Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2008 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 3 July 2008) . . Page.. 2766 ..

have any firearms in my possession when our first child was born because I know kids can be inquisitive. It was always done under supervision until I was an adult and it worked well. It taught you skills and how to deal with different situations when you were in a rural environment.

I recognise what Dr Foskey said about the proximity to metropolitan urban areas here in Canberra, but I think it would be too complicated to start putting in prescriptive rules about where you live and about access. There are obviously overriding expectations that people do not start firing, particularly long-range weapons, towards built-up areas. Anybody who has dealt with weapons would know that is a fundamental precaution to take. Certainly, those in a rural environment, particularly from my experience, having grown up in a state where there are a lot of people on the land, respect that particular approach.

I am also never comfortable when we start stepping out of sync with the rest of the country. I am assuming that what Mr Stefaniak said was right; I have not researched the other jurisdictions. I do not think it is good law or good policy to start having differentiations on matters of this nature. Whilst the minister said it was not appropriate to allow minors under supervision to engage in recreational hunting or shooting, he failed to offer any plausible reason. I do not know whether this is once again political correctness floating into this place. If he has a compelling argument, I would love to hear it. I would love to hear why it is okay across the border but it is not okay in this jurisdiction. Those are my views.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Stefaniak: I wish to move amendment No 2 circulated in my name.

MR SPEAKER: I have been having a discussion with the Clerk about it. It is inconsistent with something that has just been passed. Therefore, it is out of order.

Mr Stefaniak: If it was upheld, it would negate Mr Corbell’s amendment.

MR SPEAKER: It is inconsistent with something that has just been passed. Therefore, it is out of order.

Mr Corbell: It is revisiting the question.

MR SPEAKER: It is more or less revisiting the question, but standing order 141 covers it. I will read it:

An amendment shall not be moved if it is inconsistent with a previous decision on the question.

We have just made the decision.

Mr Mulcahy: Move an amendment to tack on the recreation one.

Mr Stefaniak: I could do that. That is why I thought it would have been easier to do mine first.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .