Gun Control

Opened the debate

Chaffey moved the motion to repeal the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026 and abolish the National Gun Buyback Scheme. Chaffey argued that the legislation was rushed through without stakeholder engagement, causing confusion and financial hardship for lawful gun owners, farmers, and small businesses. Chaffey stated that the buyback scheme had failed to secure agreement from all states and territories, with South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, and the Northern Territory opting out. Chaffey cited evidence from the royal commission indicating that existing laws were sufficient to prevent the Bondi attack, and argued that the new laws punished law-abiding citizens rather than targeting terrorists. Chaffey highlighted specific business losses, noting that proposed compensation of $25,000 was inadequate for millions in losses, and referenced a Shooters Union Australia estimate that the scheme would cost $15 million.

Government response

Burns opposed the motion, arguing that the government's actions were consistent with Australia's history of responsible gun control following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Burns noted that the previous National Firearms Agreement involved a $230 million buyback and established genuine reason tests for firearm ownership. Burns defended the new legislation by stating it enhanced security through active ASIO consultation in licensing and ongoing background checks, as well as introducing citizenship requirements. Burns clarified that licensing is a state and territory responsibility, and argued that the federal laws targeted potential threats rather than lawful owners. Burns asserted that strong gun laws have reduced mass attacks and murders in Australia, and characterised the opposition's stance as an attempt to weaken these protections.