One of the most vital drivers of effective public policy is that it’s “evidence based”.
To be blatantly honest, in the absence of robust and reliable information to inform policy, including firearm management and regulation, politicians are truly just guessing and pursuing agendas that are often baseless.
This creates a number of issues, especially in an area where public safety is a key consideration.
The SSAA Inc. Chief Executive Officer, Tom Kenyon recently met with David Bright – a leading academic in the area of criminology from Deakin University to understand the availability of data related to firearms that are held lawfully, compared to those that are not.
Even in relation to the macro questions of how may licenced firearm holders commit gun related crimes, and how many registered firearms are used in gun crime versus unregistered – Professor Bright advised that there is no publicly available data to support policy deliberations.
This becomes not just an issue in relation to effective governing by politicians, but a matter of public safety.
So often increasing firearm regulation is said to have the objective of enhancing public safety. The legislation changes in Western Australia (WA) in the lead up to a state election are a primary example of this.
In response to the horrific Floreat double murder suicide, the WA Government tightened firearm legislation for licenced gun owners – but to what end?
The WA Police Summary of Outcomes – Police Response Review into the Floreat incident, a review undertaken by WA Police, found that eight police officers did not perform their duty under the legislation available to them at the time. In fact, the first key finding of the investigation was that officers did not correctly assess the risk, therefore available powers under the Restraining Orders Act 1997 and the Firearms Act 1973 were not exercised appropriately.
The other two key findings were that insufficient action was taken by police to explore whether the offender was a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence or to continue to possess firearms based on medical grounds; and insufficient action was taken by police to identify and investigate alleged firearms offences.
The subsequent legislation changes have been questioned and criticised by a wide range of groups and individuals including firearm owners, wildlife and conservation groups, farmers, and even the daughter of the Floreat shooter.
So how did these findings, that heavily focus on insufficient police actions instead lead to legislation changes that target registered firearm owners?
The most frustrating part of this answer is that if a government in any jurisdiction has the numbers in parliament, they can essentially change laws however they want. This can lead to perverse outcomes, especially in the lead up to an election.
The WA Government is a prime example of knee-jerk policy setting on the fly, with no evidence, no effective consultation and most importantly, absolutely no indication the changes will make the WA community safer.
Despite this, what is important is advocacy.
While the WA Government had little interest in listening to stakeholders, many governments do, and in the face of the upcoming National Firearms Register it is critical that we as an organisation are proactively representing the needs and views of our members.
Considering this, we are committed to ensuring we are involved in consultative processes, that we are clear about our members needs, and in the lead up to at least four elections in the next two years, that governments are not “doing a WA” without being held to account.