ACT has formally invoked the "agree to disagree" provisions of its coalition agreement in relation to the firearms registry, Nicole McKee says.

“Earlier this month, I asked Cabinet to consider that the recent review of the firearms registry did not meet the commitment in ACT’s coalition agreement. I also asked that a more thorough and independent review be conducted in the 2025/26 financial year. Unfortunately, these proposals were rejected by National.”

“I also sought Cabinet agreement to delay the upcoming ‘activating circumstance’ that would apply to ammunition purchases from June 2025.

“There is currently no clear definition of ammunition in the legislation, creating confusion. Pushing back the date to December 2026 would have provided time to build public trust in the registry and ensure clarity in the law. This recommendation was also rejected.”

The ACT Party’s coalition agreement includes a commitment to review the firearms registry to determine whether it is effectively improving public safety. However, the review that was conducted fell short of that standard.

“The purpose of the review was to establish a clear evidence base, covering public safety impacts, government costs, compliance burdens for licensed firearms owners, and international comparisons. In my view, the review failed to deliver on these objectives,” Mrs McKee says.

“Although the review acknowledged there was limited data available to assess the registry’s impact, it makes only limited use of domestic data, such as enforcement trends prior to the registry, or the experience of the 20 percent of licence holders already registered. Nor did it meaningfully examine international examples that could have provided further insight.

“These are not gaps in available information but gaps in the analysis which was undertaken. One of the key conclusions - that the registry is justified if it prevents just two fatalities a year - is speculative and unsupported by evidence. Without a clear model of risk reduction or causal link to public safety outcomes, that claim is difficult to defend.”

“The review focused narrowly on operational costs to government but gave little weight to future changes, such as the inclusion of a dealers registry - projected to cost an additional $20 million - and the ongoing compliance costs for responsible firearms owners.”

“Significantly, the review also failed to account for privacy concerns. Given past breaches of firearms owners’ personal data, it is troubling that the review did not assess the risks associated with centralising sensitive information in the registry. This despite the fact I am aware of six breaches of data since 2019.”

“Despite these differences on the registry, our coalition partners continue to work constructively together to ensure the rewrite of the Arms Act delivers effective, evidence-based regulation that reflects best practice. As we push ahead with that process public safety remains at the heart of what we are doing.”

© Scoop Media