Legislation Committee report – Firearms Act 2024
12 November 2025
Legislation Committee report – Firearms Act 2024
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Thank you Acting President, or Acting Chair, sorry.
The Deputy Chair: It is Deputy Chair.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Deputy Chair. I should know that by now, you would have thought! Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution again on the Firearms Act 2024 report. Rather than go back over ground that I largely covered last time, I want to address a few big issues, but I am interested in the debate that we have had thus far. I understand that members of the government repeatedly tell us that community safety is the prime target of the legislation that came before us. I would say that community safety is the prime target of us all, but not necessarily of the legislation that was presented before the house. I think that it is deeply offensive to honest and law-abiding firearms owners and the people who debate on this side of the house for anybody to suggest that in opposing what the government did with this particular piece of legislation, we do not have human safety as our prime target. It is an absolute nonsense. It is put out there for the media, and I understand that. I do not imagine that anybody in the media has any particular connection to honest and law-abiding firearms owners, and, obviously, for those we are defending, we are going to be up against it, but the reality is that it is deeply offensive to suggest that anybody who is arguing on this side of the house that these regulations were rushed and do not reflect the best outcomes for the wider community has anything but goodwill in mind. I think that is a terrible outcome.
Let me say this. Members might remember that on 22 October, I asked my most recent questions on firearms, and I got this answer. I asked:
Since 31 March 2025,—
Which was when the new system took place—
how many existing gun licence holders under the 1973 act: have attempted transition to a 2024 act licence; had that transition determined or finalised by WA police; had that transition granted by WA police; and had that transition rejected by WA police?
I think these numbers are very interesting. The list was tabled in Hansard. It stated that 59,354 licence holders were written to by the Western Australia Police Force to commence their transition, so let us say 60,000. Of those, 32,663 licence holders have had their transition determined or finalised, so they are only halfway through. Bear in mind I asked this question in October, and this answer is as at 20 October, so we are talking about from 31 March through April, May, June, July, August, September, and into October. They are seven and a half months in, and bear in mind there is also a three-month grace period, so they are not necessarily going to be seven-twelfths of the way through, but they have a long way to go.
Of those licence holders, 25,996 have successfully completed their transition. I think we need to remember that that is enormously hard work. We have to remember that this system was designed to be so onerous as to drive honest, law-abiding firearms owners out of the system if they possibly could, but the fact is that firearms owners stubbornly stuck to their guns, and of the 32,500 transitions that have been determined, 26,000 have successfully completed their transition. Of the remaining, most—6,667—licence holders voluntarily made the decision to close their licence, some of whom would probably have done so because they did not need their firearms, but many of whom just gave up because the system implemented by the government was so onerous that they could not see their way through it. It was so problematic that they actually gave up. It is a terrible outcome if government procedures are so onerous that they drive people out of an honest process, but that is what we are talking about with this set of regulations. As Hon Julie Freeman said, finding 1, which states that there was adequate scrutiny, was referring to the regulations. The regulations were never scrutinised in the house. There was a debate, but the regulations were never scrutinised by this house or that house. They were never looked at, so I think it is a furphy to suggest that they had adequate scrutiny.
I like the third part of the answer to this question, which goes to how many licence holders have had their transition rejected by WA police. It states:
… 13 licence holders have been referred to Operation Larkman for consideration of cancellation of their licence.
Thus far, of the 60,000 letters and the 32,500 determinations, 13 licence holders have been referred for consideration of cancellation. Well done. I make that to be something like 0.04% of the determination so far. As the government runs its scare campaign about how evil and horrible licensed firearms owners are, perhaps that is something that should be looked at with more care. Thus far, 13 licence holders have been identified as needing referral to Operation Larkman to consider whether they will be cancelled. I do not know whether 13 were cancelled, but 13 have made it there. I suspect that all sides of this house would be perfectly happy that those 13 have gone there, because nobody in this house wants people who should not have a firearms licence to have one. It actually damages the reputation of all those firearms owners who are doing the right thing if there are even 13 who have potentially—not proven—done the wrong thing. But 13 is the result. I do not expect that to turn up in the media anywhere, because 13 out of a total of 26,000 is an embarrassing result for a government that has run a scare campaign about how evil licensed firearm owners are. It is an embarrassing result that, in my view, demonstrates that 99.96% of firearms owners are just trying to do the right thing. The government is frightened of firearms activity, or violence in a way, and its argument has been to constantly try to link it to domestic violence. I think at 0.04%. and with 13 cases that argument is spurious at best. We stand and say that we believe that regulated, licensed, honest and well-meaning firearms owners should not be vilified and assaulted through a bureaucratic process. We want to see strong laws on firearms. We want people who should not have firearms not to have firearms. We absolutely agree with that. The government could have put that forward in a way that I think we probably all would have agreed with. We all would have ticked it off and said we think it is a good idea, but that was not the agenda of the Minister for Police who brought this legislation to Parliament a year ago. I think the answer that around 13 referrals were made to Operation Larkman out of 26,000 determinations is a good example of why we should assume the vast majority of firearm licence holders are good, honest people going about their business to the best of their ability. If we look at the number of referrals as a simple point on its own, we would have to accept that most people, 99.96% of them, are trying to do the right thing. I think the way that the government went about demonising firearm ownership and the way this legislation was passed is actually embarrassing to this Parliament and I hope we can deal with people in a more positive manner going forward.
