Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 on behalf of the opposition. May I begin my remarks by restating that the coalition unequivocally condemns antisemitism, hate motivated violence and radical Islamist terrorism. We have always been dedicated to the enactment of strong, effective and proportionate measures to protect Australians and uphold national security.

What was previously known as schedule 4 of the original omnibus exposure draft proposed significant changes to Australia's firearms laws, including a so-called national firearms buyback scheme and expanded importation restrictions. Evidence before the PJCIS inquiry demonstrated that these measures are poorly constructed, inadequately justified and unlikely to achieve their stated objectives. Instead, they impose disproportionate burdens on lawful firearm owners, importers, wholesalers and retailers, as well as primary producers and state and territory governments. To the detriment of the bill, the government has chosen a reactive, politically driven approach to the preparation of these proposed laws, rather than the careful, judicious, evidence based process Australians would legitimately expect in such a highly regulated policy area.

The presentation of this bill has also been marked by a distinct lack of meaningful consultation undertaken prior to its introduction, a view almost universally presented by witnesses before the PJCIS inquiry. There was little or no prior consultation with farming groups, sporting shooters, industry representatives or technical experts. As coalition members of the PJCIS point out, the truncated nature of the inquiry compounded these failures, an approach utterly inconsistent with best practice lawmaking.

This bill reveals the contempt the government has for the million gun owners of Australia. The Prime Minister has failed to recognise that guns are tools of trade for so many Australians, including for so many people on the land and for many Australians as part of legitimate sporting pursuits. There may be a number of reasonable measures in this bill, such as the schedule 1 customs amendments, but these amendments have nothing to do with guns and specifically relate to violent extremist materials and prohibited symbols. The Leader of the Opposition requested that the government transfer this schedule to its other bill for this reason, but the Prime Minister refused to do so. Equally, the gun bill's firearms AusCheck scheme has legitimate merit in the interests of national security. However, taken as a whole, these measures are completely overwhelmed by the deficiencies in the bill.

This proposed gun legislation is fundamentally flawed. As was revealed in the PJCIS inquiry, there has been no genuine evidence-based examination applied to this bill by the government or the parliament. There has been insufficient time for the committee to properly examine the matter and the share of the 7,000 submissions to the inquiry that relate to the bill—7,000 submissions. After making repeated protestations that there would be no separation of the omnibus hate speech and gun control bill, the Prime Minister completely capitulated, when he revealed on Saturday his deal with the Greens to ensure passage of his gun legislation.

The Prime Minister on Saturday made the outlandish statement, which has incensed those involved in the shooting community, that he is introducing a John Howard gun-buyback scheme. This could not be further from the truth. John Howard's 1996 national gun buyback was widely supported across the country. This buyback faces criticism from the governments of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania. Firearms regulation in Australia operates through a process of cooperative federalism, and the buyback proposed in this bill has been advanced without securing such cooperation.

The 1996 buyback was properly funded. This buyback calls on the states and territories to foot half the bill, irrespective of their capacity to pay. The 1996 buyback was based on the surrender of weapons at fair market value. States and territories have been told that this buyback will be based on price schedules at well under market values, providing little to no incentive for owners to hand in their guns. The 1996 buyback covered ammunition and pieces of equipment, such as scopes and spare parts, rendered unusable by virtue of the handing in of individual guns. Under this buyback, states are told these items are explicitly excluded from compensation. The 1996 buyback compensated legitimate businesses involved in the firearms industry who had suffered due to the buyback arrangements. States under this legislation have been told that these businesses will receive nothing—zip, nada. The 1996 buyback involved buyouts for those businesses deemed unviable due to the buyback. This government couldn't care less about the fate of legitimate gun sellers, who will be run out of business.

The coalition agrees with the statement of the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia that the only way to have a John Howard gun buyback is to legislate one. That is why the opposition has gone to the Prime Minister and asked that he be true to his word and amend his bill to make this a John Howard buyback. He has failed to make such a commitment. It's little wonder why we will be opposing this bill in this House. In the Senate, we will seek a referral of this bill to an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee with a reporting date of 2 March 2026. In the Senate we will also make a series of amendments to give effect to a John Howard buyback, including fair-market-value compensation for firearms, firearms parts, firearms accessories, ammunition, ammunition components and equipment. Our amendments will seek compensation for loss of business and hardship, including the buyout of businesses deemed unviable due to the buyback. The coalition will also move amendments seeking clarity from the states and territories by 28 February this year as to their intention to participate in buyback schemes.

Coalition members of the PJCIS are concerned that this bill will unfairly burden lawful firearm owners, particularly farmers and primary producers who rely on firearms for legitimate purposes such as pest control, animal welfare and land management. It is the view of the coalition committee members that recreational and sporting shooters, whether they be competitive shooters or hunters, enjoy the expertise and skill of using different types of firearms and appreciate the nuances of ammunition reloading and variations of accessories. They argue that these elements of the bill would make even the most mundane of those activities illegal through either restrictions on imports or prohibitions on sharing online manuals and discussions.

Coalition committee members of the PJCIS indicate that witnesses raised credible concerns that essential firearms may be captured by the buyback or import restrictions, with limited replacement options. Restrictions on importing firearms and accessories such as straight-pull rifles will directly affect lawful users who already operate under some of the strictest laws in the world. For the reasons outlined, particularly in relation to the unacceptable levels and breadth of buyback compensation and importation restrictions on assisted repeated action, the coalition will be opposing— (Time expired)

See this speech in context