Reply from Rebecca Stephens MLA

Below is the reply I revcieved from Labor's Albany MP Rebecca Stephens MLA

Below that is her same reply with (in red text) my reply to her email.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Mr Robins

Thank you for contacting me regarding the proposed reforms to the Firearms Act 1973.

 

The Cook Labor Government is undertaking the largest overhaul of firearms laws in Western Australia’s history by rewriting and updating the 50-year-old Firearms Act.

 

Keeping the community safe is a priority for our Government, and the new Firearms Act will strike the right balance between public safety and legitimate and responsible gun ownership.

 

In addition, the reforms implement recommendations from the 2016 Law Reform Commission Review and align WA with key elements of the 2017 National Firearms Agreement. 

 

The Cook Government’s proposed new firearms laws have been developed following years of extensive consultation with licence holders, the primary producers firearms advisory board, industry stakeholders, and the community.

 

Following the lengthy and extensive consultation period, the State Government released a Firearms Bill Consultation Paper outlining the proposed reforms that will modernise the current firearms regime and elevate public safety. 

 

As you would be aware, the Government invited members of the public to review and comment on the proposed laws outlined in the consultation paper. WA Police have carefully considered all submissions received prior to the Bill being introduced to Parliament this year.

 

To view the proposed reforms and for information on the Firearms Act Reform, including answers to frequently asked questions, please visit www.police.wa.gov.au/firearmsactreform

 

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about this important matter. I have taken the liberty of relaying your views to the Minister for Police for his awareness.

 

Kind regards,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 

Dear Mr Robins 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the proposed reforms to the Firearms Act 1973.
This actually isn't that important, it turned 50 last year in Oct, it's in its 51st year & is at this stage "current" as of April 2023. So its current form with added Amendments its under 2 years old. Its not the same Act as 50+ years ago. Its technically now a less than 2 year old Act.

 

The Cook Labor Government is undertaking the largest overhaul of firearms laws in Western Australia’s history by rewriting and updating the 50-year-old Firearms Act.
As above, the Cook Labor Government is "rewriting & updating" a less than 2 year old Act. You, the Minister & the Premier have given the impression nothing in it has changed since 1973. This is false, if you could not do this it would curtail any accusation of Intellectual Bankruptcy.

 

Keeping the community safe is a priority for our Government, and the new Firearms Act will strike the right balance between public safety and legitimate and responsible gun ownership.
All lawful firearms owners, industry stakeholders, recreational hunters, competitors & primary producers want public safety first, not a compromised balance as you've put it. If it will strike such a balance, you should show how by setting out what it is that currently presents an elevated threat to any member of the public and explain what in the revised  Act will solve each elevated threat & how.
For some reason you have omitted the threats, the solutions & why they will solve this. 
The lack of evidential research has been a hallmark of the efforts of the minister so far.
It's most unhelpful to everyone.
I concede you may not be aware of any of the contents & possibly just replying as instructed without being across any of it at all.
That to is most unhelpful to everyone if your job is to be a legislator, a law maker.
The entire contents & the dot points in my email to you appear to have all been missed or ignored.
Would be good for you to try & answer those points please

 

In addition, the reforms implement recommendations from the 2016 Law Reform Commission Review and align WA with key elements of the 2017 National Firearms Agreement. 
In addition to what you've said in reply already? That is in fact terribly incorrect terribly incorrect.
In fact I am at a loss as to how anyone could possibly read the Law Reform Commission Final Report on Firearms Review and be of the view you are. The changes are going completely against what the LRC Report recommends.

I don't think you've read & understood the report at all.
Its 185 pages with 143 recommendations not counting the large number of subsectioned recommendations.

In fact introducing an Upper Restriction on the number of firearms a person can own is DIRECTLY OPPOSITE THE LRC FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS.
It may need repeating, you are not implementing the Law Reform Commission recommendations, you are implementing changes that go 100% completely AGAINST the Law Reform Commission recommendations.

Page 185 states...
" The Commission is satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards 

built into the genuine reason (including reasonable justification) 

nd genuine need tests to prevent the unjustified stockpiling of 

firearms and recommends that there be no upper limit on firearms 

numbers (subject to some specific areas of limitation, for example, 

the Commission’s recommendation for an upper limit of Category D 

firearms for Professional Shooters and Primary Producers at Subsection 10.6.3) 

Recommendation 54:       There should be no upper limit on the number of 

                                              firearms a single Firearm Licence holder may possess. "

You will be implementing amendments that are not in line with the LRC recommendations, they are fully, completely & diametrically opposite to the LRC Recommendations. I am unsure if you have just repeated whatever the Minister has sent out without checking & reading the recommendations OR if you've got it horribly wrong by deliberate design. This is a serious matter of concern as you're supposed to be a legislator pouring over a Bill & the supporting information of any amendment. 
This is a very serious concern, a concern in the most extreme nature for the standards of the WA Parliament.

 

The Cook Government’s proposed new firearms laws have been developed following years of extensive consultation with licence holders, the primary producers firearms advisory board, industry stakeholders, and the community.
No not entirely correct. We all had the opportunity to make submissions during the Consultation Period. I did.
Primary Producers input was extremely limited to a very small "board" with 5 member groups representing a small number of WA Primary Producers. They possessed far less knowledge, expertise & understanding of the wider firearms community. They were handpicked by the Minister & sat in a board that the Minister chaired. By all accounts now, they were informed of what was coming & being so badly unprepared & without knowledge of the National Firearms Agreement & the Law Reform Commission report they accepted what they were told.
They were not offering in anyway valuable advice & did not represent the majority of the Primary Producers in WA, let alone all the other stakeholders. Their meetings were few & very short in duration.
The only concession the PPFAB claim was extending the original limit of 5 up to 10 for Primary Producers when, if they knew sand from clay they would have opposed all number restrictions, cited the Law Reform Commission and left the meeting. They were out of their depth & we're not of good advice.

Other stakeholders were the WA Firearms Community Alliance which is the largest, the peak representative body in WA. It represents recreational hunters, sporting clubs, lobbying interests, manufacturers, importers, repairers, land carers, professional feral controllers, Primary producers and the sporting fraternity that includes the aged & disabled competitors. They represent the best amount of high level expertise & knowledge of evidential research on firearms & related matters. Including crime statistics. They did get some meetings as well but they got few concessions.

One being removing the "55 Boys" from the newly invented VPF list. The VPF list bizarrely banned the 55 Boys from collector's ownership. Only state in Australia to ban a WW2 collector's piece that cannot be fired. FYI, that firearm ran out of ammunition during the war, it was largely unsuccessful and that's why it's become a sought after WW2 collectible. Its very rare. The ammution uses a highly modified 50 calibre casing the has reengineered neck to accept a larger projectile & even more difficult the bottom of the casing was modified to be "belted" to add strength to the casing due to increased powder. These brass casings would be extremely rare if any still exist. No 55 Boys has been used in a crime in WA nor anywhere in Australia & if one has ever been fired on a range since World War it's more likely to have happened in the 1950s & would have been only a handful of shots. I;d be aazed if any of its very special riunds existed after WW2.

Whoever advised/decided to ban the 55 Boys clearly had no idea what it was, how it's about as useful as a weapon as 1000 year old Roman sling shot. Its an investment collectible. Whoever put it on the very odd VPF list in the first place was not up to any speed. It calls into question the rest of the items on the VPF but I cannot get the actual criteria for firearms on that very newly created list that were one minute legal & then outlawed. 
We cannot find any instance of those larger calibres ever being used in the commission of any crime let alone an injury or death of anyone in Australia let alone innocent Western Australians. If there are you need to tell us where & when, how often this happens and exactly what elevated threat they present actually is. 

Considering some firearms on the initial VPF list have no available ammuntion & others have ammunition that exceeds $15 per bullet I think those firearms only purpose is sport & very large animal hunting/culling.
Who is advising on this Act & how are you comfortable with their immense short comings?

This is beginning to look like the embarassing (repealed) Aboriginal Cultureal Heritage Act. The Act the Premier had to repeal then stand in Parliament & apologise for after spending months show casing it as a great testament to common sense & a reflection of everything the Voice Referendum would also deliver.

The ACH Act was the worst legislative disaster in WA's history. By far the very worst & from every angle a most concerning debacle in the shortcomings of advisiors & whoever else was involved in the legislation & the idea of it beong good enough to sign off on.

So far the standard of advice on the Firearm's Rewrite is looking equally deplorable and misdirected with a similar desitination, being passed, being repealed & the Premier apologising.

This is a debacle and I urge you to not support it at all. 
 

 

Following the lengthy and extensive consultation period, the State Government released a Firearms Bill Consultation Paper outlining the proposed reforms that will modernise the current firearms regime and elevate public safety. 
Yes, I am aware & you have not commented on any of the proposed reforms & the majority of them have not been released to the public yet. You must be aware the Bill has not been tabled yet?

I expect the Bill will be tabled and debate will start shortly after. 
Convention is a tabled Bill sits untouched for weeks or months to allow all MPs to get across all the detail.
Except of late, Labor has dropped the wise & fair convention. In more than a few cases a Bill hase been tabled without warning & debate starts immediately. I am very far from being a Clive Palmer fan, but in the case of that Bill, it was tabled, debated, passed and headed off for Royal Ascent all in 2 days. The Opposition had no warning, no briefings, not allowed to refer it to committee & no prior consultation despite the Premier, the Attorney General & a contracted Law Firm having worked on the Bill for months.
It was reported to have been secretly built & worked on for over 3 months. Not even the cabinet was informed.
Any Bill that extinguishes the legal ability of an Australian Citizen to argue their legal rights in a court of law needs weeks & months of rigorous consideration. Much as I do not like Mr Palmer, his sovereign rights in WA's legal system was extinguished. Its staggering this was allowed.

Its another contender for worst Legislative debacle in WA history alongside the now repealed Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act.

 

As you would be aware, the Government invited members of the public to review and comment on the proposed laws outlined in the consultation paper.
Correct I am aware. I made submissions after reviewing what little the minister released to the public. I reviewed the few public comments of the Primary Producers Firearms Advisory Board. Some of their members made it very clear they were given what was coming & the only concession they were able to negotiate was Primary Producers would be restricted to 10 firearms not the original 5.
That appears to be the sum total of the input they had.
Sadly they were all completely unaware that ANY restriction of firearm numbers a person can own is in complete opposition to the Law Refrom Commission recommendations & the themes of the National Firearms Agreement (NFA). This non restriction is balanced by the fit & proper person test & the demonstrated genuine need test, both approved by WAPolice.

The NFA is not a long document to read but it is a very important document that was a response to the Port Arthur atrocity that needlessly & tragically took the lives of 35 innocent people. The revised Act spits in the face of the LRC Recommendations, the NFA & in turn the 35 innocent fatalities. I am at a loss at anyone being a legislator in WA and supporting this rewrite. No other state has done this.

WA Police have carefully considered all submissions received prior to the Bill being introduced to Parliament this year.
Which & who of WA Police have decided to write legislation that completely opposes the Law Reform Commission recommendations & the National Firearms Agreement & no longer rely on the 2 primary tests of "fit & proper person" and demonstrating "genuine need" ?

Again, see the LRC Recommendations On page 55 of their report. I'll include it here as its possible you haven't accessed a copy yet.

Recommendation 52:

52.1          The ‘reasonable justification’ test should be retained.

52.2          The fact that an applicant already has a firearm or firearms 

                  similar to the firearm that is the subject of an application, 

                  should not of itself be a reason to assess the additional 

                  firearm as being unjustified.

Recommendation 53:

53.1           There should be no detailed public checklist for genuine 

                   reason determination. 53.2 The WA Police website should 

                   include a clear statement of the law in regard to the genuine
                   reason test, with reference to the reasonable justification test,
                   in the context of applications for additional firearms and should

                   list some of the possible consider

The Law Reform Commission is VERY clear. No upper limit restrictions & the basis should begin with a fit & proper person test approved by police (as it is now) and a "genuine need test approved by police (as it is now).
The rewrite is going completely against this and we are seeing no proper indepth evidential research data preceding it. Only inferred (mysterious) elevated threats in the current Act & the full gamete of proposed solutions to the mysterious unexplained threats.

You cannot possibly be at ease with installing legislative rewrites in this fashion.
This is in effect as poorly managed & orchestrated as the ACH Act Disaster.
You cannot possibly be willing to sign off on this?  

 

To view the proposed reforms and for information on the Firearms Act Reform, including answers to frequently asked questions, please visit www.police.wa.gov.au/firearmsactreform

I have viewed them & I urge you to view them, then view the Law Reform Commission Report and compare

https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-02/LRC-Project-105-Final-Report.pdf

I'd also urge you to re-read my email to you & if possible answer all or even most or even some of the the actual points I put forward. At the very least can you why you state

"In addition, the reforms implement recommendations from the 2016 Law Reform Commission Review and align WA with key elements of the 2017 National Firearms Agreement. " when the complete opposite is true?

Is this a genuine mistake on your part or not.

Also you seem to have deftly gone around all of what I sent & the referred it to the minister. Despite its length I did make it eaier by using dot points. You appear to have sent me a politically driven tactial reply in lieu of a proper genuine answer. By your own election campaign material, you are the Voice in the McGowan Government Team & I assume you're now Albany's Voice in the Cook Team(?)

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about this important matter. I have taken the liberty of relaying your views to the Minister for Police for his awareness.

I have no problem with that, I do not see it as a liberty. Quite ok. It should have however occured to you that I placed the email addresses of every single Member of WA Parliament in the "To" field of the email browser. 
Not in the Bcc field, in the "To" browser.
Every single meember recieved it including the minister. You may have you missed this also.

In less than 12 hours I have recieved 50+ auto email replies, one real person reply (Labor MP) stating they understand the importance of getting the Firearms Rewrite right & will forward it to the MP straight away. One email from another MP statting he understands where I'm coming from & that he will pour over the full contents and one phone from a MP that last nearly an hour which included the MP asking a ton of questions, some I could answer, some I referred them to documents & other people more experienced.
Then there was your reply.

It is however looking very much like you may be representing Labor in Albany & not representing Albany in the Parliament. The WA Parliament needs people with statesmanship traits who are not afraid to support & represent their electorate & the state. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, Upper House Electoral Reform, plus other passed Acts & now this indicates MPs have lost the ability to be public servants serving the public and society's bests interests & instead have reverted to serving only the leaders of the party & representing the best soft cell apologetics to the electorate who are required to conform, obey & be happy about it.
Time for MPs to lift. Time for some to independently subit amendments & if need be cross the floor.
Yes cross the floor, not be away from the chamber so they're not seen voting in way that's detrimental to the state & their electors.

By all means send another proper reply to my initial email. 
At the very least explain why you haven't read the Bill, the Law Reform COmmission recommendations or the National Firearms Agreement & why you claim it's implementing that when its clearly doing the opposite.
Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------