Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says the new gun laws do not target law-abiding gun owners. Photo: Thomas Lucraft.
The Federal Government’s gun reforms have passed the House of Representatives without amendment and without Coalition support.
The bill passed with 96 votes to 45 and is set to pass in the Senate later today (20 January) with the support of the Greens.
It means Australians wanting to own guns will have to undergo more frequent security checks and will be limited to how many firearms they can possess.
Recreational users will be limited to four firearms; commercial users and farmers will be allowed 10.
Criminal intelligence will also be shared across jurisdictions through the licensing process.
Once the new law is enacted, it will also establish a gun buyback scheme, enabling the states and territories to work with the Commonwealth to reduce the number of firearms over two years.
Nationals leader David Littleproud was forceful in his objection to the bill when speaking in parliament.
He suggested Labor was using the Bondi terror attack in December for political purposes.
“This is nothing more than a cheap political diversion,” Mr Littleproud said.
“A cheap political diversion that is not facing up to the real problem in this country, which is radical Islamists.
“It is not the gun owners of Australia that have done this. It is radical Islam that has done this.
“This is a failure of process, not a failure of gun licensing.
“The fact is, the authorities did not act and take away the licence and the weapons [of the accused Bondi shooters] as they should have.”
The Nationals leader accused the government of “impinging on the rights of lawful Australians” who have respected the law.
“We are trying to solve a problem that is not there,” he said.
“You are taking away the attention from what the real problem is in this country.”
Introducing the bill to the Lower House on Tuesday morning, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said it was surprising for many Australians to learn there are now more firearms in the country than at the time of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.
“[There are] now more than 4 million registered firearms in Australia,” Mr Burke said.
“The sheer number of firearms currently circulating within the Australian community is unsustainable.”
Shadow attorney-general Andrew Wallace railed on the government for not consulting with farmers or sporting shooters before drafting the legislation.
“This bill reveals the contempt the government has for the million gun owners of Australia,” he said.
“The Prime Minister has failed to recognise that guns are tools of trade for so many Australians.”
But when Anthony Albanese rose to speak in support of the bill, he said it was not targeting law-abiding citizens.
“This legislation is not about targeting farmers. It’s not about competitive shooters. It’s not about law-abiding firearm owners,” the Prime Minister said.
“The federal bill will establish a national gun buyback scheme to purchase surplus, newly banned and illegal firearms.
“The gun buyback scheme is based on the same scheme that was introduced under John Howard, Tim Fischer and Kim Beazley – three leaders who all stood up at an important moment for Australia.”
The Liberal, National and Labor leaders united in 1996 following the Port Arthur mass shootings to introduce tough gun control laws to reduce firearm deaths in Australia.
Following Tuesday morning’s successful gun reform vote, Labor then introduced its hate laws to the Lower House. The Coalition has yet to publicly state its position on this legislation.
Mr Albanese has previously said the government wouldn’t introduce this legislation without parliamentary agreement, so the fact it has been introduced suggests the Liberal Party is finally on board to some extent.
The Greens are against that legislation, so the Labor needs the Opposition’s support to get it through the Senate.
Introducing the bill in the House of Representatives, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland stressed that the new hate laws would “not trespass” on legitimate free speech.
“It does not seek to capture lawful debate, robust criticism, religious discussion or genuine political advocacy,” she said.
“It does not target legitimate comedy, satire or artistic expression.”
Original Article published by Chris Johnson on Region Canberra.
