SPEECH: Firearms Amendment Bill, 18 September 2026

Mr GEORGE (Franklin) - Today I've heard some thoughtful and sometimes passionate speeches, and I believe in hearing what others have to say on the floor of this House as we debate and make up our minds. However, I find it difficult to express the depths of my frustration at the way this bill has been conceived and drafted. More than that, I am saddened by the divisive manner in which the minister has approached an issue of such importance to the Tasmanian community. The minister and his Liberal Party sit on Treasury benches as a minority government, yet they continue to behave with the arrogance of a party enjoying a handsome majority. A minority government is not simply a majority government with fewer seats   it's a government whose legitimacy depends upon consultation, negotiation and compromise. It's an inconvenience for the minister, I'm sure, but those are the obligations upon which good minority government works.

Yet instead of working constructively with members of this House before introducing the legislation, the minister has presented us with a farrago of a bill and left the parliament to sort it out on the floor of the House. There's a flurry of amendments from all sides. We've seen multiple versions circulated within hours, and even the government has had to produce an 11th hour amendment prompted by a problem identified by Tasmania Police. It seems the government didn't realise that this supposedly carefully drafted bill could result in a Category C licence holder permitted to own an unlimited number of straight pull firearms, including shotguns. How did such an obvious problem survive the drafting process? Who was consulted? What advice was received? What scrutiny was applied? Perhaps the minister can explain, but whatever is his explanation, it's an indictment of the process by which this bill was constructed. No surprise there, unfortunately.

Consultation does not mean announcing a position and then inviting people to react to it. Consultation means sharing information, seeking expert advice, listening to affected communities, testing competing propositions and working towards a decision. That is especially important in a minority parliament. Successful minority governments elsewhere do not treat compromise as a weakness; they negotiate support. They build issue-by-issue majorities. They embed cooperation into policymaking. That's what gets you durable decisions and better legislation.

Had the government adopted such an approach, this could have been a carefully and relatively straightforward modernisation of Tasmania's firearms laws, broadly consistent with other Australian jurisdictions. It might still have involved difficult questions about firearms caps, about reclassification, suppressors and grandfathering, but those questions could have been considered calmly on their merits, and with the benefit of genuine consultation. Instead, this process has polarised, confused and distressed individuals, communities, gun owners and those who don't own guns alike. The inflammatory commentary surrounding this bill, formulated in the shadow of an atrocity, with a spectre of terrorism and failing intelligence agencies, inevitably has produced fear and confusion, and that does a disservice to the Tasmanian community.

So, I deeply regret that these amendments have been so closely tied to the Bondi massacre perpetrated against Australian Jews on 14 December last year. Legislation conceived in the immediate aftermath of an outrage is inevitably debated in a febrile atmosphere. Firearms laws should be reviewed regularly regardless of any particular tragedy. Technology changes, community expectations change, risks become clearer, regulatory weaknesses emerge. It is therefore entirely appropriate for this parliament to consider how Tasmania's firearms laws should be strengthened. But we should do so deliberately, rationally and on the evidence.

This bill has generated more conversations, telephone calls and emails than almost any other matter I've encountered during my short stay in parliament. I'm grateful for all the constituents who have been in touch on every side of this argument. I've heard from passionate sporting shooters, hunters, primary producers and firearms owners. I've also heard from equally passionate firearms control advocates, family violence campaigners and members of the community concerned about public safety. Whether passionate or quietly reflective, the overwhelming majority of approaches made to me have expressed thoughtful and sincerely held positions. This is not a contest between people who care about safety and people who do not. It's a debate about deadly weapons and how parliament should manage the risk they pose while recognising legitimate occupational, agricultural, sporting and recreational users of firearms.

For my part, I've set aside, as much as possible, my own professional experiences of armed conflicts, civil uprisings and street violence in different parts of the world. Those experiences inevitably influence how a person understands weapons and their consequences. But our responsibility in this House is to examine the provisions before us soberly and on their merits. I'll turn to the central issues as I see them.

Grandfathering: So-called grandfathering would allow existing owners to retain firearms out of reach of future licence holders. That surely guts the intent of the legislation. If the parliament concludes that a particular category or number of firearms presents an unacceptable risk, then how does it become less capable of causing harm because it was purchased before the law was changed? Grandfathering creates a pool of affected firearms with two different regulatory standards. So, I oppose grandfathering.

Caps on firearm ownership: I've not been persuaded to abandon my original position that reasonable restrictions should be placed on the number of firearms a person may hold. Tasmania already regulates who may own a firearm, what category of firearm may be owned, how it must be stored, how it may be transported and the purposes for which it is used. How then can it not be right to include the quantity of firearms that any person may own? My original position was stricter than the amendments now proposed. Nevertheless, I accept that the limits to be proposed by Labor provide a reasonable compromise and they fall within the parameters applied elsewhere in Australia. A number of gun proponents are very critical of the police commissioner, alleging an overly cautious approach to multiple gun ownership. I'm pleased to hear that she is being conservative rather than the contrary. If the commissioner advocates a cap on firearms ownership, if the police union supports a gun cap, that clinches the argument for me. I will support an amendment that imposes a cap and gives the police commissioner the discretion to make exemptions where they can be justified for sporting, recreational and professional hunting, for landowners and farmers, or for any other purpose the commissioner deems available.

Mandatory sentencing: I remain opposed to all forms of mandatory sentencing. It is poor jurisprudence and undermines the proper separation of powers between parliament and the judiciary, as I've argued in this House before. Parliament creates offences and determines the sentencing framework; courts apply that framework to the circumstances of each individual case. That's been the case for hundreds of years and continues to serve us well. The decisions of jurists are made on individual circumstances, including intent, culpability, risk, prior conduct, aggravating circumstances and mitigating factors. If this parliament believes that existing penalties are inadequate, it may increase them. The parliament's role involves that. But we should defend judicial independence, not diminish it.

Suppressors: I believe suppressors are amongst the most misunderstood elements of this debate. They are not the silencers portrayed in the James Bond films. They reduce the intensity of the noise and the damaging acoustic shock experienced by the human ear. For regular firearm users, particularly hunters, professional shooters and primary producers, repeated exposure to firearm noise risks permanent hearing injury. In many other overseas jurisdictions, including New Zealand, the United Kingdom, parts of continental Europe and Scandinavia, suppressors are treated principally as a hearing protection and occupational health and safety measure for licensed firearm users. Therefore, I support the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers amendment concerning suppressors.

Community safety: We must place this debate in the context of Tasmania's community safety responsibilities. Firearms are not ordinary consumer products. They are weapons and their prime purpose is to kill. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to own one. They provide different tools for different jobs - agriculture, hunting, sporting, recreational, collecting. Owning a firearm is a privilege and not a right. Crime statistics show that firearms were used in 82 assaults, according to the most recent data I've found. Behind every one of those offences is a victim, a survivor, a family and a wider community affected by fear and trauma. More disturbing is the reported increase in firearms being used in family violence incidents. The figures included in the material that was put before me show an increase from 69 firearm related family violence incidents in 2021 22 to 140 in 2024 25. That's an increase of 71 incidents, or 103 per cent, which is a startling figure when you compare it to an overall increase in in family violence reports of 53 per cent. Those incidents include circumstances in which a firearm was discharged, brandished or used as a threat. You don't have to fire a gun for it to be used as a weapon of intimidation, coercion or even of terrorism.

In this debate, we have been offered a false choice between respecting the rights of responsible firearm owners and protecting the community. Community safety is not advanced by the poorly drafted legislation before us. Nor is community reassured by inflammatory rhetoric or amendments developed in a last-minute scramble. Tasmanians are entitled to expect better from us. They're entitled to laws that are coherent. They're entitled to a licensing system that identifies genuine risk. They're entitled to secure storage requirements that are enforced. They're entitled to reasonable limits, proper oversight and clear lines of responsibility. We can expect community, including gun owners, to respect those on the front line whose safety is clearly at the forefront of the police commissioner's mind. This debate should not be reduced to a contest between pro gun and anti gun positions. The real test is whether the legislation is proportionate, workable and capable of improving community safety.

I support reasonable caps on firearm ownership. I oppose grandfathering that would hollow out those caps. I oppose mandatory sentencing because sentencing should remain a matter for independent courts applying legislation to individual circumstances. I support a properly regulated approach to suppressors that recognises their legitimate role in protecting the hearing of people lawfully and regularly using firearms. Above all, I believe that possession of a firearm carries obligations commensurate with its capacity to cause harm.

The government could have brought this parliament and the Tasmanian community together around those principles. Instead, its approach has produced confusion, division and a bill still being repaired as we debate it. That failure of process must not prevent this House from doing its job. Our responsibility is not to vindicate the government, the firearms lobby or the gun control lobby. Our responsibility is to produce legislation that protects Tasmanians, respects legitimate firearm use and demands the highest standards of responsibility from anyone entrusted with a firearm. That is the basis on which I will consider this bill and the amendments before the House.