One of the bravest people in Western Australia is Ariel Bombara, the daughter of the Floreat murderer. With deep insight coming from the cruellest of experiences, she made the point that the state government does not understand, that ‘this should not be a conversation about guns, but about the response to domestic violence’. She stated: ‘I don’t think gun reforms would have made any difference.’ Ms Bombara was clear that, instead of focusing on the tools used for violence, we need ‘bigger reforms in domestic violence management and reporting’.

It is gut-wrenching that it took the deaths of innocent people to expose one of the serious flaws in the Firearms Bill currently before WA’s State Parliament. It focuses on the tools of violence, rather than the causes of violence. It treats violence reactively, instead of helping the police to do their job proactively. The Bill has been drafted in isolation from the important questions of why people kill, not only with guns, but with knives, with vehicles, and even with their bare hands.

People do not die due to a lack of laws, but because of a lack of law enforcement. In her case, she and her mother asked the police repeatedly for help, which should have been given promptly, but was not. There was no need for the police to wait for new laws because existing legislation allows police to take away firearms when they believe that ‘possession of it by that person may result in harm being suffered by any person…’

Instead of strengthening public safety, the ‘gigantic Bill’, as Nick Goiran MLC called it, will only create a mountain of paperwork and add multiple burdens to all concerned. It will mandate over 90,000 periodic health checks in an already overwhelmed health system. It will require an incredible workload to administer the extra paperwork – property permissions, etc. It is inconceivable that this could be managed by WAPOL without aggravating the existing shortage of officers. The new legislation will take more police off the streets and put them behind desks, working on complex new regulations instead of being out in the community fighting crime.

When good legislation is made, it relies on a few big rules that can be enforced easily. But legislation made in desperation, like the current Bill, results in multiple little rules that are complex, convoluted, hard to administer and enforce.

The desperation, and lack of understanding behind the current Bill, is probably caused in part by the crisis in police numbers and morale. As Peter Collier MLC pointed out, the past three decades have seen about 150 officers leaving WAPOL each year. In the past few years, that number has ballooned to over 400 resignations a year. Last year, there were fewer than 400 new recruits. The government’s promise of 950 additional police officers remains unfulfilled, with WAPOL numbers going backwards. At the same time, police morale is low, with many officers feeling marginalised and disrespected by the government.

Against this background, the government has proposed a Bill that smacks of desperation. If passed, the Bill would effectively legislate away citizens’ rights to silence and their property rights. It would presume guilt by association and discriminate on the basis of health or disability. Most disturbingly, it would take away rights to freedom of speech and opinion.

The Bill even uses a questionable definition of ‘firearms’, in part because it contradicts NSW law by classifying paintball guns as firearms. Instead of advancing up-to-date evidence-based measures, or even taking account of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission’s 2016 report, it has resorted to draconian measures unbecoming of our democracy.

Clause 368 of the Bill threatens people who assert their right to silence, when they do not ‘answer any question asked by a police officer under this Act’. This threat appears to apply to all West Australians, not only to firearms owners.

Clause 150 undermines basic freedoms that are foundational to our democracy. It allows the Commissioner to deny a licence because of a ‘person’s views, opinions and attitudes’ or because of their ‘conduct and behaviour’. The Bill does not define these or even give guidelines, so it would enable licenses to be denied because of beliefs, speech, or lifestyle choices. This would be incompatible with the free society in which we are supposed to live.

Merome Beard MLA has noted that the Bill’s clauses 148, 150, 153, and 399 can leave people vulnerable to medical or disability discrimination. Doctors have already complained that they do not have the time or resources to administer the Bill’s health checks. Moreover, its medical standards lack objective criteria. Doctors fear they are expected to make medical judgements about legal matters without any clearly legislated guidelines. Indeed, the Minister acknowledged that Bill’s medical standards are akin to those used for transport licenses. They have no objective basis regarding the safe use of firearms, and they are likely to cause disability discrimination. Merome Beard MLA has also noted that the Bill could effectively prohibit our State’s Paralympians from participating in shooting competitions.

While the Minister claims to want up-to-date modern legislation, the Bill is arguably already obsolete in that regard. Clause 12 of the Bill tries to restrict possession of firearms technology even when it is on computers. The Bill might as well try to ban the internet, because anyone can easily find plans on the web for a semi-automatic firearm that can be made with a 3D printer and parts available from a local hardware store.

Western Australia already has the toughest firearm laws in Australia. That is no excuse for complacency, and the laws should be brought up to date. However, to be truly effective, to promote public safety instead of paperwork, the Bill should integrate the findings of the Law Reform Commission of 2016, and it should take account of experts in the field. Most importantly, the government should not block proper scrutiny of the Bill, and it should not trample on the rights of WA citizens.

Instead of law reform that will promote public safety, the government has advanced a Bill based on ideology instead of evidence. It is written without an adequate understanding of firearms, and it expects the Bill to be enforced by police the government cannot recruit, using resources they do not have.

Ariel Bombara said, ‘It is my unwavering belief that even without his guns, my father would have committed a horrific act of violence which likely would have claimed lives.’ In my opinion, firearms are neither the source nor the cause of violence – they are one among many tools used by violent people. If the government was sincere about public safety, it would not rush through flawed legislation and block scrutiny of the Bill. It would be look at firearms reform as part of a more important reform of our state’s approach to violence, especially domestic violence.