Below are two of my speeches from this week in Parliament on the Firearms Amendment (Strengthening Firearms Security) Bill 2026 to amend the Firearms Act 1996:

Mr FERGUSON (Bass) – Honourable Speaker, I rise to speak to the Firearms
Amendment (Strengthening Firearms Security) Bill 2026. As member for Bass in northern
Tasmania, I want three things out of our deliberations on this bill today. I want the state to be
as safe as it can reasonably be. I want people to be able to go about their lawful business. I want
to have, at the end of our deliberations of both Houses, I truly hope to have a law that brings
a risk-based approach to get the best law possible, not one that gives politicians a temporary
feeling of satisfaction.I remember very well 28 April 1996. It was a Sunday afternoon in Tasmania. I was 22.
I was a first-year teacher at Exeter High School. I remember it very well, and the brutality that
was visited upon our state by a murderer who should never, ever be celebrated. Thirty-five
people dead. I read 23 were wounded, but the number truly wounded was much, much bigger;
so much bigger, because really, we had a state traumatised, if not a nation traumatised on that
day, and I will never forget it.Firearms law is an area where our parliament has to get a balance, and we need to do our
best to get the right balance. We have a responsibility to protect our community. We have
a responsibility to make laws that are practical and fair to the thousands of Tasmanians who
lawfully own and use firearms, whether that is for their recreational hunting, for their dog meat,
or to feed their family. Whether it’s for people who are sporting shooters – that’s their chosen
sport – for people in the pest control space, or for collectors – people who have a historical
interest in weapons that are actually not a particular dangerous firearm, but nonetheless they
technically could kill a person and they therefore need to be governed.Now, I know many of these people, and those people have obtained their licences, they’ve
done the training that’s required to get a licence. They’ve had to meet the test under the existing
law to be shown to be an appropriate firearms owner. They’ve accepted the responsibilities that
have come with that, and they’ve invested in secure storage. Quickly, can I remind the House
that it was under minister Hidding that a whole new regime of storage requirements came in,
and it was a very hot topic at the time. Our Liberal government faced some pressure at that
time, but we did that because we believed it was right and proper to make sure our rules and
laws were as robust as they should be, particularly when we know that criminals love to steal
firearms.The bill does make changes for law-abiding firearms owners, those groups that I’ve just
described and for whom I have a care and a regard that we get a balance right here. It creates
new reporting obligations. It changes the classification of some firearms. It establishes new
requirements around lending and storage. I acknowledge that plainly. But I do not believe that
this is a heavy-handed bill in relation to lawful firearms owners – and nor should it be.
I do want to see a heavy-handed bill when it comes to criminals, though: people who
have stolen a firearm, who have no right to own or possess one; who have failed the social test
that they’re an appropriate person; who are in possession of one that is stolen, illegal or
manufactured at home using a 3D printer, for example; or who are in possession of a firearm
that is not registered. I want a law that’s heavy-handed there. We do that. The minister has done
that in the bill. This is part of the balance. As part of that balance, we need to recognise
legitimate occupational and recreational uses. A much stronger focus, where I believe it
belongs, is on those stolen firearms, the illegal possession, trafficking, and the criminals who
put firearms into the black market. We’ve spoken at length about those in previous debates,
particularly around my own involvement in the work that we’ve done in this House on dealing
with outlaw gangs.As a longstanding constituency member in my northern electorate, I’ve heard directly
from a large number of people who’ve had some concerns about what might be the final
outcome of this bill. I think it’s fair to say there’s been a real spectrum, a diversity of views on
the subject. I don’t want to sound biased or unreasonable or disrespectful to any other
constituencies, but I haven’t had people in the street stop me and say, ‘Michael, I hope you’re
going to crack down on the number of firearms that a person can possess’. I haven’t had that,
but I know it’s out there. I recognise that. I don’t disrespect those people who hold that view.
I don’t agree with that view, and I’ll explain why shortly, but I haven’t had that. I have, however,
had good, reasonable people, people that are not asking for any special treatment, who have
said that they are concerned about the Prime Minister’s wish for a cap on the number of
firearms. I think that’s reasonable for them to be concerned about that, because they don’t see
themselves as dangerous people and they recognise that they’re highly regulated in this space
already.One person – I won’t give his full name, but I can say I know him well, I taught him at
high school – Guy wrote to me, and he uses firearms for crop protection and to harvest meat
for his family. Guy supports the National Firearms Register and mandatory sentences for
firearm crime. But he asked parliament, through me, not to scapegoat responsible owners for
the conduct of other people who break the law. One line in his email particularly caught me.

He said that ‘one firearm in the hands of a criminal or an extremist is far more dangerous than
multiple firearms that are held responsibly by a licensed citizen’. I really feel that that goes to
the heart of how I want to approach this issue. Note those points I made at the top about how
I want a safe law, I want a law that allows other people to go about their lawful business, and
I want one that responds to risk. Let’s take the lawmaking to risk like how we fight fires – we
take the resource to where the risk is.

TasFarmers have made a similar point from the perspective of our people on the land, the
men and women who are growing our food and fibre. TasFarmers described firearms used by
farmers as tools of trade within the wider agricultural inventory. That organisation has raised
concerns about reclassification and unnecessary red tape, but they have importantly also
supported the National Firearms Register, better information-sharing, and increased penalties.
I hope that parliament and all of us constituency members, in my case for the northern
electorate of Bass, should listen to all of that, not just the parts that may suit one side of the
argument. Briefly, on antique firearms, we have had an unsatisfactory position around antique
firearms for some years now. That broad exemption has not been sustainable. The law needs
to recover that position and manage it with good governance and, without going into detail and
describing what the minister did in his speech, I endorse the new approach. It’s reasonable and
it also regulates what is some level of genuine risk in a reasonable way.

I also want to put it really strongly on the record that I am a strong supporter also of the
National Firearms Register. I’ve been surprised – and this is not a criticism – but I’ve been
surprised at how hard that project has been for all jurisdictions in this country. That project is
now, by states, territories and the Commonwealth, at least four years down the track since its
origins. I understand it’s coming to better fruition now, but that is a big job. It reflects the
importance of reliable data sharing, matching and chain of custody for firearms and firearms
parts. I look forward to the register being fully implemented. It really will allow us to achieve
what’s set out in the bill, which is to require much better information storage and stronger
requirements when firearms are lent, and also those matters around the dealers and how they
would be part of the chain of custody for firearms and firearms parts.

Now, without glossing over that, I acknowledge that these are some extra obligations for
licensed owners. I would respectfully say to people like my friend the honourable member for
Lyons, Mr Di Falco, representing his party position of the Shooters, Farmers and Fishers:
please see that as the price that your party, or your constituency, should also contribute to
helping us all to find the balance here. We do have, yes, in some cases, more onerous
requirements on those legitimate firearms owners, but if we get the balance right, a healthy
balance, they are able to continue to go about their lawful business and to be able to practise
their sporting shooting, to be able to continue to support their livelihood as farmers. I think that
is a balance that we’re seeking to strike here, and it’s a reasonable proposition for me to be
making. I would, however, just point out to the minister and my government colleagues, let’s
be careful and sensible along the way, that we really clearly communicate the changes in a way
that’s easily and readily understood, so that people don’t inadvertently find themselves falling
foul of the law because they weren’t across the detail. I’ll just leave that point there.

I do not support arbitrary ownership caps. I’ve thought very carefully about it and, as a
longstanding member for Bass, I understand the political appeal of a cap. I get that, I understand
that. It certainly is something that’s easily understood in the community, if you were to go out
and say, well, isn’t it good that we put in place a cap? I understand the relevancy or the ease
with which we can say, isn’t that a good thing? However, I’m not interested in feeling good.
I want to do good as a politician. The challenge was laid out by the honourable member for
Lyons, Ms Butler, earlier in her contribution, and I appreciate and respect her point of view,
but the point was made well: how do you want to feel in 15 years’ time? That’s a good point.
When none of us in 15 years are here, I suggest – maybe a few of us – yes, you do want to be
able to look back and say well, I had an opportunity to do something. None of us want to live
with the sense of regret that we didn’t, on this day, do our best work. With that perspective,
I say it would be a feel-good outcome, but not a do-good outcome.

If parliament is going to restrict a lawful activity, then there must be a clear, risk-based
reason for doing so. A bare number does not achieve that, and that’s what really has irritated
me with the Prime Minister’s approach on this subject. A person who owns two firearms may
present a serious risk because of their behaviour, criminal associations, family violence history,
their mental state or unsafe storage. Another person may lawfully own – like the pest reduction
professional I spoke to for a long time on the phone on Flinders Island may lawfully own
considerably more firearms for farming or for pest reduction and present very little risk at all,
arguably less risk than a P plater on the road. I divert myself here, but the most dangerous time
for a person to be on the road is after they’ve completed their Ls, where they had a supervisor,
and they’re now free on their own with a motor car, a very powerful engine around them.
Different firearms have different purposes. A farmer may need different calibres for crop
protection and should have different calibres for crop protection, for livestock destruction or
pest control. A sporting shooter may compete in different disciplines. I’m also concerned about
the practical problem. Even if we would agree and endorse caps, there will be a workaround
and you won’t have done a thing about the risk you have perceived. Different family members
will get licences and set up their storage, and you’ll have the same number of firearms because
adult members of the same family will do that, but more hands and properties to regulate.
You’ve done nothing about the risk. If anything, you might have diluted it in some way because
you have more new locations that need safe storage. Did we achieve that? I doubt it. That would
be bureaucracy without reducing risk and I want to keep our focus on risk.

Regarding the post-Bondi reforms and the circumstances that brought us there, when
7 October happened, it was a devastating day for our country, just like 28 April 1996. Different
circumstances, but immeasurable tragedy. Leading up to that horrific event – and I don’t blame
a single politician for that event, but the context was clear. The Jewish community in this
country, Australians with a Jewish history or faith, had been under so much pressure
experiencing anti-Semitism. The Council of Australian Jewry had been calling for more
support. John Howard, who was the hero of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement, together
with Kim Beazley, Tony Rundle and Michael Field, said it best when he said: ‘Why can’t we
have a full-throated denouncement of the anti-Semitism and some of the rhetoric that we had
to be exposed to, for example, at the Sydney Opera House?’ The New South Wales police said,
‘Oh no, they didn’t say “gas the Jews”; they said “where’s the Jews?’.’ I say they were both
offensive. I have a close Jewish friend who lives in Melbourne who said to me during this
period, before Bondi: ‘Michael, my family are actually, we’re not thinking that we will go to
Israel, but we think it’d be safer there.’ They are the circumstances that not my family but many
Australian families were living through during the post-7 October and pre-Bondi attacks.
It disappoints me that straight after Bondi, the national conversation was attempted to be
taken into a place of firearms reform when, as the minister has made clear, two men who should
not have had any firearms had three and killed all those people.

Regarding the criminal offending provisions, I’m a strong supporter of the fourth pillar
of this legislation. As the minister and my colleagues on this side will know, I have argued
strongly for this element to be brought back. Our House failed, this parliament failed in 2015
when we had the opportunity to take the strongest possible position around illegal, unregistered
and stolen firearms, and we squibbed it. I wonder how much less crime might have occurred if
we’d have had laws in our state that meant this: if you’re in possession of a firearm that’s stolen,
illegal or unregistered, you’re going to jail. I wonder how much less crime we might have had
in the last 11 years. We’ll never know the answer to that, but this House needs to right that
wrong. We need to succeed where we failed previously, and I hope every member will support
those stronger sentencing provisions. They’re not as strong as I would ideally like but you can’t
always afford to be an idealist in politics. The presumptive mandatory, I think it’s right on for
this House to agree upon that. If you’re driving a stolen Ford Falcon, you know it’s not yours,
you have no excuse. But how much more important if you’re holding, have buried or are
trafficking in a firearm that’s not registered to you and you know you shouldn’t have it. You
should know that when apprehended you’re going to jail. I want to see that passed into law. I
congratulate the minister for his dedicated work on this, including suffering a whole range of
insults on the way through, and I support the legislature.

Mr FERGUSON (Bass) – Chair, while there is clearly a line of division through the
Chamber on this particular question, the debate has actually been great to listen to. It has been
good for our community to be exposed to the very different points of view and the perspectives
behind the positions that have been taken by members of this House. I appreciate contributions
that have been made around the Chamber, in particular from the Treasurer just earlier and
Professor Razay who made one of the finest contributions I have heard since the debate began
on Tuesday.
I will draw out a couple of points. First of all, I think one or two members on the other
side of this Chamber have based their remarks on a false belief that for members on any side
of this Chamber or the crossbench this is somehow ideological. I’m a former firearms owner
and a former firearms licensee. For our own family reasons, which I won’t be discussing in
detail, we made the decision that when we had children, we wouldn’t have firearms in the
House. That was our decision and I surrendered those firearms myself. My choice, our choice.
If anybody would like to explore that with me, you’re most welcome to at another time. But
that’s not a choice that I seek to impose on any other family. So long as the basic tests of being
an appropriate, fit and proper person, to be licenced, you’ve done the training, you don’t have a
problematic criminal history, you have a genuine reason to be licenced and to own and possess
and use certain categories of firearms, and that they’re stored appropriately.
Now I think Prof Razay – he’s now absent from the Chamber – and I feel more empowered
to speak to this now – made an inspired point and that is that much of the debate that we’ve
already had around this bill and now into the clauses has actually been around a wraparound
stronger safety net. Safety all round. That the bill makes a whole range of important
improvements to the management of this Act, an Act that has really had very minimal change
in those 30 years since the Firearms Act was enacted in 1996. It’s now had a thorough review
and resolving areas of law that have been deficient and in need of improvement for some
considerable period of time.

I really want to remind the House that – and we’re all guilty of this at times – but if those
of us old enough to remember 1996, let me remind you that, as the minister for Primary
Industries pointed out, in that Howard government era – and I hope it would have been just the
same if it was not a Liberal government – we saw strong leadership on, not just responding to
Port Arthur and the tragedy that shook our nation, but also responding with a risk based
approach. Because the risk was about rapid repeating semi-automatic and automatic firearms,
which were in homes around our country, including this state. It was a direct response. That
level of government paid 100 per cent of the cost of the buyback. What a contrast.
Also, in the context of Bondi, let’s remember the real causes of that tragedy, which
grieved us all, in particular, our Jewish brothers and sisters, that is our Australian brothers and
sisters who belong to the Jewish faith or have a Jewish ancestry. Australians, our fellow
Australians. The backdrop to that was not the nature of the firearm. The backdrop to that was
the absolute failure of far too many senior political leaders in this country to give what
John Howard called what was needed a full throated denouncement of the antisemitism that
had been tolerated for far too long. The ugliest scenes of which were at the synagogue in
Caulfield and, of course, the Sydney Opera House, where police were dithering over whether
or not they said, ‘Gas the Jews’ or ‘Where’s the Jews’. That was the backdrop to the debate that
then was forced upon this country about the need for a particular Albanese led firearms laws,
and here we are today.

I don’t think that this debate is a healthy one if we attempt to summarise it as to whether
or not you’re for caps or against caps. That would be a poor perception that we send from this
House today, because there’s been so much goodwill and so much rapid repair around the
overall legal framework. A whole range of people now are going to be subject to more scrutiny
when they apply for their licence or apply for a permit to purchase. I believe we’ve done a lot
of good work and, particularly with media listening, I wouldn’t want our whole debate to be, if
you like, summarised around the polarised element that we’ve confronted here today.
I want to close with this point. The same arguments around caps today could equally have
been made with 10 firearms for recreational hunters and 20 firearms for primary producers.
The same arguments could have been made, and where’s the science in that? The same
arguments could have been made if, let’s say, the opposition were moving that recreational
hunters could only have two firearms and primary producers could only have four. The same
arguments could have been made. The nature of our debate would be no different. Where’s the
science in that? I recognise that as 35 politicians, all of goodwill on this subject, I genuinely
know and believe that all of us want to leave this House today, when the bill is completed,
believing genuinely that we tried to find the right balance. There are different opinions on
where that balance ought to lay.

I want to close where I started. I will not allow my position, which is a strongly held one
which I’ve now articulated on two occasions, and I say this with respect to the member for
Lyons, Mr Mitchell, I wouldn’t want it to be misunderstood as ideological, because I’m a father,
and I’m a grandfather now, and I think very, very carefully about the safety of our children, our
vulnerable, our shopkeepers, our people in the street, people who are suffering coercion and
worry about their future. I think about that a lot. I want them to be safe. I want them to be as
safe as possible with an evidence based approach. Even though this is the Liberal Party’s
position which is shared by a number of members of the crossbench, it’s also my personal
position.

With the amendment or without the amendment, there will be no guarantee of no future
disasters or massacres or tragedies. None of us can guarantee that on either side of this question.
But we do at least owe it to our electorates – indeed each other and our families – that we’ve
struggled through this and that we’ve respected the different points of view. If Dr Razay had
given a different position but with the same passion he displayed here today, I would
congratulate him equally as I intend to do when I next speak with him. They’re the reasons that
I don’t support the amendment by the opposition, and I respect others who’ve chosen a different
path.