David Batt (Hinkler, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. We need to do better and what is right. We owe it to those who lost their lives and those impacted by this attack to get this done in a measured and precise way. We don't have a gun problem; we have a radical Islam problem. I support a national register, but that on its own isn't enough. In my home state, the Queensland government have indicated they won't even be involved in any buyback scheme. We don't need these laws to stop another Bondi. We just need to enforce the laws we already have, with law enforcement agencies working more cooperatively.

Many people strongly opposed to these gun laws have contacted my office—legitimate businesses with contracts that could collapse. Their businesses could close down. Some of these contracts are with this federal government, our state government and our local councils. The reality is this: do you honestly believe that, by spending a billion dollars trying to take guns off Australians, you are actually going to take the guns off criminals and terrorists, not the innocent Australians?

Yes, the coalition supports genuine measures to combat antisemitism and violent extremism, but this bill is being pushed through with minimal opportunity for scrutiny, even though it is a proposed response to the worst terrorist attack in Australia's history, and it risks punishing law-abiding Australians while failing to address the real causes of extremism and terrorism. Labor is attempting to present this as a decisive antisemitism response, but the firearms package is a major policy shift that will have huge consequences well beyond the stated purpose. I will always be standing up for the people of Hinkler and all Australians who will, very unfairly, be hurt by this.

The Bondi terrorist attack was horrific, but the content of this bill is effectively using that tragedy to justify wideranging gun laws, changes that will be felt most sharply by lawful farmers, sporting shooters, collectors, licensed pistol competitors, firearms dealers and other related businesses. This is not a credible counterterrorism response; it's a diversion from the government's countless number of grievous failures and missteps in dealing—or, more to the point, not dealing—with antisemitism and radical Islam. Of course we support public safety, but the buyback framework is incomplete, with key scheme details not finalised. There is no firm legislative guarantee of fair market value compensation for weapons surrendered, consistent with the 1996 model. There is also no clarity around the cost, which could be enormous and ultimately swell to many billions of dollars. That will almost certainly result, in this case, in inconsistency, confusion and inequities across jurisdictions. The proposed restrictions on imported pistols risk prohibiting lawful pistol imports, including for recognised sporting and elite competitions.

Here are just a few examples of the dozens of emails I've received in my office in just the past few days:

As a sport and recreational shooter I feel that we are being unjustly targeted through new laws that haven't been seriously debated and proper consultation undertaken.

The gun buyback and import restrictions appear to target licensed, law-abiding owners rather than addressing the root causes of violence.

There has not been enough time to consider all the implications and unintended consequences of the bill.

If a national buyback proceeds that compensation needs to reflect current market value, cover accessories and ammunition stocks and include provisions for dealers and businesses.

Firearms are a legitimate and necessary tool for farmers and those living in regional and rural Australia. These communities rely on firearms for pest control and livestock protection.

These are five things that I've had through my office in the last few days from people who are completely against this and what's going to affect them. This bill is large, complex and consequential. Stakeholders have had inadequate time to scrutinise it. It contains a series of flaws. We don't have a gun problem, we have a radical Islam problem.

See this speech in context