Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, I rise to make my contribution to this debate on the Firearms Amendment (Strengthening Firearms Security) Bill. I want to start by acknowledging that – which I think we all agree on in here – community safety is paramount and laws pertaining to firearms, firearm ownership and use should ensure, as a primary purpose and priority, the safety of our community. How we do that is clearly what’s in contention because Tasmania has a long history of gun violence.
From the colonial day horror of roving parties hunting down and eliminating Palawa people, to the tragedy of Port Arthur, the murder of a police officer just recently, and the all too regular use of firearms in domestic or other assault or robbery, guns are a common denominator in much violent crime, and we come here in the wake of another unimaginable horror. The terror attack at Bondi in December 2025 shocked us all and as with Port Arthur has left an indelible impact on many and prompted a clarion call for reform.
One of those reforms is in the realm of firearm control, so here we are today considering amendments to the firearms and sentencing acts. This in itself flows from a post-Bondi meeting of national Cabinet and an agreement between the Prime Minister and first ministers for a nationwide suite of reforms to build on and strengthen laws themselves introduced in the wake of Port Arthur.
Given the debate we’re having, it’s worth reading into Hansard the statement issued as a \ record of the 15 December National Cabinet meeting, the very day after the Bondi massacre, and it reads:
Leaders agreed that a strong, decisive and focused action was needed on gun law reform as an immediate action, including renegotiating the National Firearms Agreement, first established in the 1996 Port Arthur tragedy, to ensure it remains as robust as possible in today’s changing security environment.
First ministers agreed to strengthen gun laws across the nation and have commissioned their police ministers and attorneys-general to develop options, including: accelerating work on standing up the National Firearms Register; allowing for additional use of criminal intelligence to underpin firearms licencing that can be used in administrative licencing regimes; limiting the number of firearms to be held by anyone individual; limiting open-ended firearms licencing and the types of guns that are legal, including modifications; and a condition of a firearms licence is holding Australian citizenship.
Given the circumstances, there are sensitivities here with how we discuss the problems and how we couch proposed reforms so as not to retraumatise or further traumatise people already deeply affected and this is of critical importance. It’s important because Tasmania can have a cavalier relationship with firearms and the way we relate to them.
Consider just recently, barely a year after the murder of a police officer whilst responding to an incident on the property in the state’s northwest, the Police minister’s repeated refusal to condemn signs at Collinsvale in my electorate. Signs on the front fences of private properties that threaten explicitly gun violence against anyone who enters. ‘We don’t call 000’, reads one, complete with a hunting rifle image. ‘Trespassers will be shot, not prosecuted’, ‘No trespassing, private property, F-around and find out’, plus a rifle image. There’s no ambiguity in those messages and no denunciation by the Police minister, just a putting of it back on the people that make the threats, and I quote: In terms of private signage, that is a matter for landowners’. That is not good enough.
Both Ms Badger and Ms Butler highlighted this minister’s poor record communicating firearms issues and the echoes of the United States of America gun debate. That NRA talking points find their way into the Tasmanian debate on firearms reform post a life-changing terrorism event is a sad reflection on this government and a telltale sign that there will be some fatal flaws in this bill.
That this bill does not meet what was agreed in at National Cabinet the day after Bondi adds insult to this injury but that is why we have the parliamentary process and in a minority government situation, the responsibility presented to this Chamber is to make the amendments required to make this bill right; to make the amendments that actually meet the agreements made by the Tasmanian Premier and the advice of the Police Commissioner to meet the expectations of the community to be as safe as possible in the face of some alarming firearm statistics.
Tasmania has the highest number of registered and stolen firearms per capita in the country, with over 152,000 firearms registered to almost 38,000 licenced Tasmanians. Firearm theft has increased and infamously Tasmania has the highest rate of gun theft per capita, with almost 30 firearms stolen per 100,000 residents. This is a problem and we need to do something about it.
Ms Badger put on the record at the outset that she does not have a firearms licence. I declare here that I do, growing up on a sheep farm at Sorell, I’ve been a firearms user since childhood. I have similar memories of firing my great grandfather’s 12 gauge shotgun and had the bruises to prove it. Starting with a slug gun, I’ve owned numerous firearms and used them in line with the rules in many of the ways minister Pearce described in his contribution to this debate today: target shooting, pasture protection, feral animal control, farm management. I have vivid memories of having to shoot and bury hundreds of sheep, unable to be kept but also unable to be sold.
Today, I maintain an interest and under crop protection permit regularly hunt deer for the many of the reasons already put in this debate. Pest control, environmental protection, filling the freezer. But as a firearms user, I’m a complete believer in the well-articulated principle that firearm ownership and use is a profound privilege, not an inalienable right. With rights come responsibilities. And so it is that we have rules and regulations regarding the ownership, use, storage and transport of firearms. When it comes to the right to ownership, I’m a strong supporter of limiting it with caps. If the advice of the Police Commissioner is not enough to settle the matter, unpacking the argument of advocates might help.
I listened carefully to minister Pearce’s contribution on caps and found it pretty limp. ‘A farm does not run on a single firearm alone’, minister Pearce debated. Well, no, it doesn’t, but neither is the amendment proposed to implement caps, an amendment to limit ownership to one. The amendment before us will be for a limit of 10 firearms for primary producers, with significantly the capacity for an owner to extend this to more with the approval of the Commissioner. Some of the principles of his case are sound. You need the right tool for the job. Animal welfare is paramount. You can’t shoot a deer with a rabbit rifle, but the examples he gave prove the point. He wanted a firearm for vermin. He wanted one for deer. He wanted a shotgun to protect the orchard. That’s three, minister, and exactly enough for your average property owner to manage their property. But if it’s not, there’s seven more before they hit the proposed cap – 10 firearms.
I want to acknowledge the emails and advocacy we’ve received from firearm owners pushing back on the concept of caps and seeking no change for a licenced firearm owner to have unlimited firearms. But a point again to the contribution of the minister and his claim that this bill is in part to protect our way of life. When I hear those words, I hear culture war and unfounded fear, and I think that this case is no exception. How many of those emailers truly have or feel they need more than five firearms if there are recreational hunter, or 10 if they’re a farmer or a sporting shooter. How many of them truly need them? Few, if any, would be my guess. And for those that do, there is a pathway forward. Given the rise of firearm theft, the principle of less legal firearms stored in the community means less falling into foul hands is a sound one. That’s the principle behind caps, and it’s one that we support.
A critical amendment is the removal of the clause that gives a remarkable new power to the minister seeking the power to prescribe via regulation additional reasons that allow a person to possess a firearm. A new power, not justified in my mind in the debate and alarming of this, or any minister into the future.
Some of the most important amendments proposed for this bill strengthen the fit and proper purpose test for licenced firearm owners. The scourge of family and domestic violence is something we speak of in this Chamber regularly, and we have all committed to do what we can to prevent it and its impacts. Part of that is strengthening the test of firearm ownership and making sure protections are in place for some of our most vulnerable people, those subject to domestic and intimate partner violence.
Increasing the exclusion period for family violence offences from 5 to 10 years is a sound move in the interests of protecting people. The use of firearms is a known risk factor for intimate partner homicide and nationally, more than half of fatalities of women involve firearms. We must do all that we can.
This is an important bill borne from tragic circumstances. Sadly, it does not match the agreement made in National Cabinet on our behalf, so it falls on us in this Chamber to amend it to make it so. It falls on us to make it as good as it possibly can be and to support the safety of the overwhelming majority of Tasmanians who hold no interest whatsoever in firearm use aside the enjoyment of their right to live in a community that is safe from the harm that can be caused by firearms.
I want to finish by acknowledging the extraordinary work of Gun Control and other advocates, including family violence advocates: the Tasmanian Family and Sexual Violence Alliance, the Australian Medical Association, Medics for Gun Control, Stephen Bendle and the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, and Roland Browne, who’s still in the Chamber with us today, from the Gun Control Australia. Thank you for your advocacy and your ongoing work in this space. I also want to acknowledge my colleague Ms Badger for carrying the can on gun control on our behalf and doing such a good job of it.
We’ve seen a welcome level of collaboration and communication across the Chamber, and I hope it results in a stronger bill that meets our obligations as lawmakers to prioritise the safety and protection of everyday Tasmanians. This is our responsibility. In the interests of others, we cannot afford to get it wrong.
