Jeff Bourman MP’s Firearms Amendment Bill was debated in Parliament in late August. As expected, the attempt at reform failed. However, it did serve as an important opportunity to remind MPs that there is a large and active community of firearm owners in Victoria. That reminder is particularly important less than one hundred days before the State Election.
The reform bill was quite simple and logical. It set out to remove an arbitrary and subjective power that has no demonstrable benefit to public safety. Appearance laws are not about what firearms do. They are solely about how they appear. The principle here is about having objective laws that people can understand and follow that do not unnecessarily inhibit law-abiding firearm owners.
Introducing the reform bill, Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party MP Jeff Bourman said,
“There is no public safety outcome in this clause (the appearance law), there is no logical, defendable argument that can justify what can only be described as a farcical situation where the aesthetics of mechanical items are seemingly more important than their actual functions.”
Mr Bourman then went on to challenge the opponents of reform, saying,
“During the debate, I’m sure we will hear about how great our laws are and how they are keeping us safe, but I will be very interested to hear how this specific portion of the act is keeping anyone safe.”
Response from the Government
In opposing reform, the government attempted to cast Victoria’s laws as consistent with the National Firearms Agreement and arrangements in other states. That assertion is just plain untrue. The proposed reforms were not contrary to the National Firearms Agreement, and Victorian arrangements are not easily (if at all) analogous to those in other states.
In the debate on the bill, the government erroneously claimed that the proposed reform was somehow about stopping the reclassification of firearms under any circumstances, but specifically for a change in the actual function of the firearm. Again, that assertion is untrue. It has been illegal in Victoria since at least the late 1980s to change the function of a firearm in the way the government suggested.
Similarly, the government tried to frame the proposed reform as stifling regulators’ ability to deal with technological change. It was not. It was clearly and demonstrably about what a firearm looks like, not what it does.
On a more positive note, the government did note the critical role of the Firearms Consultative Committee. It signalled that the committee’s recommendations would be fundamental to government decisions about firearms from now on (they have been, in part, in recent years).
“I know that in terms both of the broader committee, the Firearms Consultative Committee, but also the new legislation subcommittee that has been formed by the committee, they (the relevant Ministers) will rely very heavily on those two committees for the continued policy development in this space, particularly given, as I said, the breadth of people and organisations that we have got on those two committees. All are experts in their own right, and all are very experienced in their own right.”
Response from the Opposition
While disappointedly also voting against reform, the Opposition acknowledged the genuine concerns SSAA Victoria and the Association’s members expressed.
“The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia, which I think has around 40 000 members, has supported this bill. Its members have strongly supported this bill. I think there are around 9000 emails that have been sent to Victorian members of Parliament supporting this bill that is seeking to address the issue, the principle, that there is a piece of legislation that allows firearms to be reclassified not based on what they do but based on what they look like. No-one is arguing for removal of the Firearms Act or weakening of provisions within the Firearms Act. What they are arguing for is for policy around the classification of firearms to be based on objective criteria—what they do rather than what they look like. That is why this particular piece of legislation has generated such strong interest among recreational shooters and such strong support, because of the not unreasonable view that legislation and regulatory frameworks should be based on classifying firearms on what they do rather than simply what they look like.”
The crossbench
The Liberal Democrats supported the bill, saying
“This bill addresses the nonsense that we call appearance laws. Appearance laws classify firearms not on calibre or capability but on looks. Firearms which under the objective criteria would be cat A or cat B are instead classified to a higher, harder-to-obtain category based on nothing more than the whim of the Chief Commissioner of Police. These misclassifications do not make anyone safer. They do not protect Victorians. They just serve to frustrate LAFOs. I will be very happy to take away this discretion from the chief commissioner, and we can lead the way for change in other states. There is a lot of nonsense, a lot of stupidity, around firearms laws. There is a lot of fear, a lot of people who want to ban them altogether, which needs to be pushed back on.”
Independent MP for Western Metropolitan, Catherine Cumming, also supported the bill, saying
“I will be supporting this bill today because our firearms laws are not sensible. They are not about the calibre of the weapon, they are about the actual look of the weapon. There are many, many, many law-abiding firearm owners here in Victoria, and we need to protect that.”
Transport Matters MP Rod Barton also supported reform
“These changes would remove a very subjective power granted under the act. Less subjectivity in matters like these is a good thing; people should be able to know where they stand easily. We worked on that late last year with the Firearms and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2021 when the rules about safe storage were changed from a very subjective standard to an objective one. The shooting community supported those changes, too, because it’s pretty clear they want to comply with the law and the best way they can do that is if the law is clear and makes sense.”
Although she did not speak on the bill, Hinch Justice Party MP Tania Maxwell also voted in favour of reform.
Summing up
Summing up, Mr Bourman addressed and countered all of the objections to reform offered in the debate and then cut the real reason why reform is needed.
“Basically these laws are ineffective at being effective gun laws. They do nothing at all to help public safety. I would be willing to rethink this if someone could prove to me how a law-abiding firearms owner having a gun that looks like another gun but functioning as a normal bolt-action rifle is actually a public safety risk. I would be happy if someone could explain to me why this provision exists.”
Where to from here?
Two more sitting weeks are left before this Parliament rises ahead of the November State Election. It is unlikely that there will be any new government business in that time that affects shooting and hunting. There are still ‘live’ bills on the notice paper that SSAA Victoria will seek to influence if they are debated, particularly Animal Justice Party MP Andy Meddick’s “Wildlife Amendment (Protection of Birds) Bill 2019”. Mr Meddick’s bill seeks to end game waterfowl hunting (we are confident that, if that bill is debated it will not pass). The Association is actively talking with MPs every week to ensure that the positions of shooters and hunters are well understood and to drive the best possible outcomes for Victoria’s shooters and hunters.
SSAA Victoria is also actively working with the other major shooting and hunting organisations on our united approach to the 2022 Victorian State Election.
