Mandatory mental health checks for firearms licence holders are again being raised as a firearms policy response, following a Victorian coronial recommendation that GPs become more involved in assessing whether a person is fit to hold a firearms licence.
No one is arguing that firearms licensing should ignore health and safety concerns, or that a person who presents a genuine risk to themselves or others should continue to have access to firearms. The question is whether periodic medical assessments can reliably predict a licence holder’s future suitability years after the appointment.
The medical professionals quoted in this article have been clear on that point. A periodic health assessment cannot reliably predict whether a person will remain suitable to hold a firearms licence in the years that follow.
RACGP Victoria Chair Dr Anita Muñoz made that point in response to the Victorian coronial recommendation, warning that a GP cannot conduct one assessment and see five years into a person’s future.
The same concern has been raised previously in Western Australia. Medical Republic reported comments from AMA WA President Dr Michael Page, who said no doctor can reliably predict who may commit a firearm-related crime in the future, while RACGP WA Deputy Chair Dr Mariam Bahemia warned that asking doctors to make a judgement about a patient’s physical and mental health in terms of potential future risk is professionally and ethically challenging.
The medical concern is the limit of a point-in-time assessment. A person may be well at the time of an appointment and deteriorate later, while another may have a past mental health issue, be properly treated, stable, responsible and present no firearms-related risk.
A blanket assessment model does not solve that problem, because it still uses a point-in-time medical assessment to support a future licensing decision.
Western Australia is already testing this model. Under WA’s new firearms regime, gun owners and applicants are required to have a Firearm Authority Health Assessment completed every five years, with WA Police also publishing reference material for medical practitioners involved in the process.
The response to this policy from medical professionals in Western Australia has been critical of the government’s approach. RACGP reported that some GPs are declining to take part in the Firearm Authority Health Assessment process, citing ethical concerns, legal risks and strain on the doctor-patient relationship, while a July 2024 newsGP poll found almost 80% of 1347 respondents were not willing to provide firearms health assessments for patients.
There is also a public health risk. Dr Muñoz has warned that firearms licence holders may avoid seeking care, withhold information, or seek out a doctor who does not know them well if they believe honest disclosure could lead to the loss of their firearms licence.
Regulators need to take that warning seriously, because a licensing system that treats mental health disclosure as a reason for suspicion may discourage treatment and risk stigmatising conditions that can be treated and managed.
A mental health diagnosis or treatment history is not, and should not, by itself, be enough evidence that a person is dangerous or unsuitable to hold a firearms licence. Many people seek help, follow treatment and manage their health responsibly, and a system that makes them fear honest disclosure works against both public health and effective firearms regulation.
Another significant issue with this policy is the strain it would have on our healthcare system. Australia does not have the capacity across general practice, psychology and psychiatry to absorb a large new workload.
The RACGP National Workforce Strategy 2025–30 estimated that Australia needed an additional 3620 full-time equivalent GPs to meet demand in 2025, increasing to 6860 by 2030 and 13,240 by 2040 under its emerging demand scenario.
The same report says healthcare access is significantly more limited in rural and remote areas, where there are chronic shortages of healthcare professionals, including GPs. It also highlights that very remote areas have far fewer GPs per 100,000 people than major cities.
Mental health services are under similar pressure. The Australian Psychological Society and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists have warned that many Australians already struggle to see a psychiatrist, psychologist or other mental health worker because of critical and chronic workforce shortages.
The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing’s Psychology Supply and Demand Compendium Report projects a national shortfall of psychologists in health settings, with unmet demand estimates indicating a shortage of 10,269.9 full-time equivalent psychologists in 2025, increasing to 24,115.5 by 2038.
The RANZCP has also warned that people are missing out on psychiatric care because it is too far away, involves long waits, is too expensive or is simply unavailable, with rural, regional and remote communities hardest hit.
Department of Home Affairs figures released in January 2026 recorded 929,741 firearms licences nationally. If every licence holder had to obtain a GP or mental health assessment every five years, that would require about 186,000 assessments a year. A three-year cycle would require about 310,000 assessments a year, while a two-year cycle would require about 465,000 assessments a year.
Those figures represent a major new stream of appointments, paperwork and professional responsibility, placed on workforces that are already struggling to meet existing community demand.
In rural and remote areas, the impact would be compounded as health systems already have fewer clinicians and more limited access. Where a licence holder needs an assessment in those communities, they would be seeking time from the same local health workforce that is already dealing with ordinary patient care and the usual pressures of regional practice.
None of this means that health information is irrelevant to firearms licensing. Where there is a current and relevant health concern that bears on a person’s safety, it should be dealt with through a clear, lawful and accountable process.
However, that is different from creating a blanket assessment model for nearly one million licence holders and expecting GPs, psychologists or psychiatrists to provide recurring assessments for future licensing decisions, especially when medical professionals have already questioned whether the process can reliably predict risk.
In my view, the case for mandatory health assessments has not been made. Concerns remain about prediction, professional responsibility and patient disclosure, and the workforce data shows that a recurring assessment model would add substantial pressure to a healthcare system already under strain.