The Case For Caps,
built on a review that said no.

On 15 September, the Minister for Police was asked two straight questions in the Legislative Assembly: how much ACT firearm crime actually involves legally owned firearms rather than illegal ones, and what evidence the Government holds that a cap on lawful ownership will reduce crime or make Canberra safer. Pressed for that evidence, the Government pointed across the country: “we have looked at [Western Australia’s] evidence and looked at their justification for the five.” We went and looked too — and the justification is not in the research the Government relied on.

The centrepiece of Western Australia’s firearms reform was the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia’s Project 105 review — a multi-year review drawing on 1,244 written submissions, which made 143 recommendations. Having expressly considered whether to limit the number of firearms a person may own, the Commission recommended the opposite:

The Commission reached that view deliberately, satisfied that Western Australia’s existing “genuine reason” and “genuine need” tests — under which an owner must justify each firearm on its merits — were enough “to prevent the unjustified stockpiling of firearms” without any fixed ceiling. The cap of five did not come from that review at all. It appeared only in the later Firearms Act 2024 — a political decision made years afterwards, which independent legal commentary has described as deviating “significantly from the recommendations of … the Law Reform Commission.”

Here is the part that should concern every member. The ACT Government’s own submission to the Assembly’s inquiry — prepared by the Justice and Community Safety Directorate — states that the five-firearm limit “was determined by reference to the precedent set by Western Australia,” and that “the WA reforms followed a review by the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia.” It cited the Commission’s review as part of the case for the cap — but did not disclose that the Commission had recommended there be no cap. The justification it did offer came instead from a later Western Australian parliamentary committee and Australia Institute polling.

The same Question Time put other assumptions on the record that do not hold up. The updated National Firearms Agreement (National Cabinet, 26 August) adopted neither caps nor recategorisation — so caps are not required by the national agreement. In fact the country is moving the other way: every jurisdiction that has lately put caps to a vote or an independent review has rejected them — Victoria rejected a cap, Tasmania voted one down, and Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory have all declined — while New South Wales, one of only two jurisdictions to have legislated a cap, is now debating a Bill to repeal it. That leaves the ACT as effectively the last jurisdiction still pursuing them. On the Government’s own advice — attributed to ACT Policing — the majority of firearm crime and seizures in the ACT involve illegal firearms, not licensed owners; and the ACT already records the lowest rate of firearm theft in the nation. No evidence that a cap of five, or any number, reduces firearm crime was offered when it was squarely sought — the same absence the independent Lay Review and the ACT’s own Report 9 both found. And the Bondi attack the Government cites as its reason for acting involved three firearms in use: a cap of five would not have prevented it.

You will find it, alongside our full record of work on the proposed reforms, on our Legislative Action page. The debate here is live and still to be decided — the better informed our members and their representatives are, the better.