❓ Mr. Love questions the Police Minister about the firearms buyback program, specifically regarding the allocation of remaining funds after August 31 and the possibility of extending the program. The Minister's response avoids directly answering the questions, instead attacking the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition.
AnsweredQoN 478Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FIREARMS BUYBACK PROGRAM
478. Mr R.S. LOVE to the Minister for Police:
I have a supplementary question.
Noting that the minister has not answered any of the questions I have asked,
what will happen to the remainder of the sum allocated to the buyback after 31 August,
and why will the minister not consider extending the window of opportunity for
people to take up the buyback further down the track?
A government member interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please!
478. Mr R.S. LOVE to the Minister for Police:
I have a supplementary question.
Noting that the minister has not answered any of the questions I have asked,
what will happen to the remainder of the sum allocated to the buyback after 31 August,
and why will the minister not consider extending the window of opportunity for
people to take up the buyback further down the track?
A government member interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please!
AnswerView source ↗
I will repeat the message: do not
listen to the Nationals WA; it may not even exist after the next election. To
the extent that National Party members are telling people anything,
particularly about firearms, people should assume that it is wrong. The firearms buyback is on now. People can take
advantage of it if they have a firearm. Bear in mind that more than half
the firearms received under the buyback were in the city, in Perth, in the
metropolitan area. More than half of those 20 000 firearms were from the city.
People who currently have a firearms licence but who determine, when they look at the legislation, that it will not be
possible or it will be unlikely for them to get a licence under the new
system should consider taking advantage of the buyback. Do not listen to the
Leader of the Opposition—that is my point.
The National Party has been running
a bit of a narrative that is really offensive, divisive and dangerous in light
of recent events, such as the elevation of the terrorist threat level and other
events in the nation and around the world. It is extraordinary that it would
suggest that the rewriting of the Firearms Act to make it safe for communities
and to elevate public safety to be the number one consideration would somehow
be an attack on people. That is the language
that the Leader of the Opposition employs. He employs language that suggests to
people that they are being threatened and attacked when what has
happened is that finally, after 50 years, the legislation has been rewritten to
elevate public safety as a primary consideration. If an event occurs as a consequence
—
Mr R.S. Love interjected.
The SPEAKER : Silence, please.
Point of Order
Mr P.J. RUNDLE : Under
standing order 78, the answer must be relevant to the question. The minister
did not answer the first part of the question, and now he is not answering the
second part of the supplementary.
The SPEAKER : With respect to
the member's point of order, it is true that standing order 78 states
that the answer has to be relevant to the question. The minister's
answer has been relevant to the question. It is a matter of opinion whether he
has answered it, and that is how the standing orders operate. There is nothing
in the standing orders that says one must answer a question in a particular way
or to the satisfaction of the person who has asked it. The response simply has
to be relevant to the question asked, so there is no point of order.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr P. PAPALIA : Thanks, Speaker. I will be quick to
finish. I want to bring to the Leader of the Opposition's attention
that his language and the nature of his response to this legislation has led to
unnecessary division, anger and, in some cases, threats of violence against me
and other people. It has also potentially elevated the threat level to police. He should consider what he is saying.
He should consider what happened at Wieambilla not that long ago and consider the nature of his language around the
firearms laws, which are designed to make the community safer.
listen to the Nationals WA; it may not even exist after the next election. To
the extent that National Party members are telling people anything,
particularly about firearms, people should assume that it is wrong. The firearms buyback is on now. People can take
advantage of it if they have a firearm. Bear in mind that more than half
the firearms received under the buyback were in the city, in Perth, in the
metropolitan area. More than half of those 20 000 firearms were from the city.
People who currently have a firearms licence but who determine, when they look at the legislation, that it will not be
possible or it will be unlikely for them to get a licence under the new
system should consider taking advantage of the buyback. Do not listen to the
Leader of the Opposition—that is my point.
The National Party has been running
a bit of a narrative that is really offensive, divisive and dangerous in light
of recent events, such as the elevation of the terrorist threat level and other
events in the nation and around the world. It is extraordinary that it would
suggest that the rewriting of the Firearms Act to make it safe for communities
and to elevate public safety to be the number one consideration would somehow
be an attack on people. That is the language
that the Leader of the Opposition employs. He employs language that suggests to
people that they are being threatened and attacked when what has
happened is that finally, after 50 years, the legislation has been rewritten to
elevate public safety as a primary consideration. If an event occurs as a consequence
—
Mr R.S. Love interjected.
The SPEAKER : Silence, please.
Point of Order
Mr P.J. RUNDLE : Under
standing order 78, the answer must be relevant to the question. The minister
did not answer the first part of the question, and now he is not answering the
second part of the supplementary.
The SPEAKER : With respect to
the member's point of order, it is true that standing order 78 states
that the answer has to be relevant to the question. The minister's
answer has been relevant to the question. It is a matter of opinion whether he
has answered it, and that is how the standing orders operate. There is nothing
in the standing orders that says one must answer a question in a particular way
or to the satisfaction of the person who has asked it. The response simply has
to be relevant to the question asked, so there is no point of order.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr P. PAPALIA : Thanks, Speaker. I will be quick to
finish. I want to bring to the Leader of the Opposition's attention
that his language and the nature of his response to this legislation has led to
unnecessary division, anger and, in some cases, threats of violence against me
and other people. It has also potentially elevated the threat level to police. He should consider what he is saying.
He should consider what happened at Wieambilla not that long ago and consider the nature of his language around the
firearms laws, which are designed to make the community safer.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.