When Regulations Override Parliament: A Diagnosis of Our Firearms Laws

In my years as a GP, I have often seen that the most aggressive treatment is not always the most effective. Sometimes, the side effects of a cure can be just as damaging as the ailment itself. This week in Parliament, as we noted the Standing Committee on Legislation's report into the Firearms Act 2024, I found myself looking at a set of regulations that risk doing exactly that. We all agree on the need for a healthy, safe community, but we must ask if the state is overmedicating on control at the expense of fundamental freedoms.

The danger of unchecked discretion

Possessing a firearm is a privilege, but that privilege should not be stripped away based on the subjective pulse of a policing framework that lacks transparency. Sections of the Act, reinforced by recent regulations, allow the Commissioner unchecked discretion to cancel or amend licences based on vague criteria like character or undefined suitability. This isn't just a matter of administrative red tape: it is a door opening toward the erosion of personal liberty.

We cannot permit a system to develop where power is divorced from accountability. When a single official can make life-altering decisions based on assumptions about a person's views or associations, we move away from objective justice and toward a regime of pre-emptive bias. The risk is real. If we allow this level of discretion today, what is to stop it from creeping into other areas of our lives tomorrow?

A prescription for legislative overreach

The most concerning symptom of this new framework is what we call Henry VIII clauses. These are provisions that allow regulations to essentially override or amend the primary laws passed by Parliament. As a member of the Legislative Council, I find this trend deeply unsettling. We are sent here to debate and decide on the laws that govern Western Australians, yet we are seeing a shift where the executive branch creates restrictions that we never had the chance to approve.

If you're finding these insights helpful and want to stay informed on how we're fighting for evidence-based policy in Western Australia, please consider subscribing to my YouTube channel for regular updates from the House.

These regulations go well beyond mere implementation. They introduce new restrictions that the High Court has cautioned against. Substantive rights should not be curtailed by regulation alone. When the implementation is rushed and the oversight is bypassed, the result is a messy, confusing system that leaves law-abiding citizens in the dark while doing little to stop those who already operate outside the law.

Restoring the balance of trust

The evidence is telling. Looking back at incidents involving firearms over the last few years, the vast majority occurred despite the existing laws. Known criminals and those with severe mental health issues were often already known to authorities but slipped through the cracks. The solution is not more sweeping power for the state, but better application of the sensible rules we already have. We must protect the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of our legal system that is currently being tested by these new measures.

True community safety comes from trust and clear, fair rules, not from forcing law-abiding groups underground. We need to focus on the underlying causes of violence rather than just the tools. To read the full details of my contribution and the Committee's findings, you can access the Hansard record here. If you believe in standing up for a balanced, evidence-based approach to our laws, I invite you to join Legalise Cannabis WA today.