In June this year I had the opportunity to attend a regulatory reform conference in Canberra focused on improving the quality and performance of regulation across Australia. The event brought together senior regulators, public servants, policy specialists and academics to discuss how governments can design and administer regulatory systems more effectively.
The conference was hosted with participation from organisations such as the Institute of Public Administration Australia (IPAA), the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG), and senior representatives from Commonwealth regulatory agencies. Many of the presentations drew heavily on contemporary regulatory governance frameworks, including the Commonwealth Government’s Regulator Performance Framework, which seeks to measure regulators against principles such as transparency, proportionality, engagement and efficiency.
The conversations were thoughtful and constructive. Speakers emphasised the importance of designing regulatory systems that achieve their policy objectives while also recognising the realities faced by regulated industries. There was considerable discussion about improving regulator capability, modernising administrative systems, and ensuring that regulatory agencies operate with professionalism and accountability.
Listening to these discussions was encouraging, yet at the same time it was difficult not to notice something that seemed conspicuously absent from the conversation. The Australian shooting industry was largely invisible.
This absence is surprising when one considers how heavily regulated the shooting industry actually is. Few industries operate within a framework as detailed and comprehensive as that governing firearms ownership, retail, importation and licensing in Australia. Firearms dealers operate under strict licensing regimes and record keeping requirements. Licence holders must comply with extensive administrative processes relating to storage, transport and use. Businesses must navigate a complex combination of state legislation, national agreements and Commonwealth import controls.
In short, the shooting industry operates within one of the most comprehensive regulatory environments in the country. Given this reality, one might reasonably expect the sector to feature in discussions about improving regulatory design and administration. Yet at conferences dedicated to regulatory reform and regulatory best practice, the industry is rarely mentioned.
Principles of Regulatory Governance
One of the central themes discussed during the conference was the evolution of regulatory practice in Australia. Over the past decade, there has been increasing recognition that effective regulation requires more than simply enforcing legislation.
ANZSOG’s work on regulatory governance, for example, emphasises that modern regulators must balance enforcement with engagement, risk management and service delivery. Regulators are increasingly expected to operate as professional institutions that combine technical expertise with organisational capability.
Similarly, the Commonwealth Government’s Regulator Performance Framework outlines clear expectations for regulatory agencies. Regulators are expected to communicate effectively with stakeholders, make timely decisions, minimise unnecessary regulatory burden and continuously review their own performance.
These frameworks reflect an important shift in how governments think about regulation. Regulation is no longer seen solely as a mechanism for controlling behaviour. It is increasingly understood as a system that must be designed and administered in a way that supports both policy objectives and economic activity.
For many participants in the shooting industry, however, the experience of firearms regulation does not always reflect the principles described in these frameworks. Administrative processes can be slow and inconsistent. Licensing and permit systems can lack transparency in their decision making timelines. Businesses operating in tightly regulated environments can face uncertainty about regulatory processes that directly affect their operations.
These issues are not unique to firearms regulation. Many sectors have historically faced similar challenges. Indeed, the whole purpose of regulatory reform initiatives is to address precisely these kinds of problems. The question therefore is not whether the shooting industry should be regulated, rather, whether the current regulation is administered in a way that reflects contemporary standards of regulatory governance?
The Four P’s
Another recurring theme at the conference was the idea that regulation should be assessed across several dimensions, with reference made to the four P’s.
Policy establishes the legislative framework and defines the objectives of regulation.
Practice determines how those rules are implemented in day to day administration.
Professionalism reflects the capability and culture of the regulatory body itself.
Performance measures whether the system is delivering the outcomes it was intended to achieve.
When these elements operate effectively together, regulation can achieve its policy goals while maintaining confidence among regulated industries and the broader community. When they do not, even well designed legislation can become difficult to administer in practice.
For many businesses within the shooting industry, the challenges they encounter are less about the existence of regulation and more about the quality and consistency of its administration.
What About the Firearms Industry?
One of the most striking aspects of attending regulatory reform conferences is how often discussions focus on industries such as construction, financial services, agriculture or emerging digital sectors. These industries frequently appear in policy discussions about regulatory efficiency, red tape reduction and economic productivity.
But why is the shooting industry never in these discussions? This is a significant question because industries that fall outside mainstream reform debates can easily find themselves operating within regulatory systems that receive little attention or investment. Over time these systems become fragmented, outdated or administratively inefficient.
Yet the shooting industry is far from insignificant and deserves better regulation. Research into recreational hunting and sports shooting in Australia has estimated that the sector contributes approximately $2.4 billion to the national economy and supports nearly twenty thousand jobs. Much of this economic activity occurs in regional areas where shooting sports, hunting and associated businesses form part of the broader rural economy.
Despite this economic footprint, the industry often remains peripheral to wider policy discussions about regulatory reform.
What Better Regulation Could Look Like
Improving regulatory outcomes for the shooting industry does not require dismantling existing regulatory frameworks. In many respects the solutions are already embedded within the principles discussed at regulatory reform conferences.
Greater transparency around regulatory performance would be an important starting point. Many government regulators now publish service standards outlining expected processing times for licences and administrative decisions. Public reporting against these standards helps ensure accountability and allows stakeholders to understand how regulatory systems are performing.
Modernisation of administrative systems is another clear opportunity. Across government there has been significant progress in digitising regulatory processes and improving data integration. Streamlined online systems can reduce administrative burdens for both regulators and industry.
Consistency between jurisdictions also deserves attention. Australia’s federal structure inevitably produces differences in regulatory frameworks between states and territories, but unnecessary divergence can create complexity for businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions.
Finally, constructive engagement between regulators and industry is essential. Effective consultation helps identify operational challenges early and ensures that regulatory systems remain workable in practice as well as in theory.
Starting The Change
Attending this regulatory reform conference reinforced a simple observation, many of the issues facing the shooting industry are precisely the kinds of challenges that governments say they want to address through broader regulatory reform. The difficulty is that the industry is rarely present when those conversations take place.
If regulatory reform in Australia is genuinely about improving the quality of governance and public administration, then those principles should apply across all sectors of the economy, including those that sit outside the usual policy spotlight.
The shooting industry does not seek exemption from regulation. It operates within one of the most comprehensive regulatory frameworks in the country and accepts that reality. What it does seek, is regulation that reflects the same standards of policy design, professional administration and measurable performance that governments increasingly expect in other areas of economic activity.
Ultimately, the goal of regulation should not simply be to control activity, it should be to administer public policy competently, transparently and professionally, and those standards should apply equally to every industry that operates within Australia’s regulatory system.