This piece emerged from an extended dialogue with the Western Australia Minister for Police [the Hon. Paul Papalia, CSC, MLA] regarding the new firearms regulations released just before Christmas. I revised my original opinion article to incorporate the Minister’s direct responses, as they address many of the key concerns raised during the reform process.

Trevor Whittington: Some would claim the Western Australian Government’s attempt to reform the State’s 1973 Firearms Act has been nothing short of a political spectacle—a drawn-out process that prioritises optics over substance. 

As a peak body actively involved in the process, we [WAFarmers] participated in regular meetings with you and the Police Firearms Branch. However, we were never provided with a discussion paper outlining the government’s rationale. Ultimately, the final regulations were abruptly presented to us just before Christmas.

Minister Papalia: The process of developing any legislation, particularly the complete re-write of an existing Act, is a long road. Significant consultation was required, and it has been a complex process. The Primary Producers Advisory Board was afforded direct engagement for over eighteen months and helped to create a firearms licence specific to farmers for the first time in history. I would have preferred the whole process had been done a year ago, but it wasn’t physically possible. For more than a year, we have known – and said publicly – the Regulations would be published in December 2024.

Trevor Whittington: On paper, the Government’s intentions are difficult to dispute—after all, who wouldn’t support the aim of a safer community? However, noble intentions are no substitute for effective policy. Effective policy requires a well-structured framework supported by detailed discussion papers that carefully weigh the costs against the benefits. In this case, it means examining the burdens placed on legitimate firearms licence holders against the potential gains in community safety. Is this truly about enhancing public safety, or is it driven by an oversimplified notion that all guns are inherently bad, with the easiest political solution being to make firearm ownership more challenging for law-abiding citizens?

Minister Papalia: Politically, the easiest thing to do would have been nothing – that’s why WA hasn’t seen significant gun reform for 50 years. The Government’s only motivation is making the community safer.

Trevor Whittington: From the outset, the Government’s approach has been unclear. What specific problem are these reforms intended to address? Is it the proliferation of illegal firearms being used by terrorists or organised crime? Is it suicides, family-related shootings, or accidental shootings? Each of these issues demands a tailored policy response, yet the approach taken seems to be a one-size-fits-all solution—either reducing the number of firearms per licence holder or eliminating them altogether.

Minister Papalia: The objective is to reduce the number of guns whilst enabling those who need firearms for genuine reasons to have them in a safer environment. Since 2009, WA has seen a 65 per cent increase in licensed firearm numbers, mostly in the metropolitan and urban areas. Noting that most illegal firearms in Australia began their life as licensed guns, the aim is to reduce this number and elevate public safety.

Trevor Whittington: The biggest issue isn’t deaths from illegal firearms. Statistically, firearm-related homicides represent a low but consistent rate, and incidents involving illegal weapons are even less frequent. According to available data, total firearm-related fatalities ranged from one to nine annually between 2000 and 2016. Suicides involving firearms occurred at rates of 13 to 23 per year, while accidental shootings ranged from 0 to nine annually. How many came from illegal weapons?

The government has yet to demonstrate that restricting the number of firearms per licence class will have any meaningful impact on these statistics. This lack of evidence has left recreational shooters, sporting communities, and primary producers feeling unfairly burdened by the reforms.

Minister Papalia: Death as a result of firearms crime is not the sole measure of harm. Police attend multiple firearms-related callouts every week. Western Australians have experienced significant gun-related incidents and tragedies in the last eight years, including: the Osmington murders (biggest mass shooting in Australia since Port Arthur); the assassination of OMCG member, Nick Martin (in a crowded Motorplex sitting next to his grandson);the first school shooting in Australian history; the Kellerberrin murder suicide; and the Floreat atrocity. All these crimes were committed using licenced firearms. Over the same timeframe there have been many other, less high-profile crimes committed with licensed and unlicensed firearms. 

The intent of the firearms reform project has unashamedly been to enhance public safety above all else. In Australia, owning a firearm is not a right but a privilege held by relatively few. However, every member of the public has a right to safety. 

Trevor Whittington: There’s no explanation of how the $64.3 million being spent will lead to tangible improvements in community safety. If the aim is to reduce gun-related deaths, what is the ultimate target? Governments love targets—whether it’s WA’s 80 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 or its goal to halve road fatalities by the same year. Yet, in this case, there’s no measurable goal, no clear metrics to evaluate success or just as importantly justify the impost on legitimate firearms owners.

Minister Papalia: Firearms by their very design can be deadly weapons. Reducing the number of guns in the community and improving regulation of the ones that remain, reduces the opportunity for them to be used for illegal purposes. 

Trevor Whittington: The political line that “fewer guns mean a safer community,” sounds appealing, but the case should have been made how reducing firearm ownership to a maximum of five or ten per person will make a measurable difference to the number of annual shootings. It doesn’t address the reality that it only takes one gun to commit a crime or tragedy. The government has offered no data to support the idea that limiting firearms per person will have a meaningful impact.

Minister Papalia: The presence of a larger number of guns at the site of a single theft results in more guns being distributed to criminals – the fewer in any one location, the lower the impact of a theft. If there are fewer licenced firearms, there is less opportunity for them to find their way into the hands of criminals.

Trevor Whittington: This would pass the pub test when it comes to addressing the issue of illegal firearms falling into the hands of organised crime and terrorists, something WA does not seem to have a major problem with, but the front bar is entitled to ask what about suicides, accidents and murders caused by legally owned firearms.

I make my point again it only takes one firearm to take a life so to take the governments logic to the extreme, if community safety is paramount, why not ban all firearms entirely? Of course, that would leave the issue of an estimated 360,000 (Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission) firearms across Australia unaddressed —a problem these reforms fail to address. 

Minister Papalia: The Government has never sought to apply blanket bans on firearm ownership. We recognise the critical role firearms play as a tool for farmers and vermin control, as well as in sporting competition, up to and including Olympic level.  

With respect to illegal firearms, we tripled the penalty for theft and illegal use of firearms more than two years ago, created Firearm Prohibition Orders to target criminals using firearms, and made the manufacturing of unauthorised firearms (such as 3D printed guns) illegal. There are also many parts of the new system, like real time tracking of ammunition sales, which will further target use of illegal firearms.

Trevor Whittington: There has been little discussion about whether the dollars allocated might have been better spent tackling the black market or enhancing police capabilities to seize firearms from individuals flagged as risks due to mental health concerns. 

Minister Papalia: The new laws increase the WA Police Force’s ability to seize firearms. In addition, the Government has provided $27m to develop IT systems designed to enhance police capabilities while also providing significantly improved services to licenced firearms owners.

At the same time, Western Australia has more police officers than ever before – close to 7,300. Recruitment is the highest and resignations are the lowest in more than a decade. And we are continuing to grow the Police Force by 950 more officers.

Trevor Whittington: The new regulations around mental health checks initially seem reasonable. Requiring first-time mental health assessments for firearm owners is a difficult point to contest. However, the reality is more complicated. Conducting ongoing mental health evaluations through an online assessment once every five years does little to tackle the nuanced and complex issues of firearm-related suicides or crimes.

If the Government truly believed this policy would be effective, why not mandate annual checks—or even monthly ones? Moreover, why assign this responsibility to general practitioners rather than qualified mental health specialists, who are better equipped to assess and address these concerns?

Even more troubling is the cultural blind spot these reforms expose. The real issue isn’t the absence of mental health checks—it’s the pervasive stigma surrounding mental illness and the hesitation of families and friends to report concerns about firearm owners.

A truly effective policy would prioritise building trust within communities, encouraging proactive reporting, and ensuring timely police responses. This is precisely what was lacking in incidents like the recent Mosman Park shootings. Instead of addressing these underlying cultural barriers, the government has imposed additional costs and burdens on license holders, along with stigmatising the issue of mental health neither approach is likely to address the root of the problem.

Minister Papalia: The 1973 Act enables proactive reporting and people already do. The new health assessment is an additional measure which isn’t dissimilar to requirements for other forms of licences. 

Trevor Whittington: The reforms also impose costly new storage requirements, mandating upgrades from 2mm to 6mm safes, along with alarms and cameras for those with high powered, unoccupied or more than 5 firearms. While stronger storage standards are hard to argue against in principle, the policy has two glaring weaknesses. Why if secure safes are so important allow less secure safes to remain in use if an owner of less than 5 Category A or B firearms does not buy a new gun and why is 6mm any better than 2mm with the cutting ability of a battery angle grinder.

Minister Papalia: Most licence holders (around 90 per cent) have fewer than six guns, and it is a significant change, so it is being phased in rather than being imposed on everyone simultaneously. If an existing firearm owner purchases a new firearm, they must comply with the same requirements as a new license holder entering the system.

Increasing the storage requirements was developed in accordance with the principles of physical security. The intention is that over time, increased security will become the norm. There is nothing to stop any firearms owner from taking their own initiative to increase their safety, and that of their family and community, by strengthening their storage arrangements.

Trevor Whittington: If improved storage is critical to public safety, then the government should mandate upgrades for all firearm owners immediately via a subsidised program. Past governments have subsidised initiatives like car immobilisers as it offered a community benefit—why not extend similar support to ensure safer firearm storage?  If thefts are such an issue, then $1000 each for the 70,000 firearm owners would be a $70m community investment.  The $15 million spent on the buyback could have been redirected here, yielding greater safety benefits.

Minister Papalia: Funding was allocated for the purpose of compensating firearms owners who volunteered to participate in the buyback scheme, noting the aim to reduce unnecessary firearms in the community. 

Trevor Whittington: Farmers have to prove they are a primary producer by providing evidence of land access, but I’m hearing of cases where farmers have leased, share farmed, left, returned, are starting from scratch or contracted out parts of their operations and running into issues with moving from the recreational to a primary producer licence.

Minister Papalia: In a circumstance such as that described, it can be managed through engagement with the WAPF Licencing Enforcement Division at the time of application for a licence.  

Trevor Whittington: The new regulations are highly prescriptive, dictating property size, location, and the calibre of firearm permitted based on the assessed vermin risk. However, a critical question arises: can farmers appeal these decisions without incurring the significant costs of going through the State Administrative Appeals process? This is especially concerning when decisions are made by licence officers who may lack a full understanding of the farmers’ specific circumstances.

Minister Papalia: If such an instance arises the farmer is able to appeal to the Commissioner of Police, who has the authority to review and make decisions on the situation.

While the Minister has the last word on the new laws I get to have the last word on the process

While I would have preferred that significant changes to the state’s firearms laws were included in the government’s last election platform—allowing for electoral scrutiny—or at least preceded by a detailed discussion paper outlining the government’s rationale, neither occurred. Stakeholders also needed prior access to the Act and Regulations to facilitate meaningful engagement with the farming community. Instead, the consultation process was often reduced to a series of meetings with the Minister, typically followed by a press release announcing his latest change. This is not an ideal way to develop complex policy with key stakeholders.

That said, neither the Liberal Party nor the National Party has presented detailed policies outlining which parts of the old or new laws they would accept or reject. It seems they are well aware of the limited public appetite for firearms and the risk of being on the wrong side of community sentiment after the inevitable next tragic shooting.

However, true leadership requires the courage to put forward your ideas and have the public debate.

If the opposition are going to move from a small target approach they need to step up and lay out what changes they would make to the government’s new Act.  These changes would have to balance the interests of the firearms community with the imperative to enhance public safety. No easy thing.

A clear starting point could be to lift the cap on firearms per licence holder and tie it to a sliding scale of cabinet security—for example, five firearms require a 5mm cabinet, six firearms a 6mm cabinet, and so on. Additionally, offering a $1,000 subsidy for new cabinets while mandating all storage upgrades within 12 months would be a win-win politically. This approach would force the government to justify why tens of thousands of cabinets will remain at the old 3mm for years while penalising passionate, law-abiding licence holders who are willing to upgrade their security if permitted to possess 6, 11, or more firearms.

Beyond this, a more meaningful approach to mental health policy would involve closer collaboration between police and communities to address the root causes of firearm-related suicides and family shootings.

This means being far more proactive through community advertising—engaging with families and friends early to identify at-risk licence holders—rather than waiting five years for an online mental health check. These are the kinds of ideas that should have been workshopped during a more consultative process with the current government.

The failure to do so leaves gaps for the opposition to exploit.

From the farming communities perspective, we must deal with the realities of the current law and those who hold the majority of the sets in state parliament. We remain committed to working with the government of the day and the Minister for Police to ensure the new Primary Producers licence is practical and functional. To his credit, the current Minister has been very approachable, but the new Act could have been better all round if it had started with a proper discussion paper and draft changes. Ultimately the Minister will be judged by the statistics if these reforms have made the community safer.

In the meantime, we await the Liberal and National parties’ detailed policy position on firearms reform.

Related: Trading shots over WA firearms reforms; Firearms Bill 2024