Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, Mr President. I rise today on behalf of the Greens to indicate that we support the Firearms Amendment (Strengthening Firearms Security) Bill 2026 and note the amendments in the House of Assembly that gave this bill before us today greater strength. I begin by acknowledging that this debate to strengthen our firearms legislation is born of the trauma and grief of the events at Bondi in December last year.
We are here today debating these amendments to the Firearms Act 1996 and the Sentencing Act 1997 because people use guns to hurt and kill other people. It’s that awful and it’s that simple. In a peaceful and perfect world, there would be no need to regulate or restrict firearms use. But of course, firearm-related violence is a dark and frightening reality of life. We know that, here in Tasmania; we’ve known it since colonisation and the savagery of the Black Line. Tasmanian Aboriginal people haven’t forgotten what guns inflicted on their ancestors, and nor should we. Devastated families and the Tasman Peninsula community have known it – they have lived its bitter, painful legacy for 30 years. I acknowledge the Bondi tragedy will have retraumatised those who lost loved ones, were wounded, were there, including first responders and media crews on that most terrible day, a day that changed us forever at Port Arthur.
As former premier, Michael Field OA, then of the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority, told this parliament’s 2019 firearms inquiry:
Any decision on gun laws has to be seen in the context of the relative impact on Tasmanians. This is beyond statistics. It needs to be seen in the context of those people who went through the trauma and how it will affect them, compared to any changes that would convenience gun owners and I would say that the impact would be far more traumatic for those people who were involved in it.
We hold those Tasmanians in our heart today.
Twelve days after that day in April 1996, all Australian jurisdictions signed on to the National Firearms Agreement. It took a tragedy of the shocking scale of Port Arthur for a prime minister to act and for all governments to recognise the urgent need for reform and for, to the greatest extent possible, national uniformity.
The National Firearms Agreement contained 11 resolutions:
(1) Bans of specific types of firearms, predominantly high-powered automatic and semi-automatic weapons from public spaces.
“`{=html} <!– –> “` (25) Nationwide registration of all firearms.
(26) The need for genuine reasons to own, possess or use a firearm.
(27) Licencing requirements
(28) Training as a prerequisite for licencing.
(29) Grounds for licence refusal or the cancellation and seizure of firearms.
(30) Permits to acquire.
(31) Uniform standards for the security and storage of firearms.
(32) Recording of sales.
(33) Mail order sales restrictions, and
(34) A national gun buyback.
On Tasmania’s history of firearms law reform, the Australian Gun Safety Alliance says.
Tasmania has a unique place in Australia’s firearm safety history with our world leading gun reforms having their roots in the tragedy of Port Arthur.
The support for the National Firearms Agreement and National Buyback Scheme of semi and automatic firearms was the constructive legacy of such a dark tragedy in Tasmania and Australian history.
Those gun reforms have been recognised by experts as one of the defining public health successes and we have seen dramatic reductions in firearms deaths in Australia since 1996.
And why? Because we took the most dangerous weapons, semi-automatic and automatic firearms, out of the public arena and through the national gun buyback removed hundreds of thousands of firearms from Australian society. Fewer firearms means less harm, and the evidence backs that in, which is an argument for caps on firearm ownership like Western Australia, New South Wales and the ACT have done, and which we have the opportunity here to do, with Labor’s amendments, in the interests of community safety and in line with the newly proposed object in the Firearms Act 1996.
At the time that the National Firearms Agreement was negotiated, there was also broad agreement that children should not own or use guns, but that fell by the wayside and here in Tasmania, under the Firearms Act 1996, a 12-yearold can obtain a minor’s permit to own, possess or use a firearm.
We don’t allow kids to vote until they’re 18, nor can they legally consume alcohol, and the federal government is legislating to ban under-16s from social media platforms, yet we allow 12-year-olds to have guns.
I refer this comment to the honourable member for Murchison in relation to how people who live in the city might think or assumptions about how people who live in the city might think. Even though I live in Hobart, I’ve also lived in rural Tasmania at Lachlan, and we have a shack at Nubeena. I’m accustomed to hearing gunshots ringing across the valleys of nearby farmlands in the night. I acknowledge responsible firearm ownership and use and do know there’s an argument for teaching children about responsible gun storage, safety and use when you live on the land, but 12-year-olds, particularly in an age of AI, where kids are having their developing minds being twisted and bent by ChatGPT and the like.
In February of 2025, teenager Jesse Van Rootselaar carried out a suicidal mass shooting at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School in British Columbia in Canada, killing eight and injuring many more. Jesse had spent the previous eight months in deep conversation with ChatGPT about violence and how to evade Open AIs content moderators, who’d already shut down Jesse’s first account because it discussed mass slaughter in vivid detail. Her second ChatGPT account advised don’t use real-world locations, you can still be twisted, just be clever about it. Then it encouraged her dark fantasies about building and using guns and homemade explosives, talked about her becoming a famous mass shooter, and helped her to learn about the real-world timing of mass school shootings. The result was both inevitable and utterly tragic. A young, clearly mentally unwell person with access to a dangerous technology and even more dangerous weapon. We aren’t in the United States, thank heavens, with its constitutional Second Amendment and fascination with high-powered weapons, and it’s terrible, utterly tragic, almost weekly updated history of mass shootings. There are, however, still too many guns in our community and we rightly demand those who own and use them be fit and proper persons.
Science tells us, that children’s and teenagers’ brains aren’t fully developed. Their impulse control, understanding of action and consequence is still evolving. So, it is fair to ask why we would allow 12-year-olds to have and use firearms. I ask the Leader for Government, therefore, to please advise how many current minors permits have been issued in Tasmania and whether, in retaining clauses 68-73A in relation to minors permits in the act, the government has received any advice from Tasmania Police about the potential impact of AI and other social media platforms on Tasmanian teenagers who are permitted to use firearms? If not, will the minister commit to seeking some advice on that question and bringing that advice back to this place?
We’ve heard throughout the second reading debate that there are many law-abiding, responsible firearm owners on this island and that includes people I love and respect. As the Australian Gun Safety Alliance said in its submission to the original bill,
We have always acknowledged that the vast majority of licensed firearm owners are law abiding citizens. However, the social licence that enables the privilege of using deadly weapons for recreation and sport come with significant regulation that puts public safety first.
The convenience or commercial interests of firearm owners, manufacturers, importers and retailers should never take precedence over community safety.
As my colleague, a member for Lyons, Tabatha Badger MP, reminded the House in her second reading contribution, owning a gun is a privilege, it’s not a right. If you have a firearm or access to one for employment or recreation, that privilege comes a great responsibility.
Until 1996, Tasmania was lined up with Queensland as having the weakest gun laws in the country. There was a time about 40 years ago when anyone in Tasmania over the age of 16 could own and legally use a military-style semiautomatic rifle. Before the state’s now repealed Guns Act 1991 took effect on 1 January 1993, there was no licencing or registration of any firearm except pistols. And back in 1989, when I was a young journalist at TasTV WIN, I had my first interactions with Roland Browne SC who, as a young lawyer at the time – this was well before Port Arthur – had already established Gun Control Australia. He was a relentless, passionate advocate for gun law reform, as he remains to this day. On behalf of the community I represent, I want to thank Roland Browne for all his hard work over nearly 40 years to keep Tasmanians safer.
From 1993 all gun owners had to be licensed, but only pistols and fully automatic weapons had to be registered. Semiautomatics weren’t declared a prohibited gun until nine days after the Port Arthur tragedy. And I’m certain, Mr President, at the time, that the minister who had that power under the guns act and hadn’t used it, wished very much he’d exercised it earlier. But, and it’s been reinforced in the wake of Bondi, such is the power of the gun lobby. The scare campaign around the provisions in this bill has been quite something. For law abiding firearm users, as we’ve heard a number of times in this debate, there is nothing to fear. The bill inserts an object of the act, which prioritises community safety. It says, ‘The object of this Act is to ensure that public health and public safety is the paramount consideration in relation to the regulation, registration and control of firearms within Tasmania.’ I would have thought that new object is a very good argument for caps on firearm ownership.
The bill also provides a specific classification and registration process for antique firearms, establishes our place in the architecture of the yet-to-be-formalised National Firearms Register. It reclassifies certain highly dangerous firearms; tightens offences and penalty provisions; addresses to a greater extent family violence risk in the issuing of licences, particularly after the Greens amendments in the other place; it expands the fit and proper person test, which was improved by member for Clark, Ms Johnston’s amendments in the other place; establishes new disqualifying factors relating to fraud, deception and threats, also improved by amendments from the other place; and empowers Tasmania Police and the police commissioner to act on firearms concerns before harm occurs.
The justifications for opposing reasonable caps on firearms have been very thin. Just as we did in the other place, we support Labor’s amendments. I sometimes hear members in this place say that they pride themselves on making evidence-based decisions. Well, here is some evidence. You can hear it and accept it, if you choose to, or you can not hear it and accept it if it doesn’t suit your position, but here is the evidence and this is from the Alannah & Madeleine Foundation, who I also want to thank for their relentless advocacy for a safer Australia. They say, [TBC]
It’s an unimpeachable fact that firearms are harmful and that increased firearm prevalence invariably leads to increased harm. Reducing the number of firearms in the community directly limits the means by which an individual may cause injury or death to themselves and to others. There is clear evidence that the status quo is unsafe. If we are truly evidence based, we have to accept that the evidence shows that the current status quo in Tasmania is unsafe.
We have the largest firearm deaths being self-harm. Tasmania has the highest firearm theft rate in Australia. The Police Commissioner shows that the number of firearm offenders has increased by 47 per cent since 2021-2022. The number of firearm licences cancelled or suspended since 2021 has increased by 200 per cent.
I pause here to note that is probably a case of the system actually working.
Firearms are used in approximately 11 per cent of family violence deaths. The number of threats made by firearm owners to partners is unreported but well documented by domestic and family violence agencies.
And the Foundation notes that in her submission, the Police Commissioner provided evidence of ‘The link between reducing firearms in the community and reduction of harm is well evidenced.’ The relevant question, the Foundation says, therefore, ‘is not whether fewer firearms enhance safety, the evidence overwhelmingly affirms that. Rather, it is whether allowing individuals to possess 10, 20, 50 or an unrestricted number of firearms enhances public safety.’ They cite a number of studies. A 2013 study of 27 developed countries which found a significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths. In 2025, a study of over 100 countries found a clear and strong relationship between gun ownership and gun homicide. In a cohort of 26.3 million residents of California, they found the risk of suicide by firearm among handgun owners peaked immediately after the first acquisition, that 52 per cent of all suicides by firearm among handgun owners occurred more than a year after acquisition. Authors of the US Study of adolescence estimated that adolescents’ risk of suicide was increased threefold to fourfold if they’d lived in homes with a firearm, compared with if they had not and, of course, we are not the United States, but the principle here remains the same: where there are firearms in a home, according to the evidence, there is increased risk to young people, and according to the evidence, there is increased risk to women and children in domestic and family violence situations.
We also have information provided to us by Gun Control Australia, Roland Browne, calling on us to support the introduction of caps. ‘There is important’, they say, ‘and very recent evidence of firearm misuse in Tasmania’. The Mercury on 18 September 2026 carried a report of police seizing a large quantity of shotgun ammunition, an imitation Glock pistol and methamphetamine.
Also reported was that on 17 December 2026, police seized a loaded rifle, ammunition and methamphetamine.
On 30 September in the Mercury, there was a report of a shot being fired in a street in Rokeby. The Tasmania Police Special Operations Group were called out and a crime scene established.
On 16 September this year there was a report of a decision of the Supreme Court in Purton v. Clarke that that case referred to a licenced shooter, a recreational shooter, in Launceston who had 32 guns in 2024. Police executed a warrant and found 1000 rounds of ammunition that was not secured, a high-powered rifle in a bag in a wardrobe and two silencers. Six guns that were not properly stored as they should have been.
In July of this year there were reports of 15 guns being stolen from a property in Coles Bay which was then burnt down. The homeowner was assaulted and hospitalised and none of those 15 guns that were stolen have been recovered. They’re out there in our community somewhere in the hands of criminals.
The Mercury has also reported in February this year about a Right to Information request showing 44 people had more than 50 firearms and that one gun owner in Tasmania had 309 firearms. Well, that’s a small militia force capacity there, and very troubling. Why would anyone need to own 309 firearms?
Also in September this year, the Mercury carried a report of the theft of six guns from a property in the southern Midlands. The keys to the gun safe had been left on top of the safe.
Roland Browne also says:
In the lower House we were told that shooters need one gun for rabbits, one for deer, one for Wallabies and one for something else. The need for different guns for different uses was argued by a number of members, but nothing was put forward to show why five guns for recreational shooters would be insufficient and 10 guns for agricultural purposes and animal population control would be insufficient.
It’s certainly the case where the commissioner has the power to allow more guns above the limit when the circumstances justify the situation.
There’s some evidence from Gun Control Australia, but we also have a brief sent to us by the Alannah and Madeline Foundation from the Medics for Gun Control which lists an extensive body of global research on the link between the number of guns, access to guns and community harm, and they say:
The core proposition is that more firearms equal more risk.
They say:
The evidence for caps operates through a well-established causal chain. More firearms accessible to an individual means greater lethality when misused, whether in a suicide attempt, a domestic violence incident, or a mass casualty event.
They say the Bondi massacre illustrates this directly:
a licensed father and son – the father holding six legally accumulated firearms with no cap in place – participated in an attack killing so many people.
They cite evidence across 27 developed countries: a significant positive correlation between guns per capita and firearm death rates – one of the strongest correlations in public health research. Gun ownership was a strong and independent predictor of firearm mortality on linear regression. Mental illness showed no significant correlation with national crime rates; gun ownership was a far stronger and more consistent predictor of firearm deaths than mental illness – directly refuting the ‘mental health, not guns’ argument used by opponents of caps.
They also cite a systematic review of 130 case studies across 10 countries between 1950 and 2014, which found that in certain nations, the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting purchase, including, for example, background checks and access regarding safe storage, were associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and unintentional firearm deaths in children.
The authors noted in that study that comprehensive legislative overhaul produces the most consistent results. They also cite the Australian evidence underpinning the National Firearms Agreement. A landmark 20-year study on the National Firearms Agreement had key findings: no fatal mass shootings in the 20 years following the NFA, versus 13 in the prior 18 years. The average rate of gun-related deaths fell from 3.6 per 100,000 in 1979 to 1996 to 1.2 per 100,000 in 1997 to 2013 – a significant downward trend in firearm-related suicides.
In another study on mass shootings published in 2018, the authors estimated that the NFA averted approximately 16 mass shootings that would otherwise have been expected had the pre-1996 rate continued. They point to the broader Tasmanian evidence context. Tasmania has the highest per-capita firearm ownership rate of any Australian state. Tasmania is Australia’s most decentralised state with the lowest proportion of its population living in its capital city. This rural and remote profile directly correlates with elevated firearm suicide risk. Tasmania has the highest rate of firearm theft of any Australian state. Almost 9000 Tasmanian licence holders own six or more firearms. Over 87 per cent of firearm-related deaths in Tasmania are suicide, according to the coroner’s statistics from Tasmania Police firearm safety data.
Their key point – their takeaway message to us – is the correlation between firearm availability and firearm deaths is among the strongest in public health research.
If you pride yourself on making evidence-based decisions in this place, the evidence is there if you look for it. Or, if you even look at the evidence that’s been sent through to us and really taken on board. From Stephen Bendle at the Alannah & Madeline Foundation, I quote:
We understand that this seems a complex issue. However, at its heart it’s a simple proposition. Should governments allow a relatively few people to hold an unlimited number of firearms in the Tasmanian community? The amendment to introduce limits to private ownership does not prevent a single firearm owner from pursuing their hobby, their sport, or from managing their farm. It considers that the average firearm owner has just over four firearms each and suggests a limit of five. This is a particularly important issue for the Foundation and obviously for Tasmania. We will never forget the tragedy that brought such trauma to Port Arthur and all the victims, survivors, and responders. It will forever be said that the only silver lining was Australia’s bipartisan agreement to strengthen our gun laws for the benefit of the entire community? It has undoubtedly achieved that aim.
The Bondi shooting last year has again raised the issue of firearm reform, and the community has spoken loudly that they expect their governments to respond. What we see, however, is the commercial interests of small groups expecting to assert their demands upon the rest of the community. The gun lobby has called for ‘evidence’.
The evidence is all around us that when there are more firearms in a community there is more associated harm. If we are truly evidence-based, we have to accept that the evidence shows that the current status quo in Tasmania is unsafe. The largest cause of firearm deaths is self-harm.
Tasmania has the highest firearm theft rate in Australia. The Police Commissioner shows that the number of firearm offenders has increased by 47 per cent in just five years.
The number of firearm licences cancelled or suspended in Tasmania since 2021 has increased by 200 per cent.
As I said earlier.
Firearms are used in 11 per cent of family violence deaths.
And so, the Foundation respectfully asks that you –
And that is we –
\- consider the issue of firearm caps on behalf of the entire Tasmanian community, and not just those gun owners that have coordinated an effort to influence members for personal and commercial gain.
On the question of caps, all members will have seen the letter from Tasmania Police Commissioner, Donna Adams, to Minister Ellis of 6 February this year. Reading this letter, I’m very thankful that we have a police commissioner of the quality and integrity of Donna Adams and indeed the courage, but it does make me sad that this letter was ignored by the minister.
Commissioner Adams says, in reference to the National Firearm Agreement and subsequent enactment of the Firearms Act of 1996 –
The impact of these reforms has diminished over time. The total number of firearms in circulation nationally now exceeds pre 1996 levels.
This moment provides a renewed opportunity to consider how we meet community expectations regarding the management and oversight of firearms. Many Australians remain unaware of the sheer number and types of firearms that can be legally owned and used in this country.
As Commissioner of Police, I take very seriously my dual responsibility, ensuring the safety of the Tasmanian community and safeguarding every police officer who places themselves in harm’s way each day. Firearms present a real and increasing threat to both the public and our offices. The murder of Constable Keith Smith on 16 June 2025 was a confronting reminder that the presence of a firearm can change the outcome of even the most routine policing task.
She acknowledges that the Police minister had played a vital role in supporting Tasmania Police through the budget process, but she says to the minister on behalf of Tasmania Police –
They are now looking to you to once again demonstrate continued commitment to their safety. You stood with us in the aftermath of the tragic murder of Constable Smith and we now seek your support as we confront the growing risks posed by firearms in our community.
And she goes on to say –
Public safety must take precedence over the privilege of firearms ownership.
[\…]
In terms of policy and legislative change, I reiterate my support for the national firearms reform agenda, including a proposed firearms cap.
She goes on to thank him for his leadership and for the serious consideration he and his government is giving this issue. Regrettably, we know how unserious in many ways this Police minister is, and on this issue particularly.
Before I close, I’ll talk briefly about some of the amendments in the other place. We’re very proud of our successful amendments to this bill in the House of Assembly. I commend the government for bringing this bill forward, but it was some way off making all the necessary changes to ensure Tasmania is the safest place it can be. We had a rogue Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management playing what I and many others consider to be a contemptible role in undermining the evidence for caps and the Commonwealth buyback offer. He pandered to base politics, sacked his newly minted firearms consultative committee after just two meetings, attacked a journalist asking reasonable questions about his actions and most egregiously, he ignored his own Police Commissioner.
Anyway, so much of that is history now. We worked with health, family violence, public safety advocates and members across the parliament to make changes to the legislation to improve community safety. We successfully removed the contentious grandfathering provisions to firearms reclassifications, which would have rendered them ineffectual and counter to the intent of the updated National Firearms Agreement. There are now instead fair transitional provisions. This is such an important measure to reduce the number of firearms in our community.
We secured significant family violence safety measures that mean family violence offenders will be excluded from holding a firearm for 10 years. In their submission to the draft of the bill we debate today, the Tasmanian Family and Sexual Violence Alliance points out,
\… for women and children experiencing family and sexual violence \… the reality is markedly different.
Tasmania records some of the highest rates of family and sexual violence in Australia, including the nation’s highest rates of intimate partner violence, emotional abuse, economic abuse, stalking and child maltreatment notifications. \…
At the same time, Tasmania has one of Australia’s largest registered civilian firearm populations relative to its size. As at May 2026, there were 152,186 registered firearms and 37,960 individual firearms license holders across the state. \…
The Alliance does not suggest that lawful firearm ownership causes family violence, nor that all responsible firearms owners contribute to violence against women and children. However, effective public policy requires governments to consider where known risk factors intersect and to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place.
Other Greens’ amendments to the bill would exclude a person from holding a firearm licence if they’ve been convicted of fraud relating to acquiring a firearm or a licence, threatened to use a firearm for violence or unlawful purposes, or have a prohibition order against them in another state. The parliament also voted against the proposed new unjustified and unjustifiable ministerial power to prescribe additional reasons for holding a gun. We strongly supported that being struck out in the other place.
Having spoken out about the need for firearms caps for months, the Greens were proud to stand behind Labor’s amendments to limit firearm ownership to five for recreational shooters and 10 for producers and feral animal control and the like, with the power for the Police Commissioner to approve additional firearms on the basis of genuine reasons. Honestly, who needs more than 10 guns? Anyway, if someone thinks they do, Labor’s amendment provides for that. It was very disappointing to see these changes fail in the other place.
Amendments from the crossbench and the Greens significantly improved the bill’s ability to reduce the threat of firearms to the community. I want to give the final word to the Alannah & Madeline Foundation. This was a message to us.
Good morning,
On behalf of the Alannah & Madeline Foundation, I wish you well in your deliberations on the firearm bill today.
I hope you can see through the belligerent self-interest of the gun lobby and consider the issue of firearm limits in the context of public safety for the entire population of Tasmania, the vast majority who don’t use guns but yet may have their safety influenced by those who do.
The evidence provided by medical, health, family violence, first responders and the Police Commissioner herself is overwhelmingly in support of limits.
Only a small, but disproportionately loud, number of people will be affected by limits. No-one will be prevented from owning or using a gun. The government has already limited who can have a gun and what type of gun they can have. It’s only reasonable for you, your Chamber, to also limit the ability for individuals to have as many guns as they want.
The Foundation was born from firearm violence at Port Arthur. I’m sure all members have their own links to that tragedy. We hope you take this once in a lifetime opportunity to further strengthen gun laws. I look forward with anticipation to your debate.
Regards
Stephen Bendell
And with those words, again, I can indicate we support this bill, we strongly support this bill, but we do want to see this Chamber acknowledge the evidence and support Labor’s amendment to introduce caps.
