An FOI response confirms our suspicion of a sweetheart deal being made on WA’s new safe specification requirements

Safe specs remain under wraps

ALLEGATIONS OF A SECRET DEAL between WAPol and a greedy safe supplier, is now looking like it might have legs.

A Freedom of Information request submitted by Politics Reloaded followed concerns that WA Police worked with a supplier of safes to develop specifications that only that supplier could satisfy – forcing WA shooters to buy safes from that supplier.

The decision

Here is what the response to the FOI request said:

Safe FOI refusal

This is what we asked for

The information we sought was easy to identify, and clear in its meaning. We asked for:

… any documents including:

analysis or information;
• internal meeting notes;
meeting notes with industry participants which identifies:

which safes (ie brand, models) are likely to comply with those requirements;
– who supplies or sells those safes to retailers in Western Australia;
– who those retailers in Western Australia are, or are likely to be.

IF THERE were no such meetings or analysis, then the response would have simply said that

It didn’t.

Consulting “behind closed doors”

The response also stated:

Subject matter experts” is a term that is often used when referring to people external to, in this case, WA Police.   It’s code for suppliers.

The fact these experts ‘confirmed’ that the information requested will be in the regulations, means they were consulted on what the response to the FOI request should be. 

Someone who has something to hide, will say “everything” should be withheld.

The response firms up our view that there is at least one supplier who will get to determine which safes will be legal – which will  no doubt align with what they supply.

If WAPol weren’t happy with such a cosy, commercially beneficial arrangement, they would have publicly consulted on the specifications.

Instead they chose to to do this – and keep this – “behind closed doors”.

Join for $30 a year

Response confirms suspicions

Normally Freedom of Information requests will result in only those most sensitive documents being refused access or redacted. Other material, such as memos, meeting minutes etc will be released with names redacted.

However this request resulted in not not one document being released.  Not even am image of the WA Police letterhead.

Here is what they said in relation to partial release of documents:

“that it would not be practicable to provide access to any documents with exempt matter removed,”

That’s a cop out.  WAPol is playing politics.

The refusal by WA Police to be transparent follows other concerns about what shooters can expect to appear in the regulations which have not yet been publicly revealed. These relate to the number of attendances required per firearm owned and how antique firearms are defined.

At this stage, it is likely the new requirements will remain behind closed doors until immediately before or after WA’s next state election in March.  

What could the new safe requirements look like?

The consultation paper released late last year provides some clues as to what the new requirements will contain.  

Here is what the paper stated:

The proposed graduated storage will consider:

• enhanced storage cabinets or safes with mandated locking mechanisms
• more robust storage cabinets of 4mm and 6mm depending on the type of firearm
• if the cabinet is located in an occupied or unoccupied premise
• how the cabinet is affixed within the premise
• Due to the number and the type of firearm whether an electronic monitoring system is required
• The ability to monitor and record images of the storage requirement
• Specifying the number of locking points used to secure the door of the cabinet or safe.

Note that there is no reference to safes with wall thicknesses of 2mm.  This means the great majority of shooters who have 2mm safes, will need to have safes of at least 4mm, and potentially 6mm.

You might need to get an electronic monitoring system and ensure the safe has a ‘mandated locking system’. This isn’t mere speculation: these are the words used in the consultation paper.

Don’t cop it

As a long suffering shooter, you’ve got a simple choice. 

Podcasts - safe requirementsEither shrug your shoulders and cop what comes your way, or USE YOUR RIGHT as a voter to see your local MP and DEMAND the government changes its approach.

Importantly, cast your vote at the state election in March to kick Labor out.   We’ll have more information on who to vote for closer to the election.

Make sure you stay in touch with what’s happening -and what YOU can do.

Subscribe to our podcast and join our email list HERE.

Or join Politics Reloaded by clicking here for just $30 a year to back the work we do.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard? 

guest

3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert Thomas

Good job it isn’t the dark ages, they’d be putting us to the stake for burning.
So much for a transparent and accountable party – Lab at State and Fed levels are despicable. Sadly, with their disorganisation, Libs aren’t much different.
This must be read: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2024/04/triggering-thoughts-of-tyranny-in-wa/
I’m voting SFFP, One Nation, Libertarians and NPWA.

leigh macaulay

Good discussions , a good step forward. Unfortunately the rate of change in national and global affairs seems to be accelerating…. ‘black swan’ events, ‘false flag ‘events etc … so I am hoping strong positive action continues as it may be a quite different world in one years time …. fingers crossed and prayers offered for the right power broker teams to make more actual gains !
Good work PR !

H J

This is sounding very much like something the WA CCC should be investigating – but we all know that they won’t because
a) there will be statements of weasel words from WAPOL saying that they were simply getting recommendations from a supplier – and, because that supplier is the only one who can supply the hardware, that’s nothing to do with them, and,
b) The WA CCC, if they are of the same ilk of similar departments from other states, will refuse to investigate on the basis that this is not something that they can investigate; or, in layman’s terms: “We don’t want to investigate the police because they’re a government department and they can do no wrong!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LIKE OUR WORK?
SIGN UP to get our regular email updates.

You'll also get direct access to our podcasts to stay up to date while driving the car, on the way to work, or when you're tinkering in the shed!
3
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x