Second Reading
Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:11): I am pleased to rise on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2026, which comes from a background of sheer tragedy – an appalling waste of life and an appalling terrorist act in New South Wales in Bondi. But it is important that governments around the nation respond in appropriate measure. I have never supported and the Nationals will never support making law-abiding firearms owners pay for the actions of terrorists or criminals. I did not agree with much of what the former Premier had to say in her policies, but I did agree and do agree with the government’s rejection of the Ken Lay recommendation for a cap on individual firearms owners. That would have been an absurd position, and I am very pleased that the government has chosen not to implement that recommendation from the Ken Lay review.
The simple fact of this is that – and New South Wales has done this for reasons that are beyond me, political, obviously – capping the number of guns for every firearms owner would have had no impact on the Bondi event. There were three firearms involved in the Bondi event, and we also know that there were improvised explosive devices available. We also know that if terrorists do not have guns or do not have improvised explosive devices, they will use knives, they will use trucks, they will use vehicles, they will use whatever. It is not appropriate for governments to penalise law-abiding firearms owners in response to these events. Again, as I said, it is not a position I find myself in very often, but I actually commend the government for not accepting the recommendation to implement caps.
There are elements of this bill that I am certainly concerned about, and I will go to those in a moment. This legislation imposes a citizenship requirement on anyone who owns a firearm or has a firearms licence and makes various amendments to the Firearms Amendment Act 2018. In particular, it makes amendments to firearm prohibition order offences, including penalties for failing to notify the Chief Commissioner of Police of a change of address. It defines a new threshold for trafficable firearms and inserts new chief commissioner cancellation rights over dealers’ licences. It also gives the chief commissioner new powers to reclassify firearms categories for 12 months, which is a little bit of a concern. I understand the chief commissioner has interim powers now, and these will be temporary powers, or it may be the other way around. I am happy to be corrected on that. We did ask in the government briefing what that means, what the difference is, and it was not clear. We did ask for the government to come back to us, as far as I am aware, via the shadow minister. We did not get an answer to that question: what is the difference between the existing powers and the new powers? Whilst the chief commissioner needs to have those powers, it is important that they are used appropriately. We have seen in the past attempts by governments and police across the nation to reclassify certain firearms simply because they look a bit scary or they are a bit different and new, and we need to have people who actually understand firearms and what their uses are. The classic example of where that has not occurred was the New South Wales Premier’s references to belt-loaded shotguns, which are something that does not exist – there is no such thing as a belt-loaded shotgun. So we need to have people making decisions based on reality.
Frankly, the fact that national cabinet met the very day after Bondi and made a whole lot of recommendations that this legislation is coming from appalled me. It is an appalling way to go about policy. I know that governments feel the need to react and react quickly, but to be literally making commitments the day after the Bondi tragedy I think was hasty and kneejerk and silly and had the power, as it did in New South Wales, to actually unfairly penalise law-abiding firearms owners. So when it comes to the chief commissioner’s new powers of reclassification, I am concerned as to how they will be used and as to the actual detail behind them. Absolutely, there are developments in firearms, and I understand this is largely directed towards the potential for 3D-printed firearms, and absolutely they can be done very quickly and therefore there may well be the need for the chief commissioner to have powers to reclassify particular firearms in that respect. But they need to be carefully utilised, and we need to ensure that facts are at hand and that law-abiding firearms owners are not unfairly penalised.
Similarly, I understand the thinking behind the national AusCheck system being introduced, but we are concerned. We have heard from many of our firearms groups, including the Australian Deer Association, Field & Game Australia and the Sporting Shooters Association, who we have consulted with on this bill. There are some that are concerned about what this new AusCheck system will mean, particularly for cost. I think it is one of those things – you want to say that the law-abiding firearms owners should not be impacted. Unfortunately, you just cannot pick out who the terrorists and bad guys are; you actually need to do these checks for everyone. That should be obvious. But I am concerned about what the cost may well be for the AusCheck system. When we asked the government in the bill briefing, they could not tell us, because they said the AusCheck system for firearms licences or firearms checks is not yet finalised and is still probably some time away. Indeed it might be a couple of years away. We have heard figures of over $500 to get an AusCheck done. When you add to that the cost of a licence renewal or a licence application, plus the cost of police checks and any other administrative fees that go with them, you could be looking at fees of over $1000 simply to get a firearms licence. There are those who are concerned – and I share their concern – that this could be a backdoor way of making it so expensive for people to get access to a firearms licence that it is prohibitive. I did not actually hear the member for Berwick’s contribution, but we are reserving our right in the other place to look at amendments to this sort of thing, because it is very difficult I think to be legislating for a system when it is not yet known what the process or the costs will be. Again, we want to make sure that we protect law-abiding firearms owners so that they can go about their business in the right way.
There is concern from some in the community about the citizenship requirement. There are clearly law-abiding permanent residents. I do not think it is a massive issue, if you want the privilege of being able to access a firearm, that you should actually be a citizen of this country; it should be perhaps one of the advantages of citizenship. In that respect there is a sensible carve-out if you are a permanent resident but not a citizen and you need a firearm for your employment, whether you are a hunter, whether you are in pest reduction, whatever it might be. There is a carve-out for that, and I think that is appropriate. Again, I welcome that.
They are some of the issues that are addressed. I think certainly the attempts by this bill and through the Ken Lay review to ensure that we are cracking down on criminals is the appropriate way to go about it. That is what we should be doing – making efforts to ensure that criminals are feeling the full force of the law when it comes to trafficking of firearms, the misuse of firearms and stopping firearms getting into the hands of bikies and organised crime, for example. They are the things that should be the focus – and obviously terrorists as well. That is what should be the focus, because the reality is one firearm in the hands of a terrorist or a criminal is one too many. A hundred firearms in the hands of a law-abiding citizen are not a problem. We have seen that it is generally not a problem. I think it is important that we acknowledge that and that the government has acknowledged that by not implementing the suggestion of a cap, which I think, as I said earlier, would literally be pointless and would have done nothing to stop the Bondi event or any other prospective event.
The Nationals are continuing to consult our communities. We have been doing multiple firearms forums around the state. I have been to ones in Ballarat, Bendigo and Morwell, and our senator Bridget McKenzie is doing them consistently around the state as well. We will continue to back law-abiding firearms owners and make sure that legislation like this is focused on cracking down on terrorists and criminals.