❓ Ms. Mettam questions the Minister for Police regarding the Floreat shootings and the denial of a restraining order to Ariel Bombara, asking about the family violence incident report and the potential impact of new firearm legislation. The Minister acknowledges an internal investigation and details how the new legislation would prevent similar firearm access in the future, emphasizing mandatory firearm seizure in FDV cases.
AnsweredQoN 355Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FAMILY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE —
FIREARMS — FLOREAT SHOOTINGS
355. Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Police:
I refer to the Commissioner of
Police's comment that the request for a 72-hour restraining order by
Ariel Bombara and her mother did not meet the threshold and the order was
therefore denied.
(1) Given that
Ariel and her mother submitted a family violence incident report, what happened
to that report, and what action was taken as a result?
(2) Would the
minister's new urgent amendments to firearm legislation have made any
difference, given that Ariel Bombara reached out to police three times for help
when her father became violent, only to be ignored three times?
FIREARMS — FLOREAT SHOOTINGS
355. Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Police:
I refer to the Commissioner of
Police's comment that the request for a 72-hour restraining order by
Ariel Bombara and her mother did not meet the threshold and the order was
therefore denied.
(1) Given that
Ariel and her mother submitted a family violence incident report, what happened
to that report, and what action was taken as a result?
(2) Would the
minister's new urgent amendments to firearm legislation have made any
difference, given that Ariel Bombara reached out to police three times for help
when her father became violent, only to be ignored three times?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) I
thank the member for her question. In advance of answering specifically on the
impact that our new amendments would have had, can I just say that there is an
internal investigation—the Leader of the Liberal Party knows that—and
it is appropriate, post the statement released by Ariel Bombara, that that matter be investigated thoroughly. I do not have
the final outcomes of that investigation, so I will not respond to any
particular questions with regard to those matters.
I will say that Jennifer and Gretl's
murderer used a Glock firearm that he had acquired lawfully, under the current laws, with a collector's
licence. Through having acquired a collector's licence for ammunition, he was also able to obtain ammunition for that firearm. That will no longer be
available to anybody. You will not be able to do that. Furthermore, you will
not be able, as a collector, to collect a firearm that is less than 50 years
old. Again, that firearm would not have been available to their murderer.
Beyond that, the definition of ''collector''
will be much enhanced and tightened, to ensure that people who are not genuine
students of arms and members of recognised associations will not be able to
collect that or any type of firearm. They will not be able to acquire a collector's
licence anywhere near as easily as people have for the last 50 years. The law
will be significantly hardened and toughened, and I look forward to support
from the Liberal Party in the Parliament for those measures.
Beyond
that, the very first amendment we propose with regard to the practices of
police in respect of family and domestic violence is that, in advance of
a restraining order or a police order, at the first presentation or report, or
really complaint of FDV—this is in the new Restraining Orders Act
terminology for FDV, so it is not linked
solely to physical violence, as the current Firearms Act is—police will
be compelled to seize the firearms. There will be no discretion, and they will
be compelled to seize all the firearms of a licensed firearms holder in
that situation. That will then cause an investigation by the licensing
enforcement division into the fit and proper status of the licensed firearms
owner. That will be completed and no-one
will recover their firearms in the absence of the situation being deemed safe,
because the primary principle, the single biggest feature of this
legislation—which is already before the Parliament; it is not one of
these amendments—is elevating public safety to primary consideration
above all other matters.
thank the member for her question. In advance of answering specifically on the
impact that our new amendments would have had, can I just say that there is an
internal investigation—the Leader of the Liberal Party knows that—and
it is appropriate, post the statement released by Ariel Bombara, that that matter be investigated thoroughly. I do not have
the final outcomes of that investigation, so I will not respond to any
particular questions with regard to those matters.
I will say that Jennifer and Gretl's
murderer used a Glock firearm that he had acquired lawfully, under the current laws, with a collector's
licence. Through having acquired a collector's licence for ammunition, he was also able to obtain ammunition for that firearm. That will no longer be
available to anybody. You will not be able to do that. Furthermore, you will
not be able, as a collector, to collect a firearm that is less than 50 years
old. Again, that firearm would not have been available to their murderer.
Beyond that, the definition of ''collector''
will be much enhanced and tightened, to ensure that people who are not genuine
students of arms and members of recognised associations will not be able to
collect that or any type of firearm. They will not be able to acquire a collector's
licence anywhere near as easily as people have for the last 50 years. The law
will be significantly hardened and toughened, and I look forward to support
from the Liberal Party in the Parliament for those measures.
Beyond
that, the very first amendment we propose with regard to the practices of
police in respect of family and domestic violence is that, in advance of
a restraining order or a police order, at the first presentation or report, or
really complaint of FDV—this is in the new Restraining Orders Act
terminology for FDV, so it is not linked
solely to physical violence, as the current Firearms Act is—police will
be compelled to seize the firearms. There will be no discretion, and they will
be compelled to seize all the firearms of a licensed firearms holder in
that situation. That will then cause an investigation by the licensing
enforcement division into the fit and proper status of the licensed firearms
owner. That will be completed and no-one
will recover their firearms in the absence of the situation being deemed safe,
because the primary principle, the single biggest feature of this
legislation—which is already before the Parliament; it is not one of
these amendments—is elevating public safety to primary consideration
above all other matters.
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.