Tasmanian MPs divided on proposed gun reform laws in wake of Bondi terror attacksBy state political reporter Josh Duggan
Posted Tue 8 Sep 2026 at 7:12pmTue 8 Sep 2026 at 7:12pmTue 8 Sep 2026 at 7:12pm, updated Tue 8 Sep 2026 at 7:31pmTue 8 Sep 2026 at 7:31pmTue 8 Sep 2026 at 7:31pm
In short:
Debate on whether to include gun ownership limits in the Tasmanian government’s firearms legislation is on a knife’s edge, with the House of Assembly appearing to be split on Tuesday with 17 votes to 17.
MPs have outlined their positions on Labor’s amendment to the bill, which would allow individuals to own up to five guns, except for farmers and sport shooters who could have 10.
What’s next?
Debate will continue on Thursday, with independent George Razay to hold the deciding vote.
Independent MP George Razay has emerged as holding the deciding vote on whether ownership firearm limits will be included in the Tasmanian government’s firearms reform legislation.
Debate on the highly contentious legislation, tabled by Police Minister Felix Ellis, began Tuesday with the lower house members outlining their positions on the bill, and several amendments being flagged.
While the bill does not include an ownership cap, Labor will move amendments to include an ownership cap of five guns for individuals.
Under the opposition’s plan, primary producers and sporting shooters would be eligible to own up to 10 guns, while exemptions would also be available from the police commissioner.
While debate on the amendments is not expected to take place until Thursday, numbers in the House of Assembly on the issue of caps appear to be locked at 17–17.
The Greens are expected to support the caps, as are independents Kristie Johnston, Helen Burnet and Peter George.
But the caps are not supported by the Liberal government; Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP Carlo Di Falco; or independents David O’Byrne and Craig Garland.
It leaves independent Bass MP George Razay as the deciding vote, however, he did not reveal his position in his second reading speech.
Dr Razay told the house that he understood the issue would be up for consideration during the committee phase of the debate, where amendments are discussed.
The bill, a response to the Bondi terror attacks of 2025, is expected to pass the lower house in some form.
Among other reforms, the bill introduces mandatory minimum jail terms for firearms offences and for setting up Tasmanian requirements for a National Firearms Register.
Community safety at forefront
Mr Ellis told the house that the tabled bill represented the “most comprehensive legislative reform” to the Firearms Act since it was introduced in 1996.
Labor’s Police spokesperson Jen Butler told parliament on Tuesday that MPs had “a responsibility” to question its strength.
“Do we want to reflect on this decision with regret, when there is another incident where a gun is used to maim, kill or bring terror to a community?”
she said.
Ms Butler said there was evidence that owners with a high number of guns were targeted by thieves. Relatively few guns were also recovered after being stolen, she said.
The state government has said caps would unfairly target law-abiding firearms owners, and there was no evidence the caps would improve public safety.
The opposition has claimed this equates to support for “unlimited guns” — something Premier Jeremy Rockliff hit back at during the debate.
“Tasmania does not have unlimited gun ownership today, and this bill does not create it tomorrow,” he said, pointing to significant regulations on gun ownership.
Independent MP David O’Byrne said compelling evidence that gun caps would improve community safety was needed, and that it would mean the same number of people owned guns, even if they each had fewer.
Police Commissioner Donna Adams is supportive of ownership caps. Earlier this year, she wrote to Mr Ellis, saying “public safety must take precedence over the privilege of firearms ownership”.
More than 11,000 Tasmanians have signed a parliamentary petition opposing ownership caps.
Proposed grandfathering to be removed
The government’s bill reclassifies straight pull rifles and shotguns to the more restrictive category C licence, available to approved collectors and primary producers.
However, those arrangements would be grandfathered, meaning that current owners of those guns could retain ownership without an upgraded licence.
Instead, transition arrangements would be included, so people could keep the guns while they applied for a category C licence.
“There may be sound reasons for this transition, but parliament should ask whether the sound reason for reclassification is fully achieved if the firearms already in circulation remain unaffected,” Greens Police spokesperson Tabatha Badger said.
The government’s bill also makes Australian citizenship a requirement for holding a firearms licence — with exceptions for New Zealanders or those with a genuine work-related reason.
While Labor has said it wanted to amend the bill to remove grandfathering provisions, that proposal is expected to fail.
The Greens indicated that it may put non-citizens “at risk of unreasonable outcomes”.
Raft of amendments flagged
The 87-page bill makes other changes to firearms laws in Tasmania, including the introduction of mandatory minimum jail terms for those who commit serious firearms offences, along with increases to penalties.
The bill would also allow the set up of the National Firearms Register, a buyback scheme, and looks to increase intelligence-sharing capabilities between law enforcement agencies.
There are also new rules for antique firearms, which Mr Ellis said would simplify the process for possessing, displaying and storing antique firearms.
Owners would need to provide contact details, information about the type of firearm, and where and how it is stored, while display requirements have been updated.
Loading…
About 20 amendments have been flagged for Thursday’s debate by the opposition and cross-bench.
These include attempting to reduce the licence renewal period from five years to two, to remove the mandatory jail terms, and expand the ‘fit and proper persons’ test.
Ms Johnston will seek an amendment to allow police to consider a person’s history of family violence or coercive control behaviour, even if no offence or protection order has been recorded.
She recounted the story of one constituent, which she said still haunted her.
“She confided in me that her law-abiding, firearms-owning husband — a licensed owner — would simply play with his gun safe keys whenever she displeased him,”
she said.
“No shot was fired, but she could see what was intended with that act.”