Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (22:19): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2026 and, following on from my colleague Dr Heath, just reiterate that the Liberals and Nationals will not be opposing this bill. However, we will seek to amend and improve the bill before the house. The firearms bill implements a number of the recommendations that have arisen from the Ken Lay report and review, following on from the heinous terrorist attack on innocent Australian lives on Bondi Beach on 14 December last year.
The bill introduces citizenship requirements for firearm licences, it expands the powers regarding firearm classification and prohibition orders, and it seeks to implement the Commonwealth AusCheck firearm background checking framework into Victorian law. As I said, we have many comments to make on this. I do want to flag that I have a number of questions in the committee stage that I would like to interrogate on behalf of many of the stakeholders and individuals, from farmers to local residents, the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia, the Australian Deer Association, Field & Game, and many people that have written to me, as well as me seeking their assessment, their views and their understanding on the implications of this bill.
Just reflecting, certainly etched into all of our psyches, I am sure, was that heinous crime committed on innocent Jewish Australian families in Bondi. As the footage emerged and we saw those just horrendous, horrific details coming through our screens, we saw acts of heroism from passers-by, from emergency responders, from people putting their bodies in front of small children. These are all heroes of many different nationalities, but certainly our Jewish families deserve our utmost respect and condolences as they try and heal their lives post this terrible crime.
Of course, like every Victorian, we want answers. We want answers to ensure that this does not happen again. Like every Victorian, we want stronger actions against the terrorists, and they were terrorists that did this to our community. Like every Australian, we want to ensure that those people that perpetrate these actions first of all come to justice but are also inhibited through stronger oversight, stronger targeting, stronger enforcement and stronger deterrence of trafficking and criminality. What we do not want – and we have said this from the outset – is to see punishment of those who do not deserve this punishment.
The Prime Minister I think was very weak in his response. He went for a kneejerk reaction of ‘First of all, let’s institute a buyback system, and by the way, the states can pay for it across the board. And also, let’s look at gun caps.’ That is something that we, the Nationals in particular but the Liberals and Nationals, have stood firmly on. We saw two guns in the hands of recalcitrant, vile, demonic people, and two guns was two guns too many. Ten to 20 guns for law-abiding citizens has no impact on community safety or threat or risk to community safety. We have listened and we have travelled and we have asked and we have engaged. We have sat down with farmers, sporting shooters and hunters, and we know the importance of getting this right. I do not believe that this bill is right, but I think we have to try and strike a balance. Having that feedback is really important. My colleague Senator Bridget McKenzie tabled a petition in the federal Parliament – over 70,000 signatures – saying no to overreach, no to caps. Indeed in this Parliament I did a short and sharp contribution on behalf of a Brunswick-living, duck-hunting and harvesting, Sri Lankan–born Australian – a fantastic gentleman who approached me. He harvests for his table. We presented a petition, which was really important, about balance and called for any implementation to be evidence based.
Now, this is the other term. When evidence came, we approached Ken Lay and I spoke with Ken Lay, as did Tim Bull, and brought various people in – farmers, pest controllers and hunters – to speak and for Ken Lay to hear this, and he promised evidence based. I have the utmost respect for Mr Lay; however, when we saw that report come through, one of his recommendations was with regard to caps on guns. It was not about protecting the community. In essence there was no evidence to say a gun cap would produce greater protection for community safety. In effect it almost said that there have been many different reviews on this, the jury is out and the repercussions or the outcome would be that we may actually save people from committing suicide – those people possessing guns. That was the only thing that really came through. Clearly, gun caps are not required. Thankfully, in either a moment of sanity or a moment of pressure from the Electrical Trades Union and other unions, then Premier Jacinta Allan decided not to put caps and to reject that particular recommendation. That is something that we stand with law-abiding firearm owners on and accept and appreciate.
In relation to what the bill does, very briefly, it continues the firearm prohibition order scheme, the FPO scheme, and expands categories for that framework. In talking with people, there was not a great deal of consternation, but I do have some questions in relation to that. A key change is in part 3 around categorisation of firearms. The bill allows regulations to reclassify them and the Chief Commissioner of Police to declare categories temporary or permanent. Some others made some comments around this, and I will have some questions in the committee stage.
In terms of firearms trafficking, there is a new definition of ‘traffickable’, from two to nine firearms – a ‘large traffickable quantity’ is over 10 firearms – and a new offence of possession of a large amount of a trafficable quantity, 15 years imprisonment, and there are other amendments. In relation to the firearm prohibition order offences, as I said, there is an increase to 15. So there is an increase in penalties, and in discussing that with various stakeholders they were not certainly not opposed to that.
There is the citizenship requirement in relation to being an Australian citizen, a New Zealand citizen with permanent residency or in a prescribed class, and we will go through that. I would like to make sure that there is some clarification about those classes to ensure that there is clarity. I have heard from various people, but I will not have time for that now, so I will do it in the committee stage.
In relation to background checks, that is where our amendments come in in force. I will go to those and go through them in detail. I thank our lead speaker Dr Heath for circulating them. Brad Battin, as our shadow minister in charge of this, highlighted this in his contribution, as did Danny O’Brien, the Leader of the Nationals. One of the key things on this relates to the operational readiness of AusCheck. AusCheck has been around for a long time – over 20 years – and indeed it was often used in its early years in relation to maritime safety and aviation safety. But actually around 2024–25 in the federal space – and this is a federal piece of legislation – it was updated to do firearm background checks. The issue we have is that we certainly support that background-checking regime, including against terrorism, against violent extremism and against organised crime. That should be the utmost aim of all of this, but what is happening is that the government has basically said the minister can bring it in at any time, into this Parliament, into law. However, the system is not up and operational in the federal space. So it is introducing and accepting legislation and regulation and the whole gamut when it actually does not exist in proper implementable form in the federal space. Our point of view is Parliament should not create a system that is operationally incomplete on day one. Good public policy requires it to be ready. We want to ensure that with AusCheck if it is worth doing, it is worth doing properly – after it is in proper existence in the federal space.
In terms of other amendments, there is cost transparency. Before a new major Commonwealth–state screening framework commences firearms licence holders should know what this costs. The bill introduces significant administrative impact, and we want to understand, on behalf of many of our stakeholders, what it costs. What are the operational costs? What is the impact on licence fees? I think Lucas Cooke, the former CEO of Field & Game, has done some research. It could add up to 500 additional dollars on top of a licence renewal, and that could be very preclusive for people either getting a new licence or getting a licence. We need to understand what it actually costs in the first place and have that transparency.
In terms of publishing service standards, the Liberals and the Nationals want to ensure that Victoria Police will publish processing targets, escalation pathways and procedures for dealing with delays and errors in these licensing decisions. I note very clearly: this is not about sensitive material, this is not about ASIO material, this is about Victoria Police publishing if it is expediting the process as efficiently as it can. We want to see the publishing of service standards.
We also want to make sure that the privacy and information management systems that will come into play are clarified for people. There will be additional information. It will come through. Simply, what our amendment does is ask the government to explain how information will be shared, how it will be stored, how it will be audited and what complaint mechanisms are available. Also, privacy and cyberspace are not peripheral issues. We need to make sure that we get across them. We want to ensure that that occurs. We want stronger information for sure, but we also want to ensure that there is accountability around that information.
It is also about procedural fairness. This is a really important one that I will go into in detail in the committee stage. The amendment protects public safety while ensuring administrative mistakes can be corrected. I will go into that; I do not have the time for that now. Finally, it is about an independent review of this system to ensure that there is a public safety outcome, that there are processing times, that the costs are not overburdensome, that there is privacy protection and that procedural fairness is in place.
We always will stand by our law-abiding firearm owners, whether they be farmers, pest controllers, clay target shooters or duck hunters. We also want to see duck hunting continue. I see the Minister for Environment is here. I put that on the record once again, and I will have more to say in the committee stage.