more_vert
Doctors are increasingly concerned about Queensland gun control reforms that include mandatory mental health reporting of high-risk patients to police.
The reforms require public sector health professionals to contact police if they believe a patient should not possess a firearm because of their physical or mental health.
They are part of Queensland government moves to tighten laws in response to the Wieambilla tragedy three years ago where three people were killed.
Speaking to Insight+, AMA Queensland president Dr Nick Yim argues gun control is not the role of doctors, and University of Sydney Professor of Public Health Joel Negin has also raised concerns.
Professor Negin says the legislative reform puts the onus on health practitioners to proactively identify individuals as high risk and therefore needing mental health assessments, rather than mental health assessments being routine — as was recommended by the Coroner.
“It’s good to see states like Queensland and a number of the others taking action and thinking about what they can do in the wake of Bondi and other shootings that have occurred,” Professor Negin says.
“But I do think the Queensland governments legislative proposals and policy proposals fall short.”
“Specifically, they don’t actually meet the expectations and the recommendations of the Coroner after the Wieambilla shooting a few years ago in which two police officers were killed.”
“So while the Queensland government is heralding this as a big step forward, it essentially ignores the Coroner’s recommendations in terms of mental health assessments.”
He says the legislation also does not address the number of firearms in the community.
“If we see what happened in Western Australia and in New South Wales where they reclassified certain firearms, they limited the number of firearms that one individual could hold under their licence,” he says.
“Queensland has done none of that.”
“And the Queensland Premier in February 2025 stated that every knife our police have taken off the street is a potential life saved. But he’s done nothing to reduce the number of firearms in the Queensland community.”
Not the role of clinicians
AMA Queensland president Dr Nick Yim says it is unreasonable to expect clinicians to report patients they deem capable of committing violent gun crime.
“Currently, public sector clinicians may report concerns that a patient may pose a serious violent risk to themselves or others. That will now become mandatory under this Ministerial Directive,” Dr Yim says.
“Doctors take mental health concerns and public safety very seriously. However, it is not the role of clinicians to determine who should be allowed to get gun licences.”
He says AMA Queensland hopes to see more clarity around the rollout of these reforms, particularly around whether they could put people off seeking mental health treatment.
“Our particular concern is that people who need compassionate mental health support are not discouraged from seeking help due to mandatory reporting,” he says.
Broader consultation needed
Professor Negin says the Queensland government should have taken broader public consultation before making these legislative changes.
“That’s a choice that was made. And I think in general, when we are talking about public safety and public health interventions, public consultation is an important process step,” Professor Negin says.
He says the key Coroner’s recommendation for a review into the feasibility of mandatory mental health checks for weapons licence applicants, has been overlooked.
“It’s a complicated area and it is complicated to administer statewide, but it certainly was the recommendation.”
“The recommendation that they have created is to put the onus on GP’s and psychologists and psychiatrists to identify high risk individuals, which is certainly a step. It’s not that different from what current practice is, but it puts the onus on medical practitioners and health practitioners to proactively identify individuals and proactively then reach out to the firearms registry.”
“It’s a different stance and it’s a different requirement that puts the onus and responsibility on a different part of the system.”
Nance Haxton was a journalist at the ABC for nearly 20 years. She’s also worked as an Advocate at the Disability Royal Commission helping people with disabilities tell their stories and as a senior reporter for the National Indigenous Radio Service.
In that time she’s won a range of Australian and international honours, including two Walkley Awards, and three New York Festivals Radio Awards trophies.
Now freelancing as The Wandering Journo, Nance is independently producing podcasts including her personal audio slice of Australia “Streets of Your Town”.
Subscribe to the free InSight+ weekly newsletter here. It is available to all readers, not just registered medical practitioners.
I guess, Peter, you believe farmers can protect livestock against packs of wild dogs with some other methods ? Please enlighten us.
I’m a GP, I’ve been in the army and have had some legal involvement with firearms for over 45 years.
Suicides make up about 80% of gun deaths in Australia, but only about 5% if suicides use guns. A Venn diagram of this makes an interesting picture.
The firearm murder rate was already in decline since it peaked in 1968 (28 years prior to John Howard’s laws), what we see since is almost straight line decline.
Let’s have evidence based policy, please.
Some years ago I was required by WA police to provide a report of my assessment of a particular long-term patient of mine to hold a firearms licence. I was aware that a friend of this patient had removed firearms from his home due to a credible threat to his family. Prior to that, I had concerns regarding his mental health and had referred to a psychologist. A police officer provided my report to the patient (despite explicit advice to me that this would not occur). The result was an end of day appointment made by this patient during which he angrily explained to me multiple ways that he could choose to kill me without requiring a firearm (hence my report was unreasonable and a breach of trust). His death-threats to me appeared credible. I did not report this to police as I considered this actions would increase the risk to me and my family.
I’ve been a firearms safety instructor for fifty odd years and was involved in SA’s very comprehensive gun reforms in 1992-93. The legislation here places a strong responsibility on all health professionals to report anybody who poses any kind of risk with guns. It is a minefield, however. One person whose firearms were removed following a report from his doctor subsequently hanged himself. A recent incident involved a good friend, and ambulance officer no less, who donned his uniform and in public, shot himself last year. I knew he had some demons resulting from his work, but I would never have predicted what he did nor the effect his action his had on all of his friends and acquaintances. Our legislation here in SA recognizes the full range of allowable purposes for which guns can be owned, and with secure storage and carefully arranged training a lot of progress has been made. None of though know yet what we don’t know!
One of the uses of guns is to kill people; both murder and suicide. I believe guns are dangerous and I have personally seen many deaths amongst my patients,particularly when I worked in the country. Many were totally unexpected. No-one can predict the future or who will become a risk to themselves or others. Apart from people who require guns to perform their profession, such as Police,Defence Personel,armed guards and professional hunters,I believe no-one (including farmers) should possess guns in Australia. I suppose that means that all patients that you know have access to a gun, apart from these few professionals, need to be notified to the Police. If mandatory mental health checks were introduced, I wonder who would do them,how often they would be repeated, and how effective they would be?
It is the Deputy Commissioner of Police in charge of Firearms Section to determine whether someone should own a firearm and firearms licence. The role of a GP, Psychiatrist or Psychologist is to report their evaluation of the mental and physical health of the applicant fairly, impartially, and objectively: the RANZCP has already set out its policy on this matter after a careful review by a selected committee.
It is near impossible to predict risk though, obviously, the presence of paranoid delusions argues strongly that risk exists; Clinicians are also not equipped to assess or interpret religious, or other belief and predict risk.
If i knew one of my patients was either a self harm risk – or a risk to others (and that he had access to a firearm,) I would notify the police. To not do that would be irresponsible.