The day after what the WA Media called a very successful WA Liberal State Conference, Paul Papalia ON A SUNDAY announced that licenced firearms owners in WA would have to undergo regular mental health checks. Timing of the announcement coincidence or deliberate?
Do you hear many Ministers make media announcements on Legislative announcements a Sunday?
Many?
Any? Can you come up with any?
Cynically I think it was clearly to steal oxygen from the Liberal Party who looked to have reached a positive turning point. It worked in steal media attention but...
Mental Health Professionals say many clinical hours are required to develop a patients baseline BEFORE a diagnosis is possible. Lets work on 10 hours because its a round number, you pick you own number. Times that by 90,000 licenced firearms owners.
That's 900,000 clinical hours on a "ongoing" basis. Lets work on a Psychologist working 1600 hours a year. That's 562 full time Psychologists that will be required on top of however many we have now.
Oh, the baseline hours for diagnosis too high? Well maybe but hey lets say it magically takes 60 minutes...that's 90,000 clinical hours. That's 56 Full Time clinical Psychologists we'll need on top of what we already have JUST to administer to law abiding licenced owners.
Even though strident anti gun lobby out of the east coast universities stated years ago that mental health checks do not have the ability to predict criminal behaviour in advance.
Strike 1 Minister.
The minister overseas a flash media press event where police fire a rifle, a big rifle.
A 50 calibre rifle which requires a 6km safety envelope for the rifle to be fired into.
So it can only be fire in regional WA. What threat are they expecting in the bush that requires such a massive operational firearm? The 50 BMG type firearms that cost between $12,000 & $20,000+ to buy, has a bipod & a top end Nightforce $2000-5000 rifle scope and the ammunition costs between $15 and $30 per shot.
It appears so far its only use was the media press event.
Yes, they were legally owner by the public for strict, highly regulated club competitions on a remote range east of Carnarvon. No crime has ever been committed using one of these firearms.
Strike 2 Minister
The range the firearm it where it was fired for the media was on the outskirts of Perth. It was & is not rated for the 50 calibre. That's correct, it is not allowed to be fired on that range & the unconfirmed claim is the actual club that run that range hired it out to WA Police but weren't told a 50 calibre rifle would be fired there. There was only one club gun range in WA rated & lawful for this firearm. That's 100+km east of Carnarvon. The safety envelope at the Pindar range is barely 6kms & in the direction they were firing is Pindar Power Station. On top of that, the RAAF were required to stand down all flying aircraft whilst WAPol Media fired the rifle for the TV cameras.
Strike 3 Minister
The Minister & Premier McGowan mentioned they need guns off the streets. Then someone, either the Minister or a member of his department leaked a street map showing the locations of firearms owners in Perth. IT WAS PRINTED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWSPAPER.
Now there's unconfirmed reports that there's been break ins on some of those homes within that map. If the newspaper put a map on the front page showing the location of WA MP's homes there'd quite rightly be a massive furore. It would be unacceptable to say the least. If it was supplied by a Minister or someone in their dept there'd have to be a parliamentary inquiry & likely someone's losing their job as a minister or dept official. Motive? Political capital, public support for Reforms that don't Reform
Strike 4 Minister
A large group of lawful firearms owner groups get together. They form the WA Firearms Community Alliance (WAFCA). Instead of groups competing for time with the Minister, potentially undermining each other & creating the perfect landscape for wedge politics, they have a one stop lobbying shop for LAWFUL firearms owners. It includes all sorts of stakeholders. Retailers, collectors, repairers, competition shooters, recreational hunters, pest controllers both professional & unpaid. And yes even included Primary Producers.
Now imagine my surprise, my stunned shock when straight after the WAFCA is formed the Police Minister announces a "Primary Producers Firearms Advisory Board". If "divide & conquer" was a thing, if undermining fair & orderly lobbying was a thing then creating another group & hand picking all of its members is a strategic must. He picks who's on it, he chairs it. No minutes from the meetings are available. One of the Primary Producer groups was a member of the WAFCA alliance but that lasted a few days when a choice spot for them where they appear & sit in the ministers office instead of being a small tooth on a cog behind the scenes. No matter the Primary Producer groups didn't know what the VPF List was. No matter they didn't know anything about any of the calibres on the list were. No matter they were not even aware of the Law Reform Commission report or its recommendations. Most notably Recommendation #54 on Page 55 that clearly says NOT to introduce restrictions of numbers of firearms owned. Out of their depth, clueless and understatement.
Outcome is that minister says he's bringing in Law Reform Commission recommendations when in reality he brings in planned clauses that completely against the Law Reform Commission Report. Undermines the National Firearms Agreement & declares registered firearms owners will be limited in the amount of firearms they can own. 10 for primary producers, 5 for general public. Right then & ever since the evidential research & reasoned explanation on how those plucked out numbers...completely missing.
No regard for the TWO PRIME TESTS a firearms applicant across Australia must address. All the current framework now thrown out by the minister. Applicant must be a fit & proper person (checked & approved/rejected by police) and the applicant must have a genuine need (checked & approved/rejected by police).
This is against the Law Reform Commission recommendations & the basis for the entire National Firearms Agreement and all states government processes.
Should add, one Primary Producer group did join & back the WAFCA. That was WA Grains Group.
We're yet to find any Primary Producer groups outside the 5 picked who were invited. No Sheep Stud Breeder groups, no landcare groups, no farm improvement groups, no LGA's. The majority of WA Producers are not members of the 5 groups selected. Those selected were...
Pastoralists & Graziers Association of WA
WA Farmers
Wines of WA
Kimberley Pilbara Cattlemens Association
VegetableWA
I kid you not. I also note the Chairman of Wines WA board at the time of the PFFAB being formed was WAFarmers CEO Trevor Whittington. At the time the PFFAB being formed he was announced as the Wines WA delegate on the PFFAB. I make no accusations nor inference about Wines WA having a conflict of interest but unless they brought a elusive skill to the table they should have maintained arms length appearance. They being a group that was then receiving $3 million in state government funding & a further $500,000 in April 2024. It was announced Mr Whittington was to be Wines WA delegate but by the time the PFFAB met it was 4 possibly 5 months after Mr Whittington was replaced as the chairman of the Wines WA board.
I don't think any law was broken but the appearances of no conflict of interest was not managed properly.
Vegetables WA...no don't get that either.
Here's the thing if there was not an aim to divide & conquer why set a board with 2 players always at odds with one another, trying to out do each other?
Why include a NW Cattle group that is an off shoot of the 2 groups at odds with each other?
Why include a heavily state funded group who's chairman is also CEO of one the 2 groups at odds with each other?
Why include a vegetable group at all?
Why send 5 delegates?
Why not send 1-3 to represent all groups?
Why not open membership to all primary producers stakeholders, let them meeting aside & they pick 1-3 people to lobby for the entire industry?
Because...who knows but if there was ever a plan to adopt tactics of Wedge Politics, divide & conquer THIS would be a masterclass example.
What recommendations we have found that the PFFAB member groups took to their meetings, well they're poor to say the very least.
Strike 5 Minister
The VPF Debacle. VPF is the "Very Powerful Firearms" list, the listed firearms that then banned. Only WA uses this list, no precise criteria for what makes the list is available. No statistical data showing how many of these firearms have been involved in WA Gun Crime...EVER. Best we can find is none.
One on the list was a less than successful WW2 gun that uses a heavily modified case of 50 Cal brass (necked and belted)
The gun and its ammunition went out of production during WW2 and never made available to the public. The 2 that were legally owned in WA were in private collections under a collectors licence. With that licence you cannot possess the ammunition, it is illegal to fire the gun. They were bought as part of superannuation investments. No ammunition exists, none made for it since WW2 & the gun was dropped from service because back then, ammunition was a problem & the firearm wasn't as good as was hoped. It went out of service before the war ended. The owner's couldn't mail or courier the gun to the eastern states to sell...as Australia Post can mail it but won't & there's only a couple of couriers able to shift it & they weren't keen. The owners most likely would have to acquire permits & to whichever state had a buyer. Eventually, due to lobbying from the WAFCA it was removed from the banned list but the list criteria and related crime stats still not forthcoming.
One member group was asked about the "55 Boys" ban & they didn't even know what "55 Boys" meant, didn't even know what "VPF" stood for. When explained they knew nothing of the list or the firearms that had been banned nor why.
That's the level of stakeholder delegates on the PFFAB.
Strike 6 Minister
Property Letter Debacle - Yes one primary producer was selling letters, lots of them and would have made a sizable amount of money doing it. Guess what? Not acceptable but not illegal. WA is the only jurisdiction using the Property Letter system. Many of Primary Producers have been asked for a letter from avid shooters, hunters & said no. Some said yes, some said yes an awful lot. What does it mean? It means the permission letter debacle was a complete joke, should be scrapped & we should run similar systems to the eastern states. It was introduced, we think to make it more restrictive to get a firearm & yet quite the opposite happened. Some legally made money out it. Just drop the letter system Minister, he didn't, he needed another thing to flex at. He's going to amend the system that needed to be dropped. He doesn't listen. Consultation? Yes there is consultation but its token, he doesn't listen to stake holders nor represent their interests. Its like he views stakeholders as people he rules, like he's an officer in the Armed Forces and stakeholders are the lowest ranked of the enlisted.
Strike 7 Minister
Gun Crime Stats 1 - Notable we can look up all the WA Crime Stats & its fairly extensive however if this is an important rewrite of an out of date, 50+ year old Act of Parliament then the Crime States should break off Gun Crime Statistics into a seperate & very accessible list. At present the true nuts n bolts stats are...well they're somewhere. The Stats the minister used to suggest regular mental health checks were interesting. He mentioned the number of homicides, then the amount that involved a gun. I believe he said 10 of them involved mental health issues. How did he know, coroner's report or was he able to access private health records. And exactly how many were suicides? Suicides are horrible & we should do everything we can with our currently broken & depleted mental health system to reduce the chances of suicides. But they're not homicides & yet they are put into homicides.
THEN THERE'S AN EVEN WORSE TWIST.
Now we're being told that of those gun deaths that involved mental health issues, some of them were tragically serving WA Police Officers who used their service firearm.
Unconfirmed but if this is true there is a very big problem that needs addressing & isn't going to be if reforms due to deaths target law abiding citizens.
(Late Edit - 14th of May, Peter Collier MLC was requesting statistics, clear data & still getting nothing during debate. Some requests were outstanding from last November. SO there is a Bill that is being put through parliament & those who built the Bill do not have any data or statistics to support radical changes. There is still no evidential research explaining why the new number of firearms is set at that number. There's been several requests & the replies have varied but include among them that it would require a reallocation of staff to find those statistics. So a Bill was built, without the statistics/data. That's not reform, that's not objective. That's not testable. That's gut reaction or its cluelessly been made up on the spot. That's not fair, wise fit for purpose legislation)
Strike 8 Minister
Gun Crime Stats 2 - What is the most common firearm used in gun crime? What percentages are stolen, smuggled in, illegallay manufactured or lawful guns used by licenced owners?
These statistics are absolutely vital to tailor make the new reforms to actual help reduce crime, injuries & deaths. Absent. Completely lacking & in the ether somewhere
Stirke 9 Minister
Reforms & the 50+ year old Act Part 1 - Its misleading & quite disengenuous to say the Act is out of date being this old. We have Acts dated back to the early part of last century. All acts are not as they were first tabled & passed. Acts are amended if & when required. Amendments are listed on the Act. Many parts of firearms restrictions ARE NOT Acts of Parliament but Acts of Adminstration or as we know them, regulations. As such they can be changed & improved by the stroke of the Minister's pen and do not go before the Parliament.
Like massive rise in firearms fees in 2022. One of them was raised by 96%
As for rewriting the Act, this one is going the way of a similar incident of a 50+ year old Act that need a complete rewrite. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. We got a dumpster fire Act that Labor rushed through both houses of parliament it controlled & the mess it created caused it to be wholly put in the bin
Strike 10 Minister
Reforms & the 50 year old Act Pt 2 - The minister has claimed they make no apologies for bringing in the "toughest gun laws in Australia"
Notice the operative word "toughest" because he plans on being the tough on lawful owners instead of targeting criminals.
Reforms are supposed to be fair improvements for all stakeholders & strike a reasonable balance.
That is not the minister's aim at all.
Fair and Wise would be sticking to the Law Reform Commission recommendations & sticking with the National Firearms Agreement
It appears the improvements with the Port Arthur response was in vain.
A fair reform would be WA have fees that reflect the average fees of all Australian States & Territories excluding WA.
A fair reform would be if you trade in an old .22 & you which to replace it with a new .22 it's a like for like trade in. You shouldn't have to get an application like you have no firearm at all.
Simple pathway, the dealer transfers it, its reported to police for their records. You cannot possess both old & new at the same time if its a trade in.
The firearm you trade in, whoever buys your gun has to pay an application fee. Whilst you buying a mere replacement don't have to go thru a new application with paper work, fees & police approval.
If you keep the firearm & repair upgrade it, no fees...no paperwork for firearms branch.
That there is no reform allowing simple like for like is madness & costly over reach with no benefit for anyone.
Strike 11 Minister
Reforms & the 50 year old Act Pt 3 - The appearance clause. If you have a rifle & you change the stock the absurdity is 2 fold. Despite a rifle & stock manufactirer having online tutorials on how to undo 2 screws & one bolt to swap the stock...IN WA YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT TO A GUNSMITH TO DO IT LEGALLY.
That is absurd & should be "reformed"
Want to swap triggers out for competition? Need a gunsmith no matter how simple it is, how experienced you are. You're breaking the law.
Other absurdity is if a police officer decides your rifle with the new stock fitted now "looks" military like to them, its a now an illegal firearm, its a prohibited weapon. Even though the stock only improves ergonomics which increases safety, helps accuracy...more safety its illegal. Even though it does not increase the magazine capacity. Even though it does not increase the firing rate. Even though it doesn't alter the power of the projectile. Even though it now allows easier attachment of accesories like a light and/or optics (more safe again)...if a police officer with subjective judgement decides it looks military like in appearance, its illegal, its a prohibited firearm. You are breaking the law.
Appearance clause must be removed if its reform time. Reforms must be fair & reasonable.
Strike 12 Minister.
Well its Tuesday Feburary 13th 2024. We'll take a break on this for a while & then come back and see what else we've missed. For now there's 12 strikes of fail by the WAPolice minister just on this one Bill to Parliament. Remember a Minister is supposed to be a public servant, not a lofty public ruler. He or she is supposed to serve us with the best legislative over sight possible.
We're not seeing this here.
Now someone is going to say that more guns means more gun crime so we need less guns as soon as possible. Thats not automatically true & not reflect in what little Firearms Statistics the minister is sharing.
To that end, I'll just leave this here...also bear in mind Mexico is so thoroughly regulated it can take nearly a year to get a lawful gun AND they have only one gun shop in the entire nation.
