Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. The antisemitic terror attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December last year was the deadliest terror attack on Australian soil. What steps are the Albanese government taking to address both the motivation and the means of this attack to ensure something like this can never happen again?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks Senator O'Neill, who I know has had consistent advocacy on these matters, not just since the Bondi attack but well beforehand as well. As I think all Australians know, the terrorists who carried out the antisemitic Bondi attack had hatred in their hearts and guns in their hands, and any response to this horrific attack that ignores either hatred or guns is an incomplete response. That's why the Albanese Labor government is acting on both the motivation and the method for this attack by strengthening laws to confront hate and extremism and by reforming gun laws to keep Australians safe.

Australia now has more than four million firearms in circulation. This is more than at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, which was nearly 30 years ago. That fact alone requires us to confront a difficult truth: our current system allowed someone who posed a deadly risk to legally access firearms. That cannot be allowed to happen again. The Albanese Labor government's reforms that we're considering this week restore the principle that firearms ownership in Australia is a conditional privilege secondary to public safety. So what these laws will do is reduce the number of guns in the community, strengthen background checks, improve intelligence sharing and make sure that people who do not need guns or who might pose a risk cannot obtain them. You really would think that's something that this entire parliament could support.

In the wake of the tragedy at Bondi on 14 December, we as a parliament have a responsibility to come together and act decisively to make sure that Australians can be safe and feel safe. We can do this. Just like the country did after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 and just like John Howard did 20 years ago, the government will establish a national gun buyback scheme to purchase back arms that are not necessary— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, first supplementary?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that fulsome response, Minister. Could you also explain what this means for Australian gun owners and the importance of sharing accurate information about the gun reforms?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator O'Neill. It is important that Australians have accurate information about what the gun laws the government is proposing will actually do rather than all sorts of furphies that are being propagated by people who don't support these laws to justify voting against them. Let me begin by saying that, if you have a legitimate reason to own a gun, these changes are not about you. But, of course, that hasn't stopped those opposite peddling their misinformation about what these reforms are about.

Our reforms are not a blanket ban on firearms. Our reforms will not stop Australian athletes from competing internationally or accessing the equipment they need. Our reforms will not stop those with a genuine need, such as feral-pest controllers and sporting shooters, from obtaining a firearm. Our reforms will not stop Australian farmers and primary producers from being able to perform their daily tasks. People with a genuine, legitimate reason to own a firearm, like primary producers, feral-pest controllers and sporting shooters, will still be able to— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, second supplementary?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you so much for some of the correction of misinformation. What will these sensible gun reforms mean in practice? What effect would these reforms have had on the Bondi terrorists?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks again, Senator O'Neill. If this national reform package, including the hate crimes bill and the gun law reforms, had already been in place the gunmen involved in the Bondi terrorist attack would not have been eligible to hold firearms at all. They would have had none. The father in this incident 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 of course is now facing charges, 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. Now, no-one is pretending that dealing with guns deals with everything behind Bondi attack, but it deals with the method used to commit this atrocity. We must deal with that method, despite the fact that we see some opposite pretend that these laws are about something completely different. As David Meagher, the brother of former police officer Peter Meagher who was killed at Bondi, said:

… an antisemite without a gun is just a hate-filled person, an antisemite with a gun is a killer. (Time expired)