Thursday, 30 July 2026

 Martha HAYLETT (Ripon) (15:01): I rise to speak on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2026. At its heart this bill is about one simple principle: keeping Victorians safe while continuing to support responsible gun ownership. Across Ripon and throughout rural and regional Victoria guns are part of everyday life. Farmers use them for pest control and protecting livestock, recreational hunters enjoy getting out into the bush with family and friends and sporting shooters dedicate countless hours to training and competition through local clubs. The overwhelming majority of firearm licence holders are responsible, law-abiding people. They store their firearms safely, follow the rules and understand the responsibilities that come with owning a gun. I want to make it clear from the outset that this bill is not directed at those people. This bill is directed at organised criminals, firearm traffickers, extremists and individuals who present a risk to the safety of our community. Good firearm laws must strike the right balance. They must protect the rights of legitimate firearm users while making it as difficult as possible for firearms to fall into the wrong hands. That is exactly what this bill seeks to do.

These reforms come in the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks at Sydney’s Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025. On that day Australians gathering to celebrate Hanukkah were targeted in an act of hatred and violence. Fifteen innocent people lost their lives. Dozens more were injured. Families were torn apart. Communities were left grieving. The attack shocked our whole nation. It was not just the scale of the tragedy that affected Australians; it was the fact that people had come together to celebrate their faith, spend time with loved ones and take part in a community event, only to be confronted by unimaginable violence. Our thoughts remain with the families who lost their loved ones that day, those who suffered injuries, those who witnessed the attack and the wider Jewish community, who continue to carry the pain and trauma of that day.

Following the attack, governments across Australia recognised the need to review whether our firearm laws were keeping pace with emerging threats, organised crime and extremist violence. National cabinet agreed that stronger and more consistent firearm regulations were needed across the country. This bill is a part of that response. It is about learning from tragedy and doing everything we reasonably can to make sure firearms do not end up in the hands of people who may pose a serious risk to the community.

The development of this bill has also been informed by the rapid review of Victoria’s firearms laws conducted by Ken Lay AO APM. The final report of the government’s response was released on 25 May this year, and the government made its position clear: we must continue strengthening our firearm laws while supporting legitimate firearm use.

This bill delivers on that commitment through five key reforms. First, it makes the firearm prohibition order scheme permanent. Firearm prohibition orders, or FPOs, have been operating since 2018.

They allow Victoria Police to prohibit high-risk individuals from acquiring, possessing, carrying or using firearms and firearm-related items. Victoria Police has repeatedly said these powers are one of the most effective tools available for disrupting serious and organised crime. These orders are not applied lightly. They are targeted at people who police believe pose a genuine risk to public safety because of their criminal history, behaviour or associations. Since the scheme was introduced thousands of orders have been issued and thousands of charges have been laid for breaches. The evidence is clear that the scheme is working. Without this legislation today, the scheme would expire in May 2018. This bill ensures that does not happen, because if Victoria Police have a tool that prevents dangerous individuals from accessing firearms it simply makes sense to keep that tool available.

The bill also strengthens penalties for people who ignore firearm prohibition orders. A person who has been prohibited from possessing firearms has already been identified as someone who should not have access to guns. If that person deliberately chooses to possess and use firearms anyway, they are putting the community at risk. That is why the maximum penalty for possessing, carrying or using a firearm while subject to an FPO will increase from 10 years imprisonment to 15 years imprisonment. The same increase will apply to people who knowingly supply firearms to someone who is prohibited from possessing them. These are serious offences, and they deserve serious consequences.

The second major reform relates to firearms trafficking. Illegal firearms trafficking fuels organised crime. The more guns that find their way into criminal networks, the greater the risk to public safety. This bill introduces a clear distinction between different levels of firearms trafficking. Under the reforms, possessing between two and nine firearms unlawfully will be treated as a trafficable quantity. Possessing more than 10 or more firearms unlawfully will be treated as a large trafficable quantity. That distinction matters. Someone unlawfully dealing with 10 or more firearms presents a very different risk to someone involved in lower level offending. The law should recognise that difference. Under this bill offences involving large trafficable quantities of firearms will attract significantly tougher penalties, including penalties of up to 15 years imprisonment. These changes make sure the most serious firearms trafficking operations face penalties that reflect the danger they pose to the Victorian community.

The third reform introduces a citizenship requirement for firearms licensing. Under the bill firearms licence holders will generally be required to be Australian citizens or New Zealand citizens who are permanent residents or otherwise fall within specified exemptions. Importantly, exemptions will apply where a person genuinely requires a firearm to earn a livelihood. The legislation also includes safeguards, including written notification requirements, opportunities to provide evidence and review rights. This reform is designed to strengthen confidence in Victoria’s licensing system while making sure appropriate protections remain in place.

The fourth reform establishes a Commonwealth firearms background-checking regime through AusCheck. This is a significant national reform. AusCheck already undertakes background checking for workers in some of Australia’s most security-sensitive industries and facilities. The new system will allow relevant national security and intelligence information to be considered when firearms-licensing decisions are made. Importantly, this means agencies such as ASIO and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission will be able to contribute information that may identify security risks, organised crime links or other serious concerns. A stronger national approach to information sharing makes sense and will help ensure potentially dangerous individuals are identified before they gain access to guns.

Finally, the bill modernises the way firearms can be categorised. Firearms technology is constantly evolving. These amendments will allow Victoria to respond more quickly when new firearm technologies emerge that may create risks not anticipated under existing laws. This gives police and government greater flexibility to act quickly where necessary while maintaining consistency with national firearm arrangements.

I also want to acknowledge the important contribution of sporting shooters, hunting organisations and local firearm clubs across the electorate of Ripon. These organisations do tremendous work promoting safe firearm use, education, training and responsible participation. I thank the amazing volunteers who dedicate their time to running clubs, mentoring new members and maintaining a culture of safety. That includes the Ballarat Pistol Club, Ararat Rifle Club, Ararat & Stawell Field & Game, Ararat Clay Target Club, Clunes Field & Game, Dunolly Field and Game, Beaufort Gun Club, Maryborough & District Gun Club, Maryborough Rifle Club, St Arnaud Gun Club and St Arnaud Rifle Club.

These clubs demonstrate something that is often forgotten in public debate: responsible firearm ownership and strong firearm laws are not opposing ideas. In fact, many responsible firearm owners are among the strongest advocates for keeping guns out of criminal hands. They understand that community confidence in firearms ownership depends on strong licensing, strong compliance and strong penalties for those who abuse the system.

I also want to acknowledge the engagement of stakeholder groups, including the Sporting Shooters Association of Victoria and others who have contributed constructively throughout the development of these reforms. Their input has helped ensure that government has achieved an appropriate balance.

This bill does not place a cap on the number of firearms a person may lawfully own. It does not undermine legitimate farming, hunting or sporting activities. What it does do is strengthen the safeguards around who can access firearms and increase the penalties for those who seek to misuse them. Ultimately, this bill sends a clear message: if you are a responsible firearm owner who follows the law, these reforms are not aimed at you. But if you are a firearm trafficker, an organised criminal, an extremist or someone who presents a serious risk to our community, Victoria will continue to strengthen its laws to stop guns getting into your hands. That is a goal I believe every Victorian can support. I commend the bill to the house.

 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 of 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 with reclassification, I am concerned as to how they will be used and 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 it needs to be carefully utilised, and it needs 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 and 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 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 for 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 it, 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 is or what the costs will be. Again, we want to make sure that we will 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 that 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 in 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.

 John LISTER (Werribee) (15:21): I rise this afternoon to speak on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2026. As a few of the speakers have already foreshadowed, the reason why we are here is very much around what happened in that abhorrent attack at Bondi Beach in December last year that took the lives of those 15 innocent people. Particularly in the aftermath, our response really needed to be strong and show that we want to make sure that people who have access to firearms are responsible people – and I have to say the vast, vast majority of people who have access to firearms are very responsible people, and I will get to why in just a moment – but also to make sure that we restrict the ability for weapons to be in the hands of people who are going to do the wrong thing, which goes to the firearms prohibition orders in this bill as well.

When we first announced the Ken Lay review post the national cabinet process, I made very sure to approach my local clubs that use guns, particularly the Werribee Rifle Club. We have a strong sporting shooting tradition in Werribee, particularly up the top of Ballan Road at the international sporting shooters complex. We have had an Olympic sport shooter from Werribee in fact. So it was particularly important for me to engage with them very early on to assure them that the government’s focus was not about being punitive towards responsible firearms owners but making sure that the laws we had were appropriate and we were responding to changing circumstances in our community as well.

I also had many residents who emailed me. Of course a lot of them were coming out saying, ‘Labor’s no friend of shooters.’ Look, I understand there have been times in the past when we have come down quite hard on this side on restrictions around gun ownership, and it can be difficult. It is not an easy thing to own or use a gun in Victoria, nor should it be. But those residents were quite reasonable and came up with a lot of good points, particularly around some of the things that the Lay report recommended that the government has chosen not to include in this legislation around the idea of limits on the number of firearms a licensed firearms owner can possess.

I want to reflect on this for just one moment. I think one of the issues when we start talking about limits on firearms and classifications of different firearms that people have is that we start to get into some really difficult territory because they are used for a wide variety of reasons by people, legitimately, who have gone through the licensing process as well. To start putting a number on it became way too much of a strange academic exercise. I had these people emailing me back and forth – ‘is it five, is it four, is it six, is it eight?’ We know on principle that having fewer firearms in the community does reduce the risk of firearms getting into the hands of the wrong people, either through theft or them getting lost or not being tracked.

I know that is extremely rare, but it does still happen. Particularly in my previous life working for the Minister for Police, that was something that we were looking into quite closely through the firearms section at Victoria Police – how we keep that tracking up to date and modern, how we make sure that security is something that is monitored with firearms owners and how they are storing their guns, and resourcing those sections of Victoria Police as well. I think we start getting into that academic exercise of just how many is too many, but what is more important is ensuring we have a framework, and a strong firearms framework, that outlines what responsible ownership looks like, what storage should be and how they should be used, and not necessarily getting into numbers.

As I have said, the vast majority of gun owners do the right thing. This bill is about targeting those who seek to do harm in our community with a firearm, especially with the provisions that we are putting in around firearms prohibition orders. We have a long and proud history of introducing strong and sensible gun laws in this government, from as early as 2018. I remember when these were going through. I was a parliamentary adviser at the time for the minister when we were bringing through firearm prohibition orders. They have been so successful in giving Victoria Police a very, very dynamic tool to be able to target and crack down on organised crime. I remember when we brought them in, there was a little bit of commentary in the media from sources close to organised crime who said that ‘we are now all cooked’, which was an interesting expression and well ahead of the times in 2018. FPOs give police a wide range of powers to be able to monitor and search and make sure that people who should not have firearms do not have firearms.

We have not left it there over time. We also had some storage changes in 2021 which enhanced the different storage requirements for those category A and B firearms. In 2024 we went forward with more amendments to FPO services. That was particularly in the way that police had to serve those different warrants that they had to be able to enter a premises to serve that FPO. We also in 2024 reduced the magazine capacity for bolt action shotguns, which are very hectic firearms – reasonable in some cases for different uses, but they do look pretty hectic. We also and in particular responded to increasing concerns around digital blueprints for the manufacture of 3D-printed firearms. There are some particularly scary documentaries from the States about how those are being used in the commission of different crimes.

This bill goes to further strengthen firearms prohibition orders, including removing the sunset provisions. We passed these laws in 2018. We are coming close to 2028. This will make the FPO scheme permanent in Victorian law. This is important, because since 2018 we have issued 2767 FPOs and laid nearly 2000 charges relating to breaches of FPOs. In fact last year 235 FPOs were served by Victoria Police, and they are an extremely important tool in fighting organised crime, particularly in the circumstances that we see currently with organised crime.

The other thing that we do with our FPO changes is increase the maximum penalties for people who acquire, possess, carry or use a firearm or a firearm-related item in contravention of an FPO, making sure that it is clear to those who have one issued against them that any kind of grey area is not there and they will be held to account for breaching that order.

I do just want to briefly turn to the idea of the citizenship requirements, like those introduced across the entire country, restricting Victorian firearms licences to Australian and New Zealand citizens who are permanent residents of Australia and to non-citizens who need a firearm for work. This is a particularly important part, a little carve-out there. I acknowledge some of the concerns of the Nationals around that. It is an important tool in the country.

I know myself that for my family up in Mildura and out in the Western District they are things that are on the farm, and they do have people who work for them who are from overseas, as part of different schemes that we have in agriculture, who may need to use those firearms at work. It also ensures that we have that background information supplied from other jurisdictions as part of that licensing process, to make sure that whatever place the people have come from – interstate or sometimes overseas – we have all of that information to be able to complete those background checks.

Something else that we do with these reforms is strengthening those background checks. We do acknowledge that the majority of firearms owners are very responsible people, and they have to be when they are handling things like firearms. One of the statistics I have to use, unfortunately, is game licences. We do not publish postcode to postcode figures for guns, which is very reasonable; Victoria Police do not want people knowing where they can start going to break into people’s houses and stealing them. But what I do have is that we have over 500 game licences in Wyndham, which is a pretty good indication that we have a lot of people who use guns. It is important that we have good background checks, because when you have so many people, there will be people out there that should not possess those firearms, and we need to make sure that we can keep up with that. We are also introducing harsher penalties and expanding the Chief Commissioner of Police’s powers to temporarily reclassify firearms to give the chief commissioner the power they need to keep our community safe. On that, I commend this bill to the house.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (15:31): We must do everything we can to get guns out of the hands of the wrong people, and that is why I support a number of these changes that have been proposed today. These are changes that are being made as a result of the Bondi terrorist attack on 14 December – the worst terrorist attack that we have seen on Australian soil, an attack that changed our lives as we know them and that changed the way we all go about our lives each and every day. I can certainly say in my electorate of Caulfield it has had an effect on many of my constituents – to the point where some have even questioned the safety of being here in this country and have increased their security tenfold.

The vast majority of gun owners do the right thing, and this bill is not about them. It is about criminals, it is about organised crime and it is about extremists, and we have got to do everything we can to take guns out of the hands of extremists. We know what happened in Bondi was not just about the guns. It was about an evil indoctrination of a father and a son to attack a group of people simply because of their background and simply because of their religion. It was at a time which was a very joyous celebration, Hanukkah, on a public beach – a community celebration that invited not just Jews but all Australians together. The wonderful thing about Australia is we have always celebrated people’s backgrounds and their faiths and their cultures in such a beautiful way. That was taken away from us – hopefully temporarily – in that Bondi attack, and that is why we owe it to governments, both at the federal and the state levels, to do everything we can to keep people safe and to ensure we get guns out of the hands of these criminals and extremists but also do whatever we can to ensure that that kind of hate has no place at all in our state.

A number of these changes are about ensuring that those that should not be carrying guns are not carrying guns. We have had contributions from many of the government today talking about firearm prohibition orders, or FPOs. As a former Shadow Minister for Police, I know that has been a tool that police have used over a number of years, albeit it has had lots of holes in it, which the government has tried to plug over the years. We have had many situations where bikies have been licensed and carrying guns, and many would ask how with criminal records they have still been able to have a gun. A lot of that is being ironed out now, but certainly over the years there were huge gaps that we raised, particularly where outlaw motorcycle gangs were carrying weapons.

It is really important to add that Bondi happened in Sydney, but we have had our fair share of problems here in Melbourne. When, on 6 December 2024, we saw the firebombing of Adass, that was a very important turning point for us here in Victoria, because it was linked to a terrorist attack, once again, on Australian soil. It was linked to the Iranian Islamic regime, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It led also to the extradition of and closure of the diplomatic offices and the consul and ambassador of Iran. All of that followed further reports and investigations by ASIO. It is important to point that out. What is further important to point out is that many of those people that are linked to the Adass firebombing have also been connected to many of the tobacco firebombings that we are all seeing across this state.

We have an absolute crime capital right in the heartland of Melbourne. It is gangland city here in Melbourne. There are guns, there are bikies, there are terrorists that have been linked to all of this as well. That is why we must do everything we possibly can to stamp this out. This is tip-of-the-iceberg stuff. Certainly we have got to get the weapons out of these individuals’ hands. But do you think these licencing changes alone are going to stop that? No, because many of these individuals that seek to attack in the way that they do will find ways to get weapons; they will find ways to make their attacks. That is not to say we do not have an obligation here to do better, and that is why I support the changes that have been put in front of us. But we must also ensure that both ASIO and Victoria Police are properly funded and that we have the laws necessary to deal with those individuals that are responsible for these attacks.

It has taken a long time to deal with those responsible for the Adass firebombing, and there is still a fair way to go. There is a lot still to be done in terms of the tobacco stores that we have seen, in terms of holding those individuals to account. The fact is that a lot of this can be done and directed literally on remote from Iran and Iraq, where you have got foreign actors that are actually literally pulling the trigger here in Melbourne. How is that possible, how is that allowable and how is it that Melbourne is the capital when it comes to these types of organised crime? It is not just tobacco stores, but now it is pubs and clubs and restaurants that have all been connected to these types of threats, intimidation, violence and straight-out gangland attacks. All of that needs to change. For all of that we need better laws.

I like some of the elements of this in terms of the signal, which suggests that it is citizens that should be afforded the ability to own a licence. It is an important signal. Obviously there are carve-outs for those non-citizens if they need them for work purposes or other things. But I think we do need to have that signal to say that we have a very, very strong law in this country to deal with this kind of thing. We cannot be lax when it comes to safety. We have got to be strong. We have got to show strength. We have got to have consequences. We have seen the ISIS brides, and I know a lot of this is international and federal in terms of the links to this, but all of that coming to Victoria, coming to Australia – these individuals that have been over in the Middle East, doing what they have been doing and bringing that stuff here into our state: we cannot have that. We absolutely cannot have that. There should be absolutely no place for extremists whatsoever, and we need very, very strong immigration laws when it comes to that. I have been on record as probably the biggest supporter for immigration. I love immigration, but I have a real issue when we have extremists and those extremists are allowed back into this state. I think that it is really important to make that differentiation.

This is important. It is important that the Chief Commissioner of Police has ultimate powers here when it comes to some of the changes as well. It is important that AusCheck are involved as well in terms of security checks. When I have spoken to Victoria Police, they have told me how many individuals have been on watchlists but have still got firearms. I really hope that these laws will deal with a lot of that as well.

I understand when people are on watchlists, that potentially means that they do not want to disclose to the individual that they are on a watchlist, but, again, we need to ensure that safety is paramount here. We have got to do what we can to ensure the safety of all Victorians no matter who they are or their background. When people do not feel safe in this state, the government has failed them. That has happened over the last few years. It certainly happened with the Adass firebombing. It certainly happened again with the Bondi attack, and we have seen it even in more recent times with attacks on other individuals and buildings and facilities and even in the ongoing hijacking of our city in those weekly protests that we have had as well. We have got to stop all of that. We have got to have laws, we have got to have consequences, we have got to have more police and we have got to ensure that all of this works. It is the one thing that the government needs to absolutely get right. If people do not feel safe, then the rest of it unfortunately falls second and third, because if they cannot leave their home or they are scared even in their own home, which many people are in this state, then the government has failed them.

I am certainly happy that the government is moving this forward. Again, we have just come off a royal commission. The federal government was dragged kicking and screaming to that royal commission, and that is very interesting. I hope that Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion delivers the results that it has promised, but we must do everything we possibly can to keep all Victorians safe.

 Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (15:41): I also rise to speak on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2026. As previous speakers have mentioned and we all know, these legislative changes that we are debating really came out of the tragic Bondi Beach massacre, a mass shooting that targeted a Jewish Hanukkah celebration and of course a horrific event that shocked the nation and demanded action from government at both the federal and the state level. We know that governments have a duty and an obligation to review, to investigate and to act to prevent such heinous crimes happening and to learn from these things so they do not happen again.

This legislation that we are talking about today, immediately or very urgently, the state Labor government did what they called a rapid review of gun laws in Victoria. There was also, immediately following this terrible massacre, a calling of the national cabinet to talk about what action was going to be taken and how to respond. The combination of both that rapid review of firearm legislation that was undertaken in Victoria and measures that came out of the discussions at the national level through the national cabinet is what we are talking about today – the result of those two forums to bring about legislation to make our state even safer and to ensure that we review and make sure that firearm legislation protects people, so we keep guns out of the hands of criminals that commit crimes and want to harm people with guns, but also balance that with a process and a framework that ensures that that there are still guns for those legitimate gun owners that need those guns for either their work or perhaps their livelihoods in regional areas for farming and doing things such as getting rid of feral animals on properties and that need to use them in the course of their work or livelihood. It is hoped that this legislation continues to build on the reform that the Labor government has made to firearms over time. This continues to build on that legislation to make it even safer for all of us, as well as ensuring that those that need to have gun licences and have firearms can continue to do so as well within very strict guidelines and very strict licensing procedures.

Just going to some of the legislative changes that this bill is looking to implement, one that has been debated quite a bit and quite a lot has been made of is the fact that at least one of the shooters in the terrible Bondi tragedy was not a citizen of Australia, and how is it that you can own guns without being a citizen?

This legislation that we are debating today does change that so that it is citizens or New Zealand permanent residents that are able to have licences for guns. Of course there will be those that are not citizens. I know even in the electorate of Thomastown there are people that have been here many, many years that have not really needed to or thought it was necessary to become citizens. But of course if they do have guns, this will mean that they will need to take steps to ensure that they do fit within the legislation.

Another one of the changes to be made through this legislation is of course the introduction of the Commonwealth firearms background checks and a requirement for firearms licensing that will leverage ASIO and the Australian Crime Intelligence Commission with national intelligence information. Again, one of the criticisms following the Bondi attacks was that the different intelligence agencies may not have been communicating or talking or sharing information, in a way. Sometimes that is because the legislation does not allow the sharing of information. But this was a criticism, and this legislation is about ensuring that there is the ability for the different intelligence agencies to share information to ensure that there are no gaps and there are no holes when it comes to individuals who apply for or have firearms and to ensure that the licences are very thoroughly checked and the person who is applying for the licence is thoroughly checked and does not slip through any legislative gaps. This is about ensuring that it is a holistic framework.

The legislation also repeals the Firearms Act 1996 provisions that would otherwise cause all of the provisions related to firearms prohibition orders to sunset on 8 May. Again, Victoria passed legislation around firearm prohibition orders, and this was a provision that police had requested to assist them, particularly when it came to illegal firearms and organised crime. This made it easier for them to undertake surveillance work and also to ensure that they had the necessary powers in order to intercept and of course arrest those that were carrying illegal firearms or in fact trafficking illegal firearms. Originally those provisions were to sunset on 8 May 2028, but this legislation now builds those provisions into the legislation ongoing, without having that sunset provision.

There is also an increase in penalties. Penalties have gone to a higher level to ensure that firearm offences are actually punished at a much higher level, to really show the seriousness of those offences and to make it an even stronger offence at a greater penalty for those that commit such crimes.

The bill also creates greater flexibility for the Chief Commissioner of Police to temporarily recategorise a firearm or type of firearm to expand regulation-making powers to better enable the police to respond to an emerging firearm technology of concern. I think we have talked about this a lot in the chamber, where legislation often has to be updated. It is sort of a living thing. It has to adapt and change to the way the community is changing, whether it is in their attitudes and values or whether it is to do with technology or the way that things are done. Legislation always has to keep up with those changes, and this is another example of legislation being used for that purpose.

When it comes to gun legislation and guns, there have always been many different points of view from many different people within our community. There are those that say we should never have any guns, and of course there are those that say there should be no restriction on guns with this sort of crazy idea that it is not the gun, it is the person.

But I think this legislation makes practical changes that try to accommodate all the views within Victoria and ensure that those that have lawful reasons for guns are able to go around their business. And for those that believe that we need the toughest of protections, it is also looking at that.

I have to give a shout-out – there are a number of constituents of the Thomastown electorate that do recreational hunting, and they also are members of a number of gun clubs. The Metropolitan Clay Target Club was in fact based in Epping for many, many years until that private land was – I think the developer evicted the club. Even though we tried very, very hard to find more land within the City of Whittlesea in order for them to relocate, it became very difficult because of the different aspects of the land, the requirements of the land and the amount of land in the outer suburbs, where of course it is also very expensive, as the subdivisions are rapidly happening to split up land for the purpose of residential housing. I think now a lot of them are in Werribee at the gun club over there, so it is good that they can continue to do this recreational sport.

I think this legislation will continue to make us safer and ensure that firearms are not – (Time expired)

 Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (15:51): I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2026 before us and recognise that the context of this bill is the dreadful and alarming Bondi terrorist attack, which I will talk about in a moment. Perhaps without that attack some of these reforms would not be being made today. In that instance the wrong people had the guns. They were in the wrong hands, and they had an evil motive. But the changes that are being made today are largely informed by the independent review conducted by the former Victorian chief of police Ken Lay. When he did his review there were 16 recommendations made and one was not adopted, the cap on guns. I was very pleased to see that that was not adopted, because there was a lot of discussion about that, certainly in my electorate, where there are many people that have multiple guns. I will touch again on that a bit later. The reforms that we have before us are around firearms licensing and the regulatory framework.

I want to start, though, with the Bondi terrorist attack which happened on 14 December, targeting Jewish Australians who were down on the beach and in the parks celebrating Hanukkah. The way that this attack went about, we were all able to see dreadful footage of what happened. I do not know if that is a good or a bad thing about it – we all have mobile phones with videos on them – but we were all able to see some of the dreadful, dreadful things that happened as well as some of the heroics. We had 15 people killed there. There were a 10-year-old girl, an Israeli citizen, a French national and an 87-year-old Holocaust survivor who had already seen plenty in his life, and about 40 were injured. We know the gunmen were father and son, and it was officially declared an act of antisemitic terrorism. As we know, the gunmen were shot at the scene. The father was killed and the son critically injured and then detained.

Following that, the Prime Minister initiated the federal Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, and I really hope that that royal commission that is underway today – and we see a lot of things that are in the media – makes a difference to antisemitism and those in the Jewish community. I have many friends in the Jewish community and I have worked extensively in and with that community too. I see the fear in a number of people living in Melbourne. Friends of mine said that they had started to learn Hebrew in case they had to relocate to Israel, because they thought that was perhaps a safer place than being in Melbourne, and this was particularly frightening for me.

More locally there has been a lot of concern and alarm in my electorate. I have been contacted by a number of residents in the Nillumbik part of my electorate who were alarmed to hear that a number of white supremacists have shifted in over several locations.

The people I know and know well, and those I do not know, all shared concerns and their fears with me about this group. Their fears were about what they might bring to the area and how they may infiltrate local groups and organisations with the intent of spreading hate. There is no place for neo-Nazism, racism or organised hate in our communities, and these ideologies are fundamentally opposed to the values of respect, inclusion and democracy that underpin our society. I encourage anybody in the Nillumbik area to be alert, perhaps not alarmed, and watch closely. I am sure and have trust that the police are also monitoring the situation and watching it carefully.

The bill, though, is around keeping firearms in the hands of the legitimate users and restricting them from getting into the wrong hands. In an area like mine, which has mountains and lots of forest but a lot of farmland, guns are very common. I myself own a firearm and have a category A and B longarm licence. I cannot take out a deer with that, but on the farm it can do a number of other things. We only have only the one gun stored very securely. But if I was to be a hunter, which many people in my electorate are because it makes such a difference to the communities – whether you are in Woods Point or in the High Country out of Mansfield or Jamieson, hunting is such an important recreation. We have an explosion in deer numbers and are trying to keep them in control. It is going to take a lot more of that. I have gun clubs everywhere. I have a small-bore gun club at West Warburton. I have shot at the rifle range in Wesburn and clay target at the Melbourne Gun Club, which is in the electorate of Evelyn just down the road. I have shot a pistol at Mansfield, and I have been to many of the other organisations where people shoot recreationally.

We know that at the Olympics pistol events, rifles and shotguns are legitimate. We have biathlons where people in the Winter Olympics are skiing and then they need to shoot. And as I have mentioned, farmers like ourselves rely on guns for pests and vermin. People may also have fairly historical guns, as many people had after the First World War. I think they issued rifles to a number of people, farmers in the area, so it is not unusual for a lot of people to have inherited probably 100-year-old rifles that were distributed some time ago. And we do store them very securely.

I remember one time quite a number of years ago, I borrowed one of Dad’s farm vehicles, his Holden Rodeo, to shift some furniture well before I was a member of Parliament. We were grabbing something from behind the seat and lo and behold there was one of Dad’s shotguns sitting in the gap. As we were in Melbourne, I was thinking, ‘I’m not sure I’m really supposed to have that with me at the moment.’ Such were the times that they were part of just doing business.

One of the things I want to touch on, because at the bill briefing this got a little bit of airtime, is about the planned introduction of AusCheck. The bill briefing was very, very well attended by members of the coalition, because this is something that is really important to us. The Commonwealth are embarking on this national background checking system, and that is all good. A more consistent approach to firearms licensing across jurisdictions – that is all good. So while this objective of a nationally coordinated system is broadly supported, concerns remain regarding the timing of its legislative inclusion. It is still under development, and key details regarding its operation have not been settled. We raised the cost, and it was really unknown. Was it $500, $750? This was something of concern to many people. Advice that we were given indicates the system may take several years to be fully developed and become operational. As I said, the cost has not been disclosed. Additionally, under this framework adverse information identified through AusCheck could result in licence refusal, suspension or cancellation, and advice provided indicated that where a licence is revoked, firearms would be subject to confiscation by Victoria Police. So there are a few things that we really need to have worked out here, and these are things that we hope can get resolved but maybe we will not get resolved because this relies on answers coming back federally.

Throughout this bill briefing many of us have spoken with people who are indeed sporting shooters. I know the shadow minister spoke with the Sporting Shooters Association, Field & Game, the ADA, the Australian Deer Association – I have had quite a lot to do with them – the Victorian Amateur Pistol Association, the Hound Hunters – I have had a lot to do with those as well – and the Gippsland Deer Stalkers Association. These are legitimate gun users, firearms users. We need to make sure, though, that everybody who does hold a licence remains capable of doing so, and if things change, if their circumstances change, the system needs to be flexible to be able to perhaps remove firearms. In family violence situations, I have had people come to me who have been victims of violence and they are worried that the perpetrators have had guns and still have guns. One time they were being confiscated from one person and he put them in the name of his new partner. I think there is still a little bit more tightening up to go. If this bill restricts the use of firearms by the wrong people, I will be very pleased with that. At the same time, I was pleased to see that there were no caps on the number of firearms, because people in my electorate were very exercised, as was I, about that being a possibility.

 Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (16:01): I rise today to support the Firearms Amendment Bill 2026, and I do so as the member for Pascoe Vale, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Safety, but also as the newly appointed chair by the Minister for Police of the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee, a role that I am honoured to undertake in partnership with Victoria Police, the Department of Justice and Community Safety and representatives from right across Victoria’s firearms industry and community safety sector as well.

Before turning to the detail of this legislation, I believe it is important to begin with a principle that should unite every member of this house: this debate is not about choosing between responsible firearm ownership and community safety, it is about recognising that the two go hand in hand. Across Victoria there are hundreds of thousands of licensed firearm owners. They include primary producers protecting livestock, farmers managing pests, recreational hunters undertaking legitimate conservation activities, sporting shooters representing their clubs, security professionals performing important work and many other Victorians who comply every day with some of the most rigorous firearm laws anywhere in the world. The overwhelming majority are exactly what we would hope them to be: responsible, conscientious and law-abiding members of our community. They understand that a firearm licence is not an automatic right – it is a privilege, a privilege that carries significant responsibilities: responsibilities to store firearms securely, responsibilities to comply with strict licensing requirements, responsibilities to undertake training and responsibilities to ensure that firearms never fall into the wrong hands. At the same time, those same responsible licence holders understand something equally important. They understand that if even one firearm falls into the hands of a violent criminal, an organised crime syndicate, a terrorist or someone intent on causing serious harm, the consequences can be catastrophic. That is why responsible firearm ownership and strong firearm regulation are not competing ideas. They reinforce one another.

Australia learned that lesson in the most heartbreaking way imaginable, as many of us know. On 28 April 1996 our nation witnessed one of the darkest days in its history: 35 innocent people lost their lives at Port Arthur in Tasmania. Twenty-three more were seriously injured. Families were torn apart. Communities across the entire nation were left traumatised. An entire nation struggled to comprehend how much unimaginable violence could occur. Many Australian people still remember where they were when they heard the news. I myself vividly recall learning of that news as a grade 6 student at Coburg West Primary School at the time. The case that particularly struck me, or the loss of life, was with respect to young Madeline, who was three years old, Alannah, six years old, and the mother as well, who was 36 years old. And I acknowledge the father, Walter, who has committed to remain a strong advocate for gun law reform in this country. I also want to acknowledge the loss of life of Merv and Mary Howard from Dunnstown in Ballarat, where my wife grew up and knew the family, and where there is a memorial still at the church that we frequent, opposite the Shamrock pub, when we go up there to visit.

Port Arthur became more than a national tragedy; it became a defining moment in Australian public policy. In the days and weeks that followed governments of every political persuasion came together around a simple but profound principle: that the possession of a firearm in Australia must always be conditional upon the protection of public safety. I commend former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard for his leadership in reforming this space.

The National Firearms Agreement fundamentally reshaped Australia’s approach to firearm regulation. Victoria, alongside every other jurisdiction, implemented sweeping reforms. Again, I acknowledge the then Liberal government during the 1990s of Jeff Kennett for doing their bit during that time. Those reforms introduced nationally consistent licensing, registration of firearms, the requirement of a genuine reason to possess a firearm, strict safe storage obligations, restrictions on higher risk firearms, comprehensive background checks and strengthened police powers. Those reforms have helped make Australia one of the safest countries in the world when it comes to firearm violence. They remain one of the finest examples of governments putting politics aside in pursuit of community safety. I commend the opposition also for not opposing this bill today.

But good legislation is never frozen in time. The world changes, technology changes, criminals change, organised crime changes and terrorism changes, and our laws must evolve with them. The need for that vigilance was brought into sharp focus once again by the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025. Fifteen innocent people lost their lives. Dozens more were injured. Families had their futures stolen from them. Australia’s Jewish community experienced profound grief, fear and trauma. Like every act of terrorism, the attack sought to not only take lives but also undermine the values that define our nation: multiculturalism, social cohesion and the belief that people should be able to live safely regardless of their faith, culture or background. There is no place in Australia for antisemitism. There is no place for violent extremism. There is no place for hate-fuelled violence. Following the horrific attack, national cabinet acted swiftly. Every Australian jurisdiction recognised that firearm regulation, like organised crime and terrorism, cannot stop at state borders. Information must be shared, intelligence must be shared and governments must continue working together.

Here in Victoria, the Victorian Labor government acted immediately by asking former Victorian police commissioner Ken Lay to undertake a comprehensive rapid review of Victoria’s firearms laws. I think it is worth pausing to recognise the significance of that decision. Ken Lay of course is one of Victoria’s most respected policing and community safety leaders, and his review was not undertaken behind closed doors; it was one of the most comprehensive consultations on firearms undertaken in the state in many years. More than 19,000 Victorians participated through surveys, more than 500 written submissions were received and 40 consultation sessions were held across metropolitan and regional Victoria. Importantly, those consultations included Victoria Police, farmers, hunters, sporting shooters, firearm dealers, academics, family violence and community safety specialists, firearm safety advocates and of course members of the Victorian Firearm Consultative Committee itself. What emerged from that consultation was something that I think every member of this house really should reflect on. It is an excellent report. I would encourage everyone to really go through it because there were some strong views from every perspective. Some participants argued that Australia should continue tightening access to firearms wherever possible because the consequences of misuse are simply too great. Others argued with equal conviction that responsible, law-abiding firearm owners should not be burdened with unnecessary regulation when they have demonstrated for many years that they comply with the law and use their firearms safely and responsibly. Those perspectives of course were different, but sometimes they were strongly different. But what struck me about the review was that for the chair of the committee, looking at all that information coming through, both perspectives ultimately began from the same principle. Both wanted safer communities, both wanted firearms kept out of the hands of criminals and both wanted the confidence of Victoria’s firearm licensing system. The question was not whether community safety mattered, the question was how best to strengthen it.

That is precisely what this bill seeks to do. The Victorian Labor government of course carefully considered those findings put forward by Ken Lay. Following extensive consultation and careful analysis the government accepted 15 of the 16 of the review’s recommendations, recognising that Victoria already has one of the strongest firearm regulatory systems in Australia but also acknowledging that strong systems must continue to evolve to respond to modern threats. This bill is the legislative expression of that commitment. It strengthens the integrity of Victoria’s firearm licensing framework, it strengthens the powers available to Victoria Police, it strengthens national intelligence sharing, it strengthens our response to organised crime and ultimately it strengthens community safety. Importantly, it does all of this while continuing to recognise the legitimate and lawful use of firearms by responsible members of our community. That balance is fundamental, because this legislation is not about making life harder for those who already comply with the law; it is about making life significantly harder for those who seek to break it.

The first major change – noting the time, with 2 minutes to go, I will go through some of the main changes here – relates to eligibility matters and who should be eligible to hold a firearms licence. This bill introduces a citizenship requirement for most firearm licence holders while also providing exemptions where a firearm is reasonably required for a person’s livelihood and allowing additional exemptions to be prescribed through regulations where appropriate. On better intelligence, the bill introduces Commonwealth AusCheck background checks into Victoria’s firearm licensing system, drawing upon national intelligence held by agencies such as ASIO and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.

Importantly, those checks are not limited to the point at which someone first applies for a licence. If new intelligence emerges suggesting someone has become involved in organised crime, violent extremism or other serious criminality, further checks can occur outside of the ordinary licensing renewal cycle. This is a major, major reform that is still going to take quite a bit of work to implement at the national and state levels once this bill passes. Keeping pace with technology, this bill expands the Chief Commissioner of Police’s ability to temporarily reclassify firearms while proper technical assessments and broader consultations occur. That relates really to 3D printers and the role they are playing and the risks they potentially bring in new and evolving and emerging weapons and firearms being manufactured in the community as well.

Firearm prohibition orders – the bill also significantly strengthens penalties for those who knowingly breach these orders or supply firearms to prohibited persons. This bill also tackles firearm trafficking by introducing graduated trafficking offences with significantly increased penalties for large-scale firearm trafficking.

I acknowledge as well that the one recommendation that was not implemented was in relation to firearm caps. I could talk at length about that, but essentially the review did not find any evidence in relation to that making a difference to community safety, because the reality is all it takes is one firearm falling into the hands of one extremist, dangerous, criminal person to cause tremendous damage to our community. In that respect, I commend the bill to the chamber.

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (16:11): I also rise to speak on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2026. As others have mentioned, the bill comes after a rapid review by former police commissioner Ken Lay into Victoria’s gun laws. I was fortunate to have an interview with Commissioner Lay to provide our feedback into how we thought the gun laws should change in this state. This of course came after the absolutely horrific attack at Bondi Beach, where 15 adults and children were murdered as they were celebrating their faith on a public beach, which was just absolutely horrific. As others have mentioned, it contains reforms that they say improve Victoria’s gun laws, including making the firearm prohibition order scheme permanent, national background checks through AusCheck and graduated offences for firearms trafficking.

But I actually think what is most important about this bill is what it totally leaves out. I find it a little bit galling to sit here and listen to Labor members opposite talk about this bill as if it is showing some kind of leadership on the issue of gun law reform, when the reality is, if you actually look at what is in this bill, the Labor government has totally caved in to the gun lobby and the hunting and shooting lobby and ruled out the very first recommendation of Ken Lay’s report, which was to cap the number of guns that people can own. The Victorian Labor government has also refused to participate in the gun buyback scheme that the Prime Minister announced straight after the Bondi massacre, putting the whole scheme at risk of collapsing entirely or not working, as was detailed in a recent investigative piece, which is very much worth a read, by Bevan Shields, a journalist at the Sydney Morning Herald.

I cannot for the life of me describe it as anything other than just a staggering lack of leadership from the Victorian Labor government, because Australians have been through this before and Australians know what leadership should look like after a massacre when it comes to gun law reform. In 1996, after the Port Arthur massacre killed 35 people, a Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard, announced a national gun buyback, and he stood up to the gun lobby and to the hunters and the shooters, many in his own Liberal and National electorates, because it was the right thing to do. Then in 2019, when 50 people were shot and killed in a massacre at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern did a similar thing: she announced gun laws and a gun buyback, because it was the right thing to do. But then, when it happened here, when two men went on a shooting rampage, not using one gun but using six guns – they were licensed to own an unlimited number of guns; they used six guns to murder 15 mostly Jewish Australians at our most iconic place, Bondi Beach – instead of doing what John Howard did, instead of doing what Jacinda Ardern did and actually introducing strong gun law reform and buybacks, the Victorian Labor’s government’s response was tepid and delayed and completely lacked the leadership we need.

Instead of acting to implement a gun buyback scheme and cap the number of guns that one person can own, Labor instituted a review. They said it would be a rapid review; it ended up being a long review. When that review came back its first recommendation was a cap on the number of guns that one person can own, and Labor took no time at all in rejecting that recommendation. It was the very first recommendation in that review, and it is the one that the Labor government rejected.

Gun Control Australia points to more than 9000 firearms having been stolen nationally in the last six years – 9000 guns that were licensed to people legally that were then stolen and are now somewhere in the Australian community – and the police have only been able to recover a quarter of them. Its vice-president described Labor’s approach as ‘cherry-picking the easier recommendations,’ and ‘not good enough’, and I concur.

Instead, when the member for Richmond got up in this place and asked the Premier why she was not going to put a cap on guns, the words she used were straight out of the National Rifle Association of America’s (NRA) playbook. The words she used –

Danny Pearson interjected.

Ellen SANDELL: Member for Essendon, they were. Let us go back and have a look at what she said. Let us just remember we are talking about people being able to own an unlimited number of guns. Is that reasonable? It is not reasonable.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): I just remind the member to direct her comments through the Chair.

Ellen SANDELL: When she was asked about that in this chamber, she said that instead we need to only focus on criminals and bad people who own guns. We need to stop guns getting into the hands of criminals and bad people, rather than have caps on the number of guns. But those words are the exact same words, the exact same argument that the NRA use in their propaganda. We know that the NRA is very good at propaganda. We know that they have completely captured the Congress and the Senate and decision-makers in the US, and look at their gun culture, look at what has resulted from that. I am not sure why here in Victoria we have a government that is taking marching orders from the National Rifle Association in the US. They literally say that we should focus on gun criminals and focus on bad people. They say it is about the person, not the gun. We know that that argument has led to the proliferation of firearms across the US and the countless deaths that have resulted.

The gun lobby says that we should not place an undue burden on law-abiding citizens, but the thing is, the evidence actually makes clear that the more guns there are in circulation, even if they are legal guns, the more likely they are to end up in the hands of criminals. This is precisely why we need a cap on the number of guns that can be owned by one person. Let us remember the Bondi murderers used six guns in their attack, and they were all legal guns. If someone can own unlimited guns and they then intend to go and cause harm with those guns, it is going to be easier to cause a significantly larger amount of harm if they have a larger number of firearms.

But unfortunately the NRA seems to have found a willing ally in the Victorian Labor government.

Ken Lay’s review found that some recreational hunters in Victoria own up to 68 firearms, and some sports shooters own as many as 288 guns. Ken Lay’s review said that there might be some special circumstances where someone needs to own more than the recommended cap. So if the recommended cap is three or six, there might be some sporting shooters who do this for their career, who do this all of the time, or there might be a farmer that for some reason needs more than that cap, and there could be allowances made for that. There could be exceptions made. But does anybody need 68 guns? Does anybody need 288 guns? No. And the contrast between other states and Victoria is instructive. New South Wales has introduced a four-gun general cap. You can have four guns in New South Wales, and 10 as an exception for specified purposes. They have paired that with a maximum two-year licence term and stronger storage and identity requirements. Western Australia has also introduced ownership limits and mandatory health checks. So Victorians are right to ask: why are there now caps in New South Wales and Western Australia? Why does anyone in Victoria need so many more guns than people in New South Wales and Western Australia? Why does anybody need dozens or hundreds of guns, and why is Labor letting them?

Unfortunately, there is a pattern here. It is not the first time that the Labor government has put the gun lobby’s or the shooting lobby’s or the hunting lobby’s interests ahead of community safety and community interests. Over the past three years the Labor government really has bent over backwards for recreational game hunters. First, Labor rejected their own inquiry’s recommendations to ban duck shooting, then Labor opened up tens of thousands of hectares of national parks for recreational hunting and Labor has rejected some commonsense and expert calls to list feral deer as pests. I will talk about the link here to guns. Victoria is the only mainland state in Australia to classify deer as an essentially protected game species. They are not listed as a feral pest when we know the damage they are causing to the environment and to people’s lives, but they are listed as a protected game species because game hunters went to Labor and they did not want them to be listed as a protected species. Game hunters want to keep deer populations alive and well so that they can continue to hunt deer well into the future, while those deer are wreaking absolute havoc across our environment, our ecosystems and our farmland. We are seeing deer turn up in Fitzroy or run into people’s homes in Abbotsford. We are seeing them turn up on primary school grounds across our towns. And we are then seeing hunters go out to try and shoot them. One of my staff members has family members who have bullet holes on the outside of their kids’ bedrooms, embedded in the walls, because deer hunters are just running rampant across the state, trying to shoot deer and ending up shooting into kids’ bedrooms.

I think Victorians would be pretty horrified to see Labor – in this heightened environment that we have where we know that social cohesion is fraying, where we know there is an increase in violent rhetoric and where we know that we are seeing politics get more and more divisive – allowing deadly weapons to proliferate. We all have a responsibility to work on the social conditions that reduce violence, but we also surely have a responsibility to reduce the risk of guns being able to be used in this heightened environment.

The Greens’ position, and I believe this aligns very much with what most Victorians believe, is that owning a gun is an extraordinary privilege; it is not a right. We do not have the same culture of gun ownership that they do in the US. Owning a gun is an extraordinary privilege, and that privilege should never, ever come at the cost of public safety or peace in our community.

The Greens back a cap on gun ownership. Our position is that it should be three. Surely that is more than enough. We will be bringing forward amendments in the upper house to this bill to introduce that cap of three guns for a single person and to also cancel junior licences. The other thing that has disturbed me greatly over the last little while is to see the vigour with which this Victorian government is out there trying to encourage shooting and increase gun usage amongst people as young as 12. There are campaigns out there to say, ‘Come and try shooting; 12-year-olds and up, come and get involved.’ This is no shade on people who enjoy sport shooting – legitimate sport activity that people enjoy – but should we be going out there and promoting a culture of gun usage and gun ownership amongst children? I do not think that is a responsible thing for a government to be doing, and we believe that most Victorians see no need for children to have access to firearms with junior licences.

I want to end by saying that the government says it has accepted 15 of Mr Lay’s 16 recommendations, and it has only rejected the first one. But that is quite misleading when this bill actually only implements four of the 16 in full. Some other recommendations are ‘underway’ administratively. Some have been sent for further consultation, and we probably know where that is going to end up. And some are merely to be considered at an unspecified future date. So this Labor government has failed to meaningfully act on two-thirds – eight out of the 16 recommendations – of its own review by respected former police commissioner Ken Lay. I have to say that I never thought I would see the day when John Howard had more courage than a Victorian Labor government has, and under the new Premier I hope that we will see this change. There needs to be a change with the new Premier such that he is not so captured by and capitulates to the gun and hunting lobby at the expense of all Victorians’ safety, but I have to say, I am not going to hold my breath.

 Danny PEARSON (Essendon) (16:28): I am delighted to join the debate on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2026, and I am going to pick a bone with the member for Albert Park, because she asked me to swap with her, and I had to listen to that drivel for 20 minutes. One thing I can say about the member for Melbourne: there are four consistencies with every speech.

Ellen Sandell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, we know that debate is not an opportunity to attack other members of Parliament, and surely this week of all weeks calls for a bit of decorum and respect.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): That is not strictly a point of order from the member for Melbourne, but I will ask the member for Essendon to come to the bill before us.

Danny PEARSON: Well, I will do that, but I do want to take up a couple of things that the member for Melbourne said. I have listened to the member for Melbourne for 12 years in this place, and there are four consistencies. She always reads her speeches. She always includes the word ‘I’ consistently through her speeches. She is consistently anti-Labor, and whenever she has the opportunity to praise the Liberal Party, she does so with quite a level of affection. It is just, I find, deeply offensive. What the member for Melbourne failed to acknowledge were some of the contributions that John Cain made in bringing in what were then the toughest gun laws in this state, in 1987, as a consequence of the Queen Street massacre and the Walsh Street massacre. The reality is that we are in this position now because of the Bondi massacre.

Maybe the member for Melbourne had a different upbringing to me. I suspect she probably did. I was raised very clearly to believe in ‘never again’. So from my perspective, when I saw the horrendous actions at Bondi and the damage and that social cohesion had frayed and led to this outcome, I absolutely supported the action that has been taken in relation to addressing these issues.

One of the reasons why this bill is so important is that we have seen a level of consistency in terms of failures at a global level when it comes to intelligence gathering. For example, when you look at September 11, the CIA knew that two of the September 11 terrorists had attended an al-Qaeda summit in January 2000 and that they also had US visas. They did not, however, advise the FBI of this until August 2001. By that stage these two gentlemen had been living in San Diego for a year. Similarly, the National Security Agency on 10 September intercepted a communication which said ‘Tomorrow is zero hour.’ That was not translated until 12 September. And so what came out of September 11 was that particularly in a federated model you often have different agencies getting different bits of information, but they are not sharing that information, and I think that what this bill does in relation to making sure that we have got those AusChecks in place is going to be very important to try and prevent this occurring.

The ridiculous notion from the member for Melbourne, arguing against the government’s position in relation to caps: let us just unpick that for a moment. What the member for Melbourne is saying is that you should have no more than three guns per person, right? I would argue there are two factors here. One is the appropriateness of a person to hold a firearms licence, which is what we are dealing with. The second question comes to the volume of firearms in the community. Now, again demonstrating once more that the Greens are the fairies in the bottom of the garden, follow that logic to its conclusion. There are probably three million adults in this state. Is the Greens’ political position that we should all have three weapons each, and therefore we should have 18 million firearms in this state? I mean, it is just baloney. These people are blowhards, they are dilettantes and they never take the issue of legislating and governing this state seriously, which is why they are doomed to irrelevance. I look forward to seeing them end up in the dustbin of history. It is just an absolute joke.

I mean, you have got to make sure you have the balance right and come into this place, make an argument, be very clear and follow it through. Are they saying they want 18 million guns in the state of Victoria? Because logically, that is what it leads to. If you have a cap, therefore the extension to that is that it is a right. So if I have a right to have three guns, my wife has a right to have three guns, my daughter who is 21 has three guns, my other daughter, who is 19, has three guns and my son, who will next year turn 18, can have three guns, is the Greens political party seriously suggesting we should have a set of circumstances where in my house in Ascot Vale there are 15 firearms? It is just ridiculous. These people are frauds, absolute frauds.

The reason why we are in a slightly different position to a nation like the United States is of course the adoption of the second amendment on 15 December 1791, which says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That was a key moment in the history of the United States of America.

Clearly Henry Reynolds, who has been an outstanding academic historian, has talked about the frontier wars. I remember reading and studying this at university and talking about the fear when some of the early settlers, particularly in Tasmania, discovered that First Nations people were quite capable of learning how to acquire a weapon, load a weapon and discharge a weapon. They had thought that they were inherently inferior. That led to that level of realisation of, ‘Oh, well, these people can actually use firearms’. That caused some level of concern. But leaving that to one side, as a nation, because we were not born as a consequence of a revolution, we have not had that same approach, and I think that is important.

I remember very clearly watching Al Pacino in the film Revolution, not one of his well-known works. It was released in 1985. It was playing – those of us of a certain age remember – Sunday night at 8:30. That would be movie night; that would be when you would get the premieres. And I was watching that on 9 August 1987 when they interrupted the bulletin to talk about the Hoddle Street massacre. It was then followed by the Queen Street one, and I think that led to John Cain taking that strong action.

But again, with the Greens political party, you never hear about what Labor did. You never hear about the good things Labor did. It is just how terrible we all are, how we are just not a good party, unlike the Greens political party. It is just, I find, deeply offensive, and intellectual laziness seems to be their costume. The only thing they are good at, being dilettante and lazy, is showing yet again. I had hoped that maybe things might change with the passage of time – clearly not.

A bill like this is important because of that information-sharing exercise, and I do think that is important, particularly as we start to use digital technology. That is why I think digital IDs are really important – the ability, for example, if you have got a firearms licence in the future, to have those in a digital format. Again, I defer to the Minister for Police on these sorts of questions in terms of what may or may not occur at some point in time in the future. But increasingly having agencies where they can start to cross and share that information so they can have a clear line and clear understanding in relation to the way in which these things can be properly administered I think will be very important.

It is an important bill. It is a good bill. I find the conduct of the member for Melbourne irksome and tiresome, I really do, and it is my earnest hope that she joins me on Main Street in December, because I reckon Davydd Griffiths would do a fantastic job as a Labor member for Melbourne. I commend the bill to the house, and I will be having words with the member for Albert Park when we are done.

 Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (16:37): Can I foreshadow to whoever is following me that I will go short so that the member for Gippsland East and the member for Narracan can have a few minutes on this bill as well. Can I say that I actually enjoyed the member for Essendon’s contribution. I had forgotten his great history lessons that we used to get in this place. It is a pity. We are going to miss him, and particularly his view on the Greens. I think we would be in heated agreement about some of the things he has said about the Greens.

Can I start off by saying I am a licensed shooter, I am a member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and Field & Game Australia and have enjoyed shooting all my life. I think it is a great family recreation, and if I go to shoots at the Echuca Gun Club or in Swan Hill, there are multiple generations there. So this business from the Greens about banning junior licences – that is just absurd. I really struggle to say it without swearing. It is just absurd. It is ridiculous. How do you actually teach young people responsible gun ownership and responsible shooting if you do not have junior licences? It is just ridiculous. We have learner drivers for cars because cars are lethal as well. Why can’t you actually have a junior licence and learner shooters? I think it is just an absurd proposition. And this business about the proliferation of guns in Victoria – I have never heard anything so stupid in all my life, again. The point that was made by a number of people is it is about the person; it is not about the gun. The people that committed the tragedy of Bondi would have got guns from somewhere if they wanted to have them, no matter what licensing laws were in place. I think that is the point that those that are anti-gun are actually missing about this. You just cannot stop people from getting guns if they desperately want to get one illegally and commit an offence. No matter what we do in this place, that is not going to happen.

But if you think about it, we have just had a change of Premier in Victoria, and comments were made about the Labor Party being captured by the gun lobby. I do not believe that is the case at all. But I think one of the legacies that Premier Allan will leave for this state is she actually stood up for the shooting sector, for the hunting sector, and stood up for duck hunting. Duck hunting is a flashpoint in this place amongst people that have very strong views both ways. I have a very strong view that it should be allowed to happen, and I thank the Premier for actually making sure that happened earlier this year when there was a very strong push to actually stop it. I would hope that Premier Carroll has the same view into the future. Because people say duck shooting is banned in other states, but there are more ducks shot in New South Wales to control ducks in the rice sector than there are ever shot in Victoria. So to say it is banned in other states is just plain wrong. They are shot under a licence to control vermin.

Let us just be serious about this. Again, duck hunting is a multigenerational family sport where grandfathers, fathers, sons and daughters go away duck shooting together. It is a family pursuit, and I would like to see it stay that way into the future. I just feel so strongly that people have missed the point about this whole issue about gun licences and gun caps. It is not easy to get a gun licence. You have to go through the test. If you have guns, you actually have to have a gun safe to put them in. So this business about guns being stolen – they are not being stolen from responsible gun owners. I shifted house at one stage. I had not been there very long, and the licensing officer rang up and said, ‘I want to come and audit that you have actually installed your gun safe properly.’ It happens. They check it. Responsible gun owners do the right thing, and they are checked to make sure they do do the right thing – that their gun safe is actually DynaBolted to a concrete floor so that people cannot steal the gun safe. This business about somehow, because you own guns, you are going to have them all stolen I just think is raw hysteria by people who are anti-gun.

This legislation, as the shadow minister put forward, we are not opposing. I think the government actually got it right when it came to the Lay report, and they have adopted the sensible things out of it and are doing the right thing. The one concern that has been raised, which I will reinforce and also raise, is this business of the AusCheck and what that may cost. The one cynical view I would have, particularly with this government is, yes, they might say you can do it, but they will make sure they tax you very highly or charge you very highly on the way through, which may make it difficult for some people that cannot afford it into the future. I support the idea – the principle – but let us make sure it is not an exorbitant cost and it is not a ramped-up cost because the government want a bit of extra money to go to the bottom line for other things into the future.

The last thing I want to touch on is the issue of deer and about them being a game species. For a private landholder deer are a pest. They are deemed a pest, and private landholders can shoot them any time of the year on their land. So this business about somehow the government has actually caved in to the hunting lobby to make them a game species for those that want to go and hunt for their trophy deer is just plain wrong. Again, it is scaremongering and nonsense from people who are anti-shooting and anti-guns.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners in Victoria and in Australia are responsible and do the right thing. Why should we all be penalised for a crazy, absolute miniature minority who have done some bloody horrible things with guns and shot people? It is like everything. It is the honest people that suffer, and we do not believe we should be suffering any more than we already have been. I had to hand guns back in the John Howard buyback. I lost a five-shot auto shotgun that was a family gun. They were not extremely dangerous. They are not the high-powered rifles you are talking about. I lost an automatic .22 Ruger. A .22 does not do a lot of harm. If you want to shoot something with a .22, you have got to be pretty close to it. So let us be serious about this. We did not need another gun buyback here in Australia, and fortunately, that has not happened. We did not need caps on guns, and fortunately, in Victoria that has not happened. Let us just make sure the licence provisions with the AusCheck are not made exorbitantly expensive for gun owners. As I said, we do not oppose the legislation.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (16:44): I acknowledge that the abhorrent antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025, tragically taking the lives of 15 people, sent a terrible chill through all of us, not least the Jewish community. You hurt one person, you hurt all, and so we all felt that. I am reflecting personally, but I think it is safe to say we all felt that very deeply. It is upon us to do everything we can to keep our state safe, strong, proud and united, and this bill is certainly part of those efforts.

It is really about targeting those who seek to do harm in the community with a firearm and also making sure that those who do possess firearms operate them safely, store them safely et cetera.

The Carroll Labor government – we have a long history in terms of introducing strong and sensible gun laws. Really they are targeted at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals at the end of the day, who are going to use guns inappropriately. Some of the changes that are coming about are really important changes, and the member for Essendon spoke to some of them in terms particularly of information sharing. We know on many levels, whether it is child welfare or otherwise, and certainly in this respect when we are talking about gun controls, the more information sharing, the better. Victorian firearms licences will be restricted to Australian citizens, New Zealand citizens who are permanent residents of Australia and non-citizens who need a firearm for work. This ensures that the background information supplied from other jurisdictions as part of the licensing process, such as criminal record checks, is as reliable and accurate as possible, a really important change. We will also strengthen background checks. I cannot see any reason why anyone would want to go contrary to that. That makes very good sense. Once regulations are introduced by the Commonwealth, if you want a firearms licence you will be required to complete a background check through AusCheck. Again, having a national focus on this really important issue is absolutely vital, because we know that having someone perhaps skip over the border and be able to avert the control or the eyes of the authorities would not be a good idea, particularly if they are going to conduct a criminal act with a gun.

Harsher penalties will be in place for those caught trafficking firearms, with up to 15 years in prison for people possessing bigger numbers of guns. We can see this is a very commonsense approach, a very appropriate approach and certainly one that we back wholeheartedly. The laws will also expand the Chief Commissioner of Police’s power to temporarily reclassify guns. This will allow Victoria to respond faster to new technology and emerging threats. I can only imagine the vicissitudes of technological advances into the future. I am certainly not an expert on these, particularly when it comes to guns. I do know we see, on the one hand, young people living in my electorate using 3D printing to print really nice things – little keychains and other things that can be used; medical devices. It could be used in so many positive ways, but of course in the hands of somebody with a malicious intent, we know that very negative outcomes could prevail. Hence it is very important to give our police the powers they need to be able to keep us all safe.

The firearm prohibition order scheme – I remember that coming about – which we introduced in 2018 and which has been wildly successful will also be made permanent in law. This is a very, very good thing. In this year’s state budget we invested $38.4 million to upgrade firearms licensing systems so that Victoria is ready for the national firearms register and dangerous weapons stay out of the wrong hands. I note I do live in a metro area, so guns and me, I have to say, not my cup of tea and not a zone I particularly understand very well. I do respect that when you have feral pests such as deer they are destructive to our native flora and fauna and that, with appropriate controls, it makes sense to use a gun and to humanely deal with feral pests. I can see merit in that.

There actually is a gun club in my electorate, I found out recently. They do not shoot animals, but they do shoot targets. They did invite me along. I have not gone along – no disrespect. But I am aware of that as well. I do have to be alive to the different activities that people undertake, but I am absolutely behind very strong gun controls. And on that note, I will commend the bill to the house.

 Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (16:49): I rise to make a relatively short contribution on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2026. I know the member for Narracan wants to speak, so I will simply say that I endorse the member for Murray Plains’ comments in relation to the concerns around AusCheck and I also very strongly endorse his commentary around junior licences for the very reasons that he articulated so well.

I want to just talk for a few moments on the contribution of Greens member for Melbourne, who came in here and actually got things wrong. She said that there were six firearms used in the Bondi attack. That is incorrect. There were three firearms used. A fourth was found at the location that was not used. Only three firearms were used. The people had licences for six guns. That was a factually incorrect statement. That damage was caused by three guns. The member for Melbourne is using that to argue for a cap on three guns. How ridiculously stupid would that be? They come in, making out that they are holier than thou and accusing the government, because they do not agree with this ideological philosophy, of being captured by the gun lobby. They do not agree, so everyone else must have been captured by this interest group. No, it is just not what we want. It is another case of those living on concrete trying to tell us what pastimes and sports we can enjoy in the country. The member for Essendon and I do not agree on a lot, but we are certainly on a unity ticket on that one.

We have people in my electorate who shoot in certain types of disciplines. It is their chosen recreation, their chosen sport. You need four guns to shoot some disciplines. If you are going to go and compete on a Saturday, you need four guns. There are pistol events that need four guns. Then if you want to shoot two or three disciplines, you need 10 guns. A lot of these people then control vermin on the weekends, so then you need separate guns to shoot sambar deer, wild dogs and foxes and separate guns for rabbits or if you have got a rat or mouse problem, whatever it is. You cannot be shooting rabbits in semirural residential areas with a gun that you are going to drop a samba deer with. The member for Melbourne does not get that. You need an array of firearms when you are living on the land to be able to control vermin. One gentleman, who is an international shooter who also shoots vermin in East Gippsland, has over 20 guns. He explained that if we have a cap of even 20, he has got to sell the family heirlooms. He uses them all for different purposes.

I want to congratulate Ken Lay on his inquiry. I have got to know Ken over the journey of my time here in Parliament. He is a respected voice of reason and a level head, and I want to thank Ken for making time to meet and discuss these proposals with a panel of eight I put together from my electorate. That included Olympic and international shooters, vermin controllers and a gun shop owner, and they all explained very articulately and very, very commonsensically why a cap on guns will not work. But to suggest a cap of three in rural and regional Victoria is just ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

In my short time I just want to point out that in that panel we had with Ken Lay we had sporting shooters that shoot in multiple disciplines saying they need up to eight guns solely to do that. I want to get this on Hansard. They then control vermin on the family farm on the weekend. They need different firearms to do that. Just to go about their recreation and their way of life protecting their stock, they need over 10 guns to do that. By introducing or proposing a cap of three, you are stopping people from enjoying their recreation on the weekend or you are stopping people from keeping their business viable by controlling the vermin that need to be controlled. It is a ludicrous proposition that was put forward by the member for Melbourne, and everyone in this Parliament needs to understand the reasons and the rationale.

The member for Murray Plains and I do not stand up here because we have been captured by the gun lobby. We understand rural life, and we understand what these people need to participate on weekends and to look after their businesses. We talk to them. They live in our community. We know them. They should not be punished for the actions of terrorists in Sydney. We do not have a gun problem, we have a terrorist problem.

 Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (16:54): I am pleased to rise today on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2026. As our shadow minister pointed out earlier, we do not oppose this bill, and nor should we, but I will echo the sentiments around AusCheck from the member for Murray Plains and the member for Gippsland East: just do not make that too expensive. A lot of times this is people’s sport, it is their livelihood or they are trying to look after their rural property. And I will reiterate what the member for Gippsland East just said: for the Greens to propose three guns is absolutely ridiculous. Mind you, they knocked back logging, but they have probably all got fire pits, so let us not be too hypocritical here.

A member interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: Wind pits. When you live in regional Victoria, a deer is a problem. It is a pest. Feral deer are out of control. I saw one running down the main street of Warragul not that long ago. That tells you how bad deer are getting in that place. But what everyone has to realise is that the people that own guns in Victoria are good, law-abiding people. I know a guy that has got probably over 50 guns, and he has put in a very special container for them. That gets checked by the police every three months. Every three months they are out there checking his facility – the guns get locked here, the ammunition gets locked there. They do the right thing. Unfortunately in Australia we have had a few incidents – obviously Bondi being one, Port Arthur another, the Father’s Day massacre another, and Lindt cafe. If we had to roll all those in, we would probably have those four really significant incidents. They were terrible incidents, do not get me wrong. But there are good and bad people everywhere, unfortunately.

Can we ever knock that out? I do not think so. I think at some point in time in the future we will see it again. But the law-abiding gun owners, not just in Victoria but around the country, should not be penalised by the actions of one or two psychopathic morons. It is as simple as that. They are good people. I know guys that go out on vermin control – they need their guns. To even think a three-gun cap would be a rational solution to the problem – we do not have a gun problem. And this is the thing – the narrative is not there. We do not have a gun problem in Victoria. We have our sporting shooters; we have our hunters – they all have to be licensed for different activities. This is what people do not realise – the amount of licences you have got to have just to enjoy recreational shooting is phenomenal. The police checks and everything else just to obtain a gun licence are pretty arduous. I used to have a gun licence. I used to have guns. Unfortunately my previous wife made me get rid of the guns when we had kids – hence why she is a previous wife. But these things happen. My point is that the people in this state of Victoria are good people. They are honest, they are law-abiding and they do the right thing.

I think the government has got this right. I actually do. I think the government has got this legislation right. I am glad they did not do the kneejerk reaction that New South Wales did – what, within 48 hours –

A member interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: they went down to four guns. I think between Ken Lay and the government they have actually got the balance of this bill right. If it was not right, obviously we would have put in reasoned amendments and they would have been fairly strongly debated in the chamber. But the government in this situation has got this right. Listening to the member for Gippsland East, I did not realise that had happened with Ken Lay – that was good of him to go down and consult with those people in your patch. Congratulations to the member for Gippsland East for getting that set up.

In the final 20 seconds I have got, I just want to say this: every time an incident happens, we should not have a kneejerk reaction. We step back, we look, we study and we see what is going to improve the situation in the future. That is all I have got to say. Gun owners in this state do a good thing.

The SPEAKER: The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.