❓ The Minister for Police provides an update on the firearms buyback scheme, criticises the Nationals WA's opposition to firearms reform, and accuses factions within the Liberal Party of undermining the new laws.
AnsweredQoN 316Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FIREARMS REFORM — BUYBACK PROGRAM
316. Ms K.E. GIDDENS to the Minister for Police:
I refer to the Cook Labor government's
commitment to keeping the Western Australian community safe.
(1) Can the
minister update the house on this government's reform to Western Australia's
outdated firearms laws, including the firearms voluntary buyback scheme?
(2) Can the
minister advise the house whether he is aware of anyone who does not support
these important reforms to keep Western Australians safe?
316. Ms K.E. GIDDENS to the Minister for Police:
I refer to the Cook Labor government's
commitment to keeping the Western Australian community safe.
(1) Can the
minister update the house on this government's reform to Western Australia's
outdated firearms laws, including the firearms voluntary buyback scheme?
(2) Can the
minister advise the house whether he is aware of anyone who does not support
these important reforms to keep Western Australians safe?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for her question
and for her deep interest in increasing community safety and also keeping
police safe. I know the member has a great interest in that objective.
(1) We passed a significant milestone last week when
the state's buyback scheme received more than 10 000 firearms.
That is a significant number. Over 10 weeks, around a thousand a week were
handed in. That is in the order of 140 or so every single day, on average. That
means Western Australia is just that little bit safer after 10 weeks.
(2) I turn to
whether anyone opposes the reforms and making the community safer. That is the
objective of our new law; it will elevate
the National Firearms Agreement principle of the ownership and use of firearms being a privilege, and that privilege being subject to community safety.
Community safety is the number one consideration. With respect to who might
oppose it, we know the Nationals WA do in their desperate attempt to curry favour with any person,
conspiracy theorist or one-world-government believers who believe that
the intent of the government is to somehow disarm the community so we can crush
them all in accordance with UN directives. In that attempt, the Nationals have
opposed the laws outright and said it will
give back the 10 000 guns. The Nationals will get them out there and adopt the
American-style approach of people in Western Australia having as many
guns as they want. That is what the Nationals want. It does not want any limits. The opposite of having limits is unlimited
guns under the Nationals. That is okay ; we have pigeonholed the
Nationals to one side as being irrelevant.
What is of concern, sadly, is that
the Liberal Party has descended into utter chaos on this matter. There are only
three Liberal members in the lower house. One went back to vote with the
National Party. She wanted to look as close as she possibly could to the Leader
of the Nationals in an effort to retain her seat, which is understandable, I guess.
Another member generally voted with the legislation, or did not oppose it, at
least. As the Leader of the Liberal Party indicated, that was the stance of the
Liberal Party—it would not oppose
the legislation. That is what the Leader of the Liberal Party said in this
place. She, as the leader , committed her party to not opposing the
legislation. She then promptly left the chamber as often as she could, having stated that position. Sadly, when
the bill left this place and went to the other place, we saw an indication of who is actually running the Liberal Party. I have got to say that
people moved an amendment in the upper house. They moved a couple of
amendments, but one in particular effectively ''grandfathers'' it
so that everybody who has got a gun at the moment can have the number of guns
that they will have when the law commences later this year, meaning that
everyone will rush out and buy as many guns as they possibly can, so that they
have them for the rest of their lives. That is the position that was moved in
the upper house by the Liberal Party.
Who moved the amendment? It was Hon
Nick Goiran and Hon Peter Collier together. Together, they moved the amendment. Who are those two? Are they
not previously known to be leaders of an organisation that actually runs
the Liberal Party? Was it not suggested that that is a thing of the past and
that they have moved on to people being
preselected by the people, and to the most transparent and open system in the country,
yet everybody who seems to get preselected is endorsed and owned by the former ''Clan''? ''The Clan'' still runs the
Liberal Party. ''The Clan'' is making decisions on all
significant manners. Leader of the Liberal Party, sadly, it is ''The
Clan'' who wants to undermine and gut the new laws that will make the
community safer.
and for her deep interest in increasing community safety and also keeping
police safe. I know the member has a great interest in that objective.
(1) We passed a significant milestone last week when
the state's buyback scheme received more than 10 000 firearms.
That is a significant number. Over 10 weeks, around a thousand a week were
handed in. That is in the order of 140 or so every single day, on average. That
means Western Australia is just that little bit safer after 10 weeks.
(2) I turn to
whether anyone opposes the reforms and making the community safer. That is the
objective of our new law; it will elevate
the National Firearms Agreement principle of the ownership and use of firearms being a privilege, and that privilege being subject to community safety.
Community safety is the number one consideration. With respect to who might
oppose it, we know the Nationals WA do in their desperate attempt to curry favour with any person,
conspiracy theorist or one-world-government believers who believe that
the intent of the government is to somehow disarm the community so we can crush
them all in accordance with UN directives. In that attempt, the Nationals have
opposed the laws outright and said it will
give back the 10 000 guns. The Nationals will get them out there and adopt the
American-style approach of people in Western Australia having as many
guns as they want. That is what the Nationals want. It does not want any limits. The opposite of having limits is unlimited
guns under the Nationals. That is okay ; we have pigeonholed the
Nationals to one side as being irrelevant.
What is of concern, sadly, is that
the Liberal Party has descended into utter chaos on this matter. There are only
three Liberal members in the lower house. One went back to vote with the
National Party. She wanted to look as close as she possibly could to the Leader
of the Nationals in an effort to retain her seat, which is understandable, I guess.
Another member generally voted with the legislation, or did not oppose it, at
least. As the Leader of the Liberal Party indicated, that was the stance of the
Liberal Party—it would not oppose
the legislation. That is what the Leader of the Liberal Party said in this
place. She, as the leader , committed her party to not opposing the
legislation. She then promptly left the chamber as often as she could, having stated that position. Sadly, when
the bill left this place and went to the other place, we saw an indication of who is actually running the Liberal Party. I have got to say that
people moved an amendment in the upper house. They moved a couple of
amendments, but one in particular effectively ''grandfathers'' it
so that everybody who has got a gun at the moment can have the number of guns
that they will have when the law commences later this year, meaning that
everyone will rush out and buy as many guns as they possibly can, so that they
have them for the rest of their lives. That is the position that was moved in
the upper house by the Liberal Party.
Who moved the amendment? It was Hon
Nick Goiran and Hon Peter Collier together. Together, they moved the amendment. Who are those two? Are they
not previously known to be leaders of an organisation that actually runs
the Liberal Party? Was it not suggested that that is a thing of the past and
that they have moved on to people being
preselected by the people, and to the most transparent and open system in the country,
yet everybody who seems to get preselected is endorsed and owned by the former ''Clan''? ''The Clan'' still runs the
Liberal Party. ''The Clan'' is making decisions on all
significant manners. Leader of the Liberal Party, sadly, it is ''The
Clan'' who wants to undermine and gut the new laws that will make the
community safer.
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.