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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The terrorists who killed 15 people on that horrible day had hate in their hearts, and guns in their hands. The tragic events at Bondi demand a comprehensive response from government. As a government we must do everything we can to counter both the motivation and the method. We must deal with the motivation of hatred, and the method—the firearms—that the attackers used to devastate so many lives.

This bill delivers on the government's commitment to address the methods of the attack.

The bill provides a framework for ensuring Commonwealth intelligence can inform firearms licence decision-making in states and territories. It provides the foundations for the largest buyback of firearms since Port Arthur, nearly 30 years ago, and it strengthens laws for the importation of firearms.

The bill forms part of a comprehensive package of reforms, including the renegotiation of the National Firearms Agreement led by National Cabinet, and the bill brought forward by the Attorney-General to further criminalise hateful and extremist conduct, and ensure that those who seek to spread hate, division and radicalisation are met with appropriate penalties.

It comes as a shock to most Australians that Australia has more firearms now than we had before Port Arthur, nearly 30 years ago. Many people are also surprised to see that it was possible for a visa holder to have a licence, and that the information held by our intelligence agencies was not integrated into the firearms licensing decisions.

A critical question that I've often been asked during this debate is if this national reform package had already been in place, how many firearms would the Bondi gunmen have held. Would it be six? Would it be five? Would it be four? The answer is zero. The father would have been ineligible because he was not a citizen. The firearms that they were using would not have been available to them. And the son, who didn't have a firearms licence in any event—had he tried, any intelligence holdings with respect to him would have formed part of the licensing decisions.

No-one is pretending that dealing with guns deals with everything that happened at Bondi. But it does deal with the method, and we must deal with the method.

Buyback s cheme

The bill will establish a framework for a National Gun Buyback Scheme to support proposed reforms to national gun laws. The buyback would purchase surplus and newly restricted firearms, and reduce the now more than four million registered firearms in Australia. A buyback is essential to compensate state and territory firearms owners for surplus or newly restricted firearms, and ensure that restricted guns don't end up in the hands of criminals and organised crime groups.

The sheer number of firearms currently circulating within the Australian community is unsustainable. Research last year highlights over 2,000 firearms are stolen or diverted to the illicit market every year—that's roughly one firearm every four hours.

The fewer legal firearms in the community, the less opportunity there is for them to fall into the wrong hands, including potential violent extremists and serious organised criminals. The National Gun Buyback Scheme will help get firearms off our streets.

Commonwealth i ntelligence s haring

The bill, importantly, will also lay the foundation for a new Commonwealth background checking framework to inform decisions to issue or renew firearms licences by the states and territories.

The model would leverage AusCheck's existing role in providing background checks to other sensitive licensing frameworks.

Intelligence held by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission would be shared securely and underpin firearms licensing decisions.

With these changes, the licensing system will combine with AusCheck and the National Firearms Register to make sure we're using the best information we have. When someone seeks a licence or renewal, AusCheck will make sure that our intelligence holdings are utilised.

When new persons of interest come to light for our intelligence agencies, they will be able to readily check if the person of interest is also a firearms holder. This means our intelligence agencies will get the best information they need. And states and territories, when deciding if someone is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, will have the best possible process before a licence is issued.

Details of the regime's operation, and how assessments are used in licensing, will be negotiated with states and territories.

Customs restrictions

While states and territories predominantly regulate firearms, the Commonwealth regulates the importation of them at the border.

There will be a range of measures introduced through customs regulations. These tougher, more robust regulations will protect the safety of the Australian community by ensuring only those with legitimate needs can import restricted firearms.

The regulations dealing with wearable ammunition equipment such as vests will not be dealt with today. There will be further consultation on this measure.

Criminal Code offences

At the time of Port Arthur, and the original National Firearms Agreement, there was no such thing as 3D printing, let alone 3D printed guns. The bill updates Australia's Criminal Code to deal with this new technology.

The bill will create new offences for using a carriage service to send electronic materials, like 3D-printing blueprints, used to manufacture firearms and explosives, or possessing or controlling this material through a carriage service.

These measures respond to feedback from the firearms community, including defences to ensure it does not capture those who seek to share material that assists with firearms maintenance, safety training and information on ammunition packing, and provides narrow defences for possession and use of 3D printing blueprints by those who are licenced to manufacture and modify firearms and firearms parts.

Other c ustoms amendments

The bill also strengthens regulations that prohibit the import or export of goods that contribute to the spread of hate and extremism and promote the use of violence against persons and groups.

National Firearms Agreement

The measures in this bill complement the government's ongoing work with states and territories to modernise and strengthen Australia's firearms laws. This includes the agreement by National Cabinet to develop options to:

Conclusion

In the wake of the tragedy at Bondi on 14 December, we as a parliament have a responsibility to act decisively to make sure Australians can be safe and feel safe. We must do everything we can to counter both the motivation and the method of the attackers. We must deal with both the hatred they had in their hearts, and the guns they had in their hands. This bill is a critical step towards addressing their methods.

I extend my thanks to staff across my portfolio for their incredible work in developing this bill. I also extend my thanks to the members of the public, advocates, community representatives and industry groups who have engaged in consultation to inform the measures I am introducing today. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to 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)

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today to this bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, as a mum of young children and as someone who can recall the Port Arthur tragedy in 1996 as a teenager and the way in which the country rose up. We saw leadership in this place, working together to get guns off our streets. I also rise as a regional member, a regional MP and a member of parliament. My electorate is 10 minutes from the border of New South Wales, runs through the centre of Victoria and ends an hour north of Melbourne. We are a regional electorate. We have suburbs, we have farms, we have rural communities, and we at the moment are in a challenging time, recovering from the bushfires that devastated the tiny town of Harcourt not more than a fortnight ago. But I stand here today in this place to speak because there are over four million licensed guns in Australia. That was a figure that shocked me post the tragedy in Bondi. The reality hit—just like after Port Arthur, when I was a teenager. Four million guns are circulating legally in our community.

I've had conversations with people in my electorate: 'My brother has guns. He lives with my mother. He's not working.' 'How many guns?' 'Four or five.' 'Well, is it four or is it five?' This is just around the corner from where I live. It's a hidden reality that a lot of us don't know.

There is at least one gun for every seven Australians. That's a lot of guns. To put it another way, that's more than one gun for every person living in Tasmania, South Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory, combined. That's a lot of guns legally in our community. On average, a firearm licence holder owns more than four guns, with two individuals in the suburbs of Sydney owning over 300 firearms.

Firearms are not confined to rural areas, like some of those opposite might try to suggest. A third of the guns legally owned in New South Wales are located in Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. These are the facts. This is what we must confront as a parliament and as a society. This isn't new. A report conducted by the Australia Institute, assisted by Gun Control Australia and the Australian Gun Safety Alliance, released this time last year, stated:

The overwhelming majority of Australians expect that our gun laws strictly control the licensing and ownership of firearms and expect their governments to ensure our firearm laws and regulations are responsible, safe and strong, putting community safety before the needs of those people wanting firearms.

It went on to say:

The gun reforms introduced after Port Arthur have served Australia well. It is deeply concerning to see the firearm industry exerting influence on policy and marketing, resulting in over 4 million firearms now in circulation …

They're circulating legally in our community.

Following the devastating impact of the Bondi terrorist attack in Sydney, our government is rightfully reviewing the gun laws in Australia, as Australians demand. Based upon the circumstances around the attack, the government—not on its own but through National Cabinet—is progressing reforms to ensure and improve public safety.

Regional Australians, by and large, are responsible gun owners. Their use of firearms is legitimate and professional. From recreational hunting and pest management to the unfortunate occasions where livestock or wildlife need to be put down, they are responsible. I want to acknowledge the local people in my electorate who have reached out to me, who do want to see safety and who want to have a dialogue on this. An example is the bushfires that occurred in the last fortnight. I acknowledge that there are some farmers who have used guns responsibly, safely and ethically to put down their much-loved livestock. Not all of them did; some of them worked with Agriculture Victoria to euthanise in other ways.

This was not what occurred in Bondi. As we saw in the Bondi attack, the terrorists had the racial ideology but also the means to conduct this awful crime. We have to prevent the ready access to guns by people who do not need them and who will inflict violence with them. (Time expired)

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me make this clear. The National Party and the coalition will be opposing this bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. This is nothing more than a cheap political diversion. It's a diversion from facing up to the real problem in this country, which is radical Islamists. They are taking hold and causing harm on the streets, as we saw in Bondi. It is not the gun owners of Australia that have done this; it is radical Islam that has done this.

One element of this bill that we will support is the ASIO checks. In fact, we supported a national gun register, which was agreed to nearly two years ago. It could have already been in place if those opposite had put it in place. Instead, what they are trying to do is demonise legal-gun owners for something that was not caused by them. We do not have a gun problem; we have a radical Islam problem.

The gun laws in this country actually worked, because there was an order by the police that saw perpetrators of that evil act in Bondi on a watchlist. They should not have had their licences in place. If I have a domestic violence order against me in this country, my gun licence and my gun are taken away. This has been a failure of process, not a failure of gun licensing. The fact is that authorities did not act and take away the licence and the weapons as they should have.

This legislation goes further. It has implications for the types of firearms that are imported and which are already covered under state legislation. In fact, the overreach we are talking about here will affect some of the pistols that are coming into this country for sporting shooters. Some of the weapons that the member for Hunter would use to become an Olympian again—he isn't here at the moment for some reason—would be revoked under that import order. We would also see weapons that are used by primary producers to undertake the pest management that we need absolutely revoked, so this is not going to the heart of the problem. But this is not just about farmers. This is about the people in metropolitan areas as well, the lawful gun owners that actually do a lot of the heavy lifting, the pest management, for farmers. These are the people in Newcastle and the Illawarra that the member for Bendigo talks about. They are lawful gun owners who come out to farms and do that work of pest mitigation. They do that because farmers do not have the energy and the time to be able to do that. These people own a number of guns and are able to undertake that.

You cannot own a gun in this country just because you want one. You have to pass a fit-and-proper-person test and wait 28 days. You can't just say, 'I want a high-calibre weapon.' You have to demonstrate a necessity, and you have to be able to prove that. You have to go through training. You actually get inspected every 12 months about that weapon. So the licensing arrangements that we have in place for the weapons and the calibre of weapons that are approved have been proven to work. This is a diversion, a cheap political stunt by this government, who want to divert attention away from the nation's real problems and onto the lawful gun owners of this nation. We are also going to take away the imports of accessories, so those sporting shooters will not be able to have their Olympic vests that can hold 50 cartridges. There has been no consultation on this.

Then we get into the use of a carriage service whereby, if someone—an innocent Australian gun owner—were to download instructions on how to place a scope on their rifle, they would be in breach of this legislation. This is a desperate overreach by a government looking for a political diversion; it's demonising lawful Australians. Do you honestly believe you want to spend a billion dollars—Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania don't want to—buying guns back? Are you that naive that you think the criminals and the terrorists will be the ones that will hand them back? That is not going to solve the problem we have in this nation. You are impinging on the rights of lawful Australians that—it's been proven—have been doing the right thing; they have been respecting the law. We are trying to solve a problem that is not there.

You are taking away the attention from the real problem in this country and from what caused the tragic events at Bondi. If you do not have the courage to look at yourselves in the mirror and to look the people of this country in the eye and say, 'It is not guns that are the problem; it is radical Islam that is the problem,' then all you are doing is diverting attention and taking away the rights of lawful Australians, whether they be on farms or in metropolitan areas, who have done the right thing by this country, have abided by the law and should not have their rights taken away. That is not the Australia that we deserve to hand over to the next generation. But that's the gutless nature of this government, which hasn't got the courage to face the problem. It will not own up to the problems that have been allowed to seep into this country for— (Time expired)

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 14 December last year there was a horrific extreme Islamic terrorist attack in Bondi.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I got sighs when I said that! That says everything. You cannot say 'Islamic extremism' to people on the other side of this chamber without getting the sigh. What happened in Bondi was an Islamic extremist attack in this country. That's what happened, and that's what we need to be talking about.

As soon as that attack happened, the victims of the attack, the people who were affected by the attack and the community of this whole country wanted the Prime Minister of this country to call a royal commission straightaway. What the people in this country wanted to know is how widespread Islamic extremism is in this country. How widespread is it? How widespread—

Government members interjecting—

Yes, I get interjections. Isn't this terrible? How widespread is antisemitism in this country? That's what the community wanted us to talk about. That's what the community wanted to be done. Did the Prime Minister act on that? No. He already had the report from the antisemitism commissioner that he appointed, a report that had many recommendations. Had he acted on any of those recommendations? None. He hadn't acted on any of the recommendations from his antisemitism commissioner when that attack happened—none of them.

What was his first instinctive reaction after this horrific Islamic extremist attack in Bondi? It was to clamp down on legal gun owners in this country. That was his first response, not to call a royal commission, to go in to look at the issues we're dealing with or to go to the report from his commissioner into antisemitism—which, by the way, didn't mention guns at all. His instinct wasn't to go to that report and say: 'We have a serious issue with Islamic extremism and antisemitism in this country. What has my commissioner said we should do? Should I call a royal commission? I'll call a royal commission to get our heads around how big this issue is.' No. His first response was to effectively use that tragedy to crack down and justify gun law changes that will be felt by farmers and sporting shooters in our country.

An opposition member: Collectors.

Collectors and also small businesses. I had a chat to a gun shop owner in my community in Grafton the other day. Some of the amendments that we're going to move to the legislation will provide not just that people will get a fair price for the guns that will be bought back but also that there will be compensation for the businesses. Matt in my community is concerned and knows that his business will probably close and he will lose his livelihood. So we're not just talking about people losing guns that they need for their sporting clubs or for their own protection. If you're out on farms, especially big farms, and there are feral animals and all sorts of things, you need different guns for different things. Not only is it potentially going to endanger people's lives but people are going to lose businesses over this.

Some of the amendments we will move here are to make sure there's compensation for people—not only that, even though this is unfair, they will get a fair price for the guns that will be bought back by the government but that people who lose their businesses will be compensated, too. The coalition disagree and will be voting against this legislation. We're not going to use law-abiding gun owners as the scapegoats for that terrible Islamic extremist attack in Bondi, but we also want fair compensation for businesses in this country that are going to be very badly affected by this.

As the Leader of the Nationals just said, what has to be acknowledged is that in this country we already have very tight gun laws. We're not entering this space with an industry that's unregulated or where you can just do what you like. There are inspections and there are 'fit and proper' checks on gun owners. Obviously gun licences can be revoked for different reasons, as well.

Again, we are here debating very important things. We have an Islamic extremism issue in this country. We have an antisemitism issue in this country. We need to do things to make people feel safe, but we are going to make sure that our gun owners are not the scapegoats in this.

Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 14 December 2025, Australia was confronted with a horrific terrorist attack at Bondi. This was an act of violent Islamist terrorism. Fifteen innocent people were murdered in an attack deliberately designed to terrorise the community and intimidate Australians far beyond the immediate victims. This was not random violence; it was a calculated, ideologically motivated assault on Jewish Australians and on the fundamental expectation that in this country people can worship, celebrate and gather in public without fear.

I know firsthand what extremism looks like. I fought radical Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan, where Australians were killed and wounded. Many now live with the enduring consequences of that conflict. We fought terrorism there so we would not have to fight it here on Australian soil. The protection of Australians in the defence of the nation is among the most serious responsibilities of any government. However, it must be stated plainly that the failure of leadership did not begin with this bill. It began more than 14 months before the attack, when Australia witnessed disturbing antisemitic protests on the streets of Sydney. These events were not ambiguous. They were not isolated. They were a clear warning sign that extremism and antisemitic intimidation were escalating. The time for decisive, targeted action was then. Instead, the Prime Minister chose inaction.

In December 2024, as a Jewish synagogue burned in Melbourne following a suspected terror attack, the Prime Minister's decision to stay in Perth playing tennis became a symbol of a broader failure of leadership. For over a year warnings were ignored, concerns were minimised and communities were left exposed. Now, in the wake of a terrorist atrocity, the government has rushed forward a sweeping and poorly conceived legislative process. This bill is not the product of careful leadership; it is a kneejerk reaction to a failure to act when it mattered most. The bill is fundamentally flawed. It is unclear in its operation, inadequately safeguarded, poorly consulted on and lacking the precision required for legislation. Coalition members cannot support this bill.

Coalition members unequivocally condemn antisemitism, hate motivated violence and violent Islamist extremism. However, we cannot support this firearms bill. The proposed national firearms buyback scheme and expanded import restrictions are poorly consulted, inadequately justified and lack the support of state and territory governments. Firearms regulation in Australia operates through cooperative federalism. Proceeding without the states' cooperation risks implementation failure and undermines an otherwise effective national framework. These measures unfairly burden lawful firearm owners, primary producers and sporting shooters while doing nothing to address the ideology responsible for the Bondi attack. Violent Islamist extremism, not firearms, caused the deaths of 15 innocent Australians.

We reaffirm our support for strong, targeted and enforceable measures to combat antisemitism, disrupt violent Islamist extremism and protect Australians, but legislation of this magnitude must be deliberate, precise and built on genuine consultation. It is critical that the Prime Minister now do what he failed to do earlier—lead. That means working constructively with all members of this House and, more importantly, with the Australian people to ensure this legislation should be and could be effective, proportionate and worthy of the freedoms it seeks to protect. National security demands unity and competence. Australia deserves nothing less.

This bill punishes law-abiding citizens and law-abiding firearms licence holders and does not go to the root of the cause of why we're here. And for those yelling out, 'You demanded to come back early!'—rightly so. The first rule of any government is to keep its people safe. When the terrorist attack happened, the coalition said, 'Let's go back to parliament and pass laws or pass bills that keep people safe'. That is not blind commitment to support bad legislation. To be given the legislation on a Monday, to start hearings on a Tuesday, to then get passed within a week whilst receiving more than 7,000 submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which crashed the website—this didn't allow the people to have their voice. This is not good leadership and people deserve better from this Prime Minister.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Sovereign Capability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak against the proposed Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. These should not even be in the same sentence—this is totally ridiculous! This bill is a diversionary tactic. It will not stamp out antisemitism, hate or extremism. This bill will not change the culture of antisemitism, hate, extremism and radical Islam that has been allowed to flourish due to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's weak leadership. All this will do is punish law-abiding firearm owners that are being used as a scapegoat.

Australia already has the strictest gun laws in the world and the most stringent licensing. They do thorough background checks and withholding periods both before you get a licence and before you obtain a firearm. The coalition supports law-abiding firearm owners. The coalition supports the National Firearms Register. The question is this. Everything is already in place for the gun register's introduction. It's been in place for two years. Why hasn't the Albanese Labor government implemented it? That's the question.

As a fully licensed firearm owner myself, who shoots rifles, pistols and shotguns for pest control and recreation, I'd like to explain to the parliament why shooters use so many different guns. The reason is, essentially, they do different jobs. They're for different purposes. For the destruction of birds and other pests that destroy crops, farmers might use a .22 calibre, which could be a .22 calibre long rifle, a .22 calibre Hornet or a .223 for longer range. They all have different jobs. They're the same calibre, but they shoot further. For rats and rabbits, you might use the same sort of calibre, but you might change what projectile you use. For a pig, you might use a .30-30, if you're in the scrub at close range. You might use a .308 if they're out on the open. Pigs come in and rip up your tomatoes and capsicums and make a mess.

The golfers have to understand why golfers need so many different clubs. I'm trying to use an analogy here that people will understand. I get that people don't fully understand firearms, but that shouldn't be a reason to be afraid of them. For the golfers, you don't see someone teeing off with a putter. You don't see someone on the green with a driver. If you're a landholder and you come across a beast that's broken their leg or something, and you need to destroy that beast, you can't use a .22 calibre, because that's inhumane. So you need a higher calibre rifle to dispose of that—to put that beast out of its misery.

If that landholder is also a sporting shooter, they might have three different types of shotguns. If you're shooting guns at the range, you might want a long barrel for shooting down the line, a shorter barrel for shooting trench or an even shorter one for shooting skeet. That's three different shotguns. If that landholder also shoots, say, western action out at the pistol club, they might need a pistol, a lever action rifle and a shotgun. Again, they're all different. There would also be different actions. You could have a single action, a double action or a semiautomatic. The horse people out there might understand this analogy. It's horses for courses. You don't see a dressage horse racing in the Melbourne Cup.

That's why I do not support this legislation. Twenty guns in the hands of a law-abiding grazier, sporting shooter or collector is fine. One gun in the hands of a radical Islamic terrorist is a massive problem. Do you honestly think that terrorists and criminals will come and hand their guns in? Do you honestly think that's going to happen? No. Law-abiding firearm owners will be punished due to the failure of this government. I don't want to even talk about buybacks, but, if this bad legislation does go through, buybacks need to give appropriate compensation. But this is bad legislation. It's time this government faced up to the real problem, which is radical Islam, not the firearm owners.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It speaks volumes of those opposite that not one of them has stood up, since the member for Bendigo did, to seek to defend this legislation, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, because this is bad legislation. This is bad legislation which has been rushed into the parliament, with no consultation, to solve a political problem for the Prime Minister. And that is the form of this prime minister.

This year, the member for Grayndler celebrates his 30th year in parliament. The Prime Minister is the ultimate insider who is always trying to find a political solution to any problem he faces. His basic instinct after the tragedy at Bondi was to try to find a political solution, and the first scapegoat he found was the law-abiding gun owners in this country. Never forget: we have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. This prime minister has sought to distract and divide the population by pointing to gun owners now and saying, 'We have to take those guns away from you.'

There has been no consultation. I've been to gun-shop owners in my electorate to ask them, 'What consultation was there with you?' How many guns is it reasonable for a person to have? You just heard the member for Dawson explain that it is reasonable for a keen licensed shooter to have multiple guns for different tasks, because different guns do different things in the hands of a law-abiding citizen. It is quite reasonable for someone who may be involved in clay-target shooting to have a shotgun for that purpose, a different shotgun for duck shooting, maybe a light-calibre rifle for control of pests like rabbits and a different calibre rifle for control of deer or pigs. Very easily, a law-abiding Australian pursuing their sport as a hunter or a sporting shooter, or just a farmer doing their job, would rapidly have half a dozen guns with no problem whatsoever. And they are no threat to the Australian public. Yet this government and this prime minister, seeking a political solution, are vilifying law-abiding Australians going about their pastime or their business and causing no harm to anyone else.

This legislation enables the states to pursue a gun buyback, using $1 billion of taxpayers' money. Does anyone think a single criminal, a would-be terrorist or anyone who is a threat to society is going to roll up and hand in their gun to recover the gun buyback money from the Australian taxpayers? It is not going to achieve a single thing in terms of community safety, but it is going to divide our nation, and it is going to cause undue grief for some of our firearm owners through having to surrender guns that were very personal to them or maybe even family heirlooms. This is what we get when we have a weak and divisive prime minister who's always looking for a political solution.

The real issue here was radical Islamic extremism; that was the real issue. And, for two years after the October 7 attacks, we refused—the government of our nation refused—to call out the antisemitism, to keep our Jewish Australian people safe. It was a failure of our nation that we failed to keep them safe. When the attacks occurred, instead of calling that out, instead of taking some responsibility, instead of apologising to Jewish Australians, the Prime Minister's first instinct was to go after the guns—to go after law-abiding Australians with legal guns who have done nothing wrong. They have had a gutful of being continually victimised by people who don't understand their sport and don't understand the lawful purposes for having firearms. And they are reasonable people.

I say that because, if the Prime Minister had come to us and said, 'What are some reasonable changes we could make here?' there would be reasonable changes you could make. Instead, he has gone straight to the buyback, straight to taking guns off law-abiding Australians, because it's always about distraction. It's always about a political solution from a weak and divisive leader who has failed to keep Australians safe.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just this morning, this legislation, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, was made available for us to view. How does that give anyone in this place who respects their job as a lawmaker time to properly scrutinise this government's bill? We'll have just 90 minutes of debate, and then debate's going to be gagged, this bill's going to be sent to the Senate, where a deal has already been done with the Greens party, and then it's going to be passed. What contempt of the parliamentary process! When we rush legislation, we make mistakes and the Australian public suffers the consequences. The normal process for contentious legislation—everybody in here knows this—is that there is an exposure draft, we have a look at it, there are early discussions and then the government may present the bill. Then there is a formal inquiry that often travels around the nation, giving people who would be affected by the legislation the opportunity to make submissions, to be heard in that process, and perhaps even to present to the inquiry. I'm told that the rushed Senate inquiry into this whole bill did not give many firearms owners or even organisations involved in sports shooting the opportunity to be heard.

We have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. I've received hundreds of emails from locals angry that their lives will be impacted through buybacks or through the prohibition of accessories because two radical Islamic extremists full of hate wanted to murder Australian Jews. And I'm afraid that Bondi will happen again. Something like that will happen again. It's not the first time that we've had Islamic terrorism on our shores. Unless we properly address what has happened and properly address that we have Islamic extremists living in our suburbs—the government can't even say the words 'Islamic extremism', let alone deal with it, and that is the problem.

This is just one of many letters I've received:

I am particularly alarmed about the firearms provisions, which are reckless, poorly drafted and will unfairly punish law-abiding citizens.

As a retired police officer with nearly 30 years of combined State and Federal service, including nine years in Close Personal Protection … within the Australian Federal Police … I can state unequivocally that this incident does not justify further firearm law reform. Australia already has some of the strictest firearm laws in the world, and the vast majority of licensed firearm owners comply fully and pose no threat to public safety.

I am a competitive shooter and hunter and own a pump-action centrefire rifle for the quick and humane dispatchment of feral … pests as one of my rifles, along with a handgun for competitive target shooting.

Since retirement, shooting sports have been my primary social connection and a vital part of my identity after a lifetime of public service. Measures that restrict lawful participation without improving safety are unacceptable. As inconsequential as it may seem, utilising a handgun through competition connects me to who I feel I am, after spending my entire adult life in Law Enforcement protecting the community at both a State and Federal Level.

The proposed bans on importing shooting clothing and equipment will not enhance public safety but will devastate law-abiding competitors from local club members to Olympic athletes. These provisions must be removed.

The bill removes the right to review adverse intelligence findings for firearms licence applicants and allows AI-assisted decision-making, directly contradicting the Robodebt Royal Commission's recommendations. These provisions are unacceptable and must be reversed.

If a buy-back proceeds, compensation must reflect full market value, including accessories, ammunition and business losses. This must be enshrined in legislation to ensure fairness.

This tragedy exposes failures in oversight and inter-departmental accountability, not a lack of laws. Punishing compliant firearm owners for the actions of criminals is unjust, counterproductive, and erodes trust in government.

Public safety can be improved without penalising responsible citizens.

That, to me, is entirely fair. This whole process is rushed, contrived and contemptuous of this chamber.

Jamie Chaffey (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First and foremost, I want to acknowledge that Sunday 14 December 2025 will be remembered in Australian history as the day of the worst terrorist attack on our shores. Fifteen innocent people attending the Jewish celebrations at Bondi died, and may they rest in peace. This heinous act was the actions of two Islamic extremist terrorists with murderous intent as their sole motivation—and, yes, these terrorists used firearms, but they also prepared pipe bombs, and the truth is we may never know the full intent of their plan. Could they have planned to use the vehicle to drive into crowds of people?

After weeks of pressure from all sectors of the Australian community, the Prime Minister has finally agreed to hold a royal commission into antisemitism. All of Australia will be waiting for the findings and the recommendations that will guide this place on actions required to stamp out antisemitism and prevent any future senseless loss of lives. The faulty nature of this rushed legislation has been highlighted by the fact that at the eleventh hour the omnibus bill was radically altered. In yet another dirty deal between the Albanese government and the Greens, democracy was stitched up before the bill even hit the floor of this parliament.

Today, I rise to speak against the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, which has been carved out from another bill that we barely had time to comprehend. We are now left to debate a major matter for Australians without adequate time to debate democratically and offer amendments to support those regional Australians the Albanese government has forgotten. Since that terrible day at Bondi, when attention returned to gun laws, I've been swamped with letters, emails and phone calls from regional Australians that this government has let down. Anger is growing to fever pitch in most of the towns and villages in the Parkes electorate and across regional Australia.

In the months since the last federal election, the Albanese government has passed a number of pieces of legislation—many times in backdoor deals with the Greens—that have all had negative impacts on regional Australia. I'm talking about the Environmental Protection Reform Bill 2025, changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and changes to water regulation. And the Labor government now has regional Australia in its sights with these national gun laws.

The calls and letters about these gun laws have been coming from Broken Hill, Cobar, Parkes, Gilgandra, Dubbo, Curlewis, Gunnedah, West Wyalong, Lake Cargelligo and many more communities throughout the Parkes electorate. My people are worried; regional Australians are anxious. Guns are not a novelty in regional Australia. They're a necessity for pest animal control, livestock protection and land management. Primary producers already follow tough regulations to retain their firearms. For many farmers, guns are simply an essential part of business. They are essential for providing the rest of the country and the rest of the world with quality food and fibre. Why are all the regional Australians paying the price for the very few who have done the wrong thing?

Since terrorists pulled the trigger at Bondi, the reverberations have been felt right across regional Australia. New gun laws were rushed through the New South Wales parliament on Christmas Eve. Gun owners across New South Wales will face further restrictions on the number of firearms that they can own. There are changes in categories of firearms available for farmers and also for recreational shooters.

This bill has very little detail on the proposed gun buyback scheme. There is no detail in here to tell us how it will work, when it will happen and how much it will cost. Gun laws are a state-by-state and territory-by-territory concern. How can this be implemented at all when there are so many different laws, so many different approaches and so many different perspectives? Will the states and territories even agree to fund this buyback scheme? If this Labor-Greens buyback scheme does proceed, gun owners must be compensated at full and fair market value for the property that they surrender—not just the firearms but also any firearm parts, accessories, ammunition, components and reloading equipment. Compensation must also be made available for hardship and the loss of any business, including any buyouts of a business deemed unviable as a result of the introduction of this crazy legislation. It would be entirely irresponsible for us to support something that has very few parameters and contested costings and won't achieve the result of preventing terrorism on our shores.

The people of the Parkes electorate and regional Australia are tired of their lives and their livelihoods being bartered away by Labor with the Greens. It's time to remember who we are trying to protect—and that is all Australians.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak against the government's proposed changes to Australia's firearm laws and to place on the record my support for responsible gun owners, farmers, primary producers and sporting shooters who rely on firearms for their livelihoods, safety and way of life. Let me be clear from the outset. Australia does not have a gun control problem. What we have is the Albanese government attempting to use tragedy as a cover for ideology.

The horrific ISIS-inspired extremist Islamic terror attack at Bondi shocked our nation to its core. Australians mourn the innocent lives lost and stood united against evil. But what we must not do—and what this government is now doing—is exploit that tragedy to justify laws that would punish the very people who do nothing wrong and divert attention away from the real issue: extreme Islamic terror. That is the uncomfortable truth that the Prime Minister refuses to confront.

Instead of addressing the real failures that led to the attack, this government has developed a knee-jerk policy that proposes firearm restrictions that target farmers, regional Australians and responsible gun owners—people who obey the law, follow the rules and pose no threat to public safety. This is not leadership; this is political weakness and, some would say, political cowardice.

What we do know about the Bondi attack is deeply troubling. The perpetrator was known to authorities. The perpetrator was on an ASIO watchlist. There were failures in coordination, intelligence sharing and bureaucratic decision-making. Those are the failures this parliament should be examining, and, thanks to the pressure applied by the coalition and everyday Australians, those answers will come from the royal commission into the Bondi terror attack. But, rather than address the real problem, the Prime Minister has chosen to ignore the breakdowns within his own government's systems and shift the blame onto everyday Australians who legally and responsibly own firearms. It takes a pretty devious government to use the tragedy of Bondi to tighten firearms laws. And you know what, Mr Speaker? The people of Australia know this.

Jeffrey Ross, Queensland State President of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc., said in a letter to me:

A firearms buyback and any major change to firearm laws are a cynical distraction from the authorities' likely failures leading up to the terrorist attack and a waste of taxpayers' money. Firearms owners are being used as a scapegoat and we are rightly scathing of the political motives behind these measures.

In my electorate of Capricornia, ever since the Prime Minister announced this legislation, my office has been inundated with emails and calls from constituents worried that they are being punished yet again by the Albanese government.

Let us be clear. Bondi was not a failure of gun control; it was a failure of the Albanese government. Under this legislation, the people who will pay the price are not extremists, not hate preachers, not criminals and not terrorists but farmers who need firearms to protect livestock, rural families who rely on them for safety and sporting shooters who have complied with every law this parliament has ever passed. This is just wrong. The National Party has always taken a responsible approach to firearms policy. We believe in strong laws. We believe in proper licensing, storage requirements and background checks. And we believe those laws legislated by the Howard government are working. Farmers did not cause Bondi. Sports shooters did not cause Bondi. Responsible gun owners did not cause Bondi. Islamic extremists did.

If the government is serious about preventing attacks, then it should be strengthening intelligence coordination, resourcing counterterrorism agencies properly and ensuring that watchlists mean something. Regional Australians already feel under siege from this government from policies made in Canberra boardrooms by people who have never set foot on a farm and never understood the realities of rural life. The National Party will stand with responsible gun owners. We will stand with the farmers. We will stand with regional Australians.

Australians want accountability, honesty and laws that actually make them safer, not laws that are simply a vanity project for this prime minister. I will be opposing this legislation.

David Batt (Hinkler, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

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

I am unable to support this bill, and I won't support this bill. One of the issues that many in our electorate have is that this has been a political response to the horrific crime that was perpetrated on 14 December 2025. Many have noted that the government's first reaction to this atrocity was to call for firearm reform rather than a royal commission, which would shine a light on exactly what happened here. It smacked of a political response and the avoidance of scrutiny. This has caused widespread anger amongst law-abiding gun owners in our region who believe that the government has unfairly targeted them, rather than uncovering all the facts that led to this evil crime.

One of the questions that many people in our communities have raised is how it is that terrorists were allowed by the New South Wales government to have access to licensed guns in circumstances where they were known to the federal security services as having links to extremists as far back as 2019. They're also asking questions such as why the terrorists' recent trip to the Philippines didn't raise any red flags. Our police and security services do an extraordinary job in keeping our community safe from threats that we never even hear about. We will never know how many attacks were prevented, but this one got through, and we need to know why so that we can stop it happening again. I know that our communities are united in finding answers to these questions; however, the answers don't lie in rushed legislation with no community consultation.

The only scrutiny of this legislation occurred through a committee process which the major parties exclude the crossbench from. That's right: the major parties unite to exclude the crossbench from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which is the parliamentary committee that ran a ridiculously brief inquiry into this legislation. At the same time the sun is setting on their old political empires, they won't even countenance crossbenchers on the committee that examines this very legislation. The committee's report was only made available minutes before this debate started, yet here we are voting on this bill. It's breathtakingly arrogant, and it makes a mockery of parliamentary processes.

In Calare, we have more than 17,000 firearm-licence holders. The government has rushed these changes through without giving our regional Australians the chance to have their say. This is not the way to make good policy. We need to make sure that any changes to our gun laws are evidence based and actually address the problems they are trying to solve. The government's current proposal fails this test. It's a political response that unfairly targets law-abiding gun owners.

There are elements of the government's proposed reforms that most people in our community would support and I do too. These include the reforms to firearms background checks, which would enable Commonwealth intelligence to be shared and considered as part of firearms licensing decisions. Most Australians would be surprised that this is not already occurring, and this is a failure of successive governments and the major parties. I would also support the transmission of firearms information between relevant stakeholders to facilitate a criminal intelligence assessment being made.

I do, however, remain concerned about the consequences of a number of measures in the bill and the potential unintended consequences for law-abiding gun owners, including farmers, veterans, professional shooters, members of our community gun clubs and local businesses. This is no John Howard-style gun buyback, and the flaws in the compensation arrangements—particularly for legitimate, law-abiding firearms businesses—are there for all to see. The undeniable fact is that criminals are not the ones that are going to be handing in firearms as part of a buyback. What our communities would like to see is a comprehensive national effort to tackle illegal firearms and the trade in them. Sadly, the government did not take the time to consult with regional communities and rushed this legislation out while at the same time resisting a royal commission until the weight of public opinion simply became too great.

I will continue to stand up for law-abiding gun owners in the Central West, and I will continue to hold the government to account on this issue. Unfortunately, this rushed response was born out of a desire to avoid the scrutiny of a royal commission. Everyone in our region supports genuine measures to make our community safer, but we need a response that is based on evidence and facts, not politics. This should be the government's priority, not targeting law-abiding citizens.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The 15 souls that tragically lost their lives on 14 December on the beach at Bondi are owed at least the honesty of their polity. The honest truth—perhaps the hard truth for those opposite—is that we don't have a gun problem in this country; we have a problem with radical Islamic extremism. Objectively, a reasonable person might conclude that the US does have a gun problem, but we don't. We have some of the strictest gun laws in the world, a product of very hard decisions taken by former prime minister John Howard and his government. That's why I can't support these changes in the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026.

They're a product of a couple of things, principally an attempt to hoodwink the Australian people and, sadly, to gaslight lawful, legitimate licensed Australian gun owners. I'm not going to stand in this place and support it. I know many of my colleagues won't either. The truth—again, a hard truth for those opposite—is that what happened at Bondi was not a failure of our national gun laws but a failure of national leadership. When the time came to deal with the rising tide of antisemitism in this country, our national leadership hid under the doona. We should be reflecting on those poor choices, not seeking to strengthen gun laws in effect as an attempt to distract people from what actually happened here. I remind the House that these terrorists not only had firearms; they also had improvised explosive devices. I remind the House that we have seen this kind of terror in Sydney with people wielding knives. I remind the House that we've seen it in Melbourne with people driving motor vehicles. It's always the motivation; it's never the method. I say to those opposite: please, don't gaslight Australian gun owners.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to point out to the House that law-abiding, gun-owning farmers, sporting shooters, recreational shooters, hunters and people who like to get out in the bush and do a bit of target practice are being scapegoated by this government. In the electorate of O'Connor we have many gun owners. We've heard from government members today that—shock, horror—there are four million guns in this country; that's seven people for every one gun. Well, I can tell you that, in the electorate of O'Connor, that ratio would be far higher. Yet, when I think back on my 13 years as the member for O'Connor and how many terrorist attacks there have been in the electorate of O'Connor, that number is zero. When I think back on any serious gun crimes that have taken place in my electorate of O'Connor in 13 years, the number is zero. That would suggest, to me, that it's not the guns or the number of guns that are the problem.

An additional factor for Western Australians in this debate is that we have just been through a gun buyback scheme conducted by the Western Australian government. As a licensed gun owner myself, I found that process quite traumatic. My dealings with the police department made me feel as if I was a suspected criminal. Many people contacted me—even though I'm a federal member and this was state legislation—about how intimidating and difficult that process was for them. They are now going to be subjected to that process a second time. This ramps up what the Western Australian government did.

I'm very disappointed that the member for Hunter isn't here to talk about what he thinks about making vests illegal. The vests that clay target shooters and other shooters, including pistol shooters, wear as a matter of course as part of their sport will now be deemed to be illegal and punishable by a jail sentence of up to five years. Reloading—which is par for the course for sporting shooters, to reload their own ammunition—will now be punished by up to five years in prison. I conclude today by saying that I strongly oppose the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, and I will always fight for the rights of law-abiding citizens in my electorate of O'Connor.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot support this Albanese firearms bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. In Australia, we already have some the most restrictive gun laws in the world. You can't just go and buy a gun when you please. There are already restrictions, waiting periods, a genuine needs test and an intensive licensing regime. This bill risks punishing law-abiding citizens while failing to address the root cause of extremism and terrorism. The root cause of the Bondi terrorist attack was radical Islam; the government should be laser focused on combating that issue instead of going after law-abiding firearm owners.

Antisemitism in this country has been building for some time, and we needed to take action a long time ago. This legislation is simply a stunt to make it look like the Albanese government is taking action. Just slapping the words 'Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism' into the title of the bill doesn't mean that the legislation will have that effect. Who do we expect to actually hand back their guns under this regime? It will, of course, be the law-abiding owners like WA farmers, recreational shooters and hunters. It won't be the criminal gangs or anyone intending to do us harm.

This falls well short of the Prime Minister's own stated goal of instituting a John Howard buyback. There is no legislative guarantee of fair-market value compensation for property surrendered, which would be consistent with the 1996 model. Additionally, there is no legislative guarantee of compensation for hardship and loss of business, including the buyout of businesses deemed unviable. Rushing this legislation shows a contempt for Australia's one million gun owners. Guns have a real purpose for many in my community, whether they be farmers who need guns for pest management or their livestock, or for recreation, which I know they enjoy seriously in my electorate of Durack—they are entitled enjoy that sport.

The coalition will not be supporting this legislation, but, unfortunately, it looks like some dirty deal has already been done between the Labor Party and the Greens political party. This will be just the latest in a long list of examples of the Labor-Greens alliance penalising regional Western Australia. We've seen this play before. We've seen the contempt of the WA Labor government, and now we are seeing it from the federal Labor government. Like the WA Labor gun law changes, it is the law-abiding WA farmers, pastoralists, shooting clubs and firearms businesses that will bear the brunt of this legislation, which will do nothing to confront the threat from radical Islamists or extremists in our community. I can't support this legislation.

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

The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 comes before the House in the shadow of the Bondi terrorist attack. In the weeks since the tragedy, my office has heard a consistent and deeply troubling question from the community: how did the attackers gain access to firearms? The government repeatedly tells Australians we have some of the strongest gun laws in the world, and many on this side have repeatedly said that, but the laws are only strong if they are maintained, enforced and fit for our modern reality. Since Port Arthur, these laws have been steadily eroded through complacency, inconsistency and a failure to keep pace with technology.

Australians can own firearms for legitimate recreational and occupational purposes, but ownership must always be matched with strong modern safety provisions. What concerns my community is the growing number of firearms held in dense urban areas and the simple question that follows: how many guns are actually in our communities? In 2026 Australia still does not have a national digital firearms register; instead, we rely on a paper based system. That is ludicrous. You have to renew your passport or your drivers licence, but we don't have a digital register of gun ownership. It's outdated, ineffective and, quite frankly, just unacceptable. Without a proper digital system we do not truly know how many guns exist, where they are and who has access to them. At a time of heightened social tension, increasing online radicalisation and a domestic violence crisis, this failure has very real consequences. We know that we need to act decisively, and I commend the government for doing this, but the process of this legislation is simply unacceptable. There has not been proper consultation, and there has not been time to properly review this legislation and assess whether it's actually strong enough.

The people in Warringah, overwhelmingly, want stronger national gun laws. They believe that firearms should not be in dense urban communities and that women escaping domestic violence should not have to fear that their former partners have access to firearms or licences. While we receive assurances constantly from police and government, the system fails when, ultimately, that violence remains. We know we need to act decisively. We need strong changes. I commend some changes, but we absolutely need to do more when it comes to this.

For more than a decade, gun lobby groups have sought to weaken our firearms laws. We've seen proposals to normalise expanded firearm use, including attempts to enshrine a so-called 'right to hunt' and to broaden access under land management frameworks. This bill sits within a broader and ongoing responsibility to put public safety ahead of political pressure. While there are strengthened controls at a federal level, particularly around the importation of firearms, we must also confront the growth of domestic firearm manufacturing in Australia. Production accelerated during COVID, largely beyond federal oversight. This is an area that requires stronger regulation by state and territory governments to ensure accountability and safety. We must ensure all Australians are safe from gun violence. We know from domestic violence allegations and interim AVOs that these areas should also be considered when it comes to background checks.

This is not the USA; this is Australia. We want genuinely strong gun controls. While I will support this legislation, I urge the government to go further and ensure that background checks properly assess the risk and safety of all Australians.

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

The member for Monash has the call for 30 seconds.

Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot support this legislation, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, which punishes responsible gun owners, sporting shooters and farmers in my electorate of Monash. It is bad legislation and it does nothing to address the real issues that, as a federal parliament, we should be focused on.

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

Order! Under the terms of the resolution passed unanimously by the House yesterday, the second reading is concluding no later than 10.30. It being 10.30, I shall now put the question to the House that the bill be read a second time.

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

Mr Speaker, do I have the right to move an amendment?

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

No. Resume your seat, Member for Kennedy. We shall get to consideration in detail after we put the second reading, which I am doing now. The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.