Among the things the Government is seeking to do in an amendment to the Firearms Act debated in the Senate yesterday, is to give the Minister of National Security the power to extend firearm user's licences.
This was included in clauses of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which has, among its progressive measures, one that is long overdue to allow prison officers the right to bear firearms while off duty, particularly when it is deemed that their lives are in danger.
While there were few objections to that measure, it was clear that the Government would not get unanimous support on the clause seeking to empower the minister to extend firearm user's licences.
To put it in context, under Section 17 of the parent law is subsection 6, which states, "A licence other than a provisional licence shall be valid for three years from the date of issue and may be renewed, upon payment of the appropriate fee for each renewal, by the Commissioner."
What the Government took to the Parliament was an amendment to introduce subsection 6A, stating that "The Minister may, by Order, extend the date of expiry specified in subsection (6)."
In introducing the bill, National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds did not explain why it was necessary to add a layer to the bill giving a minister such authority when it already lies in the control of the Police Commissioner.
The Government has questions to answer.
Why must a political appointee have a direct say in whose firearm licence are extended and whose are not?
Furthermore, what safeguards are there to prevent such power from being used advantageously, or even corruptly, by any National Security Minister?
There are clear dangers in allocating such power, dangers spotted by Independent Senator Paul Richards who described the clause as "a huge red flag."
Senator Richards took a stance of not supporting the bill without a satisfactory explanation of why this new measure was necessary and asked relevant questions.
Among the things he called on the Government to explain was the process that the office of the Minister of National Security would use to vet those who require extensions.
We agree with Senator Richards that there is a need for full transparency to prevent cases of a Minister choosing not to grant extensions on undemocratic grounds, such as a person's political preference.
Furthermore, the Government must detail what are the unique reasons that now require the Minister of National Security to wield this power, and how those reasons differ from the authority that the Commissioner of Police already has.
As expected, the Opposition, through Senator Wade Mark, also strongly resisted that clause in the bill, on the basis that it erodes the independence of the Police Service and the Police Commissioner.
The Government needs little reminder of the dent in public confidence caused by recent fiascos such as the August 2021 withdrawal of the Police Commissioner Merit List and the disappearance of the file related to the wrongful prosecution case brought by the former Vindra Naipaul-Coolman murder accused.
Anything short of full transparency in this matter can only add more fuel to the fire.