Shooting, Hunting & Outdoors Tasmania (SHOT) is calling for the findings of a major new economic report into Tasmania's proposed firearm reforms to be carefully considered before further restrictions are progressed.
The report, Flash in the Pan – Estimating the Impacts of the Tasmanian Firearms Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2026, was commissioned by Shooters Union Australia and the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia (SIFA), with the independent economic study and analysis undertaken by Tulipwood Economics.
Its findings raise serious questions about the cost, economic impact and evidence base supporting a broader firearm buyback and ownership restrictions in Tasmania.
Under a modelled scenario in which approximately 20% of Tasmania's registered firearms are acquired and destroyed, the report estimates:
$87.2 million in fiscal and associated taxation costs over four years; a reduction of approximately $25.4 million in Tasmanian Gross State Product; a reduction of approximately $92.3 million in national economic output under the modelled jointly funded scenario; an estimated reduction of 64 full-time-equivalent jobs in Tasmania and 183 nationally in the first year; and just 21 cents in estimated benefits for every $1 of social cost, even under assumptions deliberately favourable to the policy.
The report estimates gross social costs of approximately $128.7 million, compared with just $27 million in benefits under its deliberately favourable scenario.
Significantly, that favourable scenario gives the proposed buyback credit for preventing all future mass shootings in Tasmania, along with reductions in firearm homicide, suicide, accidents, violent crime and associated health, policing and justice costs.
Despite those assumptions, the policy still fails the report's cost-benefit test.
The report's broader analysis also concludes that it could not establish a statistically robust causal relationship between the stock of legally registered firearms and the incidence of firearm homicide or mass shootings in Australia.
For SHOT, that is a finding that deserves serious consideration.
Public safety must always be a priority, and Tasmania should continue to pursue measures that genuinely reduce firearm misuse and make our communities safer.
However, significant restrictions affecting tens of thousands of lawful firearm owners, businesses, sporting participants, hunters, farmers and regional communities should be supported by clear evidence that those measures will achieve their intended outcome.
The report also highlights the existing contribution made by Tasmania's hunting and sporting shooting communities.
Recreational hunting and sports shooting are estimated to generate approximately $133.5 million in annual expenditure, contribute $88.4 million to Tasmania's Gross State Product, and support around 676 full-time-equivalent jobs.
That economic activity extends well beyond firearm retailers.
It supports fuel outlets, grocery stores, accommodation providers, vehicle and equipment businesses, sporting clubs, tourism operators and other businesses throughout regional Tasmania.
The report also considers the narrower proposal to reclassify certain firearms without introducing broader ownership limits.
Approximately 1,500 firearms are estimated to be affected under that scenario, with the report estimating around $7 million in social costs.
Even under deliberately favourable assumptions, the estimated benefit-cost ratio for reclassification alone is approximately 0.19, or around 19 cents of benefit for every dollar of social cost. Under the report's more evidence-based restricted-benefit case, that falls to approximately four cents per dollar.
SHOT believes firearm policy should be evidence-based, proportionate and targeted towards measures that can demonstrate genuine improvements in community safety.
If governments are asking Tasmanian taxpayers to commit tens of millions of dollars, asking lawful owners to surrender legally acquired property, and imposing costs on businesses and regional communities, the public should reasonably expect a clear and measurable benefit in return.
On the evidence presented in this report, that case has not yet been made.
SHOT thanks Shooters Union Australia and SIFA for commissioning this significant body of work, and Tulipwood Economics for undertaking the study and analysis.
We encourage Tasmanians to read the report, consider the findings and form their own view based on the evidence presented.