Firearms Amendment (Strengthening Firearms Security) Bill 2026

[6.27 p.m.]

Ms BURNET (Clark) - Honourable Speaker, I rise to speak to the Firearms Amendment (Strengthening Firearms Security) Bill 2026. At the outset, I want to acknowledge those deaths at Bondi and at Port Arthur and all of those people who were impacted by those deaths, and communities who are still suffering even after many years. I also want to acknowledge those people who have been at the hands of firearms violence, who weren't at any particular mass shooting, but who live through this every day.

In our role as legislators, we bring to this place the responsibility to represent our communities and to protect freedoms, but first and foremost, our role is to keep communities safe. Some of the most persistent calls we hear, and that are aired regularly in Tasmania's parliament, are to tackle the ongoing scourge of domestic violence. Tasmania's rates of domestic violence are high. Many incidents involve gun violence, coercion, and intimidation towards women. The proposed amendments do go closer to this goal, but until such time as we reduce the number of firearms substantially, we will not be performing the fundamental role of keeping our community - women, children, men, family members, and strangers alike - safe.

In January, according to Tasmania Police figures, the number of registered firearms in Tasmania was close to 160,000. That's many more since 1996 and the tragic events of Port Arthur, when tough gun laws were introduced, principally to keep Tasmania safe by reducing access to firearms. I might add that after 1996, nationally, 640,000 guns were passed in and yet numbers since then have grown and burgeoned.

I recognise there are important reforms in this bill for which the government has to be commended, but I also recognise the unfortunate politicisation of this debate in the immediate aftermath of the Bondi tragedy. How did we get to this point? Why is 2026 so far from the unity displayed in the parliament in 1996? Reform in the wake of a tragedy should bring people together, not drive them apart. We saw in the wake of Port Arthur, across the three parties represented in this parliament at the time, a firm belief to make communities safe and, to take firearms out of circulation, firearms amnesties and buybacks. There was a distinct lack of politicking. When politicians put self-interest to the side in the pursuit of both the Tasmanian and national paramount interest of safety, we're all much better. What do we see with this bill introduced by the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management? Rather than making this reform about genuine collaboration, the Police minister has sought to pick sides and play the politics of division. This reflects poorly on the Premier as a result.

While this legislation was born in the wake of Bondi, its gestation has been much longer. The reality is that this is the first major reform of the Firearms Act since its inception over 30 years ago. In that time there have been major technological and societal changes, and a significant increase in the number of firearms in Tasmania and the number of firearms offences. Do not make any mistake that this legislation is trying to prevent another Bondi. The interim report of the Royal Commission on Anti-Semitism and Social Cohesion noted that no agency, neither Commonwealth nor state, advised that urgent legislative or regulatory reforms are required in order to prevent, detect or respond to an attack of a similar nature to the Bondi attack. This reform needs to be much more ambitious than preventing another Bondi. Why? Because most firearms-related harm occurs in domestic settings.

Firstly, for women and children in family and domestic violence situations, this legislation needs to make victims of family violence feel and be safer. We have the highest per capita rate of domestic violence of any state in the country. Family violence continues to impact on mainly women's lives every single day, as the Tasmanian Family and Sexual Violence Alliance says in its submission.

Secondly, it needs to consider the impacts of suicide. In Victoria in the 10 years to December 2025, firearm suicides equated to 342 deaths, which outnumbered firearms assaults, at 104 deaths, by more than three to one. I couldn't find this data for Tasmania, but there is no reason to think the trend wouldn't be the same. Most firearms-related self-harm is concentrated in private and domestic settings, not public places, is far more prevalent in our rural areas and disproportionately affects men and older people. These patterns tell us that effective firearms regulation is as much about preventing self-harm and family violence as it is about preventing the kind of public mass casualty events that drive political and media attention. Any firearms legislation introduced by this parliament must aim to reduce the number of suicides.

This Thursday is R U OK? and World Suicide Prevention Day. The 'Out of the Shadows' event, which recognises those lives lost to suicide and gathers those lives irrevocably changed, was held in Hobart last Friday. I attended it with other MPs, including the honourable Michael Ferguson, David O'Byrne and Mike Gaffney. I thank Lifeline for running this event each year. There are too many deaths in Tasmania by suicide and firearms, affecting mainly men in regional areas. We cannot allow this to continue.

Thirdly, any legislation we introduce must make police and first responders safer at work. We have seen the recent tragic consequences of firearms in the hands of people who shouldn't have them with the tragic death of Police Constable Keith Smith at North Motton.

There has been an emphasis by the minister on keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, and we've heard that repeated by members of the government. This is a part of successful legislation that requires immediate action. Legislation must reduce the number of firearm thefts. At least 971 firearms were stolen between 2018 and 2024, and recent police data shows 155 firearms were stolen in the year to May 2026, with only 19 per cent recovered. They say Tasmania has more than twice the number of firearm thefts per capita, There are still 15 firearms unaccounted for from the recent violent theft in Coles Bay. While most registered firearm owners are law-abiding, we know from too many examples of audits that lawful storage of firearms, ammunition and noise suppressors is often breached. This creates opportunity for mishap within home and work settings, and opportunity for firearms to fall into the wrong hands.

In framing the bill, the Police minister seems to adhere to the logic that it is not firearms owners who pose a risk to the community; it's criminals. I acknowledge the comments of Ms Butler that this is a page out of the playbook of the National Rifle Association and its supporters in the United States of America.

According to police data, the number of firearm licence cancellations in the past four years has increased by over 300 per cent; the number of firearms licence suspensions has increased by almost 50 per cent; the number of firearms offenders has risen by almost 50 per cent in the last five years; and firearms storage offences have risen by 25 per cent in the last three years. Up to 2024‑25, there has been a 35 per cent increase in the number of firearms seized compared to four years earlier. So, while most firearm owners are doing the right thing, there are situations where there are too many firearms getting into the wrong hands and not being stored appropriately. The government has chosen to target criminals rather than look at what the evidence tells us about levels of firearm ownership and risk factors.

I now turn to the approach to this bill to get to this point and what is fundamentally missing. There is a stark contrast between the tripartisan approach to firearms law reform in 1996 and the approach the current minister is embarking on now, which seeks to divide, rather than unite, both this parliament and the community. Nor does it heed the safety concerns raised by the Tasmanian police commissioner and her recommendation for caps. In contrast, the Victorian government commissioned an immediate, independent, transparent and rapid review of its firearms laws performed by a well-respected ex-police commissioner. In other words, the police were at the heart of the government's response.

The minister is putting forward a bill that was developed largely in secret without input from the crossbench. While the minister did set up an advisory committee, its members were gagged and the committee was ultimately disbanded before the final bill was even settled. We know that the final bill is vastly different from the bill that was put out for consultation. It now has up to 30 amendments, I believe, and it was only late this afternoon that my office received Mr Di Falco's proposed amendments. There are many reasons why this bill should be considered in the fullness of time with greater oversight by this House.

I  acknowledge the assistance of the minister's chief of staff and his adviser in responding to my questions and arranging briefings. During the briefing, both the department and the minister's staff acknowledged that this is a very large body of work and a very complex body of work. I want to acknowledge the advocacy of gun safety advocates but also acknowledge that there has been a lot of work put into submissions by firearm owners.

There were many submissions for and against the reform and I acknowledge the many people who want to see improvements in legislation and appreciate those who have provided their time to explain their position with myself individually and crossbench briefings. It was also clear that many of the firearm owners objecting to the reforms to the reclassification of straight pull self-ejecting firearms to Category C were unclear of the evidentiary basis for it, as well as the unclear compensation buyback arrangements and the prospect of firearms caps.

There are many unintended consequences of any legislation and our job in this House is not to leave it to the Upper House to make amendments or to do the review. I think this is fair and square, the duty of this House to look to those unintended consequences.

What's missing from this bill according to the stakeholders? The AMA have highlighted that the greatest opportunity for reducing firearms' related deaths lies in preventing suicide and self-harm, but this bill does nothing to attempt to address those issues. It does nothing to change the medical risk assessment process, which is of great concern to me, that accompanies firearms licence applications and renewals. The AMA have said in their submission firearms policy should not wait until a person becomes a criminal, a terrorist, a family violence perpetrator, or a suicide risk before it acts. However, reducing the number of firearms a person can have is not going to stop that person from using the firearms they are allowed to possess for suicide, domestic violence or terrorism. Only tighter eligibility and compliance frameworks will achieve this.

The bill does very little to improve the safety of victims of domestic violence. There have been a number of amendments flagged by Ms Johnston and the Greens to address this issue and I welcome those. The bill does very little, if anything, to reduce the number of firearms in our community. Any reduction that would have been achieved from the reclassification change is wiped away by the grandfathering provisions. According to the Police minister, there should be no limit on the number of firearms a person can own in Tasmania, and it does nothing to encourage those in possession of unregistered firearms, the so-called grey firearms, to hand them in.

According to both police and firearms owners, grey firearms are much more dangerous because they aren't in the system, so they can't be tracked or monitored. Estimates as to how many of these differ, but it is reportedly a very significant figure, so why is this bill silent on this?

The Police Commissioner in her submission specifically identified the threat of emerging technology and called for a mechanism in the bill to enable an expedited regulatory response to emerging rapid-fire firearms platforms. She noted the Victorian Government has provided authority to the Commissioner to temporarily reclassify new firearm technologies and high-risk emerging firearms, but it is missing from this bill.

In fact, probably the biggest thing missing from this bill is the Police Commissioner's support. It is quite remarkable that the Police minister would ignore the advice of his own commissioner on the issue of capping the number of firearms.

I support the aspects of the bill that synchronised the Tasmanian and national legislative changes and I just want to briefly touch on amendments. Labor clearly has indicated their intended position well in advance to include caps, but there are other amendments which, as I said, have only just come in today. So, it's all quite extraordinary to be considering amendments in this way. What I'm concerned about is how the amendments work within the constructs of the act and government's bill and some of the practical implications.

I agree with the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, who write in their submission.

Public safety laws are designed to reduce foreseeable risks across a system, not simply respond after harm has occurred. Seatbelts, pool fencing, tobacco controls, alcohol regulation, gambling restrictions and road safety rules all work on the same logic. Where a product or activity can cause serious harm, governments reduce risks by limiting access, strengthening safeguards, and preventing foreseeable danger.

I would like to move the following amendment. I move -

To leave out all words after ‘That’ and insert instead: 

The Firearms Amendment (Strengthening Firearms Security) Bill 2026 (No. 30) be referred to the Standing Committee on Government Administration B for inquiry and report thereon by 7 June 2027.

I won't use my whole time in relation to this amendment, but again point out that I think there are considerable unintended consequences and what a committee and what committee workers meant to do is to look at things in a more fulsome way. We have a complicated bill of 83 pages in front of us. We have amendments which amount to over 30, and I think the government is introducing an amendment themselves because of significant loophole that the honourable member for Franklin, Mr George, pointed out very eloquently. We also have very few opportunities to look at such serious legislation as fully as we possibly can.

I've said before that I don't think that this has been provided with enough scrutiny. I think those people who've put in submissions and then not been able to talk to an amended bill, do have an axe to grind if you like, because they should have the opportunity to raise their concerns about the amendments that the government has put in, but also the amendments that are occurring as a result of the shortcomings of the bill. I understand that the Labor party is putting up caps, suggesting caps, but that was not in the original bill. That was the draft bill.

There are reasons that both sides won't be happy about this. Those advocates for greater firearms reform might be happy and we're not necessarily going to have that support from other firearms advocates.

I appreciate the work that's gone in by the crossbench, by the Greens, by the ALP, and I appreciate those amendments, many of the amendments I support. I thank the time that each person, the Greens, the ALP, Ms Johnston have provided, that information on the amendments that they propose and have answered my questions, but to really make sure that we don't have any unintended consequences of amendment after amendment after amendment, let's look at this more fully. We have committees there to do this. If it's a matter of not having enough resources to undertake that committee work, then that is a huge problem for the functioning of this parliament. I hope that there will be support for this amendment. I remind members that a committee means that we hear from representatives, they are properly heard and we have time to get the complex legislation right rather than rushing it through. We have no reason, apart from serving the government's legislative agenda, to push this bill through this evening or on Thursday. I need answers, as yet not apparent, on how on earth there will be fewer firearms in circulation in Tasmania and how those who face gun violence in their own homes and at their workplaces are safer.