Victorian Gun Laws: Decide Now, Consult Later?
The Victorian Government has announced significant changes to firearms laws, but a fundamental question remains unanswered: when were licensed shooters given the opportunity to help shape those changes before they were announced?
That question sits at the centre of an ongoing concern within the shooting community. Time and again, major policy announcements are made before the people most affected have had an opportunity to review the detail, provide feedback, or contribute their expertise.
Licensed shooters are routinely placed in a position of responding to proposals rather than helping shape them before they are announced.
The issue is not whether governments should review firearms laws. Governments have every right to examine legislation and propose changes where they believe there is a genuine problem to solve. The issue is whether the process used to develop those changes is producing the best possible outcomes.
In many industries, policy advice is heavily informed by people with practical experience and technical expertise. Aviation regulators rely on pilots and engineers. Pharmaceutical regulators seek advice from medical and scientific experts. Yet when firearms policy is developed, many licensed shooters question whether equivalent weight is given to those with firsthand experience of the firearms licensing system, shooting sports, hunting, primary production and firearm safety.
This concern has been amplified by questions surrounding Victoria’s Firearms Consultative Committee.
The committee was intended to provide a mechanism through which industry representatives, shooting organisations and other stakeholders could engage with government on firearms-related matters. However, questions have been raised about whether the committee was convened during the development of recent reforms and whether members were provided with meaningful opportunities to influence policy before public announcements were made.
These questions matter because consultation is most valuable before decisions are finalised.
Once legislation has been announced, media releases issued and political commitments made, stakeholders are often left arguing over details that have already been largely settled. Genuine consultation becomes much harder when the policy direction has already been publicly declared.
Supporters of stronger consultation argue that involving experienced firearms users earlier in the process would improve both policy quality and public confidence. It would also help ensure that practical issues, unintended consequences and implementation challenges are identified before legislation reaches Parliament.
For many shooters, the concern is not simply the content of individual reforms but the process through which those reforms are developed.
As firearms policy continues to evolve in Victoria, questions about consultation, accountability and evidence-based decision-making are likely to remain central to the debate.
What do you think?
Should licensed shooters and firearms organisations have a greater role in shaping policy before announcements are made, or is the current consultation process sufficient?
Let us know your thoughts.
