about how valuablethose reports were and what kind of information they contained?

Mr Browne: The fact that this committee is receiving the AIC reports suggests the latest data in Australiaspeaks for itself. The AIC reports on homicide monitoring have been invaluable over the decades, as with thereports on firearm theft, and it really is regrettable that the funding ceased. They are a source of independent,well-researched data that we have lost temporarily. Hopefully, government will see the sense in funding it tocontinue.

CHAIR: We need to call your evidence to a finish and move onto the next witness. Thank you very much forgiving up your time to give evidence to the committee today.

Mr Browne: Thank you.


16/69



LANG, Ms Julia, Paralegal, Family Law, Criminal Law and CPV, Law Institute of Victoria

YU, Mr Albert, Co-chair, Young Lawyers Section, Law Reform Committee, Law Institute of Victoria

[09:57]

CHAIR: Welcome. Thank you very much for talking to us today. The committee has received a submissionfrom the Law Institute of Victoria as submission 124. Do you wish to make any amendments or alterations toyour submission?

Mr Yu: No.

CHAIR: I invite you to make a brief opening statement before we go to questions. If you keep your statementas brief as possible, we will have time for questionsand I will need to be fairly autocratic about the amount oftime that each of us has for questions so that we can do it fairly.

Mr Yu: I will start by briefly explaining what the Law Institute of Victoria is. The LIV was established in1859 and is the peak body for the Victorian legal profession. The LIV young lawyers section law reformcommittee is one of the eight committees in the young lawyers section, membership of which is open to anymember of the LIV who is either a practitioner under the age of 36, a practitioner with less than six years post-admission experience, or graduates, trainees and law students. The young lawyers section law reform committee

is led by chairs who are elected annually. Currently, I am one of the two co-chairs of the committee.I will briefly summarise our written submission. Regulation of firearms, as no doubt you are aware, is the

responsibility of state and territory governments, but, nonetheless, there is a high degree of uniformity across thejurisdictions because of the fact that the legislations have been enacted as a result of the National FirearmsAgreement of 1996.

The NFA was signed primarily in response to the Port Arthur shootings in Tasmania in 1996, as you would beaware. The aim of the agreement was to encourage the adoption of consistent firearms legislation in alljurisdictions. The focus of the LIV's submission in this inquiry really relates to paragraph g of the terms ofreference, and is the LIV's case for more uniform regulation across the Australian jurisdictions.

Although the Australian firearms legislations are largely similar, there are still some important differences.First, as pointed out by the Australian Institute of Criminology in its submission to this committee, deactivatedfirearms are not included in the legislated definitions of firearms in South Australia and Western Australia. Theinstitute also pointed out that deactivated long-arms are not considered a firearm in Queensland. This is aparticular concern given the institute's earlier submission that false deactivation was the biggest source of illicitrestricted handguns.

Second, as detailed in the LIV's written submission, there are inconsistencies in storage requirements betweenstates and territories. For example, in Victoria different storage requirements apply to different categories offirearms. For instance, category A and B long-arms must be stored in a receptacle which is constructed ofhardwood and steel. On the other hand, category C and D long-arms and general category handguns must bestored in a steel safe. In Western Australia, on the other hand, the storage requirements do not differ between thecategories of firearmsthat is, all firearms in Western Australia must be stored in a cabinet or containerconstructed of steel.

Third, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory have introduced more

substantial penalties for unauthorised possession of multiple firearms. However, what amounts to 'multiplefirearms' is different in these jurisdictionsthree in New South Wales and 10 in Victoria, Queensland and theAustralian Capital Territory.

Fourth, as considered in detail in the LIV's written submission as well as the Attorney-General's Departmentsubmission, there are inconsistencies in relation to firearm parts, accessories, magazines and firearm dealers. TheLIV agrees with the Attorney-General's Department that state and territory governments are best placed toregulate firearms. Nevertheless, the LIV considers that more can be done to minimise unnecessary inconsistenciessuch as the ones I have just outlined. We think this would minimise confusion among both honest firearm dealersand owners as well as law enforcement agencies.

The first option is the adoption of a more detailed national firearms agreement which effectively is a uniformfirearms code. This would entail the states and territories agreeing to adopt the uniform firearms code as their ownlegislation save for certain derogations which they deem necessary and appropriate for their particular

jurisdiction. This would mean that the legislative form and substanceorder of sections, terms used et ceterawould largely be the same, minimising jurisdictional inconsistencies and also making it easier to identifyjurisdictional differences where they exist. An example of the successful adoption of a similar model is the Model


17/69



Uniform Evidence Bill which was adopted by the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, the AustralianCapital Territory and the Northern Territory.

The second option, which we have also outlined in our written submissions, is the National Electricity Lawmodel. Under this model, a lead jurisdiction, which would be a state or territory jurisdiction, would enact anational firearms law which is subsequently adopted by all jurisdictions by implementing acts, which wouldprovide any necessary jurisdictional derogations from the national firearms law. This would also achieve thedesired objective of more uniform regulation of firearms in Australia.

We note that the Attorney-General's Department suggested a simple update to the technical elements of theNFA to include subject matters that were previously omitted from the NFA such as the regulation of magazines,firearm parts and accessories. This would be another way of achieving greater uniformity between jurisdictions,as a lot of the differences result from the fact that the subject matters are missing from the NFA.

Before I conclude my formal submissions, I will briefly note paragraph c of the terms of referencethat is, theadequacy of current law in light of technological advances made by 3-D printing and the possibility ofmanufacturing guns by such a method.

Unauthorised import and export of firearms and firearm parts is a serious criminal offence. Also, unauthorisedmanufacture of firearms is prohibited in all jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the committee may consider the possibility

of regulating 3-D printing itself for the purpose of stopping unauthorised manufacturing of guns by 3-D printing;however, the LIV would caution against this by pointing to the submission by the Australian Crime Commissionthat the technology of 3-D printing currently poses only a low threat to law enforcement. If the committee is toconsider the possibility of regulating 3-D printing, the LIV recommends that the committee extensively consultswith technological experts in this matter. I now conclude my formal submissions.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Yu. Ms Lang, do you have anything to add?

Ms Lang: No.

CHAIR: With the agreement of the committee, I think I might just push it out to 10.40 am, given that theremight be some significant questions,.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Good morning. You are a lawyer?

Mr Yu: Yes.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Recently?Mr Yu: Yes.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Do you believe in competitive federalism?

Mr Yu: Personally, I do but that is not necessarily the LIV's view.

Senator LEYONHJELM: No, I gathered that.

CHAIR: You are entitled not to answer questions about opinion on policy, if you are not comfortable withthem.

Senator LEYONHJELM: There are two areas that I am interested in this and, if I have time, I will pursuethem. I am going to go with the one that concerns me the mostthat is, the inconsistencies between the states.What adverse effects are there? You can argue that inconsistencies between the states with respect to regulatingcompanies which trade across borders or even road laws, because people travel between states, are a hindrance.

What is the equivalent in terms of the regulation of firearms that justifies your argument that inconsistenciesbetween the states require the attention that you have advocated in your submission?

Mr Yu: I will point to some of the inconsistencies

Senator LEYONHJELM: I know what they are; I have read your submission.

Mr Yu: I will explain which

Senator LEYONHJELM: No need to do that. I understand; you have pointed it out in the submission. It is avery scholarly work. You have pointed out what the inconsistencies are. What I want to know is: why do theymatter?

Mr Yu: I will point to the deactivated firearms matter. The Australian Institute of Criminology pointed outthat deactivated firearms are not included in the legislative definition of firearms in South Australia and WesternAustralia. There is no reason, as far as I can tell, as to why it should be different in South Australia and Western

Australia as opposed to other jurisdictions, for example. This, as I said, is a concern because deactivated firearmsare one of the biggest sources of illicit restricted handguns according to the institute.


18/69



Senator LEYONHJELM: No, it doesn't say that, but carry on.

CHAIR: Let the witness answer the question.

Mr Yu: Another thing is the storage requirements. Again, as far as I can tell, there is no good reason why inWestern Australia the storage requirements should be the same for all categories of firearms, whereas they are

different for categories of firearms in Victoria.Senator LEYONHJELM: Could I ask you to address my point: what harm is there in having a different

storage requirment in Victoria from Queensland?

Mr Yu: It tends to be quite confusing for firearm owners who move between jurisdictions. At the risk ofanecdotal evidence, I have some acquaintances who know people who have moved from New South Wales toVictoria, for instance, and have faced considerable difficulties in understanding the Victorian firearmsrequirements as opposed to the New South Wales ones. There are some important differences between the two, sothat is another concern that I have.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Could I suggest that what you are proposing is a very substantial increase inregulatory control. From a national perspective, it is the equivalent of the Road Traffic Code, which is thenadopted by automatic legislation in the states as it is changed.

Mr Yu: No, the LIV is not necessarily advocating one uniform approach. What we are saying is that that isone possible way, but I have also noted that another way is simply to update the National Firearms Agreement soas to cover subject matters that were not previously covered. That would also increase the uniformity between thejurisdictions. The LIV is not necessarily advocating that we should adopt a national firearms code.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I am still struggling with what harm is done by having differences. So far, yourkey point is that some firearm owners might move between the states and that they would therefore find they weredealing with different rulesis that the point? What sorts of numbers are we talking about here?

Mr Yu: I will have to take that question on notice.

Senator LEYONHJELM: With this business about deactivation being a major sourcedo you understandwhat deactivation means? Have you examined it at all in any detail?

Mr Yu: I will have to defer to your expertise on that matter.

Senator LEYONHJELM: In terms of long-arms, the alternative term for a deactivated long-arm is a stick.Deactivation is highly prescribed by the regulatory authorities. There were examples in Queensland of pistolsbeing reactivated, because they had some very slack enforcement up there. But I do not think we have receivedany evidence that, beyond that exceptionwhich the law enforcement authorities have acknowledgedthere hasbeen any reactivation, if you like, of firearms. What are you basing that on?

Mr Yu: I will quote from the submission made to this committee by the Australian Institute of Criminologyit is on page 7. It states: 'The primary sources of illicit restricted handguns were forced deactivation39 per cent.'So this institute at least appears to acknowledge that forced deactivation is the biggest source of illicit restrictedhandguns, as I said before in my oral submission.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Did you read the rest of that paragraph?

Mr Yu: Yes, I did.

Senator LEYONHJELM: 'False deactivation refers to legislative loopholes exploited largely in Queensland

that facilitated the transfer of handguns from illicit to the illicit market.' That loophole is well and truly gone now.Do you still consider deactivation to be a weakness in firearms control?

Mr Yu: My question also is: is there a good reason why deactivated firearms should not be included in thedefinition of firearms in South Australia and Western Australia? There is not really a good reason, in my view, asto why it should be different.

Senator LEYONHJELM: The argument would be that they are not firearms, that is all. You cannot doanything with them: they are a stick.

CHAIR: Is the point you are making that authorities have seen fit to include those in other jurisdictions butnot in South Australia and Western Australia?

Mr Yu: That is right.

CHAIR: That is probably where there is a difference of opinion there.

Senator LEYONHJELM: You can leave it there.


19/69



Mr Yu: If you believe that deactivation is not a concern, then I think that matter should be addressed by theNational Firearms Agreement, rather than leaving it to the states to decide.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Just to reinforce the pointthat is an argument against competitive federalism. Doyou understand that?

Mr Yu: I will not answer that question.CHAIR: Personal views about competitive federalism probably are not particularly relevant to the terms of

reference.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Thanks for your submission and for your time in coming here today. I realiseyour time is valuable. Following on the theme of Senator Leyonhjelm's questioning, you are calling for uniformstate legislation but are opposed to doing the legislation federally so it is the same across Australia. Can yousimply explain the difference?

Mr Yu: I am not necessarily advocating that legislation across all jurisdictions should be the same. I recognisethat there are jurisdictional differences that are better addressed by state and territory parliaments.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Then how can you have uniform laws across Australia?

Mr Yu: Going to the first part of your question, the difference between Commonwealth legislation and state-

based uniform legislation is that Commonwealth legislation has to apply equally in all jurisdictions in Australia;whereas state and territory legislations, even if they are largely the same, can move on to adopt whateverderogations from the uniform code, so to speak, that they deem necessary for their own jurisdiction. In the LIV'sview, that is a better way of addressing the jurisdictional issues.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I am not arguing a case, and I accept what you are saying, but if you arewanting uniform laws across Australia like the uniform company act, which started off as an agreement betweenthe states, why not then just have uniform laws by having everyone the same, which means havingCommonwealth legislation?

Mr Yu: We are not saying that it should be exactly the same across all jurisdictions. The National FirearmsAgreement was an attempt to make laws across jurisdictions largely similar, at the same time also recognising thatthere are important jurisdictional differences as a result of the geographic vastness of our nation.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Do you think law enforcement agencies would find it easier if there was

absolutely uniform legislation across Australia?Mr Yu: That is probably the case because in that case all the jurisdictions can collaborate with one another to

better understand the regulation, but that is not the position that we are advocating.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I want to briefly turn to another part of your submission in relation to the 3-Dprinters. You indicated both in your submission and verbally that manufacture of gun parts is already illegal inAustraliais that right?

Mr Yu: That is right, yes.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Under what legislation is that?

Mr Yu: The firearms acts of each state. If you look in the early part of our written submission it says theunauthorised manufacture of firearms is illegal in all states and territories.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: And I note you wisely raise the criteria that if we are going to do anything, we

should talk closely with those who are directly involved, and that is very appropriate. You mentioned some of thejurisdictions that have actually brought in regulations. Do you think any of those legislative regulations in othercountries would be useful in Australiabearing in mind that at the moment perhaps it is not a real threat as we donot have the right resin, but clearly that is not far away?

Mr Yu: The LIV is not calling for regulation of 3-D printers per se. Given that 3-D printing is not really athreat at the moment, my personal view is that it should not be regulated but the LIV is not calling for oneposition or the other on that matter.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: It stands to reason that it will not be far away before you can get a materialthat is useful. You don't think there is any merit in being ahead of the game rather than lagging?

Mr Yu: If the law enforcement agencies are not calling for regulation of 3-D printers, I do not think there isany reason why we should be.

CHAIR: I want to follow up on those questions and then come back to Senator Reynolds as it seems logical tocontinue with that line of questioning. Your submission says:


20/69



Given the developments in additive manufacturing technology

and part of that is 3-D printing, which is what people understand the term to mean

may be unclear whether the legislation in all Australian jurisdictions would cover the possession and manufacture of allfirearms, including those made with the use of 3D printers and those manufactured from separately imported parts.

So there are two aspects to that: the separately imported parts and the 3-D printing issue. We have just had somediscussion about how close it is on the horizon. Certainly, quite a lot of the submissions are concerned about theissue of people being able to manufacture guns using 3-D printing. I tabled a report yesterday from the UnitedNations, and I might ask the secretariat to provide you with a copy of this. It is a long report and I do not expectyou to be able to comment on it sensibly without having had a look at it, but I might indicate what it is. It is areport from the United Nations General Assembly distributed on 6 May this year, and it was looking at recentdevelopments in small arms and light weapons manufacturing technology and design and looking at theimplementation of an international instrument to enable states to come on board together with this.

I will take you to a somewhat concerning aspect of that report. It is paragraph 18, which is on page 5.Paragraph 18 talks particularly about 3-D printing, and I just want your comments on this and then to look atpotential legislative responses to this particular issue. It says:

3-D printing is a significant innovation in small arms manufacturing, potentially opening up the market to new sectors and

actors. Of particular concern with respect to the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons is the availability of thistechnology for criminal and terrorist activities. At the moment weapons theft or purchase on the illicit market may require l esseffort than printing an effective, reliable weapon.

It goes on to say:

This could change once production costs decrease and quality increases. 3-D printing may become a lucrative alternative forsmall-scale illicit weapon manufacturing and sale in the future.

Certainly some of the evidence we have heard from law enforcement authorities is that they are treating this veryseriously. That said, there are many, many wonderful aspects of 3-D printing and I am not interested inbesmirching a whole technology, but I think we are all agreeing that we need to have the law keep up withtechnology as much as possible. So what recommendations might you be interested in suggesting to ensure that 3-D printed gun manufacturing is definitely illegal to start with? Do you have anything further you would like tosay about that in terms of what we need to be doing now?

Mr Yu: I will take that question on notice and get back to you.CHAIR: All right. Do you know what other measures might be possible to prevent 3-D guns from being

printed? Do you know what is being looked at globally to prevent that? Do you have any knowledge about thatnow?

Mr Yu: We have pointed out some examples in our written submission.

CHAIR: Could you talk about those a bit more for us please?

Mr Yu: Beyond that, I do not really have a comment. Again, I would emphasise that the LIV is not calling forthe regulation of 3-D printers per se

CHAIR: No, I understand that. I guess we are looking at what expertise or suggestions you have, beinglawyers who are looking at this areathat is all.

Mr Yu: We are not experts in 3-D printing, so we are not really in the right position to comment on it.

CHAIR: Can you talk us through what global examples you are aware of then?

Mr Yu: The examples we talk aboutwe have cited the private regulation of the Danish 3-D printing firmCreate It REALs creation of a firearms component detection algorithm. Again, I would simply refer to ourwritten submission rather than reading these out. Beyond that, we do not really have any expertise in theregulation of 3-D printers internationally.

CHAIR: Do you think it is a concern?

Mr Yu: It is obviously a concern, particularly if the law enforcement agencies are concerned about thepossibility. I also note that the Australian Crime Commission said that it only poses a low threat to lawenforcement at the moment, so it is probably something the committee should consider very deeply beforemoving on to actually considering the regulation of 3-D printers.

Senator REYNOLDS: I want to follow-up on the issue of 3-D printing because it raises a number of issues

for this committee to consider. We had some evidence in writing yesterday not only from the AFP but also fromthe Victorian or New South Wales policeone of them; I cannot remember exactly which one it wasand they


21/69



have given evidence that 3-D printing is a prospective threat, but at the moment the issue is the material that theyuse in the current generation of 3-D printing is not suitable. When they have trialled it, it has exploded because ithas not been able to deal with the projectile. So while there does not seem to be any evidence yet of being able tomanufacture a firearm with current 3-D technology, I was just wondering, coming from the organisation that youdo, what do you think about the options for this committee and for legislators in the future to keep ahead of

prospective threats rather than dealing with them later? Do you have any sort of advicewithout doing restraintof trade or overreacting todayin a legal sense, about the sorts of provisions we could give law enforcementbodies in a prospective sense, a watching brief?

Mr Yu: There are various legal options. One of them is a very drastic option, which is to introduce thecharacter test for the ownership, use and possession of 3-D printers. That is definitely not the position that theLIV advocates. Another option is to regulate the algorithms which may enable people to, so to speak, print gunsfrom printers.

Senator REYNOLDS: I may not have been clear. I am talking in a legislative sense or even a regulatorysense. 3-D printing is not yet at a point where people can make firearms. My question is beyond 3-D printing,because there are obviously other avenues. In a legal sense, with your expert legal advice for this committee, howcan we better enable law enforcement to look forward without being too prescriptive for a problem that does notyet exist?

Mr Yu: I would caution against introducing new legislation that is so broad and encompassing that itaddresses every possible scenario in the future. Rather, I would recommend that the committee introduceslegislation to deal with only credible threat that may eventuate in the future.

Senator REYNOLDS: Can you just explain that to me? In one sense you said you should not introducelegislation that would do that and then, as I understood your response, you then said, 'But we should introducelegislation just in case something might happen.'

Mr Yu: No. What I said was you should only introduce legislation in order to deal with what is a credible andreal threat.

CHAIR: Can I just clarify: I think I hear you saying that we need to keep a very good watching brief on this. Ithink you are saying that we would not want to be introducing broad legislation without obviously adequateconsultation and consideration but that you would be guided by law enforcement authorities if they think it is a

real threat.Mr Yu: Yes.

Senator McKENZIE: I have a question on 'credible'. We heard a lot of evidence yesterday from variousand often contradictorylaw enforcement agencies, cross-jurisdictions, about the credibility of the threat. Whenthe risk is 0.00061 per cent that a stolen handgun will find its way to a violent episode, then surely at some levelwe cannot legislate for idiocy or every outcome but obviously legislate an owner risk management approach?From anybody's perspective, I would suggest 0.00061 per cent of a risk is not the basis for a good legislativeprogram going forward? Would you agree?

Mr Yu: I would agree with that and I would also comment that, particularly on the issue of stolen firearms, itappears to be more an issue of law enforcement rather than a lack of legislation in that matter.

Senator McKENZIE: Similarly, it is about compliance issues rather than a lack of legislation?

Mr Yu: Yes.Senator McKENZIE: The various data being gathered is, I think, going to be contentious around the

committee, the inconsistency of the data et cetera and the various assumptions underpinning the data gathering.That all plays into actually quite an emotive argument. So it is very important to focus on evidence. Thank you foroutlining to us what we should be basing our decisions on.

CHAIR: I think one of the themes that has already come out in the inquiry from various witnesses is that weneed to have more reliable data, more collaborative evidence gathering across jurisdictions, so we actually knowthe nature of the problem we are dealing with here. Do you have any questions?

Senator LUDWIG: No, thank you. I think they have already been answered.

CHAIR: We have a little more time. Any more questions anyone wants to ask before we finish for the break?

Senator McKENZIE: Can I just clarify an earlier question? I said that the theft rate for handguns is six out of

48,000, so 0.00061 per cent. The evidence we heard from Vic Pol, where there were ex-number of handgunsstolen, was that none of them had actually found their way into gun related violence. I just wanted to clarify thatin terms of evidence.


22/69



Senator REYNOLDS: Just to be specific: according to Vic Pol, out of 525 firearms stolen last year, only sixwere handguns and there was no evidence that any of those six handguns had been used in the commission of acrime.

CHAIR: There is also interesting evidence from Vic Pol that of the 525 stolen only three per cent wererecovered. So 97 per cent were not recovered, and I guess the question that some of us are asking is: whathappened to the ones that were not recovered?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: There is evidence to the committee about the importation of large quantities offirearms that are illegally imported. Does the LIV have a view on what can be done to address that?

Mr Yu: The unauthorised importation of firearms is already a serious criminal offence so, legislativelyspeaking, there is not much that the law can do. It is more a law enforcement compliance issue than anything else.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr Yu and Ms Lang. You have done a sterling job in the face of prettyvigorous questioning today. Thank you very much for your time.

Proceedings suspended from 10:30to 10:43


23/69



DALY, Ms Angela, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Swinburne Institute for Social Research

GOLDSWORTHY, Dr Terry, Assistant Professor, Criminology, Faculty of Society and Design, Bond

University

Evidence from Dr Goldsworthy was taken via teleconference

CHAIR: I am pleased to now welcome Ms Angela Daly and Dr Terry Goldsworthy, who is appearing byteleconference, to the committee. I thank both of you for being willing to meet with us and give us evidencetoday. The committee has received a submission from Dr Goldsworthy, which is submission No. 392, and asubmission from Ms Daly, which is submission No. 393. Do either of you wish to make any amendments oralterations to your submissions?

Ms Daly: No, thank you.

Dr Goldsworthy: No, that is fine.

CHAIR: Would either of you like to make a brief opening statement before we go to questions?

Ms Daly: As my submission says, I am here in my capacity as something of an expert in 3-D printing and itsimplications for law and societyas opposed to guns and weapons more generally. My submission was orientedtowards looking at the adequacy of current laws and of the resourcing to enable law enforcement authorities to

respond to the issue of firearms made with the use of 3-D printing. With regard to 3-D printing, it can involve thecreation of what I term 'undesirable objects', which includes guns but can also involve much more mundane andless dangerous things, such as products which are defective in some waythereby causing health and safetyissues. The creation of these objects is one of the problems that 3-D printing brings up. The problem is thatanyone who has a 3-D printer, raw material and the relevant design files can make one of these undesirableobjects, whether it is a gun or something a bit more mundane and less worryingly dangerous.

The problem for regulation and enforcement of the law with regard to these objects, whether we are talkingabout laws relating to control of weapons, health and safety laws or even intellectual property laws, is thedecentralised nature of 3-D printing. The whole 3-D printing process can essentially take place in the privacy ofindividuals' homes. One way of regulating the 3-D printing process might be to target entities such as the printermanufacturers; the design repositories, which tend to be websites where people upload 3-D printing designs andothers can download them; and internet service providers, given that a lot of this process happens online. One way

of regulating might be to ensure that they must only handle certain kinds of approved files.My concern, however, is that the practical success of such a strategy is far from assured in practice. I refer to

the example of online copyright infringement. There is a lot that could be said about thatI am happy to go intomore detail if you are interestedbut attempts to regulate copyright infringement online have not beenparticularly successful and, arguably, have been disproportionate to the potential harm that copyrightinfringement causes. I think the same may be the case in any attempt to regulate 3-D printing: that it would belargely ineffective and disproportionate to the potential harm of dangerous objects, such as guns. I propose that,due to some concern about guns, we should not allow a moral panic to stifle the large benefits from 3-D printingfor society at large. There should be some hard evidence regarding the prevalence of 3-D printed weapons and thethreat of these weapons to Australia before any new legislation is considered. There would also need to beconsideration given to whether any such regulation would be effective in practice.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Daly. Dr Goldsworthy, did you want to make a short opening statement as well? I

appreciate that your areas of expertise are quite different. We will work out how we are going to manage that in aminute.

Dr Goldsworthy: I think the issue of stolen illegal guns is still reasonably concerning to most Australians.Whilst we have had large reductions in that type of gun crime and while the statistics tell us that their usage inhomicides and robberies has remained quite stable and low, I think there is always room for improvement. Theissue of 3-D printing highlights one of the challenges for many law enforcementthat is, technology andtechnological improvements. With 3-D printing, we are seeing the possibility of criminal elements moving fromjust possession and usage of firearms for criminal purposes to their production and manufacture. I accept theprevious comments: we do not know how many people are actually producing firearms from 3-D printers. It maybe quite negligible. But, given that the possibility exists, it is quite good to see that the Australian government ison the front foot with itbecause if the government is looking at it you can be virtually assured that criminalelements are also looking at it. They are very savvy with technology. They like to keep abreast of trends. If they

think they can suddenly gain a capability to produce weapons that will negative the need to steal et cetera and toproduce them in the privacy of their own homes then that would be a considerable problem. Whether that will


24/69



eventuate is something none of us really know, but certainly the challenges in legislating and regulating it arequite wide.

I mentioned pill presses in my submission. The differentiationand we just touched on itis that pill pressesare industrial type machinery that you import for one purpose, but 3-D printers are multipurpose and most of themare quite legitimate and not illicit. So therein lies the problem of how you regulate something that is going to beused quite legitimately in most of the opportunities versus the small amount of times it may be usedinappropriately. I think that is the real challenge we are facing here.

CHAIR: Thank you, Dr Goldsworthy. I think your area of study and expertise is in the operations of criminalgangs, organised crime groups and so on. Is that right?

Dr Goldsworthy: Yes, that is right.

CHAIR: I am wondering if the committee might like to focus first on the 3-D-printing angle and direct somequestions to Ms Daly and then come to you to talk more broadly as well as perhaps commenting on some of theevidence Ms Daly has given. Is the committee happy to go that way?

Dr Goldsworthy: That is fine.

Senator McKENZIE: Ms Daly, you mention in your submission and additionally in your comments to thecommittee that moral panic, such as the emotive argument around gun control, should not be the basis on whichto draft a legislative response. In your expertise around 3-D printing and the productivity gains, what would thecost of regulating such an industry, which has so many applications across our economy, actually be?

Ms Daly: It would depend on the regulation. Certainly I am very in favour of evidence based regulation andlaws being introduced to deal with a particular problem as opposed to something that has been blown up intomoral panic. There has been a lot of publicity around 3-D printed guns but in reality they are a very smallapplication of 3-D printing and, from what I gather, 3-D printers are not a very efficient means of making gunsand weapons. One of the issues with 3-D printing is precisely what it is efficient for for consumers as opposed toindustry. There are plenty of industrial applications of 3-D printing. It depends obviously on what kinds of lawsand regulations are proposed but I would be concerned about a kind of stifling effect on innovation and totallylegitimate uses of 3-D printing that make up the majority of uses.

Senator McKENZIE: Absolutely. In terms of uses, we have heard evidence about guns produced by 3-D

printing blowing up after one use et cetera. They are not very reliable or consistent. But what about a knife madeby 3-D printing?

Ms Daly: Exactly. Knives are a great example of an object which has multiple uses, probably the majority ofwhich are benign, such as chopping food and so on. If you take that argument back another step, lots of rawmaterials can be manipulated into certain objects but does that mean we are going to restrict the sale of the rawmaterials in the first place because of the potential dangerous objects that can be created by them? Again I wouldcaution a lot of restraint around regulating something where the danger in practice may not be particularly large.

Senator McKENZIE: Senator Macdonald, I know you have a particular interest in this area. Did you havesome questions?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: No. I thought, Ms Daly, you covered the field, except to say that I am sure weare not far away from getting a resin or a material that will produce a gun that will not explode on its first use. Abit of trivia: I was around when Dick Tracy used to talk into a watch on his phone 50 years ago, when everyone

thought that was impossibleof course, it is old hat by nowso we are clearly not far away. Do you think thereis a need to be proactiveperhaps, Dr Goldsworthy, you might also be interested in thisand to be ahead of thegame rather than behind?

Ms Daly: I think when it comes to new technology it is important to try and foresee what developments aregoing to be from a regulatory or legislative point of view on the one hand. I would still caution those who aremaking regulation and legislation to be responsive as well to what are actually problems. You can see thatperhaps this in on the horizon but, until it really becomes a problem, I am not sure, particularly in this case when3-D printing has a lot of different applications. I am also concerned about how regulation or laws could beenforced in practice.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: That is where we turn to experts like you and Dr Goldsworthy to give us theanswers. I am from a political philosophy that acknowledges that technology is good for business and for otherparts of humanity. Here, clearly, something is coming towards us: can you build an atomic bomb with a 3-D

printer? I don't know? As I say, that is why we turn to clever people like you to give us the answers.


25/69



Ms Daly: Unfortunately, in this area, there are no easy answers. Also, attempts to regulate the internet haveand actually my background, rather than weapons, is looking at regulation of communications technologiesnotbeen particularly successful. I think a lot of it is to do with the decentralised and transnational nature of thesetechnologies and what people's communication is.

I am sorry: even when I was writing my submission, I realised that I maybe was not giving some easy answersbut it is not an easy subject.

CHAIR: That is what we need to know. In a sense, your expertise in saying, 'This is challenging. There are no

easy answers'is absolutely important information for the committee to have.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Can I just go to Dr Goldsworthydo you wish to comment?

Dr Goldsworthy: Yes . When I was doing some of my research, I saw an article on the web that talked abouta resin or plastic handgun that was capable of firing multiple shots. Initially, the thoughts were there was only oneshot and then it was finished, but they actually did some teststhis was over in Americaand they managed tofire nine shots out of a plastic gun. The one-shot plastic gun may be something they have already managed towork around.

You need to be proactive on these things. We have now seen changes in the law to capture metadata andwhatever elseour browsing techniques. My understanding is that you just cannot order up a 3-D printer and

then go home and go: whack, print gun. You would have to have specific blueprints and that type of stuff. I willbe corrected if I am wrong, but you would have to source them from the net. Do we have some kind of facilityamongst our law enforcement agencies where they look for that kind of search data for people and then match itup to people who may have criminal histories or intelligence holdings within law enforcement so you can then

start to build a bit of a picture: 'Hello. This person has ordered in a 3-D printer'? If we have a register of 3-Dprinters, we can see from their internet data that they are accessing and trying to get blueprints for firearms. Theyhave a criminal history. Does that then give grounds to get a search warrant on their house?

Without restricting everyone's freedom, some of the things we have in place now, especially after recent eventsin the last couple of months, may actually flow onto this and be able to be utilised for the purpose of identifyingpeople trying to gain 3-D printer capability, if that is one of the main things we are looking at.

Senator McKENZIE: Ms Daly, currently, it is illegal to manufacture a firearm in Australiaand we heard

yesterday from a guy with a decent workshop who could do it in three hours. I am sure if I went around the trapswe could hustle up a few. So the capacity to illegally manufacture a firearm exists and we have a legislativeframework that deals with that. In light of that, is this more of a compliance issue rather than something thatrequires another raft of regulation, particularly over a new technology which has such great potential for ourmanufacturing industries?

Ms Daly: I think yes. I think there is a real issue, as I have been saying, about the enforcement of law, eithernew laws or existing laws. Again, I am not an expert on gun legislation and regulation in Australia, but I wouldimagine that now the challenge that, arguably, 3-D printing presents is in decentralising the points at whichpeople can make guns. The gentleman you mention would have to be quite skilled in order to do this. The averageperson would not be, but, if the average person can have a 3-D printer, perhaps you will see this ability beingopened up to more peoplewhich has a lot of benefits, not in terms of making guns but in making other things.But, obviously, there are dangers and risks as well. Like I say, I am not very aware of the precise law andregulation here, and I am not sure to what extent the law deals with the ability to manufacture and how itconceives of who is doing the manufacturing. Is it being done in a very centralised way, which I think is the pre-3-D printer world, or does it deal with anyone who might be able to manufactureif you see what I mean?

Senator McKENZIE: I do. Dr Goldsworthy, when you think of fit and proper persons who can have a 3-Dprinting licenceif we are thinking of a whole new regulatory environmentI assume they would have to be amember of the Bandidos or the Comancheros before we would wonder if they are a fit and proper person. I wouldhate to think that my lack of demerit points would stop me getting involved in a viable business opportunity.

Dr Goldsworthy: I guess you would use the same tests that we would perhaps use for firearm licensing. It isinteresting that you mentioned the Bandidos and Comancheros because 60 per cent of those gang members do nothave a criminal history. If you are coming back to rely purely on criminal histories, you are probably going tomiss a large grouping of people who would cause concern.

Senator McKENZIE: That is probably my point in that. You suggested earlier that one of the potential ways

we could regulate this is to look at people's criminal history, but that actually would not deal with the realproblem of illicit guns in our community and illicit gun violence, which is, as we heard yesterday, predominantly


26/69



perpetrated by organised crime groups and gangs in our major capital cities. So I probably see a bit of a conflict inthe argument there.

Dr Goldsworthy: I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying this is

Documents

Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee_2014_10!14!2956