Bills

Firearms (Digital Blueprints for 3D Printing) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Minister for Police) (17:40): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Firearms Act 2015 and to make related amendments to the Summary Offences Act 1953. Read a first time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Minister for Police) (17:41): I move:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable this bill to pass through all stages without delay.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: An absolute majority not being present, please ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

Second Reading

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Minister for Police) (17:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, I introduce the Firearms (Digital Blueprints for 3D Printing) Amendment Bill, a vital step in ensuring our firearms legislation keeps pace with emerging technologies and continues to protect public safety in our state.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, just hold on a minute. Members in the chamber, I cannot hear the minister speak.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: This bill responds to a growing and deeply concerning trend: the proliferation of digitally distributed blueprints for 3D-printed firearms. These files, often obtained online, allow individuals to manufacture lethal weapons without serial numbers, without regulation and without accountability. This undermines our firearms licensing system and poses a serious threat to community safety.

Our government is committed to a safe, fair and modern society. We believe in the responsible regulation of firearms and we recognise that technology must not be allowed to outpace the law. This bill ensures that our legislation reflects the realities of the digital age. The key provisions of the bill are as follows:

prohibition on possession and distribution of digital blueprints for 3D-printed firearms, firearm components and accessories, unless authorised;

clear definitions of what constitutes a digital blueprint, including CAD files and other formats used in additive manufacturing;

exemptions for legitimate research and development, including licensed manufacturers and approved educational institutions, under strict regulatory oversight; and

penalties aligning with existing firearms offences, ensuring consistency and deterrence.

This bill does not target innovation or legitimate use of 3D printing technology; it targets the unregulated and dangerous use of that technology to produce weapons outside the law. We have consulted with law enforcement, legal experts and industry stakeholders. The message is clear: we must act now to close this loophole before it becomes a gateway for criminal activity and community harm.

This is a responsible, measured and necessary reform. It reflects our commitment to protecting communities, supporting law enforcement and ensuring our laws evolve with technology. I commend the bill to the house and seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Firearms Act 2015

3—Insertion of section 37A

This clause inserts new section 37A as follows:

37A—Possession of digital blueprint for firearms etc

It is an offence under this section to possess a digital blueprint for a firearm, a firearm part, a sound moderator, a restricted firearm mechanism or a prohibited firearm accessory, with the maximum penalty determined by reference to the kind of item the digital blueprint is for. The offence does not apply to a person who is authorised or otherwise permitted under the Act to manufacture the item the digital blueprint relates to. Provision is made for a number of defences. Definitions are included for various terms used in the section, including what constitutes a digital blueprint, and what amounts to possession.

Schedule 1—Amendment of Summary Offences Act 1953

1—Amendment of section 74BN—Interpretation

2—Amendment of section 74BR—Order to provide information or assistance to access data held on computer etc

3—Amendment of section 74BS—Application for order

4—Amendment of section 74BT—Order required in urgent circumstances

5—Amendment of section 74BW—Effect and operation of order

6—Amendment of section 74BY—Reporting

These clauses together make amendments to Part 16A of the Summary Offences Act 1953, such that if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that data held on a computer or data storage device may afford evidence of an offence against section 37A of the Firearms Act 2015, a police officer may apply to a magistrate for an order requiring a person to provide assistance to the police officer in accessing that device or computer.

Mr BATTY (Bragg) (17:46): I rise to make a brief contribution on the Firearms (Digital Blueprints for 3D Printing) Amendment Bill 2025 and indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill. I think it is important that we do everything we can to make sure the law is keeping up with evolving threats and, of course, we should be doing everything we can to make it more difficult for dangerous weapons and firearms—particularly ones that can be 3D printed and not traced and not have the usual serial numbers—to end up in people's hands. This is a reform that is sensible and that I understand SAPOL supports and has been requesting. I thank the minister and SAPOL for the opportunity to be briefed on the bill this morning.

It is a relatively discrete and simple reform, seeking to make it an offence to possess a digital blueprint for firearms and introducing fairly significant penalties for falling foul of that offence. I think it is responding to a clear and present need. We heard the minister say that there have been at least 14 cases in the last 12 months, and that is double what we saw in the previous 12 months. So we have a clear need for it, we have SAPOL telling us they want it and we have the minister introducing it today and suspending standing orders to pass it through this house with very little notice and with haste.

It does, of course, beg the question why it has taken so long for the government to introduce this bill. I think the minister said on radio yesterday that this bill was being introduced, and I quote, 'not a moment too soon'—damn right, because it is perhaps about 19 months too late. It was in February 2024 that not this police minister and not the police minister before that and not the police minister before that but the police minister before that announced that the Malinauskas Labor government would be introducing tougher penalties for possessing 3D-printed firearm blueprints under proposed laws.

I am looking at a media release from that time which went on to set out all the good reasons why we should be doing that and what the legislation would do, which of course is very similar to what has been introduced only today to the house and we have had the fairly extraordinary situation of suspending standing orders to try to pass it. I do query why it has taken so long and I do query what the cost of that delay has been. As we know, there has been an increased prevalence of 3D-printed guns, or at least 3D gun blueprints, being found by SAPOL in the intervening period. Why have we not acted sooner? Indeed, I return to the media release from February 2024 when the former, former, former police minister said:

We know how much damage a single person with a firearm can do.

We can't allow these weapons to fall into the wrong hands.

Well, I hope we have not for the last 19 months. He went on to say:

That is why we are criminalising the possession of 3D firearm blueprints, giving SAPOL an additional tool and introducing tough penalties to would-be manufacturers.

Yes, they are, but only 19 months later and with just a handful of sitting days left in the dying days of this parliament. The media release finished with quotes attributable to the then police minister, who said:

Our government is committed to staying ahead of the curve to protect community safety.

If this is what 'ahead of the curve' looks like—announcing something with great fanfare 19 months ago and seemingly forgetting to legislate it—then it is little wonder that this government has lost control of law and order in our streets and suburbs.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Minister for Police) (17:50): I thank the opposition for their support of this bill. I am very pleased to be bringing it to the house on just my fifth sitting day as the Minister for Police. I look forward to the committee stage. I acknowledge the member for Bragg's contribution and I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr BATTY: Kicking off where we left off, I appreciate that the minister is only new to this portfolio, but I wonder if he can explain why it has taken so long between the announcement 19 months ago and the introduction of this bill today.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I can really only speak to my own time in the role, which, as the member for Bragg said, is a short period of time. This is my fifth sitting day as the Minister for Police, so I cannot offer much more insight into that. I have made it a priority and in a pretty short space of time I have brought it to the house. Thankfully with the opposition's support, hopefully we see it enacted as soon as possible.

Mr BATTY: What consultation occurred on this bill? I suppose I am more interested in: when did that consultation commence and then conclude?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The advice I have is that there were two lots of consultation and they both lasted approximately six weeks. I believe the first was characterised to me as a broadranging consultation and then, from that, there was further consultation, which was required, that ran for another six weeks with subject matter experts. I will have to come back to the member on when they finished. I am happy to do that, but do not have that on me now—but two lots of consultation is the answer to your question.

Mr BATTY: I am still interested in exploring what has been happening since February 2024. Were there particular issues that were raised after this was announced that gave rise to that delay and, if so, what were those issues and what are the certain complexities that are involved in this piece of legislation versus anything else that we consider here in the usual fashion?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I understand the themes of the feedback were twofold: one was around governance and I think the other, if I characterise this correctly, was around those who are exempt under what we are proposing in this bill. They had questions around whether or not the exemption went far enough. The advice from SAPOL was that they believed that exemption did go far enough and that is what finds its way into the bill before the house today.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr BATTY: Can the minister give any indication on when it is intended this bill would commence?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: In answer to the member for Bragg's question, the advice I have from SAPOL is that it is planned for commencement on 31 January. SAPOL have advised that is the appropriate date, because the permit system needs to be up and running. Of course, that work will happen once this bill ideally becomes law, and 31 January gives enough time for that permit system to be put in place, which I am sure, as those opposite would agree, would be very important unless you think otherwise.

Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:30.