Tasmania Police is seeking your feedback on a proposal to update its firearms application form. These are changes that come straight out of WA.
Prefer the audio version?
New application questions
TASMANIA POLICE’S Firearm Services is proposing to add several new questions to the firearms application form. This will only make it easier to reject applications.
This follows similar questions being added to firearm licence applications in WA.
However, we do acknowledge is that this is a proposal that shooters are being consulted on. However, WA shooters were also ‘consulted’: that process was nothing more than a farce. Even if Tasmania Police listen, we explain why Tasmanian shooters need to reject every single change.
That’s why you should take advantage of the opportunity to have your say before the closing date of 6 December. We explain how to do this later in this article.
If you’re not familiar with what’s been happening in Western Australia, then be aware it has now become significantly harder to get and keep a licence to shoot. Police are now going “door to door” to take firearms off licenced shooters (which we will cover in our next podcast). Click here for one of our previous stories.
The intrusive application form
TASPOL’S FIREARM SERVICES has published what it proposes to introduce and provided both a link to the draft licence application form and contact details for your use.
**See what Firearm Services has released by clicking here**
The proposed application form is eleven pages long.
The application form to obtain a drivers licence is just two pages.
Here’s what they’re asking
THE proposed application form asks for information covering whether you have been charged with “an offence”. This can be any offence, such as parking or speeding fines. It asks about whether you have ever had a mental health condition, fainting, migraine or learning disability.
It even asks is if you have a “physical disability” or are sight or hearing impaired.
Here is part of what they are asking (… that if you suffer from …):
This means if you wear glasses, a hearing aid or disabled in any way, then you need to declare it. The fact these questions are being asked can raise grounds for your licence application being rejected.
Otherwise, why ask the questions?
These are just some of the questions. There are 17 just on mental and physical health alone.
The proposed application form also asks you to specify details of where you will be hunting . This includes the owners name and contact number.
Don’t forget, this is the same path that WA took with its ‘property letters’. In that state, property owners must give written consent to those who shoot on their properties. These letters must then be reported to the registry. Changes to WA laws mean these letters are now almost impossible to get, with new limits being imposed on how many can be issued.
The proposed form also asks you about your next-of-kin (including your relationship with them and all their contact details) for reasons that have not been explained.
Why you should object
TO SOME, these questions might seem innocuous. In fact, questions about whether you are fit to hold a licence at all, makes sense.
However there are many other questions sprinkled in among these that should not be there. They demonstrate a lack of understanding of how the shooting sports work, which means they are written by people who do not understand the shooting sports.
Imagine if the aviation regulator was run the same way? Imagine if airliners were managed by people who didn’t have relevant skills and experience on aviation safety?
Instead, we see the proposed application form as part of a push to create new barriers to people from taking up shooting as a sport. For example, those who wear glasses.
Importantly, these changes are not being explained. There is no reasoning or forward, which is not how good policy works.
From our perspective, these questions are only serving to follow WA which requires shooters to declare irrelevant mental and physical conditions that then need to be supported by medical professionals.
It means that being a disabled shooter, or having any of the listed ailments, could give rise to a licence rejection.
No real right of appeal
UNLIKE other states and territories, shooters in Tasmania have very limited rights of appeal.
It means that shooters in Tasmania who are knocked back for licences (or potentially renewals) are being asked to give more information that makes it easier to reject applications.
This is being done without there being any effective avenues of appeal available to shooters.
Tasmania is different from other states in that if you are knocked back for a licence, you have to appeal to a Magistrate’s Court.
This makes fighting a bad decision considerably expensive and time consuming than appealing in other states.
That is because appeals in most other states can be heard at local administrative tribunals. This make it easier- and cheaper – for licence holders to seek reviews of adverse decisions.
The Tasmanian model of going to the Magistrates Court means you’ll need a lawyer and cannot represent yourself.
In fact if the Tasmanian Government really wanted to help shooters, adding such an avenue for appeal rights This would be a great and uncontroversial positive step.
It would also signal that it will finally take charge of firearms policy in that state.
Who holds the pen?
WHAT ALSO STRIKES US about the way firearms policy is managed in Tasmania, is that it is being led by police, rather than the police minister, Felix Ellis MP.
Policy is meant to reflect the intent of the government that ends up supporting legislation.
It is normally the role of regulators to give effect to that legislation.
In Tasmania, that is back-to-front.
Arrangements there give the regulator the ability to determine how it should administer the law. This is a conflict of interest because it avoids transparency and shelters ’empire building’. It also avoids independent review of whether the laws are being applied the right way.
If anything, these functions need to be separated out so that the need for, and type of, restrictions can be tested and challenged. This ensures that those in the industry who have the necessary skills and experience to have their say, do so.
How to make a submission
If you live in Tasmania, DO NOT simply shrug your shoulders and ignore it. This affects you, your sport, and the future of your support.
Importantly, you need to make a submission to signal that you do NOT want to see WA type gun laws coming to you.
Even if you don’t feel that strongly about the proposed changes, make sure Ellis and the police know that you do care about shooting. It also shows them that the wrong decisions can lead to political costs they may not want to bear.
You have until 6 December to make a submission. You can do this simply by sending an email to: firearms.services@police.tas.gov.au.
What about antiques?
REMEMBER the fight over antiques in Tasmania?
Readers might recall that Tasmania Police had removed an exemption for antique firearms, requiring owners to be licenced and their pre-1900 firearms registered. This is required under the NFA, however Tasmania seems to have ignored that.
BOTH SIDES of politics went to the 2024 state election in March promising to fix this problem- but the problem remains unfixed.
The reason this has not been done is that no party holds a majority in parliament. This makes changing laws much more difficult, unless there is agreement with the other political parties.
That’s because the Tasmanian lower house has 5 Greens, 3 Jacquie Lambert Network MPs, and 3 independents.
However, police are effectively administering their way out of the problem until the political impasse can be fixed.
Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?
