Two politicians from opposite sides of parliament are calling for an incoming change to gun control measures to be fast-tracked in the wake of the Porepunkah shooting, but an expert has warned Australia would be better off focusing on more meaningful reform to reduce violence.

Senior Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie and Labor MP Dan Repacholi on Wednesday fronted the media to promote the national firearms register.

The register was part of the landmark National Firearms Agreement in the wake of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, but has never actually been introduced, with states and territories each having their own registries.

In 2023, the federal government reached another agreement with the states and territories to implement the program following the Wieambilla murders, but it isn’t expected to be live until mid-2028.

“We need to make sure we know where our firearms are in this country,” he told Today.

“For 20 years we’ve had a national firearms agreement, and the states have not got one register of firearms together,” McKenzie added.

But according to Griffith University violence prevention specialist Dr Samara McPhedran, a national registry shouldn’t be a priority.

Instead, she says Australia would be better off addressing underlying issues that drive people to commit violence – preventative programs focusing on things like employment, mental health, and social welfare and integration.

“We need to have a much broader and very calm, very sensible debate about violence,” she told 9news.com.au. 

“So we have this tendency in Australia where we say, ‘Oh, look, there’s been a shooting. OK, we need to do something about guns. There’s been a stabbing, we need to do something about knives’. 

“And what we don’t do is we don’t seem to have the capacity to step back and actually look at the factors that underlie and contribute to violence in the first place … [politicians] typically implement very superficial measures that don’t address underlying problems. 

“And then down the track, sadly, there’s always another incident.”

Freeman is a so-called sovereign citizen – someone with extreme anti-government and anti-authority views who believes laws don’t apply to them.

He had also had his gun licence stripped from him.

“We’re actually talking about someone who, from all reports, didn’t have a gun licence, had a firearms prohibition order against them, which prohibits them from possessing firearms, and who had 10 police attending their property to serve a warrant,” McPhedran says. 

“So, looking at that, we really have to question why the national gun registry is being raised at this point, because clearly that is not the kind of measure that can prevent these types of incidents.”

Proponents of the national registry have pointed to the increasing number of guns in Australia in recent years as a reason to monitor 

Research from the Australia Institute released earlier this year found there are more than 4 million registered firearms in the country – more than before the Port Arthur massacre, and well up on the 2.5 million there were in 1997.

But at the same time, the number of gun-related deaths has fallen from about 500 in 1996 to a little over 200, and the rate of gun-related deaths per 100,000 people has dropped from 2.9 to about 0.6.

“There would be benefit in changing our approach to some of these questions,” McPhedran says, pointing out that international evidence suggests registration of rifles and shotguns doesn’t appear to have much of an impact on gun misuse. 

“So instead of saying, ‘let’s have more gun laws’, let’s … look at that incident. 

“Let’s look at all of the circumstances that surrounded it and led up to it, and let’s look for real in-depth solutions, rather than these quick-fix responses that might make people feel good or might make people feel safe in the short term, but in the long term, are not necessarily the most effective or the most cost-effective way to go.”