Kerre Woodham: A Firearm Prohibition Order won't keep guns out of the hands of gangs

We thought we'd start this morning looking at the Justice Select Committee’s review of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. Exciting stuff, it's all in the way you say it! 

This is something that is part of a suite of reforms that the government is bringing in to help crack down on gangs. It's the job of the Justice Select Committee, which is made-up of all parties, to take into account the views of citizens who make submissions to consider them, to consider the legislation, to make sure it's good legislation that it's intended to do what it says it's going to do, that there are no unintended consequences as a result of the legislation. And as you can imagine, there's a bit of toing and froing on it.  

But it made me think too about one of the great mysteries and conundrums in my life, and that is why police and licensed firearms users in this country aren't besties, because you're both on the same side. You're law abiding, guarantee the vast majority of both groups enjoy the outdoors. Many police would enjoy going hunting. You're not into thugs and bullies and law breakers, that's not what you're about. You're on the side of the angels, you know how to handle a weapon, unlike most other groups in the country. You enjoy the outdoors, you understand the need for firearms where other groups might not, and yet so many times when the issue of how best to manage the firearms inventory in this country and how to manage access to firearms comes up, police and firearms users end up metaphorically yelling at each other across a divide while the bad guys continue the drive by shootings. In a way, it's a colossal diversion for the unlawful, who just sit back, grab the popcorn, watch the licensed firearms users in the different lobby groups and the police yell at each other. And then once they scoff down the popcorn, a little light drive by shooting before a drive through at Macca’s and home, and that's a good day done if you're a gangster. And none of the words, and none of the legislation, and none of the argy bargy and the lobbying has affected them one little bit.  

So we've got the firearms prohibition orders legislation Amendment Bill being discussed and the Justice Select Committee has recommended softening it, restricting what can be the subject of a warrantless search. They used as an example if somebody who owned a hotel and was under a firearms prohibitions order, you couldn't search all the rooms in the hotel. They’d have to be due reason to search the rooms, you couldn't just have a blanket policy of searching every single room in the hotel.  

The bill is part of the Government’s crackdown on gangs, the FPO's are meant to place restrictions on high-risk individuals by reducing the likelihood of them accessing firearms. Now, I have a problem with the basic premise of that. If introducing a piece of legislation did indeed reduce the likelihood of a gangster getting a gun, go for it. But given what we know about how gangsters access their firearms, given what we know about the illegal importation and trade of all sorts of firearms that come into this country down through the South Pacific, you can get anything you like – birds, guns, drugs, probably ancient relics, you name it, it can be smuggled into the country and there's just no way of keeping tabs on it. So sure, bring in your arms prohibition order. I see you your firearms prohibition order and raise you six containers coming in from South America or China.   

FPO's are already possible under legislation that was introduced from the previous government. And they thought, oh, voters are quite serious about this law and order thing, aren't they? Best we do something about it. Now 30 FPO's had been issued in the first 15 months of the law taking effect, eight of which were to gang members. The government's new bill would give police new warrantless search powers and pivot FPO's more towards gang members and their associates. They'd also be applicable to a much wider range of people, up to 3 1/2 times as many under the current law, because lower-level offences would be included. But the Justice Select Committee wants to see some of those provisions scaled back, fearing it will give the police too many powers.

Nicole McKee, who's the Associate Justice Minister, says she understands the concerns of the committee but ultimately the government wants guns out of the hands of those who are doing the most harm. 

“Some of the things that they have talked about is they're looking at who's captured by firearms prohibition orders. They want to decrease the number of eligible offenses, and they've got some concerns around the warrantless searches. And I take on board what they say. Some of it I agree with, some of it I don't, but at the end of the day, we need to stop

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News Talks.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd b we thought we'd start this morning looking at
the Justice Select Committee's review of the Firearms Prohibition Orders
Legislation Amendment Bill. Exciting stuff, it's all in the way
you say it. But this is something that is part

(00:30):
of a suite of reforms that the government is bringing
in to help crack down on gangs. It's the job
of the Justice Select Committee, which is made up of
all parties, to take into account the views of citizens
who make submissions, to consider them, to consider the legislation,
to make sure it's good legislation, that it's intended to

(00:53):
do what it says it's going to do, that there
are no unintended consequences as a result of the legislation,
and as you can imagine, there's a bit of doing
and throwing on it. It made me think too as
I was reading the stories. But one of the great
mysteries and conundrums in my life, and that is why

(01:18):
police and licensed firearms users in this country aren't besties.
Because you're both on the same side. You're law abiding.
Guarantee the vast majority of both groups enjoy the outdoors,
many police would enjoy going hunting. You're not into thugs

(01:44):
and bullies and law breakers. That's not what you're about.
You're on the side of the angels. You know how
to handle a weapon, unlike most other groups in the country.
You enjoy the outdoors. You understand the need for firearms
where other groups might not. And yet so many times

(02:07):
when the issue of how best to manage the firearms
inventory in this country and how to manage access to
firearms comes up, police and firearms users end up metaphorically
yelling at each other across a divide while the bad
guys continue to drive by shootings. They in a way,
it's almost a colossal diversion for the unlawful who just

(02:32):
sit back, grab the popcorn, watch the licensed firearms users
and the different lobby groups and the police yell at
each other, and then once they've scarfed down the popcorn,
little light drive by shooting before a drive through at
Mecasine home. And that's a good day done. If you're
a gangster, and none of the words and none of
the legislation, and none of the r gibargi and the

(02:54):
lobbying has affected them one little bit. So we've got
the Firearms Prohibition Orders legislation Amendment build being discussed and
the Justice select He has recommended softening it, restricting what
can be the subject of a warrantless search. They used
as an example, say somebody who was under a firearms

(03:20):
prohibitions order owned a hotel. You couldn't search all the
rooms in the hotel. They'd have to be due reason
to search the rooms. You couldn't just have a blanket
policy of searching every single room in the hotel. So,
as I said, the bill is part of the government's
cracked down on gangs. The FPOs are meant to place

(03:41):
restrictions on high risk individuals by reducing the likelihood of
them accessing firearms. Now see right there. I have a
problem with the basic premise of that. If introducing a
piece of legislation did indeed reduce the likelihood of a
gangster getting a gun, go for it, Chop down a tree,

(04:05):
turn out that paper, print out that legislation, tell the
police to enforce it. But given what we know about
how gangsters access their firearms, given what we know about
the illegal importation and trade of all sorts of firearms
that come into this country, down through the South Pacific
ething you like, you know, a rare titted booby or a.

Speaker 3 (04:34):
You know, you could get collectors' birds, you could get guns,
you could get drugs, you could get people probably, you
could get ancient relics.

Speaker 2 (04:45):
You know, you name it. It can be smuggled into
the country and there's just no way of keeping tabs
on it. So sure, bring in your fire arms prohibition order.
I see you your firearms prohibition order, and raise you
six containers coming in from South America or China. I'll

(05:07):
get mcgunns that way, thanks very much. FPOs are already
possible under legislation that was introduced from the previous government
when they thought, oh, voters are quite serious about this
law and order thing, aren't they best we do something
about it now. Thirty FPOs had been issued in the

(05:28):
first fifteen months of the law taking effect, eight of
which were to gang members. The government's new bill would
give police new warrantless search powers and pivot FPOs more
towards gang members and their associates. They'd also be applicable
to a much wider range of people, up to three
and a half times as many under the current law
because lower level offenses would be included, but the Justice

(05:53):
Select Committee wants to see some of those provisions scaled back,
fearing it'll give the police too many powers. Nicole McKee,
who's the Associate Justice Minister, says she understands the concerns
of the committee, but ultimately the government wants guns out
of the hands of those who are doing the most harm.

Speaker 4 (06:09):
Some of the things that they have talked about is
they're looking at who's captured by farms prohibition orders, they're
looking at the well. They want to decrease the number
of eligible offenses, and they've got some concerns around the
warrantless searches and I take on board what they say.
Some of it I agree with some of it I don't.
But at the end of the day, we need to

(06:30):
stop the drive by shootings of innocent families that are
being held to ransom by gangs in their illegal use
of these weapons.

Speaker 2 (06:39):
And again this is my sticking point. If legislation could
do that, Filly boots, drift as many laws as you like,
but until you can stop basically importation at will of
anything anybody in the criminal underworld wants, it's utterly, utterly

(07:07):
I mean sure, give them the powers of search so
they can have a look. That's great, but a firearms
prohibition order won't be worth the paper it's printed on.
I suppose it sets up a process so that if
you've got a firearms prohibition's order against you, it means
that the police can then trigger the search. But it's

(07:30):
not going to stop you having a firearm. Does anybody
seriously think it's going to stop the shootings that are
taking place? And you've now got you know, innocent collateral.
Really who are being used in the drive by shootings?
The parents of gangsters, the siblings of gangsters, the children
of gangsters, they're all getting caught up in it as well.

(07:56):
So look, sure, bring in your firearms prohibition order. Will
that keep guns out of the hands of gangsters? Absolutely not.

Speaker 1 (08:07):
For more from Kerrywood and Mornings, listen live to News
Talks at b from nine am weekdays, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.