Gun Buy Back Scheme - The Australian National Audit Office

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Compensation for stock on hand 3 47 Dealers were compensated for stocks of prohibited firearms on hand at the start of the buy-back scheme. Compensation was paid at the published retail price at 1 March 1996 because the schedule of values was not published until August 1996. Documentary evidence was required to support claims for such compensation. The ANAO considers that this was a reasonable approach by the Commonwealth because it enabled stock to be removed from sale early. It also ensured a uniform approach to State compensation in the absence of a schedule of values. This improved the efficiency of the scheme by preventing the possibility of any further sale of prohibited weapons. The issue of compensation to dealers for stocks of spare parts is discussed at para 0 above. Compensation for loss of business 3 48 The guidelines on compensation initially provided only a broad outline of principles to apply to valuing claims for loss of business. This caused some uncertainty for dealers as well as for State and Territory officials. Discussions between the Commonwealth and State and Territory officials and representatives of firearms dealers’ associations led to a review of the guidelines in early 1997. 3 49 At its meeting on 16 July 1997, the APMC endorsed a two-tier formula for valuation of loss of business claims. This formula had originally been developed by an accounting firm for the Victorian Firearms Reform Project and was submitted by Victoria to the Commonwealth for consideration as an appropriate model. 3 50 As a result of the earlier lack of clear and comprehensive guidelines, OLEC told the ANAO that very few claims for compensation for loss of business, had been lodged at the time of audit fieldwork. The Attorney-General's Department advised the ANAO that 480 claims for loss of business had been lodged by the end of the scheme and that the value of these would not be clear until the claims had been validated in late 1997 and early 1998. In the absence of any detailed information the ANAO was unable to form an opinion on the effectiveness of the methodology adopted. 38 The Gun Buy-Back Scheme
Conclusion 3 51 Evidence available indicates that the majority of firearms owners were satisfied with the level of compensation paid for weapons and parts/accessories. The ANAO concluded that the initial development of compensation policy was generally effective although the policy on compensation for dealers’ loss of business needed to be refined. 3 52 In general terms, planning was sufficient to enable the States to establish their own amnesty and compensation schemes. However, the ANAO considers that OLEC’s planning was undermined by a lack of risk identification and analysis which did not take account of surrender of weapons other than those newlyprohibited by the APMC. OLEC’s advice to the States in response to this unintended consequence was unsound and required the 1996 Act to be supplemented by the National Firearms Program Implementation Act 1997. The Gun Buy-Back Scheme 39
Page 1 and 2: The Gun Buy-Back Scheme © Commonwe
Page 3 and 4: Centrefire Ammunition in which a pr
Page 5 and 6: DAS Department of Administrative Se
Page 7 and 8: scheme through a one-off 0.2 per ce
Page 9 and 10: Internal management control 2. OLEC
Page 11 and 12: States in response to this unintend
Page 13 and 14: weapons, as was the policy applied
Page 15 and 16: Management of the surrender process
Page 17 and 18: 10. The ANAO also found that an imp
Page 19 and 20: Recommendati on No. 2 Para. 0 OGIA
Page 21 and 22: • uniform standards for the secur
Page 23 and 24: Audit scope and methodology Scope C
Page 25 and 26: 3 21 The ANAO also had regard to ev
Page 27 and 28: • to improve coordination between
Page 29 and 30: • the linking of jurisdictional f
Page 31 and 32: • developed a good practice contr
Page 33 and 34: The APMC Senior Officers’ Group a
Page 35 and 36: The compensation scheme Compensatio
Page 37: • that compensation should be bas
Page 41 and 42: 3 4 The ACT Government had drawn th
Page 43 and 44: Legal advice on the definition of q
Page 45 and 46: 3 23 The ANAO raised the issue of w
Page 47 and 48: 3 34 State officials told the ANAO
Page 49 and 50: Monitoring of State legislation 3 4
Page 51 and 52: However, the ANAO found no evidence
Page 53 and 54: to Commonwealth reimbursement of pa
Page 55 and 56: Revenue collection was undertaken t
Page 57 and 58: 3 70 The Attorney-General’s Depar
Page 59 and 60: The Attorney-General’s Department
Page 61 and 62: Implementation of the Scheme in the
Page 63 and 64: The surrender process 3 90 The fire
Page 65 and 66: • the weapon had been set aside b
Page 67 and 68: processes now occur, which reduces
Page 69 and 70: Tasmania 3 121 The Auditor-General
Page 71 and 72: The National Public Education Campa
Page 73 and 74: • advising the ‘client departme
Page 75 and 76: of firms suggested by OGIA. OGIA th
Page 77 and 78: Evaluation committee decision on sh
Page 79 and 80: circumstances mean that this may be
Page 81 and 82: three advertising firms was properl
Page 83 and 84: • self-loading shotguns with eith

Gun Buy Back Scheme - The Australian National Audit Office

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?