Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Werriwa for the question. In responding to the antisemitic terror attack, we need to deal with the motivation and we need to deal with the method. We are dealing with two people there who had horrific antisemitic bigotry in their minds and in their hearts. They had weapons they should not have had, as those individuals—I don't think anyone argues those individuals should have been able to have weapons. We need to be able to respond to the method that they used as well.

The vast majority of gun licence holders in Australia take their licences seriously and are responsible individuals. I say to those people that these changes are not targeted at you. There are claims that have been made by some of those opposite which are simply not true. Our laws will not be a blanket ban on firearms. Our laws will not stop Australian athletes from competing or accessing the equipment they need. Our laws will not stop pest controllers or sporting shooters—those with genuine need. Our laws will not stop farmers and primary producers from performing their daily tasks.

The question that is right to ask is what the reforms will do when you reduce the number of guns in the community, when you strengthen the National Firearms Agreement, when you strengthen background checks, when you improve intelligence-sharing and when you restrict licences, as far as practical, to Australian citizens. The critical question that came to a head in a vote today—those opposite did not distinguish and did not seek to amend; they opposed the lot in the way they voted on the gun laws today—is: what would these laws have meant for those two men? There's been a lot of discussion. We heard the New South Wales debate. Should there be six? Should recreational shooters be able to have six firearms, four or five? How many firearms would those individuals, those two people, be permitted to have under the laws that the government supported and the opposition opposed today? The answer is zero.

Under those laws, those two people would have been able to access zero firearms. What are the reasons? Only citizens would be able to get a licence. The firearms licence holder was not an Australian citizen. The firearms they were using would not have been available to them. Had the son, who didn't have a firearms licence in any event, sought one, or had the father sought one, AusCheck and the intelligence information we had would have been cross-checked before a licence could be issued. All of these things result in one very simple question: do you believe those two people should have been allowed to have those guns? Every member on this side today voted to say, 'No they should not.'

See this speech in context