❓ A parliamentary question regarding the expansion of the firearms buyback program in WA and concerns about advocacy for increased gun ownership. The Minister's response details the new buyback scheme targeting firearms traders and criticizes the Nationals WA and the Liberal Party's stance on gun control.
AnsweredQoN 800Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FIREARMS — INDUSTRY BUYBACK PROGRAM
800. Mr D.A.E. SCAIFE to the Minister for Police:
I refer to the Cook Labor government's
successful voluntary firearms buyback program, which removed more than 38 000
guns from our community.
(1) Can the
minister advise the house on how the government's decision to expand
the firearms buyback will allow for the removal of more guns from the Western Australian
community?
(2) Can the
minister advise the house whether he is aware of anyone continuing to advocate
for more guns in the community?
800. Mr D.A.E. SCAIFE to the Minister for Police:
I refer to the Cook Labor government's
successful voluntary firearms buyback program, which removed more than 38 000
guns from our community.
(1) Can the
minister advise the house on how the government's decision to expand
the firearms buyback will allow for the removal of more guns from the Western Australian
community?
(2) Can the
minister advise the house whether he is aware of anyone continuing to advocate
for more guns in the community?
AnswerView source ↗
(1) I thank the
member for his question. With respect to the first part of his question, today
we announced the commencement of a new
buyback scheme. We did one earlier in the year that was for individual firearms licence holders. We announced a buyback scheme for the firearms industry from
today until 17 January—10 weeks. Firearms traders can now take the
opportunity to hand over firearms that are in excess of stock on hand and
receive some money for them. We know that right now, today, some 38 000
firearms are held by firearms traders across the state. Noting that our very
successful individual buyback scheme took more than 38 000 firearms off the
streets and out of the suburbs and community, the same number of firearms is
currently held by firearms traders. Admittedly, we understand that the
environment has shifted for firearms traders. They may have stock they will not
necessarily be able to shift in the future, so this is an opportunity to divest
themselves of those firearms. We also know that since 2017, some 500 firearms have been stolen from traders. If a trader has a stockpile
of firearms, they are a target. This is an opportunity to reduce the
size of that target and their vulnerability and remove more firearms from the
community. If there are fewer firearms in the community, there will be less
chance of them finding their way into the hands of people who will do harm with
those firearms. That is the objective. Clearly, the first buyback was valuable,
and I anticipate the second one will also be very successful and worthwhile.
(2) With respect
to the second part of the question, sadly, there are people advocating for more
firearms—more guns—in the community. The Nationals WA have
unashamedly advocated for an American-style gun culture in Western Australia—unlimited
guns.
Mr R.S. Love interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please!
Mr P. PAPALIA : The National
Party wants unlimited guns for anyone who wants them. That is its position. It
is opposed to any of the limits imposed by our laws. Its position is known and,
shameful though it is, it is probably understandable noting that it got $50 000
from the gun lobby. That is its position.
Sadly,
we saw yesterday the Liberal Party's shambolic press conference at
which it demonstrated just how confused and inconsistent it is. At the press
conference, two individuals from the Liberal Party—one, the notional
Leader of the Liberal Party, who stood next to the leader of ''The
Clan''—had different positions on gun laws. The Leader of the Liberal Party suggested that she backs them in
and is supportive of strong gun laws and limiting the number of guns in the community, but the leader of ''The
Clan'' completely contradicted her and suggested that the Liberal Party would change the laws at the behest of the National Party after the next
election.
The SPEAKER : Minister for
Police, can I seek clarification that you are not improperly referring to a member
of the upper house —
Mr P. PAPALIA : Sorry,
Speaker.
The SPEAKER : —
because if you are referring to a member of the upper house, you need to refer
to them by the title honourable and their name.
Mr P. PAPALIA : Correct. I am
sorry.
To
clarify, the Leader of the Liberal Party and Hon Peter Collier, the leader of ''The
Clan'', were at the press conference.
A government member : Goiran?
Mr P. PAPALIA : No, yesterday
it was Peter Collier; they are dual leaders of the ''The Clan''.
There are a couple of them.
The SPEAKER : Sorry; it is Hon
Peter Collier.
Mr P. PAPALIA : Yes, Hon Peter
Collier.
Several members interjected.
Mr P. PAPALIA : The question,
member for Vasse is: Where do you stand? How much power do you have? How much
responsibility do you have on behalf of the Liberal Party of Western Australia?
Are you able to reign in the people who really control the party and get them
to back in? Do you believe in tougher gun laws or will you fold to the demands,
conditions and ultimatums of the National Party? Will you fold to the National
Party? That is a good question for you.
member for his question. With respect to the first part of his question, today
we announced the commencement of a new
buyback scheme. We did one earlier in the year that was for individual firearms licence holders. We announced a buyback scheme for the firearms industry from
today until 17 January—10 weeks. Firearms traders can now take the
opportunity to hand over firearms that are in excess of stock on hand and
receive some money for them. We know that right now, today, some 38 000
firearms are held by firearms traders across the state. Noting that our very
successful individual buyback scheme took more than 38 000 firearms off the
streets and out of the suburbs and community, the same number of firearms is
currently held by firearms traders. Admittedly, we understand that the
environment has shifted for firearms traders. They may have stock they will not
necessarily be able to shift in the future, so this is an opportunity to divest
themselves of those firearms. We also know that since 2017, some 500 firearms have been stolen from traders. If a trader has a stockpile
of firearms, they are a target. This is an opportunity to reduce the
size of that target and their vulnerability and remove more firearms from the
community. If there are fewer firearms in the community, there will be less
chance of them finding their way into the hands of people who will do harm with
those firearms. That is the objective. Clearly, the first buyback was valuable,
and I anticipate the second one will also be very successful and worthwhile.
(2) With respect
to the second part of the question, sadly, there are people advocating for more
firearms—more guns—in the community. The Nationals WA have
unashamedly advocated for an American-style gun culture in Western Australia—unlimited
guns.
Mr R.S. Love interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please!
Mr P. PAPALIA : The National
Party wants unlimited guns for anyone who wants them. That is its position. It
is opposed to any of the limits imposed by our laws. Its position is known and,
shameful though it is, it is probably understandable noting that it got $50 000
from the gun lobby. That is its position.
Sadly,
we saw yesterday the Liberal Party's shambolic press conference at
which it demonstrated just how confused and inconsistent it is. At the press
conference, two individuals from the Liberal Party—one, the notional
Leader of the Liberal Party, who stood next to the leader of ''The
Clan''—had different positions on gun laws. The Leader of the Liberal Party suggested that she backs them in
and is supportive of strong gun laws and limiting the number of guns in the community, but the leader of ''The
Clan'' completely contradicted her and suggested that the Liberal Party would change the laws at the behest of the National Party after the next
election.
The SPEAKER : Minister for
Police, can I seek clarification that you are not improperly referring to a member
of the upper house —
Mr P. PAPALIA : Sorry,
Speaker.
The SPEAKER : —
because if you are referring to a member of the upper house, you need to refer
to them by the title honourable and their name.
Mr P. PAPALIA : Correct. I am
sorry.
To
clarify, the Leader of the Liberal Party and Hon Peter Collier, the leader of ''The
Clan'', were at the press conference.
A government member : Goiran?
Mr P. PAPALIA : No, yesterday
it was Peter Collier; they are dual leaders of the ''The Clan''.
There are a couple of them.
The SPEAKER : Sorry; it is Hon
Peter Collier.
Mr P. PAPALIA : Yes, Hon Peter
Collier.
Several members interjected.
Mr P. PAPALIA : The question,
member for Vasse is: Where do you stand? How much power do you have? How much
responsibility do you have on behalf of the Liberal Party of Western Australia?
Are you able to reign in the people who really control the party and get them
to back in? Do you believe in tougher gun laws or will you fold to the demands,
conditions and ultimatums of the National Party? Will you fold to the National
Party? That is a good question for you.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.