Australia’s firearms laws are often described as some of the most consistent in the world. While each state and territory administers its own legislation, the overall framework has been guided for nearly three decades by a single national agreement.
That agreement is now being tested. Western Australia is currently rewriting its firearms legislation, and in doing so, appears prepared to move away from one of the central principles underpinning Australia’s regulatory system, national consistency.
The National Firearms Agreement
Since the late 1990s, the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) has provided the foundation for firearms regulation across Australia. Although states and territories retain responsibility for their own laws, the agreement established a common framework intended to ensure broadly consistent approaches to licensing, firearm categories, and acquisition processes.
One of the central mechanisms within that framework is the genuine reason and genuine need test. Across Australia, individuals seeking to acquire a firearm must first demonstrate a legitimate reason for doing so. Only once that reason is established can police issue a Permit to Acquire.
This approach places the regulatory emphasis on justification rather than arbitrary limits. If the reason is legitimate and the licensing criteria are satisfied, the system allows the acquisition to proceed. That model has operated across Australia for nearly three decades.
A Different Direction in Western Australia
Western Australia’s proposed reforms appear to move away from that model. Instead of relying on the genuine reason and genuine need framework, the proposed approach would introduce fixed limits on the number of firearms a licensed individual may possess.
What makes this significant is that the proposed limits would apply regardless of whether the licence holder can demonstrate a legitimate reason or need for each firearm. In practical terms, the regulatory test shifts away from justification and toward numerical restriction. This represents a substantial philosophical change in how firearms regulation is approached.
A Question Already Examined
What makes this shift particularly notable is that the issue has already been examined in Western Australia.
In 2016 the Western Australian Law Reform Commission undertook a comprehensive review of the state’s firearms legislation as part of Project 105, Review of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA). Among the matters considered during that review was whether Western Australia should impose limits on the number of firearms a person may own.
After examining the available evidence and the operation of the existing regulatory framework, the Commission reached a clear conclusion.
“The Commission is satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards built into the genuine reason (including reasonable justification) and genuine need tests to prevent the unjustified stockpiling of firearms and recommends that there be no upper limit on firearms numbers.”
In other words, the existing system was considered capable of addressing the very concern that numerical limits are often intended to solve.
That finding raises an obvious question. If the existing framework has operated for decades, and a comprehensive law reform review concluded that firearm limits were unnecessary, what evidence now exists to justify abandoning that approach?
To date, that evidence has not been clearly articulated.
Why National Consistency Matters
The implications of this shift extend beyond Western Australia. Australia’s firearms regulation has always relied on cooperation between jurisdictions. The National Firearms Agreement was designed specifically to avoid a fragmented system in which each state pursues its own regulatory model.
If one jurisdiction begins to move significantly away from those agreed principles, it inevitably raises the possibility that others may follow. Once that process begins, the national framework that has guided firearms policy for nearly three decades becomes increasingly difficult to maintain.
This also has practical implications for emerging national initiatives. The Commonwealth Government is currently pursuing the development of a National Firearms Register, a system that depends heavily on consistent regulatory frameworks between states and territories. The more those frameworks diverge, the more complicated any national registry becomes. It is difficult to build national systems on top of inconsistent regulatory foundations.
Reform Should Be Evidence Based
None of this suggests that firearms laws should never change. Responsible policy reform is part of any functioning regulatory system, but reform works best when it is grounded in evidence, informed by previous reviews, and consistent with the broader frameworks already in place.
When a jurisdiction moves away from nationally agreed principles without clearly articulated evidence, it inevitably raises questions about the direction of policy. Whether this becomes an isolated policy experiment or the beginning of a broader shift away from national consistency remains to be seen.
For nearly thirty years, the National Firearms Agreement has operated on the assumption that consistency in firearms regulation between jurisdictions is key to public safety. Western Australia’s current path is challenging that position, and only time will tell how this change in policy, will ultimately affect the overall national agreement.