Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 11, page 12 (line 14), omit "only".

(2) Schedule 2, item 11, page 12 (line 22), at the end of subsection 8(4A), add:

; (d) any criminal history or proceedings relating to domestic violence or AVOs issued in local courts.

In relation to the legislation which sets out firearms background checks, these amendments seek to amend subsection 8(4A), relating to firearms background checks. The current bill indicates:

… a firearms background check … may only take into account one or more of the following:

(a) an assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation of the individual under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979;

(b) a criminal intelligence assessment (within the meaning of Part III of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002) …

(c) the citizenship status of the individual.

The amendments circulated seek to delete the word 'only' and insert an additional provision (d) to indicate that, amidst the domestic violence crisis that we have in Australia, a firearms background check should take into account any interim or final apprehended violence order or domestic violence related events.

It is not acceptable that dangerous men or women have access to firearms when we have a domestic violence crisis. I do not understand why, if we are bringing legislation forward after the tragedy of the Bondi terrorist attack, we should not also be ensuring all Australians are safe, and that should include women being safe from domestic violence. I commend these amendments to the House to ensure that people should not be able to have access to licensed firearms if they have a violent history, especially in respect of domestic violence.

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

I thank the member for Warringah for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. The member for Warringah is exactly right that these issues should be taken into account in the issuing of a firearms licence, but they have to be taken into account at the state level.

There are two different hurdles under what's being proposed. AusCheck, which is what's in the bill, is the federal hurdle. It doesn't exist at the moment, but, by putting that in place, it effectively allows all of the information that we hold to be used in the firearms licensing process. That means the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and ASIO. It then goes to the states to determine the fit-and-proper-person test. The states are the holders of information on family and domestic violence. The states are the holders of information on AVOs. I can't put into the AusCheck process information that we don't hold, but it does come into the second hurdle, which is when licensing is happening from the states. For that reason, whilst I agree completely that this issue must be taken into account, it's not something that we can do in the federal part of the process.

Question negatived.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

28 At the end of subsection 36(1)

(1) insert:

; (e) A person put on ASIO watchlist has his firearms automatically revoked

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment hasn't been circulated, but it has been formally read into the record, so that is allowed. It is the preference for all members to have the amendments circulated, but the member for Kennedy can speak to his amendment.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaking to the amendment, this is all about 15 people being murdered. Why were they murdered? Because the immigration department allowed some extremely dangerous people into this country. So the first people who should be held to account are the immigration authorities. When this person was put on an ASIO watchlist, there was no effort made to remove registered high-powered firearms from that person, so the people who were enforcing the ASIO watchlist are the second group of people who were responsible in the end for the deaths of 15 innocent Australian people.

This happens in the background of what happened many years ago. In the year that that happened, Queensland had no gun laws at all. I went in to buy a pair of socks and ended up buying an AK-47 rifle and 350 rounds of ammunition, which was a lot better than those socks. There were no gun laws at all. We had eight deaths with guns in Queensland. With draconian legislation in Victoria, they had 54 deaths with guns in that year. So much for your gun laws! You might think twice about shooting somebody if that person can shoot back. Whenever men of great wisdom—

Government members interjecting—

Here are the men of great wisdom! I said 'men of great wisdom', and they all spoke up. When the men of great wisdom sat down and wrote documents by which we live—the Bill of Rights in Britain, the Magna Carta, the American Declaration of Independence, the French declaration of independence—every single one of them put in the right to bear arms, which you want to remove. You say you've got greater wisdom than all of those people. That's what you're saying. I'll tell you, mate—you haven't. If they get their way, then the only people who will have guns are the people in uniforms, and we know what sort of society that is where the only people who have guns are the people in uniforms.

North Dakota has the highest gun ownership in the world. The last time I looked to find out how many deaths there were with guns, they had no deaths with guns for two years. Similarly, Switzerland, where, by law, every single house has to have a gun, has the lowest death with guns rate in Europe. If you put forward a proposition, then you want to have hard evidence that backs up that proposition. When you are standing in defiance of the greatest wisdom in human history, then I think you should also put forward a bit of evidence. The evidence is very clear-cut that where you have the most stringent gun laws, you seem to have the most deaths with guns.

In an interview I did, I said: 'I don't know why, when you ban guns, you have more fascination with guns. But all I can say is that, in Victorian England, they banned sex, but, geez, they had a population explosion during those years.' In conclusion, Queensland had eight deaths with guns with no gun laws at all. Victoria, with draconian gun laws, had 54 deaths with guns. There really isn't any more that needs to be said in recommending this to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the legislation as it stands before the parliament. I do think it's important to say what it is but also what it isn't. This legislation is not about targeting farmers. It's not about competitive shooters. It's not about those who are law-abiding firearm owners. This federal bill will establish a national gun buyback scheme to purchase surplus, newly banned and illegal firearms. The gun buyback scheme is based upon the same scheme that was introduced under John Howard, Tim Fischer and Kim Beazley—three leaders who all stood up at an important moment for Australia and who have made a difference. It is important to comprehend that state governments control the issue of licences, state governments control categories, and state governments control gun limits. This legislation does not interfere with those arrangements. What the federal government controls is the importation of weapons. This is sensible reform, which includes stopping noncitizens from importing weapons. This is important legislation, following on from the legislation that was carried a long time ago—

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you serious?

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was talking to the amendment.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's the reason; that's the whole point. Point of order.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to explain before I take your point of order. The member for Kennedy's amendment was extremely broad. The Prime Minister is responding to that amendment.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This sounds like a second reading speech. He's not speaking to the amendment.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be fair to the member for Kennedy, he didn't speak to his amendment either. I'm allowing, as I have done before, a very broad debate for the second reading amendment. I can point to multiple times where this has happened—normally from the opposition's side. The Prime Minister will refer to the member for Kennedy's amendment to ensure that he is compliant with the standing orders.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm saying, as I began my speech, why the amendment shouldn't be supported and why the original legislation that's before the parliament is the right legislation that will be carried. The truth is that there are different arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states. What we have responsibility for, and what the member for Kennedy spoke about, was the provisions that are in this legislation that are important to control these issues going forward.

I attended the funeral of Peter Meagher. There, David Meagher had this to say:

Gun reform alone will not solve hatred or extremism, but an antisemite without a gun is just a hate filled person. An antisemite with a gun is a killer.

The member for Kennedy has spoken—notwithstanding some of the factual issues, which weren't correct—about how the senior member, the father in this alleged atrocity, was someone who was granted a licence in 2013. That was not pursued, and later on he was given access to guns. We agree that that's a problem. That is the very issue of what we have focused on with the security authorities. That is why this legislation should be carried without amendment. That is why it's absolutely critical that that occur.

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendment of the member for Kennedy. At the heart of this amendment is a question that is being asked all over Australia and in particular in regional Australia, including the Calare electorate, and that is: how was it that these people, who were known to the security services since at least 2019, were able to access licensed firearms? Whilst I've heard what the Prime Minister has said, the member for Kennedy really homes in on this issue and makes it clear that this is something that the nation needs to deal with. This issue needs to be brought out into the open. It needs to be made very clear that, if you are known to the security services and you are on a watchlist, you simply cannot have firearms. Nobody in our part of the world can understand how this happened. That's why we need the royal commission, and that's why I support the amendments made by the member for Kennedy.

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the member for Kennedy's motion. It does have merit. We've just heard the member for Calare articulate that. There are many, many people asking this question. Why did these people have access to firearms when they were on a watchlist? This deserves support.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kennedy be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have one more amendment to do and that is from the member for Mackellar.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert:

(2) Schedule 2, page 86 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 8 — National Firearms Safety Council

217 National Firearms Safety Council

There is established a National Firearms Safety Council (the Council).

218 Constitution of the Council

The Council is to consist of:

(a) the Chair; and

(b) at least 7, but no more than 10 appointed members.

219 Function of the Council

The function of the Council is to provide independent, evidence-based policy advice to governments on any matter relating to firearms and harms that may arise from their use by:

(a) collecting, analysing and publishing national firearms data, including licence and firearms numbers and types, firearms categorisation, firearms access laws and practices, and trends across jurisdictions, through regular public reporting; and

(b) commissioning and coordinating public health and criminological research into firearms-related harm, including suicide, domestic and family violence, accidental shootings, theft, and crimes of violence; and

(c) developing national best-practice standards and benchmarks for firearms regulation, including licensing, storage, training, inspections, and risk screening; and

(d) monitoring and reporting annually to the Parliament on jurisdictional compliance with the National Firearms Agreement, and the effectiveness of legal frameworks for the regulation of firearms in Australia, including identifying regulatory failures and making recommendations; and

(e) identifying conflicts of interest and regulatory capture risks; and

(f) promoting transparency and integrity in firearms governance and advisory processes; and

(g) developing harm prevention and education initiatives; and

(h) other matters as requested by the Minister.

220 Appointment of Council members

(1) Each Council member is to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument, on a part-time basis.

(2) An appointed member holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 4 years.

Considerations of appointment

(3) The Minister must not appoint a person as a member to the Council unless:

(a) the Minister first appoints a selection panel consisting of at least 3 persons for the purposes of assessing whether a candidate is suitable for appointment; and

(b) the independent selection panel has advertised the appointment, conducted interviews and shortlisted candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria:

(i) the person has substantial expertise, qualifications or experience in at least one of the following:

(A) injury prevention;

(B) public health;

(C) policing;

(D) public or community safety;

(E) domestic and family violence;

(F) suicide prevention;

(G) invasive species;

(H) regulatory policy;

(ii) integrity;

(iii) does not have a current or previous interest in, or represents or has previously represented, any industry, business, organisation or person that has or may benefit financially from changes to firearms regulation, or has a commercial interest in such matters; and

(c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the shortlisted candidates against the criteria in paragraph (b), and a certification statement indicating that they are eligible for appointment; and

(d) that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c).

221 Chair of Council

The Minister must appoint a Council member to be the Chair of the Council if that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with subitem 220(3).

Today I'm introducing an amendment to the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 that would require the government to establish a national firearms safety council based on the principles of public health and public safety. Australia's firearm management framework, forged in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy in 1996, is recognised around the world for saving lives. But, for almost 30 years, our laws have not evolved to keep pace with changes in firearm technology, patterns of ownership or emerging risk factors. Regulatory approaches between states and territories have drifted apart, and national oversight mechanisms have weakened. Our gun laws are only as strong as our weakest jurisdiction.

In the wake of the Bondi attacks, Australians have been alarmed to realise that, since the Port Arthur massacre, firearm ownership has not decreased but grown significantly, with more than one million firearm owners and four million registered guns—a 25 per cent increase from 1996, with some individuals owning over 250 firearms. The rise in licences and guns has occurred especially in urban areas. In my own urban Sydney electorate, there are at least two individuals that have around 200 guns each; they are not dealers or collectors.

The recent Bondi attack, with 15 innocent people murdered and many more injured, was a devastating reminder of the consequences when regulatory systems fail. Authorities have confirmed that the weapons used were legally owned. This exposes serious deficiencies in licensing, firearm categorisation oversight and national coordination. The gradual erosion of the National Firearms Agreement has occurred under sustained pressure from powerful vested interests and cashed-up gun lobby groups in Australia.

The Bondi tragedy demands a national response to address these failings. A YouGov poll commissioned in December found that 92 per cent of Australians support stronger gun laws. Strong gun laws are not only critical to reducing the potential for massacre events; they are also crucial in the fields of domestic violence and suicide and accidental death prevention. In recent years we've also seen the tragic murders of several police officers in the course of their work. Gun harm is a public health and public safety issue, and yet, to date, the voices of these sectors have been largely drowned out.

Whilst I support the provisions in the government's bill to strengthen gun laws today, we must also ensure that, over the years, our National Firearms Agreement evolves to remain fit for purpose. That's why I'm proposing the establishment of an independent, evidence based national firearms safety council, a body designed to ensure Australia's firearm laws continue to evolve and keep Australians safe. Australia must not wait until the next major tragedy before again taking action.

This proposal stems from the work of the Australian Gun Safety Alliance, which includes Gun Control Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia and the Alannah & Madeline Foundation. It would embed community voices, public health expertise and transparency into national firearms policy. And, crucially, it would operate independently of industry influence.

Among its responsibilities, the council would collect, analyse and publish national firearms data including licence and firearm numbers and types, approvals and refusals, and emerging trends; monitor and report on jurisdictions' compliance with the reformed 2026 National Firearms Agreement, identifying gaps, inconsistencies and regulatory failures; provide independent, evidence based advice to governments; commission and coordinate research into firearm related harm including suicide, family and domestic violence, accidental shootings, theft and crimes of violence; and develop national best-practice standards for licensing, safe storage inspection and risk screening.

It would also evaluate firearm access pathways to ensure they do not undermine genuine-needs assessments. It would support community focused harm prevention and report to parliament annually to ensure transparency and accountability. A national firearms safety council would strengthen national coordination and ensure our regulations keep pace with emerging risks and ultimately save lives.

These amendments are a practical, evidence based measure that honours Australia's longstanding commitment to preventing gun harm. I commend these amendments to the House and urge all those who care deeply for the safety of Australians to support these amendments.

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

I thank the member for Mackellar for raising the issue. While the government doesn't support the amendments and the form of doing this, we are in support of establishing a national firearms safety council. A similar conversation has been happening with the Greens in the Senate as we've been dealing with these issues over recent days, and earlier today I put in writing to Senator Waters that we will be establishing a national firearms safety council.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the member for Mackellar's very sensible amendments, notwithstanding what the Minister for Home Affairs has just said, because closing a knowledge and evidence gap in our national gun laws is absolutely critical. The prevailing question from people in my electorate, in relation to killers such as those who perpetrated the horrors in Bondi, is: how can one of them have been a registered gun owner? It speaks to the critical elements in the legislation that I've just voted for, around bridging these evidence gaps, closing the problems that we have and assessing who is out there trying to get their hands on guns.

These laws aren't about law-abiding gun owners, many of whom live in my electorate and many of whom have written to me about their concerns around these laws. These are people in my electorate who, indeed, are trying to manage pests on farms and national parks, who are tragically having to euthanise sheep and cattle, or who are sporting shooters. But the key point they make to me, which I have listened to so carefully, is that every gap that we possibly have that allows people with criminal intent to get their hands on guns must be closed. So I support legislation which does that. I support what the member for Mackellar is trying to do.

I want to put on the record that the truncated debate that we have had this morning in regard to such important laws as these is really frustrating for us as legislators. As a member of parliament from a regional area who could not get on the speaking list, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the member for Mackellar's amendments, which I think are sensible ones. I welcome the government working on this council. I want to see that succeed, because ultimately I want guns in this country to be used for the purposes for which they are intended, with law-abiding citizens using them as a tool of trade or for sporting intent with complete safety.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.