Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Senator Sheldon supported the bill, stating it confronts both the motivation and method of the Bondi attack. Sheldon highlighted that the reforms would have prevented the attackers from obtaining firearms by requiring citizenship and utilising intelligence data. Sheldon argued the measures protect law-abiding citizens while stopping extremists, citing support from victims' families. Sheldon emphasised that reducing firearm availability makes it harder for hatred to result in mass murder.

Senator Waters welcomed the separation of the firearms bill from the hate speech legislation, which the Greens opposed due to concerns over civil liberties. Waters supported the gun law reforms, including the buyback scheme, intelligence sharing via AusCheck, and restrictions on dangerous weapons. Waters called for a national firearms register and criticised state governments for refusing to contribute to the buyback costs. Waters argued that the reforms are the bare minimum required to ensure public safety.

Senator McKenzie opposed the bill, arguing it demonises law-abiding firearm owners and bypasses the National Firearms Agreement process. McKenzie tabled a petition with over 65,000 signatures opposing the changes. McKenzie moved an amendment to refer the bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. McKenzie raised concerns about the lack of detail on compensation for firearm owners and businesses, and the impact on sporting shooters and farmers. McKenzie argued the federal government was overstepping its constitutional role.

Senator Mulholland supported the bill, citing the need to reduce risk and protect law enforcement officers who face threats from armed criminals. Mulholland noted that there are more firearms in Australia now than after the 1996 buyback, with many located in suburban areas. Mulholland highlighted the link between firearms and domestic violence, arguing that reducing gun numbers prevents harm. Mulholland criticised the Queensland government for refusing to participate in the national buyback scheme.

Senator Thorpe opposed the bill, arguing it fails to address racism comprehensively and risks suppressing legitimate political protest. Thorpe intended to move an amendment calling for robust oversight of all firearms, including those held by police and defence personnel. Thorpe cited concerns about the lack of transparency regarding police armouries and the use of hollow-point bullets. Thorpe argued the legislation undermines democratic rights and disproportionately impacts marginalised communities.

Senator McDonald opposed the bill, describing it as rushed and lacking evidence that it would reduce illegal firearms. McDonald argued that the legislation unfairly targets law-abiding gun owners, including farmers and sporting shooters, without addressing criminal trafficking networks. McDonald cited expert evidence suggesting no demonstrated relationship between legal gun ownership and firearm violence. McDonald warned that the buyback scheme lacked guarantees of fair market value and would impose significant financial risks on states and businesses.

Senator Cox supported the bill, drawing on her experience as a police officer during the 1996 buyback. Cox argued that the increase in firearm numbers raises the risk of weapons being stolen or misused, particularly in domestic violence situations. Cox highlighted the threat posed by 3D-printed weapons and the need to tighten border controls on high-risk firearms. Cox stated that the reforms are necessary to protect first responders and communities from escalating risks.

Shoebridge supported the bill's provisions for a national firearms buyback, real-time security information sharing, and import restrictions, citing data showing a rise in registered firearms in New South Wales since 2016. Shoebridge highlighted the establishment of a national firearms safety council as a key achievement but expressed concern over the potential proliferation of 3D-printed weapons. Shoebridge opposed other government proposals to ban organisations opposing genocide, arguing such measures threatened human rights.

McGrath opposed the bill, arguing it punished law-abiding gun owners for work, recreation, or collection while failing to address radical Islamic extremism, which he identified as the true threat. McGrath claimed the legislation was a diversion from the government's failure to confront antisemitism and radicalisation. McGrath stated the Liberal National Party would vote against the bill because it targeted innocent Australians rather than the ideology behind the Bondi attack.

Roberts opposed the bill, characterising it as rushed and flawed, and argued that Australia's problem was radical Islamist extremism, not firearms. Roberts listed various terrorist attacks to illustrate the threat of Islamic terror and criticised the government for ignoring intelligence failures regarding the Bondi shooters. Roberts supported the right to own firearms for legitimate purposes and called for a royal commission to investigate security failures rather than passing new gun laws.

Blyth opposed the bill, describing it as poorly targeted and rushed, arguing it punished lawful gun owners instead of confronting radical Islamist ideology. Blyth stated that the legislation would not have prevented the Bondi attack and would negatively impact farmers, sporting shooters, and small businesses. Blyth argued that the government was using the tragedy to pursue an agenda that eroded trust in law-abiding citizens.

Steele-John supported the bill, emphasising the need to close loopholes that allowed terrorists to access rapid-reload weapons and noting that firearm numbers have risen since the 1996 buyback. Steele-John welcomed restrictions on imports, improved background checks via AUSTRAC, and the national buyback scheme. Steele-John assured that the laws would protect legitimate conservation and land management activities while enhancing public safety.

Colbeck opposed the bill, citing a lack of bipartisan consultation and leadership from the Prime Minister compared to the 1996 reforms. Colbeck argued the legislation had unintended consequences for farmers and sporting shooters, including restrictions on necessary tools for pest management and Olympic competition. Colbeck criticised the government for not understanding the practical impacts on rural Australians and for failing to secure state agreement on the buyback.

Pocock supported the bill's intent to prevent firearms from falling into dangerous hands but criticised the rushed process and lack of consultation. Pocock moved an amendment to refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and another to establish an independent statutory review in two years. Pocock raised concerns about fair compensation for buybacks, funding for enforcement, and the impact on small businesses and ammunition owners.

Cadell opposed the bill, arguing it unfairly punished law-abiding gun owners without addressing the root causes of extremism. Cadell highlighted inconsistencies in the legislation, such as bans on sporting apparel and gel blaster beads, and noted that several states had not agreed to the buyback. Cadell stated that the government was prioritising political expediency over proper policy solutions and due process.

Hodgins-May supported the bill, arguing that current laws allowed for the accumulation of private arsenals that increased the risk of theft and misuse. Hodgins-May emphasised the need to reduce the number of firearms in circulation to prevent violence and cited the success of previous reforms after Port Arthur. Hodgins-May welcomed the establishment of a national firearms safety council and stressed that removing dangerous weapons was a rational step for harm prevention.

Canavan opposed the bill, arguing it demonised law-abiding gun owners and failed to address the illegal firearms market controlled by organised crime. Canavan criticised the government for rushing the legislation and including irrelevant provisions, such as restrictions on gel blasters and Olympic equipment. Canavan suggested that focusing on radical ideology and enforcing existing laws would be more effective than restricting lawful ownership.

Bell opposed the bill, stating that One Nation supported law-abiding gun owners and believed the government should punish extremists rather than licence holders. Bell argued that criminals do not participate in buybacks and that the legislation was a blank cheque with unknown costs. Bell called for policies that targeted criminals and confronted radical Islamic extremism directly.