Thursday, 13 August 2026

Clause 1 further considered (14:02)

Melina BATH: Minister, just going back and finishing off some questions on the AusCheck section, existing section 46 provides for an immediate cancellation – this is in the bill – following the making of a firearms prohibition order by the Chief Commissioner of Police (CCP). Can the minister explain the policy rationale for applying an immediate cancellation mechanism to an adverse AusCheck outcome, and what safeguards will account for the fact that AusCheck information may originate from external Commonwealth agencies? I am looking at it as a test of what consideration was given for the immediate cancellation mechanism.

Jaclyn SYMES: The rationale is that the chief commissioner is not the one that then would interrogate the information. They get the advice that there is an adverse finding from that body but do not obtain the information necessarily, so there is no way for the chief commissioner to engage in a conversation about the content; they just get adverse findings. So it is an immediate refusal based on those grounds, and then it can go through another process involving the Federal Court. It can go to the Federal Court.

Melina BATH: I am hovering around the issue where, if there has been an error upstream in AusCheck, for whatever reason – an administrative error, they picked the wrong person – the chief commissioner receives this. This is my understanding, so correct me if I am wrong. The chief commissioner receives a ‘must immediately cancel’ order – that is, that the renewal or instigation of the licence should not proceed. The only recourse at the moment for that person in Victoria is the fact that they have to go through a court system. That is my understanding of this legislation. The chief commissioner is the instigator of the cancellation, but the only way that a Victorian can deal with it is to go back through the courts – there is no redress or ability to request to have it revised.

Jaclyn SYMES: In this instance the decision to cancel or not approve is based on an adverse finding, right. That is one matter; that is the information. Why you had an adverse finding is unrelated to the fact that you have applied for a licence. It exists in another situation. In this legislation that is a Commonwealth matter. If you have an issue with a finding through ASIO or one of the other bodies, it comes up as an adverse finding, and the chief commissioner says, ‘Well, that says that I have to act in this way.’ If you have issues with why there is an adverse finding, that is a matter for the Commonwealth and there is a judicial review process or you can engage with those bodies. It is not the state system that you would have that conversation with.

Melina BATH: What happens if there is a typographical or administrative error? What does the resident in Victoria, the firearms owner, do then?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is my point, Ms Bath. That would be a matter for the Commonwealth.

Melina BATH: I thank my colleague Mr Bourman, who is just asking. Clearly there can be mistakes made. There can be a mistake made in that determination. Yes, the whole idea of this is to make sure that recalcitrant criminals with ill intent are caught, and we can all support that. But if there is somehow an administrative error and that person in Victoria has to go and deal with it federally, is there no mechanism for applying through a VCAT system or any other system?

Jaclyn SYMES: The chief commissioner does not get the intel; they will just see the outcome. If the CCP receives an outcome from AusCheck with the wrong name, it is reasonable they could make further inquiries to obtain a correct outcome, for example. In terms of what somebody would do if they discovered that they had an adverse finding, then that is separate to this legislation. They would be able to, if it is an administrative error, make inquiries in a regular sense, but that is outside this system.

Melina BATH: Under the citizenship cancellation provisions a licence-holder is given written notice of 28 days to provide evidence and review a pathway; that is my understanding. Can the minister explain why a different procedural approach has been adopted for an adverse firearms background check outcome under clause 40 – that is, AusCheck – than an equivalent safeguard available to the affected licence-holder?

Jaclyn SYMES: There are two separate requirements here. AusCheck is about whether someone is fit to hold a firearms licence through a background check with national intelligence agencies. This step is about weeding out those bad actors, not law-abiding gun owners, as you would appreciate. It is appropriate for people who may be excluded from having a licence because of citizenship to be afforded the opportunity to provide evidence that they are in fact a citizen.

Melina BATH: If AusCheck has not completed a check but there is no adverse information against an applicant, can Victoria Police issue or renew a licence?

Jaclyn SYMES: If there is no adverse outcome, there is no reason to block or cancel a licence.

Melina BATH: If an adverse result is caused by inaccurate Commonwealth information, which agency will be responsible for correcting that record and ensuring that a Victorian licence decision is reconsidered?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think it goes back to our previous discussion about the fact that there is no ability for the Victorian system to have access to the intel in relation to any of those adverse findings, so it would be similar to the previous discussion.

Melina BATH: With this legislation, do the government, the minister or the chief commissioner have any responsibility if there is an error or an inaccurate piece of information and you are a Victorian citizen and you are an Australian citizen and you work within the new legislation and the new qualifications, and is there any advice you can give about who the licence-holder would contact for a correction and at what time that would apply? Is there anything in this legislation that pertains to that?

Jaclyn SYMES: For a simple administrative error, like a spelling error or something like that, you could go and seek internal information from Victoria Police. But if there is an error in information that VicPol cannot see, then that would be a different pathway.

Melina BATH: Just in terms of a different area of questioning for the moment, Minister, in terms of readiness, what criteria will the government apply before recommending proclamation of part 7, and what assurances can the minister provide to Victorians that the necessary Commonwealth legislative framework – all this back-end stuff, information-sharing arrangements, IT systems and the administrative processes in Victoria – will be operational before commencement? What are the criteria that the Victorian government is using for this?

Jaclyn SYMES: Quite simply, there is no proclamation until all of that is completed.

Melina BATH: How will the minister and the government know that all of that is completed? What will that look like? How will you know that all the information-sharing arrangements are in place or the IT systems are in place? How will that be, and what information will pass between federal and state governments?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am not privy to the ins and outs of the implementation of this legislation. As I have indicated in my previous responses, this is a framework that is in response to a national agreement that will be worked on, and a lot of those issues will form part of the implementation. As I said, the bill does not come into effect until it is proclaimed, and it will not be proclaimed until it can be operationalised.

Melina BATH: In terms of privacy, information sharing and data governance for this, what categories of personal information will Victoria Police provide to the Commonwealth entities for firearm background checks, and what information will be returned to Victoria Police?

Jaclyn SYMES: That will be part of the design, similar to some of the questions you have had about the specifics of how this will operate. That is why there is a regulatory impact assessment (RIS) and that is why there are continuing conversations at the national level, and all states will be sharing information to make sure that we are all on the same page. That is the point.

Melina BATH: How long will information obtained or exchanged through firearm background check processes be retained by Victoria Police and Commonwealth entities, and what retention, disposal or oversight arrangement will apply? Assuming that I may receive a similar answer to the one that you have just given, I am putting on record that these considerations need to be taken thoroughly in terms of that research and preparation.

Jaclyn SYMES: You are correct, Ms Bath, my answer would be the same, but as you have indicated you are asking a lot of these questions on behalf of stakeholders, I can assure you they would be invited to participate in the RIS any other consultation processes in the development of the implementation of this system.

Melina BATH: Has the government considered whether immediate suspension could be used in appropriate cases to secure public safety while the accuracy and seriousness of adverse background check information is urgently assessed before a final cancellation so that somebody could be immediately suspended pending a final cancellation?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Ms Bath, we talked about how there is no capacity for the Victorian system to have direct access to the intel that might be held by a federal agency. Again, the points you are making are things that can be explored in the development of the implementation.

Melina BATH: In terms of costs and the Commonwealth contribution, one of the common concerns and discussions when dealing with stakeholders – everyday people – is the cost impost. I just want to drill down: what is the government’s estimated total cost of establishment and annual recurrent cost implementing the firearm background check regime as it is implemented in Victoria? Has the Commonwealth committed to any funding in relation to the administration or ongoing costs, and if so, how much?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, this is legislation that is setting up the architecture for a system that is not going to come into effect for some time. They are matters that can be developed, discussed and sorted prior to the commencement.

Melina BATH: Is it the government’s position to keep costs as low as possible for the raft of reasons where firearm owners are entitled and legally allowed to have firearms? There is some concern out in the community that they are going to be significantly raised, and we do have a cost-of-living crisis. Farmers, for example, in pest control and the like, can be doing it very tough. It can be a real danger that they actually cannot afford to renew their licence in order to keep up their very important activities. What is the government’s assessment on costs and has there been any preparation or background work that government has been doing on that?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, I agree with all of the comments you made in relation to keeping costs down. That is certainly the intention of the government. As I said, no decisions have been made, but that has certainly been something that has been raised, in rooms that I have been in anyway.

Melina BATH: In terms of Australian citizenship, I just want to drill down. It says that you need to be an Australian citizen or a New Zealand citizen – I should have looked up the actual wording of the bill – and then there are exemptions. I would like you to go through it in relation to work. Can you outline, and it might not be exhaustive, some of the exemptions and what they would look like? I will give you an example. I have in my electorate a British citizen, as it turns out. He is working on a farm and has a licence now. He is working on that farm in a variety of capacities; he has a whole range of functions on that farm. Is that something that would be seen as an exemption? If you could you go through that a little bit, I will not jump up all the time.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, the example that you have presented is something that is envisaged to be captured by exemptions. Mr Bourman has presented an example as well. I will pre-empt his question just to bring them together. In terms of people that are using a gun as part of their work, whether it be farm work or law enforcement work, it is not envisaged that they would not be able to access a recreational gun licence by virtue of not being an Australian citizen, for example. Both of those examples are what would be envisaged as exemptions under the regulations as they are developed.

David LIMBRICK: I would just like to clarify a statement from the minister there. One of the reasons for having a gun licence, when you apply for it, is that you have a farm. Does that mean that all people who apply for those licences would be exempt from the citizenship test?

Jaclyn SYMES: In terms of the legislation and how it sets up in terms of ‘used for the purposes of work’, I do not think just owning a farm, like a hobby farm or something, would necessarily apply. It would probably depend on the circumstances.

David LIMBRICK: Yes, a firearm may not necessarily be used for work on a hobby farm, as the minister characterised it, but certainly they are a tool that is used on farms; for example, for euthanizing animals and pest control. These are definitely legitimate uses. Would those be classified as exemptions, allowing someone who owns a farm to have a firearms licence regardless of their citizenship status?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, I am not in a position to finalise the regulations here in the chamber. Ms Bath asked me to give a bit more of a high-level explanation. In terms of the very specific examples, I could say they are more than likely going to be covered by exemptions. But in terms of each and every farm owner, I am not in a position to write regulations here through the committee stage.

Jeff BOURMAN: Minister, I am going to just pull at a string here. I noticed what I would call a drafting error. It says that if someone needs a firearm for their job, they will be exempt. Is that correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: You have referred to a part of the bill. Do you want to refer to that? You have indicated a section.

Jeff BOURMAN: It is in the exemption.

Jaclyn SYMES: I will need a page reference.

Jeff BOURMAN: While I find that I will move on to something else. With the exemptions for having a firearm or a licence for work, it is kind of important, the distinction. If a security guard is exempt from the citizenship requirements – for the purposes of this argument we will presume they are – and they get a licence, will they be able to have a recreational licence as well?

Jaclyn SYMES: What the legislation is designed to do is not penalise legitimate firearm owners. We all agree with that. It is envisaged that through the RIS and the development of regulations that if you are permitted to use a firearm as part of your work and you have a licence to do so, you would also then be able to get a recreational licence regardless of your status.

Jeff BOURMAN: I guess that begs the question, should you cease your work where you require a firearms licence, say if you are a security guard, what happens to your recreational licence?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is similar to my conversation with Mr Limbrick and Ms Bath in terms of the specifics of how things will work – that is why there will be a RIS, that is why there will be further consultation. That is why I tried to bring it up in terms of the high-level principles of the of the act, but that is a question that I think would be well addressed through the RIS rather than the committee stage.

Jeff BOURMAN: I guess one of the things is that we are trying to put stuff on the record now for the simple reason that we do not know what the regulations will look like in their final form.

Jaclyn SYMES: Just to respond to that comment, that is why it is not possible and it would be ill-advised of me to attempt to indicate exactly what will be the result of a RIS and consultation. I am the responsible minister for this bill. I have demonstrated that this is about the architecture of a framework through a national process. You are welcome to put comments about things that you think should be considered, but my comments should not undermine a RIS process, and so I will not be drawn on answering questions that would be much more appropriately dealt with through a RIS. Perhaps the committee stage might be an opportunity for some more statements, rather than asking me to pre-empt a process when I am not in a position to do so.

Jeff BOURMAN: But the way I see it, Minister, is that it is also good for the government to put its intentions on the record, if not deliberate. Like always, it is up to the government what it responds to. I ask the questions. You give me the answers. I do not have to like the answers. If I ask you for an answer and you say, ‘That’ll be in the RIS,’ then that is the answer I have to accept. But I still feel I get to ask the questions.

Jaclyn SYMES: I understand that, but I think we all know that if you get too specific in your questions, you cannot expect me to respond to something that would be appropriate in a RIS. I will draw you back to the bill if we start to get into the details of something that is not in the bill. This is about architecture, a framework, and the specifics of how it is going to work in many years time is something that is more appropriately dealt with through a formal process. I will not be drawn on those comments, because I would not in any way want to inappropriately influence an outcome by virtue of attempting to be helpful with your questions. Direction? Fine. High level? That is why I have gone there. Specifics? It is just not appropriate. That is also not part of the bill.

Jeff BOURMAN: Perhaps I will just agree to disagree.

Moving back to the AusCheck thing, if VicPol gets an adverse finding, what sort of form are they expecting it to be in? A thumbs up? A thumbs down? I am trying to see, because when we get to the fact that there is an avenue of appeal, going to the Federal Court is not like going to VCAT, where you can do it yourself. You are going to have to engage counsel. I am not in the least bit interested in helping people that should not have a firearms licence get one, but in the event that there is an error, did the government consider an alternative method to assist those wishing to appeal the decision that is ultimately made by the chief commissioner?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have answered this question. Ms Bath asked an identical question. The chief commissioner is only provided with advice that there is an adverse finding. They do not have any intel on what led to that being an adverse finding, so the mechanism for inquiries, reviews et cetera becomes a matter for the individual with the Commonwealth, not the state.

Jeff BOURMAN: I will get into the citizenship stuff here. One of the problems I have, and I will find the exact page for you, is there is a dealers licence cancellation in the event that they hire a non-citizen. I feel that this is a blunt instrument. Does the government expect someone who is hiring someone in a gun shop, whether they handle firearms or not, to provide evidence that they have citizenship – it is clause 29, page 18, ‘General discretion of Chief Commissioner to refuse a dealers licence’ – to satisfy the citizenship requirement? There is also ‘Cancellation of dealers licence – citizenship requirement’. If the chief commissioner reasonably believes that the holder of a dealers licence or responsible person or a person employed in that business does not satisfy the citizenship requirement – this is page 19 – they must give notice and take action. I guess the question is: what is the expectation of a licensed firearms dealer? Are they going to be expected to ask people for proof of citizenship before they employ them?

Jaclyn SYMES: If you go on to read the rest of that section, it is about the invitation of the holder of the licence to provide evidence that the person to whom the notes relate does satisfy the citizenship. That in itself implies the answer to your question, but I might have some more details.

Can a dealer employ a fit and proper person who does not satisfy the citizenship requirement? Yes, if the employee reasonably requires a firearm to earn a livelihood. It is anticipated that a dealer, a responsible person in relation to a dealer’s licence and a person employed in the business of a dealer will usually be exempt from the requirement on the basis that the person reasonably requires a firearm to earn a livelihood.

David LIMBRICK: My question for the minister is: how does one prove citizenship? I mean an applicant, by the way.

Jaclyn SYMES: The requirements of the act invite somebody to satisfy the citizenship requirements and that they can provide evidence of such to the chief commissioner. You can provide your certificate of citizenship or your birth certificate or any other evidence that may be required to prove citizenship that is not necessarily set out in this act, because it is requirement of several acts.

David LIMBRICK: This goes to the point of one of my amendments. Can a passport be considered proof of citizenship?

Jaclyn SYMES: In some instances AusCheck would have that information. But it is also why there is a 28-day period to be able to demonstrate it, so that there is adequate time to ensure people can provide the evidence that meets the satisfaction.

David LIMBRICK: My specific question was: would a passport suffice to prove citizenship?

Jaclyn SYMES: This bill is asking you to demonstrate citizenship. Whether a passport does or not would depend on the specific circumstances and if there is any other relevant information, so it could satisfy. As I said, you have just got to satisfy the citizenship requirement. Reasonable evidence must be provided to the chief commissioner. I cannot give you a definitive answer of whether in every case that would be satisfactory or not.

David LIMBRICK: I have a comment on this. It is not my belief that a passport would satisfy citizenship requirements, because of the group that I have actually outlined in my amendment, the British subjects that arrived in Australia before 1984 that are eligible to vote. They are also eligible to obtain Australian passports, is my understanding, but they are not citizens. Therefore a passport could not be accurate proof of citizenship.

Jeff BOURMAN: Minister, there are a number of people that currently hold recreational shooters licences that will possibly not meet the upcoming citizenship test. Is it the intention of the government to grandfather those licences, or is it the intention for them to be cancelled?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is why there is a RIS: to look at a range of matters. But as I said, it is not intended to penalise legitimate firearm owners.

Jeff BOURMAN: I am going to get down to technicalities here. I have been approached by a number of Victoria Police members and some PSOs that under the citizenship test are not going to be able to get recreational licences. There is a provision in this that if you need a firearm for your job – and a firearm licence, presumably – that will be dealt with in the RIS. But the police have their firearms under an exemption, so technically it has got nothing to do with that. What is going to become of them when it comes time for them to get a licence? They do not have a licence and they do not need a licence for their role, because they operate under an exemption.

Jaclyn SYMES: As I have already indicated, it is anticipated that the exemption – after it goes through the RIS et cetera – would connect to a person who reasonably requires a firearm to earn a livelihood. It does not necessarily connect to a licence.

Melina BATH: I think the same people have been writing to all of us, because that was a similar question. In effect a current Victorian police officer or protective services officer who permanently resides in this state or in Australia can satisfy the exemption without necessarily being a citizen?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think this is to my point. It is not a good use of our time to be going through all of these specific questions. There is a power in the regs to prescribe that someone meets the citizenship test as well as a power to exempt classes of people from the test. This is all to be worked through. I acknowledge that you have got people that want answers now. What I can say to those people is that we want to hear from them but not through the committee stage of the bill. It is intended that all of these issues could be picked up through a RIS, which is a lot more detailed and has the ability to go backwards and forwards and have expert advice.

Melina BATH: I appreciate the comment. I am not trying to labour this too much, but there are concerned people. My commentary around that RIS is that Shooting Australia or Victorian shooting associations or individual clubs can all have their impact and commentary and share the wealth of their knowledge in developing the RIS. I will give you a very tiny example. We sometimes have international people. I have got one that lives not far from me, a Peruvian air pistol athlete, and this will be my last example on this. They hold a provisional handgun licence. They want to become an Australian citizen, but their licence may finish before this all takes effect. Minister, these sorts of exemptions – I am not saying today – for athletes and sporting shooters could potentially be teased out in the RIS as part of this process. Today we are not going to say we will knock them out or we will include them; this can all be workshopped through the RIS.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. We will go through a comprehensive public consultation process to make sure that all legitimate licence-holders and firearm users have the chance to inform what exemptions are made. We are not ruling out considering any cohorts of individuals who use firearms legitimately and lawfully.

Melina BATH: I am sure part of that will be the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee, which certainly has a mix. Let me just make sure we have covered off a question here. In terms of dealer licences – and we spoke about dealers just before – what arrangements will apply to employees of those dealers? I guess my next question is: will the likes of those be available to be worked through in this process as well? There is not a contained level of discussion on exemptions? It will be worked through to the nth degree as required?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, it will be part of the RIS, but the conversation I just had with Mr Bourman applies to the question. I think it is the same question. Employees who reasonably require a firearm to earn a livelihood could be picked up in the exemptions.

Katherine COPSEY: The government rejected the first recommendation of Ken Lay’s rapid review. What options had been considered in relation to that recommendation prior to its rejection?

Jaclyn SYMES: This is something that has been undertaken with due consideration. I am not at liberty to go through every option that would have been canvassed, but considering it was the government’s decision to give due consideration to the report and release publicly our response, of course we have considered a range of responses.

Katherine COPSEY: You do not have insight into whether alternate caps and alignment with other jurisdictions that have adopted caps was considered or not?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is part of internal government processes to consider a range of options. I am not at liberty to go through those, but I am certainly not saying no other options were considered. But in considering the recommendation and considering the fact that this is a national framework, of course lots of things were considered.

Katherine COPSEY: We have a new Premier, Minister, who declared that he is not Daniel Andrews and not Jacinta Allan. Do you know if the Premier has considered revisiting Mr Lay’s number one recommendation around adopting gun caps?

Jaclyn SYMES: There is no variation to the cabinet decision.

Katherine COPSEY: So we are implementing Allan Labor government policy today?

Jaclyn SYMES: We are implementing government policy, Ms Copsey.

Katherine COPSEY: Just on the topic of the reclassification powers that this bill broadens, do you have insight into why the commissioner has not used his existing powers to reclassify rapid-action firearms like those that were used at Bondi into the more restricted category C?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, I do not have insight.

Katherine COPSEY: I appreciate, Minister, that you have got carriage of this today. Would you mind checking if there is any information in the development of this bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Copsey, you and I have had lots of exchanges on bills before. It has been a while – but no, we can talk about the bill. The way government develops its policy and its legislation is not a matter for committee.

Katherine COPSEY: I will put my question in context then. I am seeking to understand why the extended reclassification powers are necessary and whether there was some barrier to action that required legislative change before the commissioner could use reclassification powers for weapons such as those that were used at Bondi.

Jaclyn SYMES: That is why we did the rapid review with Ken Lay.

Katherine COPSEY: Do you suggest that the review and the legislation before us were necessary before the commissioner could act on rapid-action firearms like those used at Bondi?

Jaclyn SYMES: Today’s legislation is built off the back of a review that we asked Ken Lay to do following the incident at Bondi and the national conversation and decisions at national cabinet.

Katherine COPSEY: There are a number of remaining recommendations from the Lay review that are not actioned by this bill, such as mandatory minimum standards for training and such as reporting pathways for medical professionals that could enable further intervention during the life cycle of firearms licences if there were risky factors noted by medical professionals. What is the government’s timeline to implement the remainder of Ken Lay’s recommendations that the government has accepted?

Jaclyn SYMES: My advice is that that they will be done alongside the development of these regulations and the RIS.

Katherine COPSEY: I appreciate we are discussing one bill today. I am interested to understand: of the remaining recommendations is it anticipated that further legislation will be required in order to advance government action on those?

Jaclyn SYMES: I appreciate your interest, Ms Copsey, and indeed if I was the relevant minister I might be able to use the committee stage to have that engagement, but today my focus is just on the legislation at hand. I am more than happy to direct you to the minister to have those conversations outside this bill.

Katherine COPSEY: In relation to the implementation of recommendations alongside the RIS process, could you briefly speak to some of those recommendations that will be advanced, and over what timeframe do you expect the RIS process will be concluded? When will those recommendations be completed?

Jaclyn SYMES: After the bill passes I will get you some information on the timing. But no, again, I cannot talk to you about recommendations that are not picked up in this legislation.

Katherine COPSEY: So just to confirm my understanding, you cannot provide a timeline for implementation of the remaining recommendations from the Lay rapid review today?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, Ms Copsey. Please be very clear. What I have invited you to do is to stick to the legislation at hand. We have a bill that is in a committee stage. You are interested in related areas of policy, and that is fine. My job today is to get through the bill and answer questions on the bill. The minister’s office, through my communications, has already offered to meet with you on issues that are outside today’s bill.

Katherine COPSEY: In the remainder of this parliamentary term I will be happy to hear what words can be offered. The thrust of my questions today is to understand this. You have said in this committee stage that the bill has been brought as a response to the incidents at Bondi. The rapid review was commissioned in the wake of that, and the legislation responds to that work. I have noted that there are a number of parts of that work that are not complete. Realistically, given the timeframe we have left for legislative solutions in this term of Parliament, I am trying to understand in what way the government can undertake to implement those recommendations when they are not in this bill.

Jaclyn SYMES: As I have outlined, this is infrastructure for important reform going forward. It is not going to be quick. There will be detailed consultation in relation to what is to go with regulations as a result once this bill passes. The proclamation is not anticipated until at least 2028, so there are a number of processes to undertake. You have indicated your interest in the other recommendations. As I have indicated, they will be completed alongside the implementation of this bill.

Jeff BOURMAN: Minister, part 3, clause 7 – and this is going back to what Ms Copsey was actually talking about, the temporary reclassifications – relates to the new powers for the Chief Commissioner of Police to temporarily recategorise firearms to, as the then minister said in his second-reading speech, ‘better enable police to respond to emerging firearms technology of concern’. The bill confers a much broader delegated authority – which is kind of the same as the current delegated authority, but anyway – on the chief. Can you confirm that it is the intent of the government that these significant powers are used only for new technologies?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Bourman, you asked if it is the government’s intention. It is expected that it would apply to new technologies, yes.

Melina BATH: In terms of the recategorisation, Minister, I am seeking some understanding. If there is a recategorisation and there is an existing owner of an existing firearm, as classified, that is now excluded or not allowed, when will things like the minimum time period required, the authority, the disposal of that firearm or otherwise being able to comply – when and where and how will that be worked out? If you say ‘the RIS’, that is fine, but I just think it is important to put these things on the record. Clearly there will be some people who own firearms that may then be reclassified. They want to make sure that they are being legal and good citizens, but they also do not want to be whacked if this is not really defined and clear for people, and the education around that should also be clear.

Jaclyn SYMES: I am going to do my best here, because I think you guys know a bit more about firearms than me. But just to be clear, and linking in the answer that I gave to Mr Bourman, the reclassification is really to make sure that you can have a temporary classification on something while you work out where it best fits. To your point, you were talking about existing firearms and whether they would be reclassified. That is not necessarily the likely outcome of these changes. The recategorisation of firearms is to provide for more granular and responsive categorisation of firearms, to respond to changes in firearms technology and nationally agreed characterisation of firearms under the National Firearms Agreement. The concern of perhaps some people who have an existing firearm, that all of a sudden it is going to be reclassified, that is not what is envisaged.

Melina BATH: I appreciate that answer. AusCheck is in process. It is a federal government scheme. What happens if it is delayed by some months or even a year or even two years? Can the remainder of this legislation, as it stands now, still operate effectively without that AusCheck, because there are elements of this AusCheck legislation. Could you unpack that? Can it work? The other parts?

Jaclyn SYMES: It can start prior to AusCheck. There is no definitive proclamation date.

Melina BATH: Things like the increased consequences of trafficking of firearms et cetera I think can be considered separate to AusCheck. That was my take on it; I just wanted to get your understanding. There are going to be some quite significant changes through this legislation and public safety outcome is the paramount reason. But I am interested in whether the government has considered as policy a review of this for checking out public safety. When I say ‘checking out’ I mean to see if public safety has been increased – clearly we do not just want the absence of tragic deaths, but public safety outcomes. But also with this newly implemented system processing times or costs that we have talked about going through the RIS process to be finalised. There is a federal government element there. In terms of an assessment of this, how are you going to check, and are there any considerations around an independent review of these reforms?

Jaclyn SYMES: A lot of the detail, as we have discussed, will be worked out through the RIS. There will be lots of opportunities to have conversations about the operation, but as we have indicated, because this is a little way off in terms of its implementation I cannot even exactly say what those regs are going to look at. There could be some new technology that emerges in the next little while that would have to be addressed, and it would be good to have a system to be able to do that adequately.

I would just draw you back, I think, to the main aims of this bill. It is about implementing decisions to respond to the Bondi terrorist attack by imposing more stringent restrictions on access to firearms in Victoria. I repeat: it is not designed to make life harder for legitimate gun users. We have not touched on it, but the firearm prohibition orders scheme – ensuring that that is permanent is what this bill does as well. Given we do not even know when this will commence, it would not be appropriate to have a formal review process, but I think, given the commitment to be very consultative and to have a thorough RIS process in the development, it will be able to firm up a little bit clearer and see if there are any remaining issues that we would need to monitor.

Moira DEEMING: The Lay rapid review found that it was extremely rare for licensed gun owners to be responsible for violent gun crime, but it did not publish the exact statistic. Will the minister commit to publishing annual data showing how many licensed gun owners used their licensed guns to commit violent crimes?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am not in a position to give you that commitment, but I will pass on your suggestion to Victoria Police.

Moira DEEMING: My second question is: how does the government propose to objectively measure and prove the efficacy of these regulatory changes?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I said, coming back to the intention of the bill, there will be lots of conversations about how the regs will apply and why they apply, and there will be a lot of people that are interested in how they apply to them, which is the benefit of having a very thorough consultation process which is facilitated by a regulatory impact statement. So some of that will be worked out through that consultation, because I think that is more to the point of what people are concerned about – what they do not quite know yet, how it is going to apply to them. In relation to any further reviews in the future or assessments of this legislation, as I said, we are not entirely sure when this will come into effect. My advice is that it will not be before 2028. A lot can happen in that time.

David LIMBRICK: I have just got a few questions. The first one I think I already know the answer to, but I would like to get it on the record. Will activities that involve firearms but do not currently require a firearms licence be unaffected by this bill? I can give a good example of that. In my electorate we have Springvale rifle range. Lots of people go there. You do not require a firearms licence. You need to follow all their rules and give them ID and all that sort of stuff, but you do not require a firearms licence. Will that type of activity still be fine under this bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, no change.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for confirming that. My next question is around risk: why does a non-citizen pose a higher risk to safety than a citizen?

Jaclyn SYMES: In the first instance you are perhaps asking me for an opinion. This is a discussion that has come out of national cabinet and is putting in some more rigour around who can have a gun and a firearms licence and who cannot. This is what the national cabinet have decided is the best course of action.

David LIMBRICK: I would counter that: the Lay review did actually give some justification on this, and I would be interested to know if that justification was the justification used by the government, because I disagreed with the justification given in the Lay rapid review.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, I think this is a little similar to the conversation that I had with Ms Copsey. A lot of matters are considered in the development of policy, and as I said, first of all at the outset in a bill deliberation it is not necessarily appropriate to go through the ins and outs of the development of a government position, but it certainly was not my piece of legislation, and so I am not in a position to go through the ins and outs of the policy development stages.

David LIMBRICK: I would say this, though: these people who are not citizens but nevertheless have rights in Australia – many of them have very similar rights to Australians; in fact they can get Australian passports – surely deserve to know why they are potentially having their firearms licence taken away. The implication is that they are higher risk. Surely the government must have a way of communicating with those people about why their licences are being taken away. I do not think ‘Just because we said so’ is good enough, and I do not think that the Victorian public is going to think that is good enough. If you are going to take away the licences of these people that have caused no harm to anyone, they deserve to have a reason given to them.

Jaclyn SYMES: The effect of the national cabinet announcement of the citizenship requirement is that eligibility to hold a firearms licence will be a special privilege of an Australian citizen. The citizenship requirements make a firearms licence a special privilege of a person who owes a permanent allegiance to the Crown in the right of Australia. Citizenship comes with fundamental obligations and privileges, such as voting and an allegiance of loyalty to Australia, its people, its democratic beliefs and the upholding of its laws. It is accordingly appropriate that the privilege and solemn responsibility of firearm possession, ownership and use be reclassed as a special privilege of citizen. As I said, we are working in collaboration with the Commonwealth and other states.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for that answer, but doesn’t that answer totally contradict the fact that the bill allows New Zealand citizens to hold firearms licences in Australia?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is outside the scope of the bill, Mr Limbrick, but there are a number of arrangements between Australia and New Zealand that are unique to those two countries as opposed to other countries.

David LIMBRICK: Is the minister referring to intelligence sharing and that type of thing? Is that what we are referring to?

Jaclyn SYMES: Rights of residence.

David LIMBRICK: Okay, sure. Rights of residence. All right. If that is the case, why was consideration not given to the group of people that I identified, British subjects who came to Australia before 1984, who in all respects are Australian, really? They can vote in Australian elections and they can obtain Australian passports, and yet under this bill – if it goes ahead as is and they are not given an exemption – they will lose their right to a firearm licence, or their privilege, as the minister puts it.

Jaclyn SYMES: Just to be clear, at the passing of this legislation, no-one’s licence is being taken away; that is not the purpose of this legislation. There is a RIS process. I have already given an indication of my knowledge of the government’s intention to have a broad range of exemptions within the regulations, and some of the issues that you have raised would be well dealt with in that process.

David LIMBRICK: Okay. I could maybe accept that if there were no exemptions now in the bill, but there are exemptions – for example, the New Zealand citizens who are not Australian citizens. They may bear allegiance to the Crown like Australians, but it is concerning for these people in these classes. Surely the minister must realise that people who currently use a firearm and who have a firearms licence are going to be concerned that if the RIS process does not go their way, they are going to lose their licence.

Jaclyn SYMES: I take that more as a statement, Mr Limbrick, because I cannot pre-empt the outcome of a RIS. But again I come back to the government’s firm intention, which is that this is not designed to penalise legitimate firearm users.

David LIMBRICK: I am glad that is the intention. My concern is the consequence rather than the intention, as I see with many bills through this place. Nevertheless, just for the record, for groups such as the one I have identified – British subjects that came to Australia before 1984 – is their only pathway for continuing to hold their licence to engage with the RIS process and hope that the RIS process turns out in their favour?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, I would not say that, because, as I said, nobody will lose their licence as a result of the passage of this legislation. The RIS will consider a number of appropriate exemptions, and people are invited to put them up. It does not mean that you might be caught by an exemption by having not participated in the process.

David LIMBRICK: I look forward to participating in the RIS process.

Jaclyn SYMES: Good.

David LIMBRICK: Yes, I shall consult with the Libertarian Party, and I am sure that they will have some views on this.

I will ask a few other questions. When the firearms prohibition order (FPO) scheme was introduced, the then minister’s statement of compatibility with the charter openly acknowledged that the powers were partially incompatible with the right to privacy and the rights of children under the charter. The government at the time justified proceeding because of the pressing and substantial threat and specifically relied on the 10-year sunset clause to allow future parliamentary review. Why is the government now removing that sunset and making an admitted rights-incompatible scheme permanent without a fresh, independent assessment of whether less restrictive alternatives exist?

Jaclyn SYMES: Bear with me, Mr Limbrick. We have switched to a completely different part of the bill. Is everyone finished on clause 1 on anything other than FPOs?

David LIMBRICK: I have got a few more questions.

Jaclyn SYMES: All on FPOs?

David LIMBRICK: Mostly.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, the continuation or permanency of this scheme is predominantly off the back of advice from Victoria Police and their experience in the scheme, particularly as it relates to organised crime.

David LIMBRICK: The point I am trying to make here is that these rights were acknowledged to be limited by the government at the time, but they said there was a pressing need because of events at the time and that is why the sunset clause was put in. It seems concerning that that emergency situation seems to have just been carried on without a review of whether there is a different means of doing this that might be less restrictive of human rights.

Jaclyn SYMES: But, Mr Limbrick, you are assuming that there has not been any consideration of any alternative policy positions, and similar to a conversation with Ms Copsey, we would have sought the views of the police on whether this should be sunsetted or not. They are the types of conversations that government has. That is the type of advice that the Department of Justice and Community Safety would have provided to the Minister for Police, and the conversations with Victoria Police would, as I understand it, have indicated that the system, as it has been working for 10 years, should continue in the way that it does.

David LIMBRICK: On a similar point, the original statement of compatibility for the original firearms prohibition orders conceded that there are likely less restrictive measures that could arguably be adopted. This is why it was partially incompatible in the first place. Has the government tested those less restrictive measures since 2018, or is it simply making this temporary scheme permanent without testing those less restrictive measures?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think it is fair to say, Mr Limbrick, that the current system is considered appropriate. It is also almost nationally consistent. The advice is that stopping it would not be well advised, because the current scheme works.

David LIMBRICK: The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee has raised concerns that the current statement of compatibility does not clearly state the minister’s opinion on the ongoing compatibility of the permanent firearms prohibition order scheme under charter section 28(3). The minister does not appear to have responded to this concern in any currently available SARC report. Can the minister confirm the government’s current view on compatibility, particularly regarding warrantless search powers that apply to children aged 14 and over and to shared premises?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, I am advised that a response to SARC is in the works, but I do not have visibility of that.

David LIMBRICK: I was not aware that that was in progress, and my team will look forward to reading that. Given that the firearms prohibition orders can be issued on very spurious criteria, including the behaviour of the individual, what objective evidence demonstrates that making these civil orders and their associated search powers permanent is necessary and proportionate in 2026 rather than simply a reaction to the recent events in Bondi?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is my understanding that the likely decision for the continuation of FPOs was heading in that direction before Bondi. They are together conveniently – the legislative changes – so it might look like that, but my understanding is it was a separate pathway heading in this direction anyway, predominantly based off the exchange with Victoria Police.

David LIMBRICK: So just for clarity here, we are saying that some of the parts of this bill were based on the recommendations of the rapid review but other parts of the bill were in train anyway and because we are doing a firearms bill we might as well put it all together. Are you saying that the firearms prohibition orders are not actually a reaction to the Bondi attack at all?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is correct. As part of my responsibility as Leader of the House and indeed chair of the legislation committee, we often look for synergy in issues so that they can come in one bill. These could have been two separate bills, but it made sense for them to be one, not to be conflated as responding to the same incident.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for clarifying that. That is actually helpful to know.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I invite Mr Bourman to move his amendment 1, which is a test for his amendments 3 and 7.

Jeff BOURMAN: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, before line 1 insert –

“(iia) to streamline reporting requirements for approved handgun target shooting clubs; and”.

These are somewhat out of the scope of the intent of this bill, but we have limited opportunities as crossbenchers. My amendments regarding this are to streamline reporting requirements. At the moment a handgun club has to report the attendance or non-attendance of every single individual to the licensing and regulation division, and that takes a lot of time. This is to have only those that do not make the attendance reported. If there are, say, 300 members of the club, instead of sending 300 people that have to be checked to see if they did or did not, they send the three that maybe did not. As it is, Victoria Police still do checks on the clubs, so it is not like we are taking away what I feel is an important part of this. It is really just a streamlining of administration.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Bourman, there is a view that there is some merit to your suggestion, but the timing is not appropriate. We would have to work through significant issues with Victoria Police to operationalise it. I would encourage you to continue those conversations with the Minister for Police, but at this point in time we cannot support your amendment.

David LIMBRICK: It seems that the minister was not able to convince me that Mr Bourman’s amendment was no good, and therefore I will be supporting his excellent efficiency measure.

Melina BATH: Similarly, in consultation with our shadow minister Mr Brad Battin, he feels that there may be some merit but likewise that this needs some further investigation, and the Liberals and Nationals will not support this today.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment today. We feel that clubs will be collecting attendance records, and therefore it is not too burdensome for them to account for that.

Council divided on amendment:

Jeff BOURMAN: I move:

2.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 3 insert –

“(iiia) to make further provision in relation to exemptions; and”.

My amendment 2 inserts a line to make further provision in relation to exemptions. The exemptions become my amendment 4 according to the way I read my sheet. I cannot find where in this running sheet my amendment 4 is, so I am presuming that amendment 2 tests the rest of them. The clerks can look at me in this instance and tell me if I am right.

Jaclyn SYMES: For the benefit of the house, Mr Bourman, can we just be very clear on what your amendment is proposing to do.

Jeff BOURMAN: I guess what I am saying –

Jaclyn SYMES: Is it your notice of receiving instruction (NORI) stuff?

Jeff BOURMAN: That is what I would have thought, but it only has amendment 2, not 4. I am going to move along on my amendment sheet, not the running sheet. A notice of receiving instruction is when you go to shoot a handgun at a licensed club under instruction. You fill out a form, which you submit to licensing and regulation, and they put it in their system. After 13 times, on the 14th time if you go back to a club, you become a prohibited person. It does not matter if it is in your lifetime. It does not matter if you have had a licence in between. My amendment basically is that after five years your NORI expires, much like a demerit point. That is basically the guts of it. It just seems unfair.

I will use my own situation. I am not up to 13, but I have had a handgun licence. You need to do a couple of attendances, then you get your licence. Due to COVID I let it go. Now I have got to do a couple more attendances. Pick a reason why I cannot do it for another number of years and I have to go and do a couple more attendances. At some point in time trying to be a law-abiding person has become impossible. This is basically just to allow these things to expire. For instance, we have the pollie shoots from time to time where a lot of people turn up. If you were here for, say, four terms and you turned up at every one, after the 13th one you could not turn up again, ever. This just proposes to change that, so that after five years it expires.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Bourman, the government will not be supporting this amendment. A NORI form is a Victoria Police form that must be completed when an unlicensed person intends to receive instruction in the use of a general category handgun. This gives people an opportunity to try out handgun target shooting no more than 13 times in their lifetime. The Firearms Act 1996 provides that a person can try out or receive instruction in the use of general category handguns if they are not a prohibited person, are over the age of 12, do not have a medical condition which could impact on their ability to use a handgun in a manner that is safe to themselves and others and have not exceeded the maximum number of times they can receive instruction without a licence. The person can only receive instruction where this occurs at an approved Victorian handgun target-shooting range, and the person’s instructor notifies Victoria Police each time they receive instruction. Adults and juniors can receive instruction on no more than 13 separate occasions in total. The 13 limitation provides a reasonable number of times for a person to try out handgun target shooting. After trying out 13 times, a person is expected to apply for a general category handgun licence and demonstrate their bona fides. The NORI system has been criticised by coroners in a number of jurisdictions as representing a loophole allowing unlicensed people to shoot at ranges and enabling some vulnerable individuals to commit suicide through immediate access to firearms. It would not be desirable to expand the NORI system in the bill.

Jeff BOURMAN: If I may comment on that, I appreciate there was a range in South Australia that was unfortunately beset by an issue there. Whilst we are at it, it represents one of the problems with the current system: you fill out a form, you put it in and then later it gets checked. The whole system is problematic. This change is not making it any easier or any harder for anyone to get one. It is just that after you have got one, five years later it expires. But honestly, there needs to be a real-time check anyway for any opposition to a change to be valid.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will be supporting this amendment. I see the upper limit as irrational in the first place. If you are receiving instruction, I do not see a problem with that. Certainly in the example given just then by the minister I do not see how an upper limit would actually affect that situation at all. Therefore this provides a means for that counter to reset. The consequence for someone exceeding 13 periods of instruction of becoming a permanently prohibited person is extremely excessive and severe, considering that they have done no harm to anyone, other than receive instruction in using a handgun. Therefore I will support a means to reset that counter after a reasonable time period, as Mr Bourman suggests.

Melina BATH: In consultation with Mr Battin, the Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. I echo the minister’s comments regarding the importance of the integrity of the NORI system. If someone is repeatedly accessing firearms in an unlicensed state, it is appropriate that there is an end to that. It is important as well, I would say, that if that was to persist over many years, that would be something that police could remain aware of. It is appropriate that there is an upper limit to how often that is done before someone undertakes the necessary work to gain a firearms licence, so the Greens will not be supporting Mr Bourman’s amendment today.

Jeff BOURMAN: I might just point out for the purposes of clarification that getting a licence does not reset the counter either. Whilst I am getting a licence, it does not reset. None of the arguments I have heard today are actually valid, but let us get on with the show.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Mr Bourman’s amendment 2, which tests his amendments 4 and 8, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendment:

David LIMBRICK: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, line 4, omit “a citizenship requirement and”.

My amendment 1 is around removing the citizenship requirement for obtaining a firearms licence. The Lay review made the recommendation, which is being implemented by the government in this bill, that one must be a citizen or a New Zealand citizen to obtain a licence. The justification given by the Lay review was that a citizen would have more police history that could be checked by Victoria Police and therefore they would be lower risk. I would argue that that is patently untrue. One can obtain citizenship in around four years in Australia, and there are indeed many, many permanent residents who have lived here for far longer than four years – decades in fact – and therefore it is not a rational basis for determining whether there is enough police history to determine whether someone is a good person or not. I would have rather the government did something like have a requirement that someone has lived in Australia for eight years or some period of time. It would have been more rational, but that was not the recommendation of the Lay review. I do not think the removal of the ability of non-citizens to have a licence will actually do anything to help Victoria Police or to reduce gun crime.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick’s proposed amendments would depart from the current national model being developed in accordance with the national cabinet’s position. I recognise that British citizens particularly, whom Mr Limbrick has referred to, have a special status, in that they are able to vote in federal elections in accordance with the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, for example. The bill does permit the making of regulations to prescribe further cohorts that satisfy the citizenship requirements or who are exempt from it. Mr Limbrick, I can give you some assurances that that cohort of people in particular will be given careful consideration during the preparation of the regulations, which will commence next year. This work will be developed in close consultation with the regulator, Victoria Police, firearms stakeholder groups and any other interested parties. The remaking of the regulations requires transparency through the release of a regulatory impact statement and exposure draft also of the regulations for full public consultation before they may be made. The bill does not impose a default commencement date for part 6, being citizenship, or part 7, firearms background checks. This commencement flexibility ensures the government has the time required for the regulations to be prepared and for the renegotiation of the National Firearms Agreement to reach conclusion.

Melina BATH: I do appreciate Mr Limbrick’s amendment. We have heard all this afternoon about the fact that there will be a regulatory impact statement and that various stakeholders will be able to feed into that and have input, and one of the elements that I think is key is around the exemptions for citizenship. We have discussed that at length. In accepting this one, it may send a signal that others are therefore not included, and I raise the issue around long-term residents who could be elite sporting shooting athletes, and I could see that there is a rationale for why they could be included if they meet all the other fit and proper persons et cetera tests. So in that spirit, we will not be supporting this amendment because we feel that there may be some other considerations to come into effect, notwithstanding there is certainly an element of sympathy for it.

David LIMBRICK: I believe Ms Bath may actually be making comment on a different amendment that I am proposing. The amendment I am proposing is to remove the citizenship requirement in its entirety. The further amendment, which I will also move, relates to your comments, I believe.

Melina BATH: We support this as it is without the amendment.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting this requirement. We support stronger regulation of guns in Australia. We accept the conclusion that Mr Lay came to in the rapid review that has led to the inclusion of this. I will note that it would be concerning for Victoria to depart any further than it already has from the federal approach to gun safety in the country, and we believe that this would weaken this bill further. So we will not be supporting Mr Limbrick’s amendment today.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Mr Limbrick’s amendment 1 be agreed to.

Council divided on amendment:

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

1.   Clause 1, after line 6 insert –

“(ia) to restrict the number of firearms that a licence holder may possess, carry or use; and”.

This amendment relates to instituting a cap on the number of firearms that a person can own in Victoria.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government will not be supporting these amendments. We have made the decision not to impose new limits on the number of firearms that individuals may have. The rapid review of Victoria’s firearm laws conducted by Ken Lay recommended imposing caps of four firearms for individual category A or B licence holders with specific exemptions where a compelling need can be demonstrated to hold more than four firearms, specifically for primary producers and sports shooters. The rapid review final report did note that firearms caps are a relatively new regulatory approach and evidence of their long-term effectiveness is still developing. The bill focuses on keeping Victorians safe, which is the Victorian government’s number one priority. The response to the rapid review achieves this by toughening sentences for a range of firearm offences, making licensing decisions stricter and giving VicPol more powers to reclassify weapons.

Jeff BOURMAN: I will not be supporting this, which should surprise nobody. I have got to say capping the number of firearms that people can own, legally and safely stored, for no other reason other than you think it is bad is just one of the most fascist things I have heard in my life. I would support anything that I ever thought had a public safety implication – I support licences, I support safe storage. But either you are safe with one firearm or you are safe with none. It is as simple as that. This is just another brain fart. I do not know where Ken Lay came up with this, but it is just appalling.

David LIMBRICK: This was another recommendation of the Lay review which I also thought was irrational and did not agree with. I do not see how having multiple firearms makes one more dangerous than someone who has a single firearm, unless they have many, many arms, which I do not. I will give the government credit where it is due; the government also came to that conclusion by the look of it, so this bill could have been a lot worse than it is. The government made a sensible decision to ignore that recommendation. I wish they had ignored the citizenship recommendation as well, but they did not. Nevertheless we will not support instituting that recommendation from the Lay review, and I commend the government for ignoring that recommendation.

Melina BATH: The Liberals and Nationals oppose this Greens-inspired amendment, and I object. I spoke before the Greens the other day when the Greens arbitrarily decided that three guns are fine but any more are not. It is an interesting concept that that can occur out of somebody’s mind. Clearly it shows a lack of knowledge around the use of firearms, whether it be in sporting arenas, in hunting arenas or for killing vermin and pests. These are tools of the trade of farmers and pest exterminators, they are tools of the trade of hunters and of sportspersons, and to arbitrarily say we will be safe in some way by capping them I think is quite inappropriate and offensive.

Georgie PURCELL: I want to put on the record my support for this amendment. I was really disappointed to see it not adopted as part of the legislation. I actually spoke about this in my second-reading debate speech –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can we have some quiet please, Ms Terpstra. I cannot hear Ms Purcell.

Sonja Terpstra: There’s no need to be so rude.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Would you like to take 15 minutes?

Sonja Terpstra: You can’t kick me out in a division.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We are not in a division.

Sonja Terpstra: We will be soon. I’ll just be coming back in.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We are not in a division.

Sonja Terpstra: Maybe if you just spoke nicer to me it would be okay.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Terpstra, 15 minutes.

Sonja Terpstra: When the bells go, I will just be coming straight back in. You don’t have to be so rude about it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You can come back.

Sonja Terpstra: Don’t be rude.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You need to be careful or you will be named.

Sonja Terpstra withdrew from chamber.

Georgie PURCELL: I do just briefly want to put on the record my support for this amendment. I was disappointed to see it was not part of the legislation. This is evidence backed by the very fact that we have a significant problem of firearm theft in our state. In fact Victoria has one of the highest rates of the states, if not the highest, of firearm theft. With so many stolen guns out in the community, it is a commonsense measure to cap the amount of firearms that someone can have, to reduce the amount of theft and also to realise when a theft occurs. I want to thank the Greens for moving this amendment.

Katherine COPSEY: I want to respond to a few of the assertions that have been made about our amendment and to correct the record on a few points. Firstly, the justification for this amendment is set out in the Lay review. Mr Lay found that:

There is a strong and well-established correlation between lower levels of firearm availability in the community and reductions in firearm-related harm.

That is the primary justification for the Greens bringing forward this amendment. We believe that our firearm laws should be based on policy that minimises the risk to the community, and that is the reason that we are bringing forward this amendment.

To speak to the issues that were raised with the number of guns that has been proposed, Mr Lay did propose a four-weapon cap as the default for Victoria. That was based on the observation that that is the average number of guns that a licence-holder holds. For the vast majority of people in Victoria an amendment like this would make absolutely no difference to their weapon-holding habits. The Greens chose to go with three because we – not solely, we have got some friends in this chamber – have a commitment, unlike the government and the opposition, to lowering the number of guns that are circulating in Victoria. That is why we have gone with three for the cap.

I just want to clarify that this amendment was drafted in line with Mr Lay’s instructions, so there are exemptions contemplated, as Ken Lay set out, that would allow for people who have workplace requirements and so on and can demonstrate a compelling need. That is contemplated in the Greens’ amendment today. We thank the chamber for considering this. We will not give up until we see gun caps instituted in Victoria, in line with emerging best practice in this country.

Council divided on amendment:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Copsey, I invite you to move your amendment 2, which tests your amendments 4 to 6 and 8.

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

2.   Clause 1, after line 8 insert –

“(iia) to abolish junior licences; and”.

This amendment relates to keeping guns out of the hands of children, abolishing junior licences.

Jaclyn SYMES: The proposal to remove junior licences has no policy merit. A child between 12 and 17 can apply for a junior firearm licence in Victoria for the purposes of receiving instruction in the use of firearms or engaging in sport or target-shooting competition. Almost every state and territory of Australia provides for junior licences or permits. A junior licence, importantly, is a supervised licence. The highly regulated system in Victoria promotes participation in a legitimate Olympic sport and teaches firearms responsibility and safety.

Jeff BOURMAN: Again it will not be a surprise that I will not support this. I feel someone from the Greens might want to have a chat with Aislin Jones, who was an Olympic shooter at 16. She was a girl. She had to learn under a junior licence. Having to shoot under a licensed person is a way, when you are not adult, to get experience. It is not a free-for-all; it is not anything like that. I find it strange that a party that wants the voting age lowered to about 16 do not want people to have guns. So they can vote, but – I just do not get it.

Melina BATH: The Liberals and Nationals will not support this. We oppose this. I concur with Mr Bourman. In order to get a junior licence you have to be completely supervised by an adult with all the licences and storage of firearms. Indeed I mentioned I think in a members statement the other day that I attended the Gippsland clay target championship. It was held at the Morwell Gun Club. I have never seen a more disciplined bunch of young people, led by parents and teachers and coaches. They were respectful. This is a sport of a very high nature, and that is just one example of where a junior can access that sport in a regional setting. It was with state schools and private schools, and it was outstanding. To cap this because of ideology I think is a shame.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarians will absolutely not be supporting this. I actually think that this is a horrible amendment, because what it would do is make sure that young people in Victoria will never be Olympic sportspeople and will never be in the Commonwealth Games – I do not even want to talk about that. They will never be able to get to that level because they will never be able to have a licence, and I just think that that is so wrong. This is a really wholesome family activity that lots of people do. Fathers go out with their sons; they go to shooting ranges and stuff. I see it all the time when I go to the local shooting range in my area – fathers and sons do it. I tell you what, the Greens ought to go out to one of these shooting ranges, because what they will see are lots of multicultural communities there. You will see lots of people from the Indian community, from the Vietnamese community and from the Chinese community. You will see lots of immigrant communities there that see it as a really important pastime for their families. The Greens want to take that away from them. It is just so wrong – absolutely, no.

Georgie PURCELL: I just want to briefly throw my support behind this amendment. I do not think it is necessarily saying that it is anti-gun. It is ordinary to wait till a certain age to do many things in our country, including drive a car. You cannot have social media, but you can shoot a gun now under the laws that we have. I was on the wetlands when a junior firearm licence holder shot a duck rescuer in the face accidentally. I have seen the impacts of what can occur – and that was an accident. Certainly earlier this year we had allegations that came out about the Game Management Authority encouraging shooters to break rules when it came to children. I think perhaps if we had a stronger regulator as well we would be in a different place. That is certainly not the case, especially after today with the passage of the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026 through the lower house. I think this is a really good amendment while we do not have the regulatory framework to support this incredibly big and sometimes dangerous responsibility.

Katherine COPSEY: I think that this is a sensible amendment. I thank Ms Purcell for her comments and her contribution, which I agree with entirely. I just want to point out the hypocrisy of this government, which has been in conniptions about machetes and keeping knives out of the hands of children but is then happy to turn around and not only allow but promote gun use by children. That is what we have seen from this Labor government, unfortunately, over the last two years.

In relation to this being a wholesome family activity and so on, I just want to be very clear: guns are a harmful product. Guns are a harmful product that when they are more prevalent in our society cause more harm. That is what Ken Lay said to this Labor government. They have chosen to disregard the first of his recommendations. The Greens make no apology for seeking to limit the influence of the gun lobby on public policy. We make no apology for seeking to limit the availability of guns, which cause so much havoc and harm in our community. We noted during the second-reading debate that the largest cause of harm from guns is through suicide deaths, so it is also to the community that uses the guns that this harm occurs.

As Ms Purcell said, we limit access by harmful industries to many things that youth interact with, including social media, including gambling, including alcohol and in relation to driving a car, for example, and we think it is entirely appropriate. It is absolutely consistent with Victoria’s leading public health approach to limit access for children to guns. Thanks, everyone, for your contributions.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 2 (16:11)

Melina BATH: Dr Heath has bestowed on me the honour of moving this amendment. I move:

1.   Clause 2, after line 15 insert –

“(3) The Minister must not recommend to the Governor in Council the making of a proclamation in respect of any provision of Part 7 unless –

(a)   the Minister is satisfied of the following matters –

(i)   that all Commonwealth legislative and regulatory arrangements necessary for the effective operation of the amendments made by that Part are in force;

(ii)   that arrangements have been made between the Chief Commissioner of Police and relevant Commonwealth entities for the effective operation of the amendments made by that Part;

(iii)   that all information technology systems and administrative processes necessary for the effective operation of the amendments made by that Part have been established;

(iv)   that the Chief Commissioner of Police has developed guidance material for the effective administration of the amendments made by that Part; and

(b)   the Minister has caused notice of the matters referred to in paragraph (a)(ii), (iii) and (iv) to be published in the Government Gazette or transmitted to each House of the Parliament; and

(c)   the Minister has caused notice of the following matters to be published in the Government Gazette –

(i)   the estimated initial and ongoing costs associated with the administration of the amendments made by that Part;

(ii)   details of any Commonwealth financial contributions provided for the administration of the amendments made by that Part;

(iii)   the estimated impact of the amendments made by that Part on fees for applications made under the Firearms Act 1996;

(iv)   the estimated financial impact of the amendments made by that Part on licence holders under the Firearms Act 1996; and

(d)   the Minister has caused to be transmitted to each House of the Parliament a statement that sets out the following matters with respect to the amendments made by that Part –

(i)   information-sharing arrangements made between the Chief Commissioner of Police and relevant Commonwealth entities;

(ii)   privacy protections that apply to information shared between the Chief Commissioner of Police and relevant Commonwealth entities;

(iii)   arrangements made between the Chief Commissioner of Police and relevant Commonwealth entities in relation to –

(A)   auditing and oversight of information; and

(B)   retention and disposal of information; and

(C)   management of complaints by affected persons.”.

This is in relation to the AusCheck, and we have had a very long discussion on it during committee of the whole. This particular amendment looks at ensuring that the Commonwealth legislation has to be in operation before we begin; that information-sharing arrangements are in place; that IT systems are functioning; that administrative processes are established; that the Victoria Police guidance and procedures are ready; that the costs to government and licence-holders are available and disclosed; that privacy protections are explained; and that oversight, auditing and complaint systems exist. What we are saying is that Victorians should see how AusCheck will work, what it will cost, how personal information will be protected and how affected licence-holders can seek review. Clearly we believe this improves the bill. Clearly the government is asking Victorians to approve a system that is still being developed. Our amendment ensures that the scheme is fully built, it is tested and it is transparent before it starts affecting lawful firearm owners or deterring criminals, crooks and would-be terrorists. We believe this improves accountability without delaying community safety. We are just making sure it is ready before it is implemented.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting the amendment. We are concerned about anything that would delay or water down any of the measures that are taken in the government’s bill today.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 21 (16:20)

Jeff BOURMAN: I move:

5.   Clause 21, lines 20 to 27, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(a) a citizen or permanent resident of Australia or entitled to that status under Commonwealth law; or

(b) a New Zealand citizen who has a special category visa or is entitled to be granted a special category visa under the Migration Act 1958 of the Commonwealth.”.

When this legislation and this whole thing first came up and this whole citizen thing popped up, I looked at the perpetrators of what happened in Bondi, and one of them was born here. This whole thing is now a problem for a lot of people. So I looked in the mirror and I said, ‘We need to do something, but how can I be the least racist?’ And I said, ‘Let’s align it with the police and the military.’ We trust these people with an Apache gunship – even though Apaches are outdated now – we trust them with an F-35 fighter and we trust them with rocket launchers, machine guns; you name it, we trust them with it, but we will not trust them with a rifle, a .22 to go shooting rabbits. I thought that was just appalling, so my view was to align it with the police and the military. We have got PSOs and police around here. I had a discussion with the minister saying that there is stuff to be done in the regulations: they have the potential to lose their licence, but we trust them to carry a handgun and protect us. This is what this is about. It aligns it with the police and the military, nothing else. What I did find rather funny is that we have support from One Nation, who are supposed to be racist, but do not have support from the Greens. Work this out for yourself.

Jaclyn SYMES: Again I will put on record that no-one loses a licence as a result of this bill passing. The issue that you have raised is legitimate but much better dealt with through the RIS and the development of regulations rather than legislating now.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarians will be supporting this amendment by Mr Bourman. It is effectively a subset of the amendment that I was proposing earlier. I preferred my original, but this is pretty good too, so I will support it.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment, similar to the other. I might just deal with all of the remaining citizenship amendments: we are supportive of the national approach, and we consider that anything that Victoria does to depart from that will further weaken our alignment with the national approach. Victoria has already indicated it is not going to participate in the buyback and rejected key recommendations from the rapid review that the government commissioned, so we will not support anything that further departs from the national approach and weakens the laws further.

Melina BATH: Just in discussion with Mr Battin, our shadow minister, we will not be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

David LIMBRICK: I move:

1.   Clause 21, after line 24 insert –

“(c) a person referred to in section 93(1)(b)(ii) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918; or”.

2.   Clause 21, line 25, omit “(c) and insert “(d)”.

This is a very specific amendment for a very specific class of people. The only reason I even know about this is because my stepfather is one of these people. My understanding from AEC data is there are about 100,000 of these people nationally, about 25,000 of them in Victoria. These people are British subjects that arrived in Australia before 1984. They can vote in Australian elections – most people do not know that there are non-citizens that can vote in Australian elections, but there are some – and they can obtain an Australian passport. In just about every respect they are Australian. In fact many of them, including my stepfather, do not identify as anything else, but for whatever reason they did not go through the naturalisation ceremony.

When these people came to Australia – many of them were ten-pound Poms – Australia made the promise that they and their families would have the same rights as Australians. We mostly kept that promise. Many of them came after World War II. My stepfather’s family came after their father, who was a POW in a Nazi prison camp, came to Australia because he was upset with the way that the British treated veterans. He came with his child, who is now my stepfather. He was told that they would have the same rights as Australians. I declare my self-interest in this, in that my stepfather is one of the people that could potentially lose their firearms licence if this goes ahead.

These people have clearly been in Australia for a very, very long time, since at least 1984. They are British subjects of the Crown. They have Australian passports. They can vote in elections. Anyone that does not support this, I hope that they do not vote for you.

Jaclyn SYMES: We have had this conversation. There is power in the bill to prescribe classes such as you have described. As I said, I think there will be due consideration given to the example that you have provided in the regulation-making process.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting the amendment.

Melina BATH: I think I answered this question before. This could be considered in the RIS.

Council divided on amendments:

Clause 40 (16:36)

Melina BATH: I move:

2.   Clause 40, lines 14 to 20, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘40 New sections 46D and 46E inserted

Before section 47 of the Principal Act insert –

“46D   Suspension of licence – public safety

(1)   The Chief Commissioner may suspend a licence if the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for public safety.

(2)   The Chief Commissioner must give written notice of a suspension under subsection (1) to the person whose licence is suspended.

(3)   The Chief Commissioner must ensure that a notice under subsection (2) –

(a)   invites the person to provide a statement or evidence as to why the licence should not be cancelled; and

(b)   specifies that any statement or evidence must be provided to the Chief Commissioner within 28 days after the notice is given.

(4)   The Chief Commissioner must consider any statement or evidence provided by the person within the period specified in subsection (3)(b) before cancelling the licence under section 46E.

(5)   The Chief Commissioner is not required to comply with subsection (3) or (4) if the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that doing so would create an unacceptable risk to public safety.

(6)   A suspension under this section remains in force until the Chief Commissioner makes a decision to cancel or not to cancel the licence under section 46E.

(7)   A person whose licence is suspended under this section is taken not to be the holder of a licence for the period of the suspension.

46E   Cancellation of licence – public safety

(1)   The Chief Commissioner may cancel a licence that is suspended under section 46D if the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for public safety.

(2)   The Chief Commissioner must give written notice of a cancellation under subsection (1) to the person whose licence is cancelled.

(3)   A person whose licence is cancelled under subsection (1) may, if the person is a non-prohibited person, apply to the Committee for a review of the decision of the Chief Commissioner to cancel the licence.”.’.

This relates to the automatic cancellation of a firearms licence if there has been an adverse background check. It is the test for the second one, so it is a firearm licence individually and then a dealer’s licence. What happens under this bill is there is an immediate licence cancellation, forthwith – immediate. What we have heard in discussion today – and I have brought some case studies – is that there can be, upstream, back in the Commonwealth sector, a mistake. There can be a typo, there can be an error, and nowhere in this bill is there any consideration of that; there is an immediate cancellation. So our amendment creates a two-step process. If there has been an adverse finding that does not satisfy the firearms check, then the chief commissioner immediately suspends the licence to ensure public safety. Therefore that person is treated as no longer holding a licence, they cannot lawfully exercise the licence privileges, firearm access is to be restricted as per cancellation and public safety is protected. Then the second step is that evidence can be presented in the case of, as I said, a typo or an administrative error in some way. In that case the chief commissioner can then say, ‘No. This is a public risk – definite cancellation,’ so moving from suspension to cancellation, versus saying, ‘We have recognised that there’s been some sort of tiny administrative error, so we are not going to cancel somebody who has been an exemplary firearm licence owner’ – whatever that be. It is just a process. It ensures that public safety is paramount, but it does enable there to be a second tier to ensure that the right person is captured and that if there are any small administrative errors somebody is not penalised with a cancellation which can cause long-term unavailability to get their licence back.

Jaclyn SYMES: We will not be supporting Ms Bath’s amendment. I take issue with the fact that it is described as ‘just a process’; it would actually be an unnecessary and highly onerous burden around the scheme. As we know, a failure to satisfy the firearms background check will be due to the outcome of a check being an adverse criminal intelligence assessment or an adverse security assessment. These assessments are from ASIO or from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. The chief commissioner cannot effectively look behind the veil of these adverse assessments; an ASIO and an ACIC adverse assessment is fundamentally different from the chief commissioner’s power and ability to look at fit and proper persons et cetera. It is about intelligence and security information; it is not information that is known to the chief commissioner, so adding that extra step would be quite difficult to implement.

Katherine COPSEY: Similar to my previous comments, the Greens regard this as a weakening of the bill and will not be supporting the amendment.

David LIMBRICK: I have a question for the minister on the consequence of the amendment. The minister just spoke about what happens in this process. What sort of security is there for these adverse findings being held confidentially? I am concerned about, if there was a situation, as Ms Bath outlined, where there was an adverse finding against someone and it turned out to be a mistake, what sort of confidentiality protections there are. If someone applies for a firearms licence and ASIO comes back with an adverse assessment to Victoria Police and the person is told that they are not going to get a firearms licence, is that confidential or not?

Jaclyn SYMES: The information cannot be obtained through the system, because it is a matter for, for example, ASIO. In terms of the other information, just the notification of there being an adverse –

David LIMBRICK: The notification is what I am talking about.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. That would be subject to privacy and not revealed.

David LIMBRICK: Good. That is what I wanted to know.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 44 (16:45)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Bath’s amendment 3 is to omit a clause, and it tests her amendment 4.

Jaclyn SYMES: For brevity, we do not support this.

Clause agreed to; clause 45 agreed to.

New clause 45A (16:46)

Melina BATH: I move:

5.   Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 45 –

‘45A New section 176AA inserted

After section 176 of the Principal Act insert –

“176AA   Service standards for firearms background check applications

(1)   The Chief Commissioner must develop service standards for the making of applications for a firearms background check.

(2)   Service standards under subsection (1) must include –

(a)   targets for the timely making of applications by the Chief Commissioner; and

(b)   procedures for keeping a person who is to be the subject of a firearms background check informed as to the status of any application relating to that person.

(3)   As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, the Chief Commissioner must ensure that notice of the Chief Commissioner’s performance against the service standards during that year is published in the Government Gazette.”.’.

This is in relation to transparency and service standards, and we require there to be developed service standards for firearm background checks, including processing targets; status updates for applicants; and annual public reporting of performance of those targets. What we want to assure for licence-holders are timeframes, how their applications are progressing and whether Victoria Police are meeting performance targets. We need standards. We need to ensure that this system is going to run successfully, I will say, and this is around creating those service standards.

Jaclyn SYMES: We will not be supporting the amendment. This is an operational matter for police. It is not appropriate to tell them how to set and meet standards and targets. However, these are potentially matters that could be picked up through another mechanism and explored through the regulation and RIS.

New clause negatived.

New clause 45A (16:48)

Jeff BOURMAN: I move:

6.   Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 45 –

‘45A Regulations

After section 191(2) of the Principal Act insert –

“(2A)   Regulations that prescribe fees under subsection (1)(g) must not include any amount in respect of the costs associated with the making of an application for a firearms background check.”.’.

Whilst I am absolutely supportive of AusCheck – in fact if this had been in place a while ago, perhaps we would not be here doing this – in the spirit of the cost-of-living crisis, if and when the cost comes, the cost needs to be borne by the government. I personally do not care whether it is the federal or the state government, but I do think passing it on to the licence-holders, some of whom are not very wealthy people, is doing them a disservice. This is basically just saying the government will not pass the cost on.

David LIMBRICK: This amendment presented by Mr Bourman is actually philosophically interesting to me. Libertarians normally believe in user-pays systems. However, I would argue that in this case the user is Victoria Police, and they are being forced to use a monopoly provider, which is the federal government, for a service they have no choice in. Therefore that cost being passed on to the end consumer, who is the firearm applicant, I would argue is unfair, because there is no incentive for efficiency and there is no visibility of that process. Therefore I support Mr Bourman’s amendment in this case.

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not support the amendment. As I indicated, this is not designed to be something that raises funds. We would not want there to be a large impost on anybody that is participating in this scheme. Having said that, this again is much more appropriately dealt with through a regulatory impact statement.

Council divided on new clause:

New clause 46A (16:53)

Melina BATH: I move:

6.   Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 46 –

‘46A New section 176AB inserted

Before section 176A of the Principal Act insert –

“176AB   Independent review of firearms background check provisions

(1)   The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the amendments made to this Act by Part 7 of the Firearms Amendment Act 2026.

(2)   The independent review must consider the following matters –

(a)   public safety outcomes associated with the amendments;

(b)   the effectiveness of the amendments;

(c)   the impact of the amendments on processing times for applications for a licence;

(d)   the impact of the amendments on the resources of Victoria Police;

(e)   initial and ongoing costs associated with the administration of the amendments;

(f)   the impact of the amendments on individual privacy;

(g)   whether the amendments afford procedural fairness to affected persons;

(h)   the overall impact of the amendments on licence holders and applicants for a licence.

(3)   The independent review must be conducted as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of the first day on which all the provisions of Part 7 of the Firearms Amendment Act 2026 are in operation.

(4)   The Minister must cause a report of the independent review to be transmitted to each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable after the review is completed.”.’.

This is in relation to an independent review. The independent review begins after part 7 of the Firearms Amendment Act has been implemented, so that is two years after AusCheck, and AusCheck can take one year, two years, whatever, but these are significant changes. Clearly everyone in this house and all Victorians want to see higher public safety outcomes, but we also want to see that the scheme is working and whether it is effective in administrative costs, processing times, privacy impacts and resource impacts on Victoria Police. This is purely an independent review after all of the provisions in part 7 – that means all of the bill – have been in operation for two years.

Jaclyn SYMES: In this instance the government is not supportive of the review as Ms Bath has outlined. As I have said, this is an architecture bill. It will undertake a RIS. There will be an exposure draft of the regulations. Some parts may be proclaimed earlier than others, so in that instance people would be interested in monitoring the operation of it. But the review as it is outlined in your amendment we do not think is suitable.

Jeff BOURMAN: Despite the coalition throwing thousands of firearm owners under the bus and being happy with the cost of AusCheck being passed on to them, I will support them.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not support the amendment.

New clause negatived; clause 47 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (16:55): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (16:55): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on motion:

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.