Thursday, 13 August 2026

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (11:27): I thank the speakers on this bill. We adjourned this off quite late on Tuesday night to return to it today. There is a lot of discussion for committee, so rather than provide a summing-up, I think it would be a better use of time to go through the questions and amendments in the committee stage.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

 The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad) (11:28): I have considered the amendments on sheet KC82C circulated by Ms Copsey, and in my view the amendments are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required. I remind the house that an instruction to committee is a procedural motion.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (11:28): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider amendments and new clauses to amend the Firearms Act 1996 to restrict the number of firearms that a licence-holder may possess, carry or use and to abolish junior licences.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (11:29): Just a few brief remarks. My views on out-of-scope instruction motions are well known. I believe that it is a misuse of the parliamentary process, which is consistent with David Davis’s comments when he was a member of the government, but he subsequently changed his view from the position of opposition. We are well aware that out-of-scope motions are regularly supported by non-government members, but I do not support the precedent. I do not support the instruction motion, but I will not be causing a division, in the interests of time.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:29): As has been the practice in this house for the 60th Parliament, on principle we do not oppose or obstruct instruction motions. We do oppose the actual motion and its intent, but we will not be opposing if a division is called here.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (11:30): Just to contribute to debate on this motion, I will note that has been a change of practice by the government – they did not oppose instruction motions, I understand, in previous terms. There has been a shift. We always, I would say – from whatever part of the chamber we sit in – bring in good faith attempts to scrutinise and improve government legislation. I will just note that in response to Ms Symes’s comments. I am not suggesting that Ms Symes has personally changed her position, but there has been a change in practice from the government from previous terms, I understand.

 Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:31): Whilst I think the Greens amendments are rubbish, I do like the opportunity to have a go at them, so I will support the instruction motion.

Motion agreed to.

 The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad) (11:31): I have considered the amendments on sheet JB109C circulated by Mr Bourman, and in my view amendments 1 to 4, 7 and 8 are not within the scope of this bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required. I remind the house that an instruction to committee is a procedural motion.

 Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:32): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider amendments and new clauses to amend the Firearms Act 1996 in relation to reporting requirements for approved handgun target shooting clubs and the exemption for a non-prohibited person who is carrying or using a general category handgun at an approved shooting range and is receiving instruction in the use of a general category handgun.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (11:32): This is more a response to Ms Copsey’s remarks because I could not do it on the previous procedural motion. Ms Copsey, my position has been consistent. My view is that out-of-scope amendments can be considered if they are extraordinary, urgent and it is reasonable for them to hitch a ride on an existing piece of legislation. What I express concern about is that it should always not just be a right to move any amendment to a bill that is before the Parliament, because just using it as a vessel to prosecute positions that are tenuous to the bill disrupts the purpose of the piece of legislation. There are other avenues for members to bring in amendments via private members bills. There are instances where it is appropriate, particularly at this point in time of the cycle when I acknowledge there is not the capacity for private members bills and the like to be considered, but I do want to continue to be consistent and make sure that I am on record that they should be scrutinised. You should not be able to put up an out-of-scope amendment to any piece of legislation, because it undermines the parliamentary process in my view. But similarly to my non-formal opposition to the previous instruction motion, I will not be causing a division on Mr Bourman’s motion either.

 Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:34): If I may, I might make the comment that even for the Greens – there are only four of them – as individual members here, we have limited opportunity to do things. It is my understanding that in the last 30-odd years private members bills have not passed this institution. So whilst we have limited opportunities, whether I agree with the Greens or not, there are times when we have to take what comes before us, and this is one of those.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (11:34): Just to confirm, the Greens will be supporting the procedural motion to consider Mr Bourman’s amendments. I understand Ms Symes’s position. All I would say is that it has been the reflexive position of the government to refuse consideration of out-of-scope amendments. I think it should be considered, as Ms Symes said, on a case-by-case basis. I would argue that in this chamber today Mr Bourman and I are not attempting to bring wildly unrelated matters. They are directly related to the substance of the bill, though they seek to create new provisions. I just wanted to respond in that regard.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:35): The Liberals and the Nationals will not be opposing the instruction motion, as has been the practice. We want to see these come through and debated on the floor.

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

Clause 1 (11:37)

Melina BATH: I would just like to put on record some feedback we received. The Liberals and Nationals received significant feedback from a number of stakeholders, and the questioning that I will be centring on is nicely encapsulated in some of these comments. This was from Field & Game Australia’s Victorian branch, and it goes:

FGA supports tougher action on illegal firearms, trafficking and people who breach FPOs (Firearm Prohibition Orders). We have no interest in defending unlawful use, unsafe behaviour or people who should not have access to firearms.

If FPOs are to continue beyond the original sunset period, there should be proper review, transparent reporting and oversight …

Firearm re-categorisation –

they believe –

should not occur by regulation … without evidence, consultation and parliamentary scrutiny …

Any re-categorisation should include fair transitional arrangements for … lawful licence holders …

Background checks should be focused on genuine risk, including terrorism, serious organised crime and unlawful firearms use. We support proper checking, but we are concerned about any process that removes meaningful review …

or when people do not have the ability to correct errors that have originated from the system.

Parts 6 and 7 should not commence until the Commonwealth AusCheck arrangements are fully tested and the Victorian administration is ready …

That is, post the Commonwealth arrangements. Minister, as I have just mentioned, Field & Game are not the only stakeholder, but they have been quite active, very considered and I think very responsible. In relation to Field & Game, they have advised that the published delay before new firearm licence applications begin being processed increased this year from 112 days in mid-May to 146 days as at 10 August. Can the minister confirm those figures and explain why the delay has increased by 34 days in less than three months?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am advised that effectively there has been an increase in the volume of applications for firearms, weapons and private security in particular. Incomplete applications have led to the addition of a lot of time. There have been a high number of new security personnel looking to enter the workforce. All of the figures are publicly available on Victoria Police’s firearm licensing website, and my advice is that they are updated regularly.

Melina BATH: Minister, can you inform the house how many firearm applications are currently awaiting processing with the Victorian licensing and regulation division?

Jaclyn SYMES: I understand the interest in this figure. However, the information is held by Victoria Police, and due to their independence from government, I do not have that figure.

Melina BATH: I may receive the same comment, but clearly in relation to additional processing that is occurring, licence renewal applicants, firearm owners – current as well as new – want to understand the processing time. Often what happens is if there is a renewal, somebody has provided a paper copy to say, ‘Your licence renewal is pending,’ and it can be quite concerning if that delay is lengthening and lengthening. Do you have an idea of the current average processing time for new applications and renewals?

Jaclyn SYMES: It will depend on the period of time that you are referring to, but I do not have the figures on me. I am told that wait times do fluctuate depending on volume, but the wait times are publicly available and they are updated regularly. Indeed they were updated just on 10 August.

Melina BATH: When you have conversations with people, whether they be farmers, pest controllers, clay target shooters or hunters, they are understanding of the resources of Victoria Police, but they do get frustrated with the licensing and regulation division sometimes with these slowdowns. I am interested to understand how many full-time staff are currently employed within the LRD, specifically on firearm licensing, and how this compares with the two previous years.

Jaclyn SYMES: Government does not hold information relating to the specific team vacancies inside Victoria Police; these are operational matters for VicPol. What I can say is that there is no specific group that just administers firearm licences; they also do private security personnel licensing as well as the prohibited weapons approvals.

Melina BATH: Considering that these are some significant changes to the firearms legislation, is it government policy to consider supporting Victoria Police to make sure that this backlog or even an increasing backlog does not occur, which genuinely is not in the interests of either firearms owners or public safety, with the even further delays that could well occur? Is it government policy to work with Vic Police to increase those FTEs if requested?

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, in short, Ms Bath, there are constant conversations with Victoria Police and the government in relation to their resources, but in relation to staff allocations, they are by and large operational matters.

Jeff BOURMAN: Minister, following down the rabbit hole of LRD wait times, I can understand everyone’s consternation on this. I put in an application for my H-category licence in February. It is now August, and I have not seen or heard a thing about it. There is a little bit of self-interest in bringing it up, but also if I have not heard about it, then a lot of other people have not heard about it. Whilst it is not within the minister’s right I think under section 10 of the Victoria Police Act 2013 to direct the police what to do with their resources, would the minister commit to trying to work with Victoria Police to get more resources so that at least it is in a reasonable timeframe? I do not feel six months is a reasonable timeframe, but I also appreciate that LRD as an organisation are doing the best they can.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Bourman, I would put to you that it is outside the scope of the bill, particularly in the responses that I gave Ms Bath in relation to the provision of operational resources. As I said, there are always ongoing conversations with Victoria Police and the Victorian government. They are the highest-funded police force in the country. There have been new announcements today in relation to additional resources that have gone to Victoria Police. Of course those conversations are always ongoing, and I think rather than me committing on the terms of what you have asked, I commit to ensuring that people have read this exchange.

Melina BATH: The AusCheck system is upstream. It has been introduced by the federal government. It is being worked through and processed and is certainly not up and running at the moment. In terms of Victoria Police IT, can you give an understanding as to how, when AusCheck is coming through from the federal government – it is not yet ready and operational, and it will come through into VicPol and LRD will be part of that processing; that is my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong – you can ensure that LRD and the Victorian IT system is ready for a system that has not been operational and is still in its formation?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Ms Bath, I think similar to my response to Mr Bourman, it is not within the scope of the bill in relation to those operational matters and the implementation of these changes. However, I would say that these changes are going to take some time. It would be my view that there is adequate time to address some of the concerns that you have raised.

Melina BATH: In terms of licensing delays, what assessment has the government undertaken on the impact of these licensing delays and, with AusCheck coming in, in terms of additional background requirements and potential additional costs on farmers and pest controllers and other regional Victorians or all regional Victorians? Has the government made any assessment on the impact of licensing delays?

Jaclyn SYMES: Similar to the response I gave you earlier, as you are aware, there is a significant amount of time for these changes to be implemented. There will be a regulatory impact statement, so there are a lot of implementation processes to be undertaken, and I think obviously some of the issues you have raised will be addressed through those.

Melina BATH: Because there are lots of question marks in this, I just want to tease out and get the government on record about a commitment and an understanding that there are many questions that need to be answered along the way. In terms of AusCheck and the firearm background check, what criteria will determine that information identified through AusCheck is sufficiently relevant and serious to result in a refusal or mandatory cancellation of a firearm licence, and how will the government be involved in considering those criteria?

Jaclyn SYMES: I understand the reason for your questions, Ms Bath, but this bill is really about the architecture for the changes in the new system. The issues that you raise are obviously valid, but this bill is responding to the national agreement to make changes to accommodate all of those things that have been agreed to, particularly at national cabinet, so the issues you raise are part of the process to come.

Melina BATH: I appreciate that. I also appreciate that because there are a lot of questions out there, people are seeking an understanding.

Jaclyn SYMES: If I may, just picking up on your request for commitments, I think what I can say is that my understanding from the questions I have asked about this process is that, yes, there are a lot of questions, but there is a commitment to involve people in a regulatory impact statement, so this is architecture that sets up an implementation process that will address the issues that you have raised. I do not have answers to them yet, because obviously we do not want to have the answers yet; we want to actually engage people that are participating in this process or running this process. So there is a commitment that there will be people engaged in the development of the regulations and the RIS. This again I would describe as the architecture to enable those conversations and those processes to commence.

Melina BATH: I appreciate that, Minister. I guess the point that the Liberals and Nationals are raising in terms of our amendment to delay the implementation of AusCheck and the requirements in this bill is there because there are so many questions to be answered and so many people to engage with. We are really putting the cart before the horse, hence our amendments that will be coming up.

Be that as it may, while we are on the topic of consultation, and without making an exhaustive list, can the minister commit to or acknowledge, noting that you are not the minister in charge, what the government will do in terms of that consultation? How will that look, and what groups, if any, are on or off the list? Will Field & Game be consulted? Will the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia be consulted? Will the Australian Deer Association be consulted? Will clay target shooting organisations that I have not mentioned be consulted? Could the minister give me an understanding – will the Victorian Farmers Federation be consulted? People like Landcare are really important too, and all of those other areas where pest control is very important. Could you give the house an understanding of that consultation process, and who –

Jaclyn SYMES: There is an existing firearms consultative committee, which will be quite useful and engaged in any of these processes. It is intended to be extensive engagement that is open to all interested parties, and I think the benefit of having a RIS is that anyone is able to participate in that process.

Melina BATH: I appreciate that, and that was one of my questions about a regulatory impact statement, so you have answered that. The importance of getting this right is there and is critical, and so I would just like to understand that the government will not be seeking to ignore certain sectors or favour others in a regulatory impact statement and that there is the opportunity for those groups to actually be at the table. I think it is really important to get it right.

Jaclyn SYMES: As I said, there will be the opportunity for people to participate in the development of regulations and be involved in the regulatory impact processes. I think just coming back, though, I know a lot of your concerns are around AusCheck. These are often very much related to adverse outcomes based on ASIO or ASIC intel and the like. There will be an opportunity for people to talk about the operation of the system, but a lot of those other things – what is relevant, what is not – will be a matter for the Commonwealth and those bodies that I mentioned. Again, this will all become very clear as the process unfolds.

Melina BATH: Many constituents, and not only constituents but responders to my request for assessment and consultation, have gone on record – they could well be a farmer of 40 years or whatever – about their licence renewal. They will go through the whole process of AusCheck. That is my understanding. In particular clause 40 requires the Chief Commissioner of Police to immediately cancel a licence on becoming aware that the holder does not satisfy the firearms background check requirement. But computers and people make mistakes. So if we have got our 40-year farmer who is shooting rabbits on her farm, what opportunity does that licence-holder have to understand and correct inaccurate information underlying an AusCheck outcome before the licence is cancelled? Clearly everybody, I am assuming, in this room wants to catch criminals and people that would do wrong. The system should not be set up to not be able to give the opportunity to law-abiding firearms owners when there has been an inaccuracy or where there has been a mistake to retain a licence.

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, as always it is difficult to respond to a particular example. However, it is likely in the scenario that you have presented, unless there is an adverse finding from ASIO or the like, that we would not anticipate that that would trigger any changes in relation to any sort of administrative errors or the like. Again, there would be opportunities for review, and if somebody was not satisfied with an outcome, then the Federal Court would be an avenue. But in the scenario you have provided, it would not be something that we would be anticipating.

Melina BATH: I know that is in an ideal world. The reality is that computers make mistakes, people do make mistakes, and if there is adverse information that concerns a wrong person or that is demonstrably inaccurate, what is the process? If there is a handing down from AusCheck in relation to a person’s licence, does the commissioner have to cancel that licence or is the error investigated in any way?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, my advice is that the chief commissioner effectively has a decision around whether there is an adverse finding or there is not an adverse finding. If there is an adverse finding, it must act on that, but if there has been something provided in error, then there can be an internal review. But if you want to review whether the adverse findings should or not disqualify you, that process would be through the Federal Court.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.