Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (10:59:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I want to acknowledge the horrific act of antisemitic violence that has brought about this bill's development and introduction into Parliament. Just over a week ago, on Sunday 14 December, a terrorist attack was perpetrated against Jewish members of our community at Bondi Beach, taking 15 innocent lives and injuring 40 others, including two serving police officers. Members of the Jewish community were celebrating Hanukkah, celebrating the triumph of the light over the darkness, celebrating without fear and celebrating in a land that will forever be their home. The actions of those two terrorists have permanently scarred our Jewish community. They have scarred us all. But they will not take away the very light that those men, women and children were celebrating. No matter how dark the night is, we must always ensure the light shines brightly.

We cannot undo the events of that terrible day, but this bill progresses reforms that respond directly to lessons from the atrocities on that day. The Government is taking steps to protect the community and enhance social cohesion in the wake of these terrorist acts by placing sensible limits on the authorisation of public assemblies. We are also criminalising the knowing and public display of terrorist organisation symbols and ensuring that police have the powers they need to identify individuals whom they reasonably suspect have committed any offence during a public assembly.

I recognise there has been conjecture about changes to our gun laws. I want to stress from the outset that this Government recognises the varied views of firearms stakeholders in our community. We recognise that the majority of firearms owners are responsible and law-abiding, whether they are farmers and primary producers across the State, who rely on firearms to tend to their land, or those who help hunt invasive pests, or whether they are target and competitive sports shooters. Fundamentally, the bill is about increasing oversight and minimising risk, ensuring police have the tools they need to oversight firearms licensees and ensuring we minimise the risks by reducing the number of firearms in our community. Sadly, Australia has faced this challenge before. The Firearms Act came into force on 1 July 1997, as part of a nationwide, bipartisan commitment to introduce stricter gun control laws in response to the Port Arthur massacre. Whilst those reforms were significant, they were enacted nearly 30 years ago. The recent terrorist attack in Bondi has shown it is time to strengthen our laws to protect the community and minimise the risk of a future mass shooting.

The bill acts decisively to improve public safety by amending the Firearms Act 1996. It will limit the overall number of firearms that an individual can possess and use; further restrict the types of firearms that people can possess and use; strengthen the firearms licence and permit application and renewal process, including through more frequent licence renewals and by removing barriers to the use of criminal intelligence in determining licence and permit applications; and enhance the operation of approved clubs and shooting ranges. The reforms in the bill deliver on several of the National Cabinet's commitments to strengthen gun laws across Australia in response to the Bondi terrorist attack and previously unactioned recommendations from the Edwards coronial inquiry and the Audit Office of New South Wales. If passed, the provisions of the bill which amend the Firearms Act 1996 and Firearms Regulation 2017 will largely commence on proclamation.

The bill makes the most significant and substantial reforms to our firearms legislation in a generation, but it also provides for extensive regulation powers to be used after the bill passes this Parliament, to ensure that we get the balance right. The Government is committed to working closely with stakeholders across the community to make sure that we are not overburdening specific groups of firearms owners, such as sports shooters and primary producers, when the provisions within the bill are proclaimed. I can assure the House that the appropriate time will be taken to develop the regulations, policies and procedures that underpin this Act, including uplifting our Firearms Registry.

I now turn to the other component of the bill. The bill will further enhance public safety by creating a framework for the issuing of public assembly restriction declarations in extraordinary circumstances. It does this by proposing amendments to the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 and the Summary Offences Act 1988 to provide that, where the use of special powers to investigate or prevent a terrorist act are authorised under part 2 of that Act, a public assembly restriction declaration may be made that prevents public assemblies from being authorised in designated areas. The bill also proposes amendments to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to provide that limitations on the use of police move on powers in relation to public assemblies do not apply where an assembly takes place in an area designated by a public assembly restriction declaration.

Community tensions may run high in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack like the tragic and horrific incident in Bondi, and ensuring community safety is absolutely paramount. A public assembly held to express support for or denounce a particular community or group, or which relates to a cause that is highly significant for one or both of those community groups, could further inflame tensions and give rise to risks to public safety. The assembly of a large group of people in the aftermath of a terrorist attack can also give rise to a real risk to community safety, including to those participating in the assembly, by making those in the assembly a target and exposing everyone else in the vicinity to a risk of harm.

Large public assemblies on roads and in public places could also obstruct roads or people, including emergency and police vehicles, which can increase the risk to public safety and impact on the ability of emergency services and police to respond to any further or developing risk effectively. In order to reduce these risks and keep the community safe, the bill proposes to create a scheme which would operate to prevent public assemblies from being authorised in designated areas for a defined period of time and allow police to use existing move on powers to address any public assemblies that take place in such an area during that period. As the bill proposes to do so by building upon existing mechanisms in New South Wales legislation on terrorism, public assemblies and law enforcement powers, I will briefly outline these existing laws.

Under part 2 of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002, the Commissioner of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police, with the concurrence of the police Minister, can authorise the use of special preventative or investigative powers where satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a terrorist act is about to be, or has been, committed. In particular, section 6 of the Act allows for the authorisation of the special powers in part 2 to be given where the police officer giving the authorisation is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a terrorist act has been committed and is satisfied that the exercise of these powers will substantially assist in apprehending the persons responsible for committing the terrorist attack.

Part 2AAA of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 contains special powers in relation to the use of force by police in relation to a declared terrorist act and allows the Commissioner of Police to make a declaration enlivening those powers where satisfied that an incident that police are responding to is likely to be a terrorist act and planned and coordinated police action is required to defend any persons threatened by the terrorist act, or to prevent or terminate their unlawful deprivation of liberty.

Part 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 contains a scheme to facilitate authorised public assemblies, which encourages cooperation between police and protest organisers and seeks to strike a balance between the freedom of assembly and implied freedom of political communication and the rights of other members of the public not to have their lawful activity impeded. Under the scheme, organisers seeking authorisation must provide the Commissioner of Police notice in writing of the intent to hold a public assembly and certain particulars about the proposed assembly, including the number of expected participants and the proposed route of any procession.

Public assemblies can be authorised by application to the district and supreme courts. The most significant consequence of an authorisation being granted to a public assembly is that a person who engages in conduct solely for the purpose of participating in that assembly is protected from the prosecution for offences relating to the obstruction of people or vehicles in a public place, provided that the assembly is held substantially in accordance with the particulars agreed with the commissioner. An additional consequence of an authorisation being granted is that it places limitations on the use of police move on powers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act [LEPRA]. Section 200 of that Act prevents police from giving move on directions in relation to an authorised public assembly unless it is necessary to address a serious risk to safety.

The bill proposes amendments to restrict public assemblies in designated areas within the aforementioned framework. Under the model proposed in this bill, within 14 days of a declaration being made under either section 6 or part 2AAA, which authorises the use of special powers under part 2 or part 2AAA of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act, the Commissioner of Police or Deputy Commissioner of Police will have the option, with the concurrence of the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, to make a public assembly restriction declaration or PARD—a declaration that prevents the authorisation of public assemblies in specified areas for a limited time period.

The specified areas do not need to be the same areas that are specified under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act [TPPA] authorisation of a terrorism act. The areas are to be identified on the basis of risk to community safety should a mass gathering occur. Before making a PARD, the decision-maker must be satisfied that public assemblies in the declared area would be likely to cause a reasonable person to fear harassment, intimidation or violence, or to fear for their safety, or would be likely to cause a risk to community safety, including the safety of participants in any assembly. A PARD commences when it is made and will be in force for an initial period of 14 days, which can be extended no more than 14 days at a time to ensure regular considerations of the need for the restrictions to be continued. Cumulatively, declarations may not be in force for longer than three months.

The making of a PARD will alter the way existing provisions under the Summary Offences Act 1988 and LEPRA operate in relation to public assemblies in designated areas. First, as amended by this bill, part 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 will not permit the Commissioner of Police, the District Court or the Supreme Court to authorise a public assembly to take place in areas that are the subject of a PARD for the duration of the declaration. It will also nullify any existing authorisations planned for such areas. Second, the unavailability of authorisations in areas that are the subject of a PARD will mean that participants in unauthorised public assemblies in these areas will not be protected from criminal liability or obstruction offences.

Third, where participants in an unauthorised public assembly in an area that is the subject of a PARD are engaged in conduct that enlivens the use of police move on powers under section 197 of LEPRA, such as conduct that causes an obstruction, involves the harassment or intimidation of others, or which may cause fear in others, police will be able to give move on directions to resolve the conduct of concern, with failure to comply being a criminal offence. The amendments in this bill do not mean that police will be able to issue move on directions in relation to any group of people gathered in a designated area. For example, picnics and groups of friends as well as quiet and ordered vigils that do not breach the LEPRA threshold will still be able to be held.

The bill also introduces a new offence into the Crimes Act that complements existing New South Wales offences that seek to prevent the spreading of hate. The new offence criminalises knowingly displaying, by public act, a symbol of a prohibited terrorist organisation without reasonable excuse. This includes, for example, symbols that represent ISIS. The bill also provides that the police may require persons attending a public assembly who are reasonably suspected to have committed any offence to remove any face coverings.

I will now turn to the detail of the bill. Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Firearms Act 1996. Proposed new section 8A introduces a limitation on the overall number of firearms that a licensee can possess or use. The limitation depends on the type of licence and the genuine reason for which the licensee has a licence. Licensees who possess and use firearms for the genuine reason of primary production, vertebrate pest animal control, business or employment, occupational requirements relating to rural purposes, and animal welfare are limited to no more than 10 firearms. Licensees with the genuine reason of sport/target shooting are also limited to no more than 10 firearms unless a greater number of firearms is approved by the Commissioner of Police in accordance with the regulations. The New South Wales Government will amend the Firearms Regulation 2017 in close consultation with community stakeholders for this purpose at a later date, including to set out the circumstances in which sport/target shooters may apply to possess and use more than 10 firearms. The Government recognises that there must be a credible pathway for competitive and sports shooters to progress and develop, and we are committed to ensuring that pathway remains available to sport/target shooters in our community.

Licensees holding a firearms dealer's licence or a firearms collector's licence have no overall limitation on the number of firearms that they may possess and use. Subsection (1) (e) also allows a person who is a member of a class of persons prescribed by the regulations for this paragraph to have a limit of no more than 10 firearms. This allows the Government flexibility in the regulations to consider a class of persons who may have a genuine need for more than four, but less than 10, firearms. All other licensees may possess and use no more than four firearms.

If more than one reason from section 8A (1) applies to the licensee, the number of firearms the licensee may possess and use is the highest number of firearms permitted under the applicable paragraphs. This is provided for in subsection (2). Currently, the Firearms Act does not set out overall limits on the number of firearms a licensee can possess or use across all licence categories. This reform prioritises public safety by seeking to reduce the number of firearms within the community. This is particularly important in the event of theft as it limits the potential number of firearms that may be stolen. These reforms meet the National Cabinet commitment to limit the number of firearms to be held by any one individual.

In New South Wales, there are currently over 250,000 licensees who hold just over 1 million firearms. This reform will impact licensees differently depending on the licence type and genuine reason. This reform will not affect all licence holders, with licence holders owning less than five guns not affected. However, for those who are affected, in recognition of these impacts, the New South Wales Government, in partnership with the Commonwealth, will establish a gun buyback scheme to support phased implementation of this reform and ease the financial burden on affected licensees. This buyback scheme will be developed in coming months, but we recognise that any buyback scheme must be fair to firearms owners in our community who, through no fault of their own, may be required to surrender some of their firearms.

The bill will also further restrict the type of firearms that a licensee is authorised to use and possess. The Act already restricts the types of firearms a licensee can acquire by specifying the firearms to which different licence categories apply. Proposed new section 8 (1) will reclassify certain firearms into more restricted licence categories. The firearms being reclassified are high-powered, rapid-fire firearms, or provide rapid reload and refire capability. These firearms are capable of causing great harm in a very short time period and are, therefore, being restricted to those categories of licence holders who require them for particular reasons, such as primary production. Proposed new section 4 inserts definitions for these firearms. Proposed new section 8 (1) will classify button/lever release firearms and straight pull/pump action firearms as firearms to which a category C licence applies.

~break

Currently, category A or B licences apply to such firearms. The amendments will ensure these firearms are available only to specific licensees who have demonstrated a special need to possess or use such firearms that cannot be met by any other means. Proposed new section 8 (1) will also classify semi-automatic air guns as firearms to which category B licences apply. Currently these firearms fall under category A licences. The difference is that persons will have to demonstrate a special need for these firearms. New section 8 (1) will also introduce magazine capacity limits for most firearms to which category A and B licences apply. This will be set at either five or 10 rounds, depending on the firearm. Currently no magazine capacity limits are prescribed for any category A or B firearms, except for lever-action shotguns. Magazine capacity limits are currently prescribed for all category C and most category D firearms. Including these limits will clarify and futureproof the Act by ensuring that any category A and B firearms with more than five to 10 rounds, whether they exist now or in the future, cannot be authorised under a category A or B licence.

Item [19] of schedule 1 to the bill will classify firearms that can use belt-fed magazines as prohibited firearms. These firearms can use a link or belt ammunition source or similar outside of a detachable or fixed magazine. They allow a person to keep firing for an extended period of time without the need to stop and reload. Proposed new section 8 (1) also excludes these firearms from category C and D licences. The overall effect is that licensees cannot be authorised to possess or use firearms that can use belt-fed magazines. Unauthorised use or possession is an offence attracting a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. While these firearms might not be widespread at this time, we are aware of their existence for public sale in Australia, so this change ensures that they will not become publicly available from this point forward. The amendments I have described aim to reduce the potential for a higher casualty rate in the event of a mass shooting.

New section 21 reduces the general term of a firearms licence from five years to two years. This means licensees will need to renew their licence more frequently and therefore will need to more frequently re-establish their genuine reasons for having a licence. This reform will strengthen oversight of licensees by enabling the NSW Police Force to more regularly assess whether it is appropriate for a person to continue holding a licence, based on current information about or relating to that person. A person's individual circumstances and risk profile with respect to individual and public safety may change significantly across a five-year licence term. There will be no change to provisional and probationary pistol licences, which will continue to have a licence term of 12 months under section 21 (3) of the Firearms Act. Similarly, category D licensees may still apply for a 12‑month licence.

The bill makes changes to require licensees to be Australian citizens. New section 11 (3) (e) provides that the Commissioner of Police must not issue a firearms licence unless satisfied that a person is an Australian citizen. This is in addition to existing New South Wales residency requirements. This measure achieves one of the agreements made at National Cabinet last week. The bill provides an exception to the Australian citizenship requirement for persons specified in new section 11 (4A). The exception applies to New Zealand citizens who are permanent residents and have a licence for the genuine reasons of primary production, vertebrate pest animal control, business or employment and occupation requirements relating to rural purposes or animal welfare. The exception will allow these employment-related or employment-adjacent activities to continue for this cohort.

Proposed new section 11 (4A) also enables further exceptions to be prescribed by regulation. Again, the Government acknowledges that there are cohorts of non-citizens, particularly in primary production, who may be impacted by these changes. As such, the Government will have regulation-making powers to expand the cohorts of people who may be exempt from the citizenship requirement. Such cohorts will be examined in the forthcoming development of the regulations. The bill makes several other changes as a consequence of the new citizenship requirement. New section 29 ensures permits are only issued to Australian citizens. Additionally, new section 26 limits the recognition of interstate licences for certain purposes to only apply to Australian citizens. New section 27 limits the ability for interstate residents moving to New South Wales to have their interstate licences temporarily recognised while applying for a New South Wales licence. Going forward, this will apply to Australian citizens only.

The bill makes amendments to limit the types of decisions made under the Firearms Act that a person can seek to have reviewed by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal [NCAT]. These changes will commence immediately upon assent. Currently, a person may apply to NCAT for an external review of decisions set out in section 75 of the Act. This includes various decisions related to licensing, permits and firearms registration. Under new section 75A, a person will only be able to apply to the NSW Police Force for an internal review of most of these decisions and will not be able to apply to NCAT for an external review. The NSW Police Force recognises that procedural fairness is an important component of administrative decision-making and will ensure there is and continues to be a robust internal review process. The Government gives its assurance to stakeholders that we will carefully design this internal review process to ensure it is fair and just.

Section 3 of the Act clearly provides that firearm possession and use is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. The current review process has, at times, inhibited the NSW Police Force from using criminal intelligence in firearms-related administrative decisions, which is not in the interest of public safety. This is due to the NSW Police Force being unable to share intelligence information from other agencies to an external body like NCAT. For this reason, it is appropriate to remove the right to an external review by NCAT. Notwithstanding the above, importantly, I must note that the bill does preserve existing review arrangements for decisions regarding firearms prohibition orders as set out in new section 75. Retaining the NCAT external review pathway for certain decisions regarding firearms prohibition orders reflects the settings of these orders, including that these orders are made by the NSW Police Force and have no expiry.

The bill, under new section 81, will permit the Commissioner of Police to delegate functions under section 11 (5A) or 29 (3A) of the Act to a police officer of or above the rank of assistant commissioner. These sections provide that a licence or permit must not be issued if a person is a risk to public safety and issuing the licence would be contrary to public interest, having regard to any criminal intelligence report or other criminal information related to the person. Currently the commissioner is not permitted to delegate these functions under section 81 (1) of the Act. This will better facilitate decisions to refuse a licence or permit on public safety grounds, and a police officer of the rank of assistant commissioner and above has appropriate seniority to make such decisions.

The bill makes amendments to require all licensees to be a member of an approved club as a condition of their licence, unless they are exempt from complying with this condition under the regulation. This is set out in new section 19 (2) (a) (a1). In New South Wales, people need a genuine reason to apply for and hold a firearms licence. Only some genuine reasons, such as sports or target shooting and firearms collection, currently require a person to be a member of an approved club to establish that genuine reason. Currently, licensees who use club membership to establish their genuine reason for a licence will have participation requirements during each compliance period as a condition of their licence.

Requiring club membership for all licence types would support greater oversight of licensees, as the associated participation requirements provide an opportunity for firearms licensees to be part of the firearms community and for club officials or members to identify and report any unusual behaviour or concerns to the NSW Police Force, should they identify such behaviour. Simply put, it provides licensees with increased touchpoints with other law-abiding firearms licence holders and clubs, which will improve oversight. These amendments in the bill would be supported by updates to the Firearms Regulation to ensure the participation requirements remain fit for purpose.

The Government will work closely with community stakeholders to ensure the regulations are practical and are workable. This includes considering whether primary producers, farmers, those employed in vertebrate pest animal control, very remote licence holders or employees using a firearm in the course of their employment could be exempt categories from mandatory club membership. The Government does not intend to necessarily capture these cohorts but rather to capture a cohort of recreational shooters and similar licence holders who may not have any touchpoint with a club. Again, this is aimed at increasing oversight and safety for firearms users.

The bill will also remove the legislative barriers to making the use of Gun Safe mandatory for all approved clubs and shooting ranges. Gun Safe is the NSW Police Force's online portal for administering firearms licensing and registration. The bill will omit wording in current section 78, which provides that the commissioner cannot require a person to use online service arrangements. This includes Gun Safe. After this omission takes effect, the firearms regulation will be amended to require approved clubs and shooting ranges to use Gun Safe. Currently, the use of Gun Safe is voluntary. Mandating its use will improve the NSW Police Force's access to information about clubs and shooting ranges, including their members and their activity and their participation. Many approved clubs already use Gun Safe, and the NSW Police Force Firearms Registry will work with the remaining clubs as well as shooting ranges to onboard them onto the system.

Importantly, the bill also removes the current exemption under section 6B of the Act that enables a person to possess and use firearms without a licence or permit while shooting under supervision on an approved range or while participating in an approved firearms safety training course. This exemption will be replaced with a permit scheme that will still facilitate unlicensed persons to use and possess a firearm at an approved shooting range or in a safety training course. Currently, a person can apply for this exemption by submitting a dedicated form, known as a P650 form, to the club or range official or instructor. The NSW Police Force has no oversight over the P650 forms, and they are often kept as a paper record at a club.

This reform implements recommendation 20 of the coronial inquest into the death of John, Jack and Jennifer Edwards, which recommended that the New South Wales Government take steps to revoke the use of the P650 form with a view to amending the regulation and implementing an alternative scheme that provides for adequate verification of information and oversight by the NSW Police Force Firearms Registry. It is no longer appropriate for approved clubs and shooting ranges to administer this unlicensed shooting scheme. It is in the interests of public safety for New South Wales police to assess whether a person should be granted access to firearms in any circumstances and to keep a record of any instance in which a person is granted access to firearms through an unlicensed shooting scheme.

The bill also strengthens the legislative settings for managing the deceased estates of licensees. The Firearms Act currently enables executors or administrators of a deceased estate to take possession of a firearm for up to six months for the purpose of disposing of it lawfully. This means that executors or administrators may come into possession of the firearm without the strict licensing process that usually applies to firearms possession. Additionally, police officers do not have the power under the Act to seize the firearms during this period. Proposed new section 10A therefore provides that new licence applicants or those applying for a licence renewal must nominate alternative arrangements for the possession of their registered firearms in the event of their death. These alternative arrangements would be in place until the executor or administrator lawfully disposes of the firearms or for up to six months after the person's death, whichever is earlier.

There are a limited number of possible alternative arrangements. The firearm must be transferred to the possession of a firearms dealer or licensee who is authorised to possess the category of firearm, or the executor or administer of the estate must surrender the firearm to police as soon as practicable. The Commissioner of Police would assess the nominated alternative arrangement at the time of application and must not issues the licence unless satisfied with the arrangements. Where the arrangement is to nominate another licensee, the commissioner must be satisfied they will meet the safekeeping requirements under part 4 of the Act. The bill also contains new section 82A (2B), which authorises police to seize firearms from the deceased estate. This is important in case police consider the nominated arrangements are no longer safe or suitable upon the person's death, for any reason.

The bill makes several other amendments to support the updated settings for managing deceased estates of licensees. The bill also makes amendments to ensure that persons meet safe storage requirements before obtaining a permit to acquire a firearm. Proposed new section 31 (3) will now require that the Commissioner of Police must not issue such a permit unless satisfied the applicant will meet the safekeeping requirements under part 4 of the Act. Police can conduct an inspection for this purpose. In practice, police would conduct an inspection for the first permit to acquire a firearm for a licence or permit holder. Police would have the ability to also conduct an inspection for any subsequent application to acquire a firearm, in addition to regular safe storage checks that are conducted.

The bill strengthens identity verification and proofing processes for applicants for a new licence or permit and for the renewal of an existing licence or permit. This reform is directed at preventing fraud and enhancing reliable matching of applicants to their police records, criminal history or other relevant intelligence. New sections 10 and 30 provide that identity proofing for both firearms licences and other permits must be undertaken using an identity verification service provided under the Commonwealth Identity Verification Services Act 2023. This is the most sophisticated back-to-source identity proofing technology that can check that the person applying for the licence or permit is in fact the owner of that identity by using a biometric check. Finally, schedule 3 to the bill amends the Firearms Regulation 2017 and makes consequential or minor changes needed to support some of the changes in schedule 2 to the bill. This includes renumbering and updating references to provisions and removing references to the Act that will no longer exist.

I now turn to the balance of the bill, which proposes to amend the Crimes Act 1900, the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, the Summary Offences Act 1988 and the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. Schedule 1 to the bill introduces a new offence into the Crimes Act. Proposed new section 93ZB introduces an offence of knowingly displaying, by public act and without reasonable excuse, a symbol of a prohibited terrorist organisation. This offence replicates the existing offence of displaying a Nazi symbol at section 93ZA of the Crimes Act 1900, including that a reasonable excuse will include the display of a symbol done reasonably and in good faith for an academic, artistic or educational purpose, or for another purpose in the public interest.

New section 93ZB (1) (a) and (b) provide for the same penalty as knowingly displaying a Nazi symbol in or near a Jewish place—that is, 200 penalty units or imprisonment for two years, or both, for an individual, and 1,000 penalty units for a corporation. The penalty recognises the danger and seriousness of showing public support for a prohibited terrorist organisation, being an organisation that is actively promoting hate in the community and across the globe. Prohibited terrorist organisations are listed by the Commonwealth. These are clearly published on the Australian Government's website and, at present, there are 31 listed organisations. This includes the Islamic State, and the new New South Wales offence would therefore include the flag of ISIS and symbols in support of Hamas or Hezbollah.

New section 93ZB provides that a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol has the same meaning as in the Commonwealth Criminal Code section 80.2E (3). This Commonwealth definition encompasses any symbol that a terrorist organisation uses or members use to identify the organisation or any part of the organisation. It also includes something that so nearly resembles these symbols that it is likely to be confused with or mistaken for that symbol. Although the Commonwealth has an existing offence for displaying symbols of terrorist organisations, the Commonwealth offence requires additional elements for the offence to be proved, including that a reasonable person would consider that the display of the symbol involved the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred, or that the symbol could incite another person or persons to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate the targeted person or group, or advocates hatred of a targeted group, among other things. For these reasons, the Commonwealth offence carries a maximum penalty of five years.

The proposed New South Wales offence at new section 93ZB does not require that conduct to be proven. Instead, it is a straightforward and practical offence with a lower threshold, ensuring that the mere knowing display of terrorist organisation symbols, without reasonable excuse, will be a crime in New South Wales. Similar to the New South Wales offence prohibiting the public display of Nazi symbols, it makes sense that the New South Wales terrorist organisation offence carry a lesser penalty than the Commonwealth offence. This reflects the different elements and prevents confusion and inconsistency between State and Commonwealth offences. Terrorism is an area that is too important for inconsistency and uncertainty and, where the higher penalty of five years is appropriate, of course the Commonwealth offence can and will be charged in New South Wales.

Schedule 4 to the bill amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to do two things. First, the amendments will enable police to require masked attendees at public assemblies who are suspected of any offence to remove a face covering. Item [1] of schedule 4 amends section 19A of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to add an extra power for police in regard to face coverings. The additional power at new section 19A (1) (c) will permit police officers to require masked or covered attendees at public assemblies who are suspected of an offence to remove the face coverings. Currently, removal can only be required to confirm someone's identity if they are arrested and detained, or if they are suspected of committing an indictable offence.

This change will lower the threshold during public assemblies so that anyone suspected of committing any offence, including lower level offences, can be required to remove their face covering. This gives police similar powers as they have under section 99 of LEPRA, in the context of making inquiries to establish a person's identity; however, it does not allow police to conduct a search or remove a face covering themselves. This new provision is intended for police to require removal without the otherwise strict requirements in section 19A for them to do so quickly and with limited removal of the face covering, as is required by the remainder of section 19A in other circumstances. This is appropriate given the new provision is limited to the dynamic nature of managing a protest, demonstration or assembly where police may be dealing with a large number of masked individuals potentially committing offences at the one time.

There are other safeguards. For example, police are required to reasonably suspect that the person whose identity is masked has or is going to commit an offence. The safeguards in part 15 of LEPRA also will apply to the exercise of this power. These require police to identify themselves to the person and to provide a clear warning that the person is required by law to comply with the requirement to remove the face covering. The bill further amends section 19B so that the penalty for not complying with a police requirement to remove a face covering at a public assembly will incur a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment, or both.

The remainder of the bill then deals with public assembly restriction declarations, or PARDs. Items [4] and [5] of schedule 4 to the bill further amend LEPRA to facilitate the use of police move on powers in relation to public assemblies occurring in areas that are the subject of a PARD. Section 200 (2) of LEPRA currently states that a police officer is not authorised to give a move on direction in relation to an apparently genuine demonstration, protest, procession or organised assembly. Schedule 4 [5] amends section 200 to add a new subsection stating that police officers are not precluded from giving a direction in relation to such gatherings if they are being held in an area subject to a PARD.

As per section 200 (1) of LEPRA, industrial disputes or industrial campaigns will not come within the provision. The framework for the authorisation of public assemblies is found in part 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1988. Schedule 5 to the bill inserts new section 27A into part 4 to provide that a public assembly cannot be an authorised public assembly if it takes place in an area in relation to which a PARD is in force. Those that were already authorised within the declaration time period will be voided, and New South Wales police will have an obligation to advise organisers.

Schedule 6 amends part 2 of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002, which contains special powers that may be authorised in response to a terrorist act, to insert a new section 23A that provides for the making of PARDs. Section 23A will apply where an authorisation is given by a police officer under section 6 to use preventative or investigative powers, or where the Commissioner of Police has made a declaration under part 2AAA of the Act authorising the use of reasonably necessary force to defend persons threatened by a terrorist act, or to end their unlawful deprivation of liberty. In such circumstances, the Commissioner of Police, or a Deputy Commissioner of Police, may, with the concurrence of the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, make a PARD.

A PARD may only be made within 14 days of an authorisation under part 2 or a declaration under part 2AAA being made, and only if the commissioner or deputy commissioner is satisfied the holding of public assemblies in the area to which the PARD applies would be likely to cause a reasonable person to fear harassment, intimidation or violence, or to fear for their safety; or risk to community safety, including the safety of participants in public assemblies in the area. A PARD commences when made and ends after 14 days, unless revoked earlier or extended. Declarations can be extended for 14 days at a time by the Commissioner of Police or Deputy Commissioner of Police with the concurrence of the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and not for longer than a cumulative period of 90 days, as long as the decision‑makers are satisfied that it continues to be necessary on the grounds referred to in new section 23B (3) (b).

The Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 recognises the extraordinary nature of the law enforcement powers that may be authorised under the Act and includes oversight mechanisms, such as the requirement under section 24 for the commissioner to report annually to the Attorney General on the number of authorisations given, and the powers exercised under those authorisations. Schedule 6 [3] also provides that the scheme for PARDs be reviewed within two years, with a report to Parliament to follow within six months of the review commencing. Schedule 6 [2] to the bill amends section 24 to include a requirement for the report produced in compliance with the section to include the number of PARDs made and any extensions of the declarations. As the making of a PARD merely enlivens existing police powers under LEPRA, rather than the extraordinary powers available under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002, the bill does not propose to require the annual reports to include the powers were ultimately exercised by police following the making of a declaration.

The bill also includes transitional amendments to the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002, Summary Offences Act 1988, and LEPRA to ensure that the new provisions introduced by the bill can be applied in relation to authorisations given or declarations made under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 before the commencement of the amendments. In summary, large public gatherings that follow a terrorism event may increase safety risks to the community. These may be divisive, give rise to safety concerns of any perceived targeted community, as well as to those participating in the assembly, and may result in further fear and social disharmony. Public assembly restriction declarations will operate to restrict authorised public assemblies in designated areas for a defined period of time and to allow police to use their existing move on powers in order to enforce the restriction.

The bill also introduces a new offence in relation to terrorism symbols and a police power in relation to face masks, which together aim to enhance social cohesion, restrict the spread of hate, and ensure our community is safe. The devastating death toll of the Bondi terrorist attack requires that we take swift and decisive action to reduce the risks of a future mass shooting event. It also requires that we take swift action to quell tensions and promote social cohesion. It requires courage, it requires trust and it requires decisive leadership. This Government is not going to abandon the hundreds and thousands of law-abiding firearms users in our community. My message to them is simple and genuine: We hear and recognise their concerns. We will work closely with them in the development of the relevant regulations. But we cannot and must not do nothing. We must act to keep our community safe. We must do this by protecting our community against harmful ideologies and future devastating gun crime, as well as promoting social cohesion and ensuring safety. I commend the bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: I welcome to the advisers' area Baron John Hendy, KC, a member of the House of Lords. Certainly we are in unusual times when I am welcoming a member of the House of Lords to the Legislative Assembly of the New South Wales Parliament. It is a great honour to have you here in the Chamber, even though we are here under such extraordinary circumstances.

Second Reading Debate

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 11:51 :21 ): As deputised on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. This bill has been put together under extraordinary circumstances. The first consultation draft was provided at about 1.20 p.m. yesterday, and the final copy was supplied to us less than an hour ago during the condolence debate. Eight days ago, 15 innocent members of our community were shot dead in cold blood and many others were injured in body and mind by two cowards who did not even know them. I begin by acknowledging the victims and their families and friends. We are truly sorry for their injury, loss, grief and trauma that happened eight days ago. Doing justice to their loss is our motivation today, and we share a sense of anger on their behalf and on behalf of the broader community.

This situation calls for some straight talk from members of Parliament. Eight days ago, Australia changed forever. Sydney was changed forever. Eight days ago the beautiful Aussie innocence of "She'll be right, mate" had to confront the ugly reality that our community has within it people who are so filled with hate that they would murder and hurt innocent people. We have not gone through an investigation into the cause of this terrorist mass murder, but what we do know is that the cause of these murders was not the guns that were used but the people who fired them. If they had not used legal guns, they would have used illegal guns to murder, just like criminal groups do weekly in our community. If not guns, then these terrorists would have murdered with the pipe bombs that they had in their car. If not bombs, then the terrorists would have used motor vehicles, knives or other methods of murder.

Our community has factories of hate that teach people to hate and hurt other people in our community. At the heart of terrorist ideology is hatred and intolerance of other people on the basis that those other people are not the same as the murderers. When the Premier of our State urgently recalled Parliament, the community would rightly think he would do something to address the hate factories in Sydney. The public expect legislation based on the best intelligence on how the business model of hate can be interrupted and broken forever so that we can feel safe in our community again. If the public had that reasonable expectation, then I am sorry to communicate my disappointment to them.

The legislation before Parliament today is supposedly an urgent response to a terrible incident, but there is nothing in it that actually addresses the root cause of the hate that caused so many people to be injured and murdered just eight days ago. The legislation that we are now debating is a weak response to the moment that we are in. We are not afraid to say that. There are some obvious things that are required even without the benefit of the criminal intelligence the Premier has access to. We will attempt to amend this legislation to make it much stronger.

We get a lot of talk from the Premier, but nothing in this legislation strongly addresses the hatred out there in the community—or those who create it, nurture it and stoke it—that resulted in the murder of innocent children, like 10-year-old Matilda; senior citizen Holocaust survivors; two rabbis, who were men of God; and other innocent people. There has been no investigation into how somebody in the Firearms Registry gave a father whose son was on a terrorist watchlist the firearms licence that he used to buy the four long-arm guns he took to the scene of the murders he committed with his son. There has been no investigation into how our security services did not pick up that these two had travelled to stay, and probably train, in a terrorist hotspot in the Philippines for a month prior to the murders.

Without knowing the true and full facts, the Premier is presenting rushed, piecemeal legislation to this Parliament in order to try to look like he is doing something. There has been limited, if not zero, community consultation on this legislation that will give, amongst other things, more power to the Firearms Registry that granted one of these murderers a gun licence when they had no right under the legislation to have one. There is nothing in the Government bill that deals with the criminal intelligence processes around the grant of firearms licences, but there should be.

The current law of this State already provides that a gun licence is a privilege, not a right, that is only to be granted in the interest of public safety. How was it in the interest of public safety for the Firearms Registry to grant a gun licence to these terrorists? The Government's answer to that question is new legislation to give the Firearms Registry more power rather than to reform its processes. No wonder so many law-abiding members of our community are so upset with this legislation. They need gun licences for their livelihoods and businesses, including to keep animals from destroying their land so they can provide food for the people who live in the city. This bill contains poor imitations of some Coalition initiatives. The other changes that it makes all depend on terrorist events being declared or police reasonably suspecting that an offence has occurred. It is shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. It is legislation that treats the symptoms, not the cause of the problem. It is not the proactive legislation that was promised by the Premier and this Labor Government.

All year the Coalition has been promoting laws to prevent and punish the public expression of hate in our community. The legislation does not contain any restrictions on hate speech, despite the public statements by the Premier. Despite clear promises from the Premier, the bill does not address hate speech. It does not prohibit phrases like "globalise the intifada". Other than making guns harder to obtain lawfully in some circumstances, the weak changes to the display of terrorism symbols do nothing to increase powers to proactively restrain socially corrosive protests or allow more effective policing of law breakers at protests.

There is a curiosity that members should reflect on. This year the Attorney General charged the Hon. John Sackar, KC, to review and report on the criminal law protections against the incitement of hatred following the introduction of the Crimes Amendment (Inciting Racial Hatred) Act 2025. That report and review, after public consultation, which closed on 6 August, was to be reported to the Attorney General by 5 November 2025. That report has not been released. It is absolutely critical to the matters that we are debating in Parliament today, but the Attorney General has been sitting on it for over a month. Where is the report? Why has the Government not released that report at this time of all times? It should be released so that we can see what the Hon. John Sackar, KC—an expert in the law of defamation and free speech—has to say on this important topic. Where is it?

The Coalition understood the risk to our community of the hatred that I have been speaking about and has tried all year to address the public expression of hate in our community, which started on the steps of the Opera House with vile chants two years ago and has continued ever since. It was illegal and against the by-laws of the Sydney Opera House for that protest to take place, but nothing was done to stop it. On 13 February this year, on behalf of the Coalition, I presented two private members' bills to address the display of terrorist symbols—the very symbols that were found in the back of the car of the two murderers eight days ago—and strengthen laws around public assemblies. The Government then brought forward legislation dealing with public assemblies outside places of public worship. We tried to amend it to include our provisions around terrorism symbols and public assemblies.

When the Opposition tried to amend the Government's Crimes Legislation Amendment (Racial and Religious Hatred) Bill 2025 to outlaw terrorist symbols, to close a loophole and criminalise for the first time symbols that were deceptively similar to terrorist symbols and Nazi symbols, and to increase the penalties for that, the Premier and other Labor MPs, The Greens and some Independents voted against those sensible amendments. We also attempted to introduce protest law changes by amendment to the Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill 2025. That was blocked on procedural grounds but opposed by Labor and The Greens in the upper House when the Coalition moved amendments in the other place. On 5 August 2025, in the lead-up to the Harbour Bridge protest where ISIS flags were flown during the march, and on 12 November 2025, when Nazis protested outside this Parliament under existing protest laws, we tried to have urgent debate on the Coalition changes to our protest laws. On each occasion, Labor, The Greens and some members of the crossbench blocked any debate. They blocked us from putting our arguments to this Parliament that the current laws should be changed—the same people who apparently think that our laws should not be stopping ISIS flags on the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

Schedule 1 to the bill that we are debating today is an incredibly weak response to the need for proper laws to outlaw terrorist symbols. It provides that, if somebody carries a terrorist symbol, the matter will be heard in the Local Court and it will have a maximum penalty of only two years imprisonment or $22,000, or both. There is nothing about the clear legal loophole that allows people to make minor amendments to a terrorist symbol and therefore evade responsibility completely under the proposed New South Wales law or under the existing Commonwealth law. We have been asking for that to be changed since February of this year. We believe that carrying terrorist symbols is so corrosive to social cohesion and harmony within our community—the same flag that murderers carried in the back seat of their car eight days ago—that there should be proper and strong penalties.

We will seek to amend the weak law being put forward by this weak Government in schedule 1 so that it contains the following additional components. First of all, it will include symbols that resemble a Nazi symbol or terrorist symbol and that a reasonable person is likely to believe is displayed to show support for Nazi ideology or a terrorist organisation. Secondly, we will increase the penalty to five years imprisonment. The matters will have to be heard in the District Court to show the severity and the significance of the crimes. Finally, we will require that there be a standard non-parole period of 1.5 years in jail, so that it is clear that if you carry a terrorist symbol in New South Wales you will go to jail and, in all likelihood, for at least 1.5 years before you get parole. That is what strong response to this moment looks like, not the weak law that is being put forward in this bill. I encourage the Government and the members of the crossbench to support a much stronger law than is proposed in this hastily put together bill.

I now move to different components of the bill. One of the issues that we have been identifying is that there is no point in having strong hate speech law if you cannot identify the people who are speaking it within public assemblies. We have been asking for a long time—since February of this year—that the police be given powers to stop people from joining a public assembly or to remove people on the periphery of a public assembly if they are disguising their appearance. We want the police to have the power to force them to remove their disguise or, alternatively, to detain them until the end of the protest so that they are not able to be in the protest and break the law without being detected.

It is not safe for police to go into the middle of a protest march, with thousands of people around them, to remove someone who is chanting evil phrases. It is much better to give the police powers to safely remove them or to prevent that situation from occurring. But that is not what the bill does. The bill gives the police a limited ability to apprehend a person who they reasonably suspect may have committed, or is likely to commit, an offence. All it does is give the police the right to endanger themselves by going into a mass rally to try to remove someone who has been chanting in a certain way. That is completely impractical. It is dangerous. I cannot believe the police would actually recommend a law like this to the Government. The law that we propose is a far better response to this problem.

To be clear, in mass protests the best course for the police is to take photographs and videos of people who are doing the wrong thing and then use that information to charge them after the event, not while the protest is going on. All the proposed power under schedule 4 does is allow the police to try to apprehend someone during the protest. It does nothing about the fact that someone can evade detection entirely by disguising their appearance. Schedules 5 and 6 to the bill deal with post a terrorism event and the restrictions on public assemblies. Let us be clear about a few things. We hope that the powers in schedules 5 and 6 will never be necessary, because for them to come into effect there must first be a declared terrorist act. Thankfully, they are rare. We have had only two in the history of New South Wales: the Lindt Cafe siege and the Bondi murders eight days ago. Those are the only two declared terrorist incidents in the history of New South Wales.

Mr Stephen Bali: The Hilton hotel.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: It was not declared. The powers are going to be very limited, and the limitation on public assemblies, correspondingly, will occur very infrequently. They are no answer to the weekly protests of hate that have been going on in our community. That needs to be understood. The proposed powers will allow the police to declare designated areas within 14 days of a terrorist incident having occurred and make it impossible for someone to get a form 1 under the Summary Offences Act to have a public assembly. But in New South Wales, someone does not need a form 1 to have a lawful public assembly. So under the proposed provisions, if passed by the Parliament this week, next week it will be possible for someone to have a public demonstration or protest on the sand at Bondi Beach. We do not think that is appropriate. We do not think that is a good thing in New South Wales, and we do not think that is a good thing for social cohesion.

The Opposition is going to propose amendments to the bill to make the laws stronger. The laws proposed by the Government are a weak response to this moment in time. Under our amendments, participation in a protest in a designated area after the declaration of a terrorist event will attract a $1,000 fine. We also propose that it be a serious crime to organise such a protest march. We contend that it is an act against social cohesion that should be treated similarly to using a terrorist symbol. We want to make it a crime to organise a protest march in a designated area after a declared terrorist event, for which the organisers will get five years imprisonment. These are the sorts of strong laws that our Government should be providing to keep our community safe at this at this time, and it is not.

We will also seek to amend the law so that a terrorist organisation symbol can be one that is designated by the Commonwealth Government, which the New South Wales Government's bill will do. But we also want to allow the New South Wales Government, under advice from the Commissioner of Police, to designate organisations other than the one designated by the Commonwealth as a terrorist organisation. That is because we know that the Federal Government, because of its weakness, has not designated terrorist organisations that other foreign governments have. We want the New South Wales Government to add additional terrorist organisations if the New South Wales Commissioner of Police advises it to.

Schedules 2 and 3 to the bill contain amendments to our firearms laws. We obviously want reasonable laws around firearms that will promote public safety. The New South Wales Liberal Party wants a Parliament that works constructively to provide public safety. We have to accept that rushed legislation, presented to Parliament within eight days of a terrorist event in the lead-up to Christmas, will contain unintended consequences regarding any issue, let alone something as complex as firearms legislation. There is no doubt that the changes within the bill impact law-abiding farmers, professional shooters, shooting club members and other people. That involves impacts on people's businesses and livelihoods. Those people have been contacting my office and other the offices of other Coalition members. We understand the pain and anxiety that is being caused by the changes.

We also understand that this rush by the State Labor Government has more than a tinge of hypocrisy about it. In the last sitting week in November, this Government gave the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party in the upper House Government business time to debate the Game and Feral Animal Legislation Amendment (Conservation Hunting) Bill 2025. The Government, in accordance with some sneaky deal, allocated $8 million in the budget in the middle of the year to support the creation and expansion of gun rights in New South Wales that have not been part of the law of this State since 1996. Now, when the wind blows in a different direction, the Government is suddenly tightening up gun laws at a rate of knots.

As recently as September 2025, in the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill (No 2) 2025 the Government sought to change section 75 of the Firearms Act so that people under the age of 18 could apply to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal [NCAT] to review a decision made in respect of a firearms prohibition order against a minor, which the Opposition opposed. After wanting to give under-18-year-olds rights for NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal approvals, now with this bill the Government is taking away adult rights for NCAT approvals. The hypocrisy is quite unbelievable.

It is important that we understand what our current laws actually provide for firearms. New South Wales has some of the strongest firearms laws in the world, and I think we need to acknowledge that. They were passed by a former Labor government. This is not a partisan point. In 1996, after the Port Arthur massacre, there was a national consensus to strongly protect our communities. The overriding principle within the Firearms Act 1996 is, as I have already said, in section 3: that a gun licence is a privilege only to be granted on the condition that it is in the interest of public safety. There is no right to one gun, let alone four, six or 10, or whatever number you want to pull out. There is no right to a gun in New South Wales. The Commissioner of Police is responsible for issuing a firearms licence or permit, which is the only legal basis on which a person can possess or use a firearm. That is currently in our law.

A licence can be issued by the commissioner subject to conditions, and conditions can later be imposed on a gun licence after it has been issued. The commissioner is required, without giving reasons, to refuse the issuing of a licence on the basis of criminal intelligence or other criminal information if it suggests that the person is a risk to public safety and it is not in the public interest to keep or issue a licence. They can revoke it after the event without reason as well. Licences are not currently perpetual, like the Premier has publicly said; they are for a maximum five-year period. There is also a provision in the regulations for gun licences to be less than five years, as well as provisions where the Firearms Registry is supposed to be organised in such a way that national law enforcement organisations can access information within it. That is the context in which we have to consider this bill. We must acknowledge both that ideology and hatred killed people eight days ago and that, unfortunately, nothing within this legislation deals with that.

I will summarise some of the things that the bill seeks to change. Section 4 of the bill seeks to introduce new definitions of "button/lever release firearm", "cycle of operation", "semi-automatic air gun" and "straight pull/pump action firearm". The bill also seeks to delete an exemption for unlicensed persons to shoot on approved ranges and for persons to undertake firearms safety training courses. I do not quite understand the motivation behind these changes, and I am not sure that the police Minister explained them. Section 6B is being taken out of the Act. I would have thought that we would want to promote firearms safety training courses, not take them away, but that is part of the legislation. New section 8 changes the definition of categories A, B, C or D. The bill also includes various technical changes around what guns can or cannot lawfully have in terms of magazine sizes and the like.

New section 8A has attracted a lot of attention in the community. The section has changed since I was given a draft of the bill, less than 24 hours ago, so I need to be careful not to misrepresent it. It contains provisions that a licensee who possesses and uses firearms for any of the listed genuine reasons will have no entitlement to have more than 10 firearms. Bear in mind that there is no entitlement to a gun under the legislation now; it is a privilege. But that privilege is being restricted to 10 firearms for primary production, vertebrate pest animal control, business or employment, occupational requirements relating to rural purposes, and animal welfare. For licensees who possess and use firearms for the genuine reason of sport or target shooting, it permits no more than the greater of 10 firearms or the number of firearms approved by the commissioner in accordance with regulations. Certainly, as a city MP, I have received correspondence from Order of Australia recipients who have written to me to say that they will be impacted by those measures.

There is no limitation on the number of licences that a firearms dealer or collector can have. For a person who is a member of a class of persons prescribed by the regulations for that paragraph, it is no more than 10 firearms. We do not know what the regulations are; they will take some time to be formulated. Otherwise, it is four firearms. We have received a lot of feedback on that section. For someone who now has more firearms than that, there are no details as to buyback programs or when they have to return their guns. That absence of detail is understandably causing huge anxiety for people in the community who have done the right thing to obtain a lawful licence to have firearms that, upon the passing of this legislation, will no longer be lawful.

There are mechanical provisions around the provision of additional information and the like. There is a change to section 21 of the Act that will reduce the five-year maximum firearm licences to two years. I should check that that has not been changed again—yes, it is still two years in this draft of the bill. Whether two years, five years or something in between is the appropriate time, anything that will reduce the term of a licence from five years will mean that a huge amount of administrative resources will be required in the Firearms Registry. I do not pretend to be an expert but, anecdotally, people say that the registry is already quite under-resourced. That may explain why a gun licence was issued to a terrorist and the father of someone on a watchlist. We do not know. There has been no investigation into how the events of that weekend happened, but there will be a requirement for massive resourcing to deal with many of those changes.

I believe that there are similar changes around gun permits to gun licences. The NCAT appeal provisions have changed from the draft yesterday, and I hope I can do them some justice on the run—I have the tabling copy. Yesterday's version had no appeals to NCAT and only an internal review. Section 75 will now allow a person to go to NCAT for an administrative review, under the Administrative Decisions Review Act, of a decision to make a firearms prohibition order against the person. Despite that right, it does not apply in circumstances where the firearms prohibition order was made because of criminal intelligence or criminal information. However, in those cases individuals are entitled to make an administrative review under section 53 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act, which was the provision in yesterday's draft. There is no right to an NCAT appeal if an individual is under the age of 18, which is inconsistent with what the Government supported three months ago. New section 75 states:

In determining an application for an administrative review under this section, the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and any Appeal Panel of the Tribunal in determining an internal appeal against a review under the Civil and AdministrativeTribunal Act 2013—

(a)must ensure that the Tribunal or Appeal Panel does not, in the reasons for the Tribunal's or Appeal Panel's decision or otherwise, disclose the existence or content of any criminal intelligence report or other information to which the Commissioner has had regard in making the firearms prohibition order, and

(b)must receive evidence and hear argument in the absence of the public, the applicant for the administrative review and the applicant's representative to prevent the disclosure of a report or other information …

This is totally appropriate. We do not want criminal intelligence or information getting out in the public. It is paramount that we protect this in the public interest, so these seem like sensible provisions. Section 53 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act is the provision for internal review—that is, someone who sits next to the person in the firearms registry who made the original decision will review the decision of their colleague. New section 75A says:

The Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997, section 53 applies, with any necessary modifications, to the following decisions …

So it is only a firearms prohibition order that allows an individual to go to NCAT. All of these other things are subject to an internal review:

(a)the refusal of or failure by the Commissioner to issue a licence or permit, other than a permit for a prohibited firearm, to the person,

(b)a condition imposed by the Commissioner on a licence or permit issued to the person,

(c)the revocation of a licence or permit issued to the person, other than a revocation on the basis the holder of the licence or permit is subject to a firearms prohibition order, an apprehended violence order or a serious domestic abuse prevention order,

(d)the refusal of or failure by the Commissioner to register a firearm,

(e)the cancellation of the registration of a firearm by the Commissioner,

(f)a decision made under the regulations about the person that belongs to a class of decisions prescribed by the regulations …

Reviews will now mostly be with regard to an administrative review, unless it is a firearms prohibition order that is not based on criminal intelligence or criminal information, as I read those provisions for the first time in any detail. A number of new provisions deal with the disposal of firearms by a deceased estate. I must say I am not sure, in practice, how they will operate, but it is a pretty stressful time when people lose a loved one. The new rules about having to dispose of a loved one's lawfully obtained guns need to be sensitive in their operation and not overly prescriptive. I am not sure that these changes achieve that outcome. They may, but others with a much more practical understanding of these matters will be able to say more on that. Schedule 3 includes a couple of sections additional to yesterday's draft. All of the provisions in yesterday's draft seem to be consequential and consistent with amendments to the Act, and I do not think they require anything more to be said. That is our quick summary of the legislation.

Unfortunately, although there was a promise of consultation with the Opposition, all that seems to have happened is that we were given a briefing on the legislation at four o'clock on Friday afternoon. The Premier announced that he might try to steal a couple of our ideas regarding terrorism symbols and people wearing face masks at protests. But those ideas are a poor facsimile of the originals. Our proposals are much stronger, and we will seek to amend the proposed legislation to make it much stronger. We will seek to strengthen the restrictions on public assemblies after a terrorism event to make sure that public assemblies are not held in areas that would fuel hostility and hate in the community and add to the erosion of social cohesion.

I briefly go through the detail of what we propose should happen to public assemblies more generally in our State. The Commissioner of Police would consider them in the first instance and then, if necessary, the courts on appeal would be required to take into account certain matters before they give approval to a form 1 to hold a public assembly. They should take into account public safety, social cohesion and the impact of the public assembly on public amenity and convenience and on the economy, businesses and groups within the vicinity of the public assembly, including religious groups. They should take account of the frequency of the protest marches, the alternate routes that marches could take, the availability of other less destructive routes, the costs incurred and the diversion and use of police resources. We believe all of those things are in the public interest and should be taken into account. How the Commissioner of Police and the courts actually weigh them will depend on the circumstances of the case, but they should be taken into account.

There should be no public assemblies on the steps of the Opera House or on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. They are national icons, and no group is entitled to appropriate a national icon that represents the whole of our community to present to the world that their particular cause has the support of all of our community. We do not see that as assisting social cohesion. When people repeatedly protest, costing tens of millions of dollars worth of police resources, that should be able to be taken into account in determining whether a protest is approved. That money could be spent in a more constructive way, but it is instead being used for police overtime and other resources for protests. There should be a mechanism by which the cost can be passed on to the protesters after they have had three protests in any 12-month period. That is incredibly reasonable.

As I have said, people should not be able to protest while wearing face coverings that obstruct the ability of police and other security organisations to hold them accountable if they perform illegal chants and spew hate in our community. We believe very strongly that that should be the kind of reform—which these laws do not contain—around public protests in our community that fuel hate and division. The Coalition wants to take a constructive approach to this legislation and will move amendments to make it better. I ask members to reverse their previous opposition to these proposed laws and to support them. They will be an improvement to social cohesion and to the safety of our community. They will put a brake on hatred in our community and they will make our State a better place.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY ( Maroubra—Attorney General) (12:40:11): I wish I could say that I am pleased to contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, but my contribution comes at a time of great sadness and pain for our community. The Government is bringing forward this bill to respond to the tragic and horrific terrorist incident at Bondi Beach just over a week ago. In response to the speech I have just heard from the shadow Attorney General—apparently on behalf of the Opposition—I am a little bit confused and disappointed. The Premier has been at pains on a number of public occasions, including last night at Bondi Beach, where I was present, to thank the new Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition team for approaching these considerations in a bipartisan way. Unless I am mistaken, that is not what I have just heard from the shadow Attorney General.

I will respond to some of the shadow Attorney General's contentions about short notice. The New South Wales Opposition members were briefed by me in person, with the police Minister, on Friday in this building about the contents of our proposed legislation. The shadow Attorney General was there, as were members of the office of the new Leader of the Opposition. That was on Friday, three days before the bill was introduced today. The Opposition were provided copies of the bill and it has not changed a lot. There have been some necessary changes on Saturday, two days before the bill was introduced. The Opposition indicated that it is going to attempt to amend the bill and try to amend the motion to suspend the standing orders.

I have been here for 20 years this year and for two recalls of this place: one on 15 December 2005 to deal with the Cronulla riots and the second on 30 January 2014 to deal with one-punch legislation. Following the Cronulla riots, the first draft of the bill was provided to the then Opposition at 9.31 a.m. the day the bill was introduced. It was debated that morning, and the then Leader of the Opposition, Peter Debnam, gave us bipartisan support at that time. He had only received the bill half an hour before it was debated. There were no Opposition amendments to the bill or amendments to the motion for the suspension of standing orders. In 2014, when the Government was in opposition, John Robertson was Leader of the Opposition and I was shadow Attorney General, the then Opposition called for a special sitting of Parliament on the issue of one-punch legislation. We were grateful that that request was acceded to. The then Labor Opposition supported the suspension of standing orders and the bill, despite receiving a copy of the bill only one hour prior. Over the weekend I have had many calls from members of this place of all political colours to discuss the bill and ask questions of me. The shadow Attorney General was not one of them.

Hanukkah celebrations have long been a time of hope and unity. What we saw on 14 December has now cast a shadow of darkness and hatred, shocking the nation and the world. The violence and antisemitism that we have witnessed has no place in our communities, no place in New South Wales and no place in Australia. Members of our community are feeling a range of emotions right now—shock, fear and anger—and rightfully so. This was an atrocious antisemitic terrorist attack. There is no other way to describe it. Everyone has the right to be safe and feel safe, whether Jewish or non-Jewish. In response, I make it clear that the New South Wales Government has no higher priority or sacred duty than keeping the people of New South Wales safe. That is exactly what these reforms are intended to do, but this will not be the end. We have a duty to explore and enact until we are confident that we have done absolutely everything we can to keep our community safe.

The Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism has gone through the bill in detail, so I do not propose to revisit those technicalities. But I will speak briefly about some of the key principles. The reforms have two major components, both of which are critical. The first component is that the bill significantly tightens New South Wales gun control laws by introducing the most significant reforms to our firearms legislation in a generation. This is crucial action. Although we know that there are hundreds of thousands of responsible gun owners in New South Wales—and, to be clear, we do not seek to punish them and we will keep working with them—we cannot do nothing. It is time to strengthen our laws to protect our community.

The bill contains measures that will increase oversight and limit risk by doing the following: limiting the overall number of firearms that an individual can possess and use; further restricting the types of firearms that people can possess and use; strengthening the firearms licence and permit application and renewal process, including through more frequent licence renewals and by removing barriers to the use of criminal intelligence in licence applications; and enhancing the operation of approved clubs and shooting ranges. The second component of the bill, which makes amendments to key legislation in the Attorney General's portfolio, aims to increase public order for the safety of all of the New South Wales community. That includes three separate, but aligned, reforms.

The first is the new scheme of public assembly restriction declarations—or PARDs, as I shall refer to them from hereon. Those declarations will be able to be made within 14 days after a declared terrorist incident, where the Commissioner of Police or Deputy Commissioner of Police, with the concurrence of the Minister for Police and Counter‑terrorism, is satisfied that public assemblies in the specified area or areas are likely to cause a reasonable person to fear harassment, intimidation or violence, or fear for their safety; or a risk to community safety, which may include the safety of participants in any assembly. They will remain in force for an initial period of 14 days, with extensions up to a total of three months being available.

When a PARD is in force, public assemblies cannot be authorised under part 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1988—the kinds of gatherings that we have come to know as involving a form 1 approval. Any existing authorisations for assemblies in the designated area are extinguished on the making of a declaration. Police will also have access to existing move on powers under section 197 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 when a person's behaviour or presence obstructs traffic or people, causes harassment or intimidation, or causes a person to feel fear. This is a focused and targeted response to protect social cohesion following a terrorist incident. This is not about stifling free speech; it is about keeping our community safe and together.

The making of a PARD will signal to the community that assembling in public spaces in a designated area is discouraged. Community tensions may run high and emotions run hot in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack and ensuring community safety is paramount. Large gatherings of individuals can make those individuals, as well as anyone in their vicinity, a target. Assemblies of people on roads can obstruct emergency vehicles and police. If a terrorist act has taken place, it is crucial that those services can act and respond urgently. The threshold for a PARD is tied to community safety. The regime for PARDs does not discriminate. It is not about any one particular political ideology or class of conduct. Our Government is laser focused on preventing violent and threatening conduct and on keeping the community safe. Importantly, our amendments mean that ordinary or spontaneous gatherings, such as picnics and groups of friends, will not automatically be subject to restriction. That is also the case for quiet and ordered vigils that do not raise risks to community safety.

The second reform provides police with new powers to require attendees who are hiding their faces at public assemblies, and who the police reasonably suspect of committing an offence, to remove a face covering. Failure to do so will be an offence attracting a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment, or both. Public assemblies can involve dynamic and rapidly evolving circumstances. If a group of neo‑Nazis choose to spew racial hatred and want to hide their faces while they do it, this new law will ensure they cannot avoid police identification. Third, people will be prohibited from knowingly and by public act displaying the symbols of a prohibited terrorist organisation, including at public assemblies. [Extension of time]

I thank the House. This offence, to be introduced to the Crimes Act, will criminalise the knowing display, by public act and without reasonable excuse, of the symbol of a prohibited terrorist organisation, including where the symbol is recognisable but not 100 per cent accurate. I have had many conversations over recent days with people who have been asking, "What can I do? How can I help?" The other day someone asked me, "Can you reverse time so that this never happened?" I wish that I could—I think we all would do that if we could. I wish that I could take the pain and the suffering away, but none of us can. However, what we can do is ensure that we do what we can so future generations do not suffer the evil inflicted on Bondi and the Jewish community ever again.

It has been my privilege to serve in public life for over 30 years, and in this place for over 20 years. In that time, I have seen sadness, I have seen tragedy and now I have seen what I never thought I would: the deaths of 15 innocent people and more than 40 people injured in a hateful attack on our Jewish community. Each life is sacred. I take this opportunity to thank the police, particularly those from the Eastern Beaches Police Area Command. The commander, Paul Simpkins, was sent down to Bondi last Sunday afternoon to be the forward commander. Shortly after, he was joined by 30 people from the Eastern Beaches Police Area Command. I pass on my condolences to the families of Matilda, Alexander Kleytman and Peter "Marzo" Meagher—my mate—and to his wife, Virginia.

It is hard to come together when we are grieving as a society—when emotions are running high and when people are angry. We mourn with our Jewish community and recognise their deep and profound sorrow. But there is one thing I know we all agree on: Our collective obligation is to do better, to do more and to hold our community together. Things are not the same and will never be the same after the tragic and horrible events at Bondi Beach. We are all changed. An indelible mark has been left on all of us. I remember when my community was touched horrifically a few years ago after the Bali bombings. That was an act of violence visited upon Australians when they were enjoying themselves on foreign soil. Now an ideology has been imported here and has been used to attack us in the places that we love the most.

How we rise to meet this tragedy matters. How we respond to hatred and attempts to divide us is a mark of who we are, who we want to be and who we should be as a community. We must walk together. We have to do whatever we can to keep our community safe, to fight division and hatred and to draw together while others seek to tear us apart. In the past few days I have seen extraordinary strength, kindness, resilience and courage from the community. We are not broken. We will not be broken. We will not be divided by hate. We will rise and walk together because that is who we are. Our job today is to provide leadership—to provide strength, hope, firmness, confidence and example. It is to put in place strong and protective regimes, to give confidence, to send messages, to discourage badness, to encourage goodness, to heal and to hope. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ALEX GREENWICH ( Sydney ) ( 12:53 :53 ): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Along with 20,000 other Sydneysiders and many colleagues in this place, I was in Bondi last night to mark one week since the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack. We saw resilience in the community and solidarity with the Jewish community. I also saw sadness, fear and confusion. Those were things I had not seen in Bondi on a Sunday afternoon or evening—ever. The sad truth is that is how Jewish people have felt in Sydney and across New South Wales and Australia for some time. We have failed to address antisemitism, which has resulted in 15 beautiful, innocent people being killed in an antisemitic terrorist attack. This failure will continue to haunt me, and it must continue to haunt all legislators in this country. We have to do more. We have to do better.

I support the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 because we urgently need to improve public safety, especially for our Jewish communities following that horrific attack on Sunday 14 December. The massacre at Hanukkah celebrations on beautiful Bondi Beach was one of the most horrific days in Australia's history. Jewish communities have borne the brunt of this extremely traumatic attack—whether they were present, lost loved ones or, as I said, feel continually under attack. Now is the time for leaders to remind them that they are loved and for us to work together to protect them.

The antisemitic terrorist attack has made people across Sydney feel unsafe, but Jewish people have been feeling that way since the 7 October 2023 attack because of the sharp rise in antisemitism that has become bolder and more public. Many Jewish people no longer wear symbols of their religion and avoid disclosing obviously Jewish last names. Their everyday institutions like schools and day care, which many of us take for granted as safe spaces, are heavily guarded. Unfortunately, the massacre has intensified their real anxieties. Last week, Avner's, a beloved bakery in Surry Hills in my electorate, permanently closed because its owner no longer feels that his staff and customers are safe at a Jewish business. I have had many constituents tell me how upset they are about the loss and what that loss means for Sydney.

It breaks my heart that Jewish people live in fear of terrorism here in Australia, which should be one of the safest and most harmonious countries in the world. I am committed to listening to and working with the Jewish community and leaders and the Government and members across the political divide to make New South Wales safer for Jewish people and for the wider community. I acknowledge that what we need to deal with as a result of the incident last Sunday is hate directed at Jewish people, which is antisemitism. It is also important, though, that we reform our gun laws to make sure that that hate cannot be armed. Australia has some of the strongest gun laws in the world because governments acted after a man used a semiautomatic firearm to murder 35 people and wound 23 others at Port Arthur in 1996. Laws were tightened. There was a huge buyback that retrieved 650,000 guns and Australia became a significantly safer place in which to live.

Australia's gun homicide rate plummeted and is now 62 times lower than that of the United States [US]. This year, the US experienced 391 mass shootings compared with our one. Mass shootings get the most attention, but the US continues to suffer from lax gun laws on many fronts. While Australia's gun laws remain the strongest in the world, the National Firearms Agreement has been watered down. It is now easier to get guns than it was when reforms were first introduced. As subjects of hate speech and violent threats, the Hon. Emma Hurst and I have long held views that further gun reform is needed. We presented the Government with recommendations in response to the attack.

When we receive death threats, we cannot help but wonder about access to weapons. With a gun, a person can quickly produce destruction on a wider scale than with most other weapons. The fact that an extreme antisemitic terrorist could legally acquire rapid‑fire high‑powered long rifles and turn Bondi Beach into a bloodbath shows a clear systemic failure of our gun laws. The high-powered pump‑action long-arm rifles were obtained under a licence to hunt, despite the National Firearms Agreement prohibiting rapid-fire rifles from hunting categories. Six firearms were lawfully acquired despite the National Firearms Agreement requiring applicants wanting a second and subsequent firearm to undergo a full licence application, showing proof of a genuine and special reason to get a second or subsequent firearm and demonstrating why their existing firearms are insufficient.

The Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill will limit the number of firearms a person can own to a maximum of four; remove some firearms from and limit magazine capacity in category A licences; remove the tribunal appeal process; strengthen storage requirements; and ensure licence renewals are as robust as initial applications. Importantly, the bill ends the P650 scheme, which allows a person to access firearms at a shooting range by self-proclaiming that they are a fit and proper person to handle guns. The scheme was first used by John Edwards, who in 2018 shot his children dead with a gun. The New South Wales Coroner's inquiry into the deaths of those children recommended this reform. The bill will make the community safer, but more is needed. Category B licences still permit lever action firearms with five rounds, which can easily be upgraded to rapid fire with 11 rounds.

Children as young as 12 can legally use a firearm at a time when they cannot use social media, normalising gun use. We need better communication between the Family Court and the Firearms Registry to ensure that when a perpetrator is flagged as dangerous, the registry is checked and any guns are revoked. It is unclear whether the permit-to-acquire requirements are being restored, or if anyone getting a gun licence would be able to have a maximum of four guns without having to prove a genuine need for having that amount. I ask the Minister to respond to these concerns and outline how we will ensure continuous improvement. I acknowledge that this reform is controversial in some communities, as gun reform was in 1996, a time when Australia made gun ownership a privilege, not a right, to protect the community. The Bondi attack shows us that more work is needed to keep the community safe.

The right to protest is fundamental to a healthy democracy. I understand the community concern over provisions in this bill that empower the police commissioner to refuse an application to hold a protest up to 90 days after a terrorist attack. As members know, I have long defended the right to protest, but I will be supporting the change in this bill because it represents a trauma‑informed, measured response that prioritises social cohesion at a time when we are at risk of heightened division. Jewish people are holding funerals for their loved ones. They are recovering in hospital and the community is in shock. We need to give them space to grieve without feeling under attack. Public assembly restriction declarations will be limited to when assemblies would likely cause fear of harassment, intimidation or violence, or cause a risk of community safety. This provision will be subject to a statutory review after two years. I will continue to monitor this.

The bill will also ban the public display of terrorist organisation symbols, in line with the laws passed this year that ban the Nazi symbol. We know there are many symbols used to threaten the Jewish and other communities, like the ISIS flag. Symbols used to do nothing but spread fear and hate and dehumanise certain communities have no place in our society. Police will get new powers to order someone to remove face coverings at a public assembly if they reasonably suspect the person is likely to commit an offence. I will monitor the use of these powers as well. [Extension of time]

We cannot let this crisis divide the community. Australia hopes to be a harmonious, tolerant and fair society with strong democracy. Blaming immigration, religion, foreign policy or international wars is unhelpful and weakens what is strong and good about our community. The massacre was motivated by hatred of Jewish people. We need to do more to stop antisemitism by addressing radical ideology and all antisemitic comments. Public statements of hatred towards Jews should not be allowed. They are dehumanising and justify violence. As a member of the LGBTQ community, I have seen how decades of stigma, discrimination and hate speech lead to violence and police indifference.

Earlier this year the Government initiated a review into hate speech protections for vulnerable communities by Justice John Sackar, and I look forward to the outcomes. I hope the multipartisan approach taken by the Parliament today shows the Jewish community that the entire Parliament is dedicated to making the State safer for them and the wider community. I will listen further to Jewish leaders on what is needed and will work towards preventing another tragedy like this. We need to continue to do more to combat the spread of hate and the incitement of hatred and violence. We need to do more than what is in this legislation. If one murders someone in a place of worship, that is illegal. If one incites hatred or violence towards another person—or indeed their murder—in a place of worship, that should clearly also be illegal.

I would like to see the Government strengthen reforms to make sure we are not breeding hate and violence in any place of worship across New South Wales. When members debated the conversion practices legislation, we acknowledged that things said in places of worship can and do cause harm—and we criminalised it. We should be taking exactly the same approach to the hate speech and incitement against the Jewish and other communities that we know occurs in places of worship. Sadly, I feel that last Sunday, Sydney lost what was left of its innocence. It is time for us to be adults. It is time to take on antisemitism at its roots, to strengthen our response to hate crimes and to stop arming hate. This is not an issue of left or right anymore; it is an issue of life and death for Sydney. I apologise to Sydney's Jewish community. I apologise to my friend Damien, who joins me here in the Chamber today, for not doing enough. I commit to do more.

Ms JENN Y AITCHISON ( Maitland—Minister for Regional Transport, and Minister for Roads) (13:06:33): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. For all Australians, on 14 December 2025 a line was drawn. There is now a time before and after Bondi. That means more than any of us can adequately define in words, but it means the same thing to all of us: never again. Today I speak as both the member for Maitland and a Minister in the Minns Labor Government, following a week where people across New South Wales have been shaken to their core. Bondi has changed us forever as a nation. Where once Bondi's famous lifesavers protected us against rips, sharks and bluebottles, on 14 December we saw them step up and display, as the Governor-General said so eloquently last night, the spirit of the Anzacs.

Together with police, paramedics, the Community Safety Group, Hatzolah and other first responders, staff at hospitals all over Sydney and ordinary people going about their days, the Bondi lifesavers worked to save the lives of their fellow Australians on Gadigal land at the iconic Bondi Beach, so close to where we are now and so much a part of our national identity. I place very clearly on record our gratitude to the many first responders, ordinary citizens and public servants who supported victims and families during and in the aftermath of this attack. People across the world have been impacted by these events. Last week in Maitland I heard directly from locals who were connected with Boris and Sofia Gurman. Members may not know that the Maitland Jewish Cemetery is the earliest and largest dedicated Jewish cemetery in New South Wales, with Jews from around the world buried there since 1849. Many Jewish families still live in the area. Shockingly, just a couple of years ago that cemetery was desecrated by antisemites.

Jewish people are intrinsically entwined in the earliest economic, cultural and architectural history of my community of Maitland—as they are in our State, as many of them later moved to Sydney and played significant roles in State affairs. The post-World War II migration camp at Greta meant that many Jewish Holocaust survivors and other World War II refugees settled in Maitland over the past century, and their families are still there today. While the Maitland Synagogue has not had services for a long time, it was restored in the 1980s and placed on the State Heritage Register in 1999.

Also among the 15 beautiful, innocent souls we lost on Sunday 14 December was Boris Tetleroyd, an engineer who worked with Transport for NSW, and a gifted musician. As we make our condolences and debate the legislation today, his son is still fighting for his life in hospital. I acknowledge Boris's nearly three decades of service to the people of this State through Transport for NSW, where he served as an engineer with distinction. I note that those threads of our community reach across this State, create bonds between us all, and have touched us in so many ways in light of this tragedy.

Last night, on the final night of Hannukah, Australians came together at Bondi, online and across our nation to stand proudly with Jewish Australians as one Australian people, united in grief, love, faith and an overwhelming desire for peace. We all cried and wrapped our arms around Matilda's parents as they danced in her honour. I thank all those who spoke last night and shared their stories with us. I particularly thank Chaya, the little girl who so bravely saved other children. She spoke of her actions from the heart, telling us that God told her it was her mission to step up and "be the light in the field of darkness". She is certainly that light. She inspires all of us to step up today. I give my personal thanks to Bondi Rabbi Yehoram Ulman, who has served his community for over 40 years. Last night he not only named each victim whose life was stolen from them but shared a gift they had shared with us and enjoined us all to be more like them.

I was also honoured to stand next to Arsen Ostrovsky and his wife. We cried together, and it was so humbling to acknowledge and apologise for the pain Arsen personally felt on 14 December and before, and the antisemitism he personally experienced as a deepfake image circulated online by deniers spreading misinformation about him and his beloved community. That is just one example of the pain and suffering that Jewish people in our State face every day. That is why we need to fight hate speech wherever we find it. Far too many times we have seen flags and phrases that have ignited fires that have burned uncontrollably on social media. We have seen people take that hate and turn it into bullets. They have now killed people.

I support the Premier's decision to have a royal commission in New South Wales. We want to find out how this happened, but we also have to act to do everything we can stop it from happening again. There are more than 1.1 million guns in New South Wales. There is no doubt we do not need that many. The provisions put forward by the police Minister show the capacity for those who need guns for their livelihood—for agriculture, for animal welfare, for sports and for other legitimate purposes—to access the guns they need. But those who have no use, other than to kill innocent people, will not. Gun ownership is a responsibility and a privilege. The systems we have in place have not been working. That is not a reason to keep those same systems in place. We will invest where it is needed to enhance those systems.

In the days since Bondi, I have spoken to my constituents, including Lee Scott, President of the New South Wales Amateur Pistol Association, Adam Marshall from the New South Wales Sporting Shooters Association and Nathan Stuart from Edge of the Outback. I have spoken with and heard from many members of the community who use guns for recreation, for primary industries, for hunting and for pest control. I thank them for their advocacy and their willingness to listen and actually hear the truth. We need more of that in public discourse. When my predecessor as the member for Maitland, Robyn Parker, tried to move laws to outlaw shooting in national parks, she had animal carcasses left on her back step, which her children found. There are some who do not care about sports, primary industries, pest control or any other legitimate purpose for the use of guns; they just want to maintain the ability to control our nation and control us. We cannot let them win by allowing them to feed disinformation and lies online.

When I moved to Walcha to marry my husband nearly 30 years ago, he had the two old air rifles that he and his brother used on his grandfather's and uncles' farms since he was a child. In the wake of Port Arthur, he made a sacrifice and, in compliance with the law changes brought about by John Howard, he did his duty and gave them back. They were air rifles. They were slug guns. He gave them back because his nation asked him to do that. He put public duty and safety ahead of his nostalgia, his connection to his grandfather and his fond memories of hunting on the farm. He stood up for safety when it was a difficult and personal decision. I am so proud of him for that. I acknowledge that he is in the gallery today. If we want to change, we all have to make sacrifices. We all have to think about the consequences of what we are doing here today.

Over the weekend I spoke to Councillor Rick Firman, OAM, Mayor of Temora Shire Council, Chairman of the Country Mayors Association and member of the NSW Premier's Rural Remote and Regional Advisory Council. He expressed eloquently the views of his members, as he always does. It would be hard to find a better advocate for regional New South Wales than Rick, who is articulate and, despite his political difference, always puts community first. Just before I came into the Chamber to speak today, I also spoke to Xavier Martin from the NSW Farmers Association.

As a former shadow Minister for Primary Industries and shadow Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, I have stood on both sides of the gun debate. There are no sides. I acknowledge that everyone has questions about the legislation and that some of the misinformation that has been put out online and by various spokespeople in the media has not been helpful. We all have to do one thing in this place—that is, act to save the lives of people who live in New South Wales. For those who have questions, I urge them to listen again to the speech of the police Minister. She has laid out the legislation for all of us to look at. Anyone who did not get the chance to hear her speech should read it. When I spoke to advocates for gun ownership over the last week, they told me about consultations that had been happening with the Firearms Registry Consultative Council. Much of the work that has been done on the bill reflects those consultations. [Extension of time]

The council has done an enormous amount of work and has been going for some time. It was a revelation to me when I spoke to Adam, particularly, that many of the issues that he said had been raised by that body are reflected in the bill. The legislation also reflects the recommendations of the coronial inquest into the deaths of John, Jack and Jennifer Edwards released in April 2021, as well as the Auditor-General's 2022 performance audit on police responses to domestic violence. It is also informed by the work that has been done in other jurisdictions, notably Western Australia. It did not just pop into the police Minister's mind on Monday in the wake of the tragedy; it has been thought about for many days since many other tragedies have befallen this State.

Those who have asked for more consultation should consider that it is not the first time we have seen blood spilled by acts of terror on Australian soil. Just over 10 years ago a single man attacked people as they went about their pre-Christmas coffee run at the Lindt Cafe down the road from where we are now. For Australians who have been caught up in those acts of terrorism before—in Sydney, in London, in Bali and right across the world—and, indeed, for all of us, the trauma, the grief and the fear are triggered and amplified every time. If we do not act now, when will we act? After the next attack?

It is past time to reach out to our Jewish brothers and sisters and make them feel safe. It is past time to tell antisemites and racists that their behaviour is not acceptable. It is past time to reach out to all vulnerable people living in our community: victim-survivors of domestic and family violence, ordinary Australians taking a walk on our iconic Bondi Beach, and first responders who do not know what arsenal of guns they will face on the front line of duty in the aim of public safety. I stood with thousands of Australians on Bondi Beach last night, where we committed to do all and any actions to stop this happening again. If those words are to mean anything, I urge all members to pass the bill. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Members should act without fear to protect their communities and keep everyone safe. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GURMESH SINGH ( Coffs Harbour ) ( 13:18 :48 ): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I begin by making The Nationals' position absolutely clear: We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish community against antisemitism and terrorism. That support is absolute. Jewish Australians should never have to live in fear because of who they are or what they believe. Hate, intimidation and violence have no place in our country, and they must be confronted decisively. That is why the Coalition supports strong action against hate speech, extremist ideology and the public display of Nazi and terrorist symbols. In fact, we have been calling for tougher laws in this space since well before this bill was introduced. Our commitment to confronting extremism is longstanding and genuine.

Last week we agreed to work in good faith with the Minns Labor Government on a bipartisan approach to strengthening hate speech laws, addressing illegal assemblies and reviewing firearms settings where appropriate to make our community safer. These are complex and sensitive issues, and they demand careful and collaborative lawmaking. Unfortunately, that good faith has not been reciprocated. Over the past week, the Government has chosen to brief through the media rather than to engage in a genuine two‑way discussion. Regional stakeholders, in particular, were left in the dark. One phone call last night for all regional representatives—including NSW Farmers, the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia and the Country Mayors Association—is not consultation. It could not even be called a briefing. It was notification and a pat on the head. That matters, because this bill is rushed, and rushed legislation always leads to unintended outcomes. So much of this bill relies on new regulations being written, details of which we are yet to see. There are also clear inconsistencies across the schedules. What is being said publicly does not always align with the legal reality of what is being proposed.

The firearms measures rely on arbitrary limits that do not reflect how firearms are used in regional and rural settings. They fail to give legitimate regional businesses the tools they need to do their jobs, and they remove important review rights without delivering any demonstrable improvement in public safety. I will give an example. One of the questions we have had from people in metropolitan areas is "Why do farmers potentially need more than 10 firearms?" A farmer out on a large station might have 30, 40, 50 or 100 employees to carry out pest control on the property. Just like they are not expected to bring their own tractor to work, the employees are not expected to bring their own firearm either. The firearms held by the farmer under their licence are tools they require to be able to go about their business. I will give another example of an inconsistency in the proposed legislation. Two primary producers, each with a firearms licence, can live under one roof and share one gun safe, meaning they have access to double the arbitrary cap, rendering it meaningless. Also, sporting shooters may require multiple firearms to compete in some events; one particular event requires the use of 12 different firearms.

Most importantly, we must be honest with the Australian people. The provisions in this bill would not have prevented the Bondi attack. The proposed changes do not address the root cause of the problem we are confronting, which is antisemitism and violent extremism driven by ideology. We all want the same outcome. We want Jewish Australians—all Australians, for that matter—to feel safe. We want extremists caught and shut down, not emboldened by legislative gaps, and we want laws that are strong, targeted and effective. What we do not want is rushed legislation that gives the illusion of action without delivering real protection.

I understand that the Premier made a commitment to firearms reform last week. Allowing one less firearm than the next strictest jurisdiction is not reform. We know that these reforms are months away from being implemented, so why the sudden rush to get this done before Christmas, without any consultation? Some will reference John Howard's reforms from nearly 30 years ago. It is important to note that those reforms spanned many months, and John Howard worked with the then Leader of The Nationals, Tim Fischer, to get them right. There is too much that is wrong in the bill to be able to fix every little thing. However, The Nationals will be moving a number of amendments, which we will discuss in the consideration in detail stage. We cannot let the bill pass in its hastily drafted form, with the significant inconsistencies it contains.

Mrs HELEN DALTON ( Murray ) ( 13:24 :31 ): I speak on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 in the context of the recent tragic events at Bondi. I acknowledge the community response and the leadership shown in the immediate aftermath. However, this Parliament has a duty to legislate carefully, particularly when responding to tragedy, and not to rush measures through without proper scrutiny. In recent days, hundreds of law‑abiding firearm owners have contacted my office either in person, through texts or by email. There have also been endless calls to my mobile from constituents. Their concerns are genuine and deserve to be heard. Thousands of people across regional New South Wales use licensed firearms responsibly and lawfully. I understand the instinct in this Chamber to act swiftly and decisively. I understand the calls to "ban everything", because when tragedy strikes, people want action.

Let me be clear: No‑one—absolutely no‑one—wants dangerous people to have firearms. But in the rush to be seen to act, we must not do the wrong thing. Never has the divide between city life and country life felt wider than it does right now. In my electorate of Murray, we have over 10,000 licensed firearm owners. We are farmers. We are pest controllers. We are stockmen and stockwomen, contractors, rural workers and sporting shooters. To us, firearms are not symbols of violence; they are tools—no different to shovels, chainsaws or tools in a workshop—used responsibly, lawfully and as part of earning a living. When an animal is critically injured and suffering, rural Australians do not turn away; we act, both humanely and decisively. That reality may make some in this Chamber uncomfortable, but it is the reality of life beyond the city limits. Let us be honest about what happened at Bondi. The key issue is not lawful firearms ownership but how the system failed in this case.

Serious questions remain as to how a firearms licence was granted to a father when his son had previously been identified during a counter‑terrorism investigation. A key question is whether the licensing authority was aware of those associations. Also, if that information was available, was it properly considered? Will the Premier's office answer whether a firearms prohibition order was in place? That is a simple question, and the answer matters. Further questions must be asked about information sharing and oversight, including how overseas travel in the lead‑up to the attack was not identified by relevant authorities. More broadly, we must consider whether existing risk‑assessment processes in firearms licensing are adequate when there are known links to extremist activity within a household, and why. Yet, all we hear is silence. In response, law‑abiding citizens in my electorate are being treated as though they are criminals, including firearms dealers in local communities who will lose their livelihoods. That is unacceptable.

We are law‑abiding, we are careful, we are humane, and we are not criminals. Rural New South Wales will not accept being scapegoated for failures that occurred elsewhere. Licensed firearm owners respect the law. We respect firearms. We understand, better than most, that guns are not toys. I support sensible measures that genuinely improve public safety. But we in rural Australia have one clear message to this Government: Do not punish the innocent to cover up a systemic failure. Much of this debate centres on arbitrary limits, numbers pulled from thin air without regard for how firearms are actually used on the land. Firearms in rural Australia are working tools; they are not accessories. One property may legitimately require rim‑fire rifles to shoot vermin such as rabbits; centre‑fire rifles for foxes, wild dogs or pigs; larger calibres for feral deer or goats; and shotguns for pest birds around sheds. Each firearm serves a specific, regulated purpose. A numeric cap ignores this reality entirely. Landholders are often legally required to control feral animals and pests to protect livestock, crops, native species and neighbouring properties. During outbreaks of feral pigs, wild dogs, foxes or deer, rapid access to appropriate firearms is critical. Delays cost money. They threaten food security and biosecurity, and they cause environmental damage.

Rural properties are not suburban blocks. They can be tens or hundreds of thousands of hectares. Firearms may be stored in different secure locations or kept at different stations or properties, or in different vehicles. This is about distance and response time, not convenience. Rural Australians are rarely just farmers. They may also be professional pest controllers, livestock managers, contractors, or volunteer shooters assisting neighbours or councils. Each role may require different firearms under separate permits. In remote areas, repairs can take weeks. Gun shops can be hundreds of kilometres away. Having backup firearms ensures that essential work continues when equipment breaks or is damaged.

Let us deal with the facts. There is no correlation between licensed firearm owners and gun crime. The evidence is clear. Licensed rural gun owners are not the source of gun crime. Illicit firearms in cities are the real problem. Blanket limits punish compliant, background-checked people who already meet strict storage, licensing and inspection requirements. The existing system is already rigorous. Rural firearm owners must justify every firearm, undergo police checks, comply with strict storage laws, and face inspections and penalties. The system already controls who owns firearms.

An arbitrary number adds little public safety benefit. This is ultimately a question of equity. A one‑size‑fits‑all approach is designed for urban risk profiles; it fails to reflect rural realities. Rural Australians are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a needs-based, evidence‑based policy, not symbolic caps. This is also about food security, biosecurity, animal welfare and the best outcomes for our environment. Timely, appropriate firearms allow humane euthanasia of injured livestock, rapid response to predation and reduced suffering during emergencies. Delays or inadequate equipment make outcomes worse, not better.

Finally, if this Government is serious about public safety, then the focus must be where the danger actually lies: illegal importation, criminal trafficking, unlicensed possession, extreme ideology and lax checks on migration. The focus should not be on increasing red tape for people who already follow the law. This legislation is serious. Its consequences are far reaching, and it affects communities that are too often ignored in this place. This Parliament must ensure that any changes are evidence based, proportionate and properly scrutinised so that we improve public safety without unfairly impacting responsible and law-abiding citizens.

In the case of Port Arthur, the individual had easy access to semi-automatic firearms. Laws were changed to ban those firearms in Australia and introduce safe storage. The key thing then was that the firearms industry was consulted as part of the amendment process. That needs to happen now, before any new legislation is passed. This bill must be properly examined and it must be tested against the realities of regional and rural Australia. Good law is not rushed; good law is examined. This is Labor's greyhound debacle. For the sake of public safety and fairness, this House must get this right.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER ( Mr Michael Kemp ): I acknowledge the visitors in the gallery, including Xavier Martin and Kathy Rankin, president and policy director of NSW Farmers.

Mr DAVID MEHAN ( The Entrance ) ( 13:34 :00 ): I make a contribution to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. As a Parliament, we have an obligation to do all we can to make members of our community feel safe, and ensure that they are safe. The events of 14 December at Bondi clearly showed that not all members of our community are safe under the current framework under which we regulate our society and the laws we operate under. A community group was targeted because of their religion, heritage and ethnicity, resulting in the deaths of 15 people of the Jewish faith as well as people outside the Jewish faith.

The events of 14 December demand that we reconvene in the way we have today to do all we can within the walls of this Parliament to make our communities safer and to do all we can to make sure we strengthen our society to the best of our ability. The bill addresses not only firearms control but also a range of other things. The objects of the bill are as follows:

(a)to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to insert an offence in relation to the display of prohibited terrorist organisation symbols, including the ISIS flag,

(b)to amend the Firearms Act 1996 to—

(i)limit the number of firearms that can be possessed and used by licensees, and

(ii)recategorise certain types of firearms that can legally be possessed and used, and

(iii)reduce the general term for a firearms licence from 5 years to 2 years, and

(iv)require licensees to be Australian citizens—

for the first time—

(v)remove the right for administrative reviews by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal in relation to decisions under the Act, other than certain decisions in relation to firearms prohibition orders, and

(vi)make other related amendments,

(c)to amend the Firearms Regulation 2017 to make consequential amendments,

(d)to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to give police officers the power to direct persons participating in protests, demonstrations, processions or assemblies to remove face coverings if the police officers reasonably suspect the person may have committed, or are likely to commit, an offence and to make amendments consequent on the amendments described in paragraph (f),

(e)to amend the Summary Offences Act 1988 to make consequential amendments,

(f)to amend the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 to provide that the Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) or a Deputy Commissioner of Police (a Deputy Commissioner) may issue a public assembly restriction declaration (a declaration) if a terrorist act is declared and a public assembly in a specified area is likely to cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety or pose a risk to community safety.

The bill covers a lot of ground. It builds on other initiatives by the Government as outlined by the Minister for Multiculturalism, initiatives foreshadowed by the Federal Government and initiatives foreshadowed by other members for a prospective royal commission. I think there is a relationship between the availability and access to firearms and the number of people killed or injured due to their use in the community. After the Port Arthur shootings in 1996, where 35 people were killed, the Australian Government and the States enacted sweeping changes to firearms law to outlaw military-style and self-loading and rapid-loading firearms. That has had a dramatic impact on the number of people killed due to firearms in this country compared with other countries.

I compare us with the United States, where in the past 12 months 390 people have been killed and 1,778 people have been injured in 398 mass shootings. In Australia, with our highly regulated firearms system, we have done much better. But, as I have said, the events of 14 December call on us to do more, and this bill does that. I ask the firearms enthusiasts and workers who use firearms in their day-to-day occupations in my community to work with this bill. I acknowledge that some of them may feel that they are being targeted by these laws and that they have not done anything other than abide by the law as it is at the moment. If the current draft of the bill is passed by this House, people will still be able to follow their hobby or occupation or operate their business, but we will reduce the overall risk for our community. The reduced number and availability of firearms will reduce the risk of firearms getting into the wrong hands and being used for the wrong purposes. People who are members of clubs, have a firearm as part of their hobby—as does my son—or collect firearms will find that the Government's proposed amendments will heighten community safety and confidence that firearms are being appropriately controlled to ensure that all members of our community feel safe and are safe from the misuse of firearms by some members of the community.

I acknowledge members of my community who see our proposed changes to protest laws as a restriction on their right to say what they want to say in a protest environment. To those people I say that in trying to build a multicultural society comprised of people from all over the world with different backgrounds, different heritages and strongly held views we need to moderate things through the laws that we pass in this Parliament, which we create as best we can. The bill brings to the House the Government's conception of what is required right now to strengthen our multicultural society and make everybody feel safer in their homes and in their communities as they go about their day-to-day lives. I encourage all members of the House to embrace the bill in that manner.

In this country, we are trying to do a unique thing. Other countries look to their immigration heritage as a feature of their nation-building, but few countries try to maintain a multicultural society and allow all individuals to express their own culture. That runs alongside solidarity around the idea of Australia as a multicultural society where equality is paramount in the way we view the world and where fairness is ingrained in our institutions. It is a tough job. We will not always get it right. There will always be more we can do. The bill goes some way to strengthening our society. Rather than taking away rights that people feel are important, the bill ensures that people will be able to operate in a society that feels safer for their neighbour. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PAUL TOOLE ( Bathurst ) ( 13:43 :04 ): Before I speak about the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, on behalf of my electorate and many people across this State and across this country I offer my sincerest condolences for the 15 innocent lives that were lost to the act of terror we saw eight days ago. I acknowledge the families who lost loved ones, the friends whose lives have been shattered, the children who have had their innocence stolen and the communities that will never be the same. Bondi Beach is an icon of Australia where families gather, tourists visit and locals feel safe. Bondi now carries bloodstained memories that will never be washed away.

On behalf of many communities across this State, I say that we are utterly gutted by the attack and we cannot begin to comprehend the fear and the grief that has struck at the heart of the Jewish community. Every Australian, regardless of faith, should feel safe in their own country. That is not negotiable. Yet today, Jewish Australians are afraid to leave their homes. That is a national shame. I want to be absolutely clear. The problem is not the weapon. The problem is radicalised ideology. It is hatred. It is antisemitism. It is violent extremism allowed to grow unchecked and in plain sight. The individuals responsible for the attack were not born monsters. They were radicalised, indoctrinated and emboldened in an environment where hate has been tolerated, excused and, in some cases, defended. The reforms proposed by this Government will not change that.

The reforms before us are a kneejerk reaction. As the Attorney General himself has described, this legislation was cobbled together in a matter of days. This bill is rushed, poorly conceived and politically convenient. It would not have stopped the Bondi attack. It would not have de-radicalised a single extremist or dismantled one hate network. It will, however, punish law-abiding citizens and attack farmers and sporting shooting organisations who follow the rules. It is a distraction from the Government's catastrophic failure to confront the real issues of antisemitism and radicalisation.

For 2½ years, Labor's inaction has coincided with a disturbing rise in antisemitism in New South Wales. We have seen it on our streets—in protests, chants, symbols, threats and intimidation. We have seen synagogues targeted, Jewish neighbourhoods surrounded and families too afraid to leave their homes. What has this Government done? Government members have done nothing. Their lack of action has created an environment in which this has happened. Two years ago, they allowed protesters to occupy the steps of the Sydney Opera House on 9 October 2023 and chant "Gas the Jews", which is a direct reference to the Holocaust and a call for mass murder. This Government allowed hate-fuelled protesters to shut down the Sydney Harbour Bridge and chant slogans like "Globalise the intifada". They allowed Hyde Park to be used every weekend for two years for protest in this State. They stood by while weekly demonstrations turned into rolling campaigns of hate. That is what they are.

I say this plainly: A protest is a one-off event. But a protest that happens every weekend or every few days is not a protest. It is a movement. It is a targeted campaign, and this Government allowed it to happen. They created an environment in which hatred and division has grown in this State. They have divided our State and failed to uphold the most basic responsibility of keeping people safe. I ask this Government this: If the murder of innocent men, women and children is not enough to prompt real action against antisemitism, what will it take? We should not have to wait for a terrorist incident to occur in this State before action is declared. Members of this Government have shown, time after time, that they are reactive. They are not proactive in dealing with this situation.

The Opposition came to the table in good faith. We support strong laws in the State to keep our community safe and crack down on terrorism and hate speech, but we do not support panic-driven lawmaking that has been rushed into this Parliament without consultation, scrutiny or common sense. As legislators, we are here to make laws. Antisemitism did not suddenly appear last week. Radicalisation did not begin in Bondi. It started when hate was excused as free speech, and when intimidation was waved through as a peaceful protest. I want to be crystal clear that this is not free speech; it is hate speech. These are not peaceful protests. They are gatherings of radical individuals to spread messages of hate and division that fester in our communities.

These protests threaten our social cohesion, our safety and our values. They cost taxpayers millions of dollars in policing, traffic control, administration and emergency service personnel. Time and time again, we called on the Government to have a system where critical infrastructure in New South Wales is ruled out. The Government knocked that back. The Opposition has said that continual protests should be paid for by the protesters who organise them, but the Government knocked that back. Still, the Government cannot explain why hardworking taxpayers should continually fund these protests and rallies in New South Wales.

Part of the bill talks about gun law reform. The Government has disguised this legislation by calling it the Terrorism and Other Legislation Bill. But let's call it out for what it is, because the "Other Legislation" part of the bill is an attack on law-abiding citizens across New South Wales. The Government could have dealt with this issue separately and not put it up as one bill. Guns are a privilege in New South Wales and they are already heavily regulated. Communities will have their lives turned upside down in an instant because of the Government's proposed reforms. For farmers, a firearm is a tool of trade. It is used to humanely manage livestock, control feral animals and protect people from wild animals on isolated properties. For professional shooters, firearms are sporting equipment. For regional families, they are heirlooms with generational value. Yet this Government treats them all as criminals-in-waiting.

There has been a complete failure to meaningfully engage with stakeholders, including the Opposition, the crossbench, the police, farmers, mayors and those tasked with enforcing these laws. I note that representatives from NSW Farmers are in the gallery today and I welcome them. They also acknowledge that these proposed laws are unworkable. The Country Mayors Association has made it clear that there has been no consultation. The Vertebrate Pest Managers Association and Sporting Shooters Association have not been consulted. People's livelihoods are going to be lost. Government members say, "We've got to do this." I ask them to stand face‑to‑face with those people and tell them that they are going to lose their businesses and their houses with the stroke of a pen. Those people will not forget. They will remember where the Government stood on this issue.

This is an attack on our law-abiding citizens who legally and safely own firearms for various reasons. The Government does not have a plan on how it would implement these changes, fund them or even enforce them. It is rushing through gun laws that would have done nothing to prevent this atrocity. Ultimately, the problem is not the weapon but the radicalised ideology that brainwashed these two individuals to turn the guns on their fellow human beings. The failures that mattered were intelligence failures. There were failures around licensing and oversight. Instead of fixing those issues, Labor is punishing the people who have done nothing wrong. Labor is clueless.

How the hell did this individual get a gun licence in the first place? He applied for a licence back in 2020 and it took three years to be granted. For members who do not know, it does not take three years for a firearms licence to be issued. When someone applies for a licence, there is a 28‑day waiting period, and then the police go and do their checks. You have to provide genuine reasons for getting a licence. Once that has been completed, you get a Service NSW photo, and then your licence comes. It takes three to six months, maximum. Yet here we are: Someone on the ASIO watchlist, identified as a possible terrorist, can have someone in their house who has been not looked at and get a gun licence after a three‑year period. [Extension of time]

The Government should be looking at those individuals and how it failed. It should be looking at how the hell the shooter's son, living in the same house, was on the ASIO watchlist. To me, that is a major failure of the system. Those checks and balances need to be looked at. We were at the briefing last week. The bill has all been rushed. When Labor members say that this has been carefully thought out and that the police Minister has been thinking about it over the past few months, that is not right. It is a downright lie, because at the briefing on Friday questions were asked about how the gun buyback was going to look. They said, "Well, we don't know yet." How is it going to be funded when the firearms registry already cannot cope with the demands they are experiencing? They said, "We're working on an Expenditure Review Committee minute to go to Cabinet." Again, there is no timeline, no funding and no idea how it is going to be implemented. It will not be done tomorrow or in a few weeks time; it will be many months.

The bill has been rushed here before Parliament. It could have had consultation and come back in February or March of next year, where it would have been appropriately debated in this House. We could have spoken to NSW Farmers, the Country Mayors Association and all of those various groups across the State who actually rely on firearms for various purposes. But instead, those firearms are going to be taken away from the people who do the right thing. It is a distraction. It is a smokescreen. It is a way of not confronting the real issue, antisemitism, which has been allowed to go on for way too long. This Government has failed the people of this State. This rot has been going on in our streets now for over two years. The Government has done nothing to address it. It talks about shutting down the hate movements masquerading as protests and cracking down on radicalisation at its source. That is what it should do.

But when Labor members are taking part in these protests, they are partly responsible for the hatred and the division in the State. I ask the Government not to punish farmers, sporting shooters or regional communities for the actions of extremists who are driven by hatred. There are other things the Government could do. It could hold an amnesty and have a buyback for guns that might be handed in. At the end of the day, the guns that are illegally here in the State are held by criminals and they are not going to hand them in. The Government's plan is to take them away from the good people who do the right thing, who get registered and who hold licences. The Government is attacking those people instead of targeting the criminals who have illegal guns.

There are an estimated 500,000 illegal guns in this country. The Government has a responsibility. I remind every member of this House that everyone will watch and remember how they vote. The Government has a job to protect Australians in this State, not attack law-abiding citizens. Let's start telling the truth. I know amendments are going to be put forward. Some of them are very sensible, but at this stage I will not support the bill because of the other parts of the legislation that attack so many law-abiding citizens across this State.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER ( Mr Michael Kemp ): I recognise Peter Szaak, the CEO of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (New South Wales), in the gallery.

Ms JODIE HARRISON ( Charlestown—Minister for Women, Minister for Seniors, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault) (13:57:34): I make a contribution in support of the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The circumstances that have led to us returning to this place to urgently debate this bill are indeed heartbreaking. Our Jewish community deserves to feel safe and to be safe. But at 6.47 p.m. on Sunday14 December 2025, the worst fears of the Jewish community unfolded. Fifteen lives were lost, many other people were injured and dozens were hospitalised. Mothers, fathers, children and grandparents were senselessly murdered while proudly celebrating their faith. They deserve better than that. They deserve to be able to practise their faith. They deserve to walk the streets. They deserve to live in safety just like every other person in the beautifully multicultural State. This bill is not a panacea. More must be done, and the Premier has clearly said that more is to come. But this bill is an immediate first step towards a safer New South Wales for all of us.

The bill aims to reduce community tensions and instead promote community harmony. Antisemitism and other hate movements are clearly not welcome in this State. They are unacceptable and they will not be tolerated in our multicultural New South Wales. The bill will establish a scheme for public assembly restriction declarations, which will prohibit public assemblies in a designated area within 14 days after a terrorist incident being declared, and which can be extended for a maximum of 90 days. The bill also prohibits the public display of terrorist organisation symbols and enables police to require a person to remove a face covering during a public assembly if they are suspected of an offence. The bill will embed the toughest gun laws in Australia. It is plainly unacceptable that one of the alleged terrorists was not only licensed but also legally cleared to possess six firearms.

The bill contains pragmatic, commonsense measures designed to stop history from repeating. It further restricts the number and type of firearms a person can hold and tightens licensing requirements, as the police Minister clearly explained in her second reading speech. As the Minister responsible for the prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault, it is not lost on me how weapons can be abused by those who seek to harm and kill their victims. In 2017 John Edwards murdered his children, Jack and Jennifer, in their home at West Pennant Hills before turning the weapon on himself. He did that with the intention of causing maximum pain to the mother of his children.

In the aftermath of that homicide, the Coroner's inquest report handed down 24 recommendations, and one of those called on the New South Wales Government to revoke the use of the P650 form. That form permits an unlicensed person to undergo firearms training without being vetted by the Firearms Registry. The Coroner's report recommended amendments to the Firearms Regulation to implement an alternative scheme requiring adequate verification of information and oversight by the Firearms Registry. I am pleased to note that the bill before the House includes amendments to fully respond to those recommendations.

The bill provides additional oversight measures, including mandatory gun club membership for firearm licence holders, requiring all gun clubs to use the Gun Safe online platform, making safe storage inspections mandatory prior to the issue of a first permit to acquire a firearm and preventing any licence holder from obtaining a firearm unless the commissioner is satisfied that they meet safekeeping requirements. Whether it be in the context of domestic violence or a terrorist attack, we must do everything we can to prevent history from repeating. All members of this House stand united with our Jewish community. An attack on any of us is an attack on all of us. This bill introduces the strongest gun laws in the country and prohibits activities which may increase community tensions after a terrorist act. We must always promote social cohesion. We must always come together to confront hate, prejudice and racism wherever we see it. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PHILIP DONATO ( Orange ) ( 14:02 :52 ): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The events that unfolded at Bondi Beach just eight days ago were nothing short of horrific. They stunned our nation and left an everlasting mark on our collective conscience. This was not a random act of violence; it was a calculated act of terror carried out by two determined and prepared terrorists in broad daylight at one of Australia's most iconic locations. Only eight kilometres from this very building, 15 innocent men, women and children lost their lives, and dozens of others were seriously injured. That occurred in front of hundreds of witnesses. On behalf of the electorate of Orange, my sincere condolences go to all those victims, their families and their communities.

There is no doubt that those terrorists intended to inflict mass casualty and mass murder. Had it not been for the courage shown by members of the public and the swift actions of our police, the consequences would have been far worse. The deliberate targeting of the Jewish community and the disturbing images that have circulated over the past week are scenes that none of us will ever forget. Since that day, a number of deeply troubling facts have emerged. One of the attackers—the father, now deceased—was a licensed firearms holder. His son was not. We now know that the son had been on the ASIO watchlist for several years. The father was not an Australian citizen and was residing here on a visa. They were both living in the same household. That raises serious questions. How did our intelligence and firearms licensing systems fail to identify that connection? How was a firearms licence issued under those circumstances?

If an individual is closely associated with and lives in the same house with a person on an ASIO watchlist, how can they legally obtain a licence? We must question the effectiveness of the system itself. With the substantial resources available to those agencies—personnel, intelligence‑sharing mechanisms, advanced IT systems and emerging technologies—how did that occur? What exactly was being monitored? It represents a profound failure in the administration—one that the public rightly expects answers on. I was pleased to hear the Premier's announcement yesterday that he will seek a State‑led royal commission. However, I note that the Premier has chosen to wait to draft the terms of reference because victims are still being laid to rest and he wants to speak with Jewish leaders first. The Premier should extend the same considered and consultative decision‑making to the elements of the bill before us.

I remind the House of the Edwards case, where New South Wales firearms licensing administrative ineptitude led to the preventable deaths of two innocent children at the hands of their father, who was granted a permit for a firearm when intelligence existed that would have determined that the domestic violence murderer, John Edwards, was unfit to hold a firearms licence. In fact, in 2021, the State Coroner, in her concluding remarks at the inquest, said, "The evidence before the court plainly reveals that the deaths of Jack and Jennifer Edwards were preventable." The preventions relate specifically to the administrative failures of the New South Wales Firearms Registry. While the Edwards case has no bearing on the terrorist attack in Bondi, it is yet another example of government administrative failure that led to the deaths of innocent people.

Further concerns arise when we examine the licensing timeline. The father applied in 2020, yet the licence was not issued until 2023. Why did that process take three years? That is highly irregular, given that licences are typically processed within six to 12 months. I trust that the curious anomaly will now be thoroughly and transparently investigated. There are additional unanswered questions. Why did both individuals recently travel to the Philippines, and what activities did they undertake while there? Those matters must be examined thoroughly. Footage from the incident also indicates the son possessed a level of firearms proficiency. His movements, his weapon handling and use of cover strongly suggest prior experience. It only deepens concerns about how known risks were managed.

Despite all that, just over a week later, the House has been recalled to urgently debate this bill, which has sweeping implications, especially in my electorate in regional New South Wales. The proposed legislation will significantly affect 400,000 law‑abiding firearm owners across the State. I do not support limiting the number of firearms a licence holder may own. No data, no research and no factual basis has been presented to support those limits. I do not wish to seem frivolous, but I am sure the sporting golfers amongst us would protest at being limited to three or four golf clubs in their golf bags.

History shows that when legislation is rushed through Parliament, good outcomes are rarely delivered. The bill risks serious unintended consequences, not only for responsible firearms owners, but also for the many businesses across the firearms industry, as well as primary producers. Critical questions remain unanswered. There is nothing in the bill or the regulations regarding compensation. Will any buyback scheme be fair and properly funded, unlike the reported failures in Western Australia? Will compensation be offered to affected firearms dealers, manufacturers and associated industry who have invested heavily in their businesses?

What concerns me the most is that responsibility for this tragedy is being shifted onto law-abiding firearms owners, rather than addressing the failure of government agencies. Criminals, gang members and terrorists will not surrender their illegal firearms. This legislation does nothing to change that. The bill proposes, among other measures, to reduce firearm limits to four for recreational licence holders and 10 for primary producers and shorten licence terms from five years to two. None of those measures will prevent extremists or terrorists from acquiring illegal weapons. The limit of four firearms has been chosen simply to be tougher than Western Australia's limit of five. There is no evidence supporting that number. It is policy by symbolism, not by substance.

The absence of consultation, the speed at which the bill is being advanced, and the scale of its impact represents a serious overreach of government. It is deeply undemocratic. The Government's sidestepping of any consultation process shows complete disregard for the Regional Communities (Consultation Standards) Bill 2024, which my colleague the member for Barwon introduced and passed with Government support. We have seen where a lack of consultation leads. The greyhound racing ban stands as a clear warning of what happens when governments govern by impulse rather than evidence.

The bill diverts attention away from the catastrophic and preventable failures of agencies tasked with keeping the public safe. Meanwhile, my office has been inundated with calls, emails and messages not only from firearms owners but also from concerned community members who recognise the injustice of this response. Industry reports already indicate a surge in licence applications, a predictable consequence of rushed and poorly communicated reform. At the very least, this legislation should be referred to a parliamentary committee for proper scrutiny through hearings, submissions and evidence-based review. That is how responsible governance works. Accordingly, I move:

That the motion be amended by omitting all words after "That the bill" and inserting instead "be referred to the Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety for inquiry and report".

Pushing the bill through while emotions remain raw may offer short-term political cover but also significant long‑term consequences. History reminds us that firearms policy can and does decide elections. The bill will resonate far beyond the 400,000 licensed firearms owners. It will be felt by their families, friends and communities. The electoral impact will be substantial. This week's decision is by far and away the poorest governance I have seen in my nine years in this place. The Premier must recognise that this approach is excessive. There is room for reform, but not through blunt, unjustified restrictions. [Extension of time]

Unless the Government pauses, listens and reconsiders, the political cost will be severe, particularly in marginal electorates where firearms owners are numerous, motivated and engaged. I assure the House that law‑abiding firearms owners and members will remember. This decision smacks of socialist ideology and ignorance of Aussie traditions and culture, especially for the people of regional New South Wales. If the Government needed any indication that it is on the wrong track, it need look no further than the e-petition by the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. Responses to that petition brought the New South Wales Parliament website to a grinding halt. The petition has also broken records in both the number of signatures and the speed at which it got there. At last count, there were well over 80,000 signatures—and that was in just two days.

I have listened to the contributions of other members, specifically my neighbour the member for Bathurst. This legislation is being rushed through the Parliament. There will be significant intended and unintended consequences, especially for regional communities. This is no way for good legislation to be introduced to the Parliament and no way for it to be passed by the Parliament. The people in the bush, recreational sporting shooters, target shooters and primary producers have long memories. They will remember this legislation, and they will remember the members who voted against it. While I support some aspects of the bill on terrorism, I cannot support the bill as a whole. I implore the Government to consider my amendment to refer the bill to a committee.

Mr BRENDAN MOYLAN ( Northern Tablelands ) ( 14:15 :20 ): I offer the condolences of my electorate to the 15 innocent victims of the terrorist attack at Bondi on Sunday last week. On Saturday this week in Armidale we held a very respectful vigil and memorial service. The impacts of the incident at Bondi have rippled as far out as the Northern Tablelands. On behalf of my electorate of Northern Tablelands, I offer our heartfelt condolences to the victims. Having said that, the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, which is before the House today, is nothing more than a distraction. It is political manoeuvring to allow the Government to demonstrate that it is trying to address what happened at Bondi. The firearms licensing elements of the bill are so ill conceived, poorly thought out and rushed that I do not think any regional member of the House can possibly support it.

I am a licensed shooter. I grew up on a farm. My dad taught me to shoot at a very young age. Like all legal, lawful firearms licence holders, I have a deep respect for how to operate a rifle and for how dangerous rifles are. Let me be clear: Firearms are designed to kill. The problem with the legislation is that it penalises the lawful, proper owners of firearms and holders of licences who had absolutely nothing to do with the incident at Bondi, which was the result of an unchecked rise in antisemitism over the past 2½ years. When we allow protesters to march over the Sydney Harbour Bridge, when we allow protesters to chant incredibly racist slogans on the steps of the Sydney Opera House, and when we force our Jewish community, particularly in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, to employ security guards to walk their kids to school—as one of my friends in Double Bay has had to do for the past 2½ years—that causes the incident at Bondi.

Reducing the number of rifles owned by someone in Boomi from 11 to 10 is not going to stop a terrorist attack. Over the past 2½ years we have seen a failure at both State and Federal levels to address antisemitism. The bill cannot possibly have an impact on the rise in antisemitism. As I have said, limiting the number of firearms for farmers, sporting shooters or recreational hunters will not make any difference in the long run. The bill has been rushed. There has been no consultation with sporting shooters, with New South Wales farmers—that I am aware of—or with gun clubs. I held a very hastily convened meeting on Sunday with a number of gun clubs in my electorate, and none of those people had been consulted. No recreational hunters have been consulted. Certainly, regional MPs have had minimal consultation. The good members of the crossbench may have got some, but members of the Opposition backbench did not get any. The bill is rushed. It is bad law, it is kneejerk policy and it penalises law-abiding registered firearms holders.

In the past 12 to 18 months the Opposition has offered this Government a number of suggestions of how to stop the rise in antisemitism. All of those suggestions and proposals have been ignored or rejected. Yet the Government has the audacity to walk into this place a couple of days before Christmas to say, "Now we want to actually address this issue. The way we're going to address it is to impact people in regional New South Wales—honest, hardworking farmers; honest, hardworking gun shop owners; and honest, hardworking members of sporting clubs." It is an absolute disgrace. This Government is trying to mask its absolute and utter failure by pinning the blame on lawful firearms holders in regional New South Wales.

Let us call this bill what it is: a distraction. It is a smokescreen. It penalises many people in my electorate. It penalises shop owners. The impact of this bill on shop owners, particularly in regional New South Wales, will be to the extent where some of them may have to close. The bill impacts farmers. Someone in Sydney may think, "Why on earth would a farmer need 10 rifles?" Those of us who live in the bush know full well why you would need 10 rifles. On a working farm, 10 rifles is not a large number. Similarly, for someone who controls vermin, four rifles is not a large number. Had the Government cared to actually consult with regional communities and regional members of Parliament, we could have told it that. We could have actually helped the Government draft this bill so it was, at least in some respects, workable. But what the Government has dished up at the eleventh hour in an attempt to save its political skin is a disgrace.

I do not support this bill. Quite frankly, as I have said, it is a disgrace. I will stand up for all the licensed firearm holders in my electorate, as I think every regional member in this Chamber will. If we do not stand up for them, no-one will. That is our job now. The decision that members on this side of the House might take today will probably be unpopular in Sydney. If the Government was fair dinkum about limiting the rise of antisemitism and addressing what happened at Bondi, there would be no amendment to firearms legislation within the bill and the components would be put forward as separate bills. Yet members are seeing political manoeuvring from Labor to try to wedge Opposition members. It is not working because we are united and we are sticking up for our people. Quite frankly, the Government needs to do better.

Dr JOE McGIRR ( Wagga Wagga ) ( 14:22 :36 ): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Like all Australians, I am still in shock at the atrocity committed by two cowardly men with guns at Bondi just eight days ago. On behalf of my electorate, I acknowledge the pain and suffering of the victims, their families and the Jewish community. I pay my respects to them, and send my condolences and those of my electorate. Last week a vigil was held in Wagga Wagga in 40 degree heat. Some 250 people turned out to show solidarity with the Jewish community and stand against hatred and violence.

The scale of that atrocity means that we do need to take action on our laws, and I accept that part of that will need to be sensible and effective reform of gun laws as well as hate speech laws and protest laws. But it would be a mistake to assume that those reforms will prevent this happening again, particularly the proposed gun law reform. We do need to address antisemitism. I support a royal commission. It is clear from what members have said consistently in this debate today that we need to look into the causes of antisemitism and take much more action on that. We also need to understand the circumstances in which the killers were able to get the guns that they had.

The member for Orange and the member for Bathurst outlined their concerns at considerable length and with accuracy. Those are key issues where, if we act, we may prevent another circumstance like the one we have seen. But in relation to the gun laws in particular, it is critical that we do not rush into changes without appropriate research and consultation. Today the Minister said that we need swift, decisive action. I agree, but we do not need unnecessarily rushed and hasty action. Some aspects proposed in the bill could be reasonable. Restricting gun licences to citizens would be one sensible measure, as well as shortened renewal periods. We do need to find a solution to the types of weapons that people can access, but this needs discussion and a better understanding of the issue to make it work.

Many constituents have approached me with concerns about the rushed nature of this bill. I am particularly concerned about the removal of the capacity to appeal to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. That concerns me on the simple principle that a government bureaucracy should not be holding itself to account. Appeal mechanisms need to work outside of that. Leaving that aside, this bill needs careful consideration. Gun safety is critical, but it is vital that thousands of law-abiding gun owners are not victimised or blamed for the actions of two murderous cowards. I strongly support gun control. I am not a shooter and I do not have a gun. We are rightly proud of our strict gun laws in this country, but those laws work to a significant degree because they are supported by gun owners.

In my experience, those who own guns legally are conscious of their responsibilities and take them very seriously. In fact, the success of our gun laws is due to the engagement and involvement of gun owners in complying with them. They are significant responsibilities, but those people acknowledge that gun ownership is not a right but a privilege. They work hard to maintain the responsibilities that they have. It is that goodwill that makes the laws work. I believe that the members of that community need to be thoroughly consulted so they can work with the changes and not against them.

It would not take much time to consult. It could be done, frankly, in time for the first sitting weeks of 2026 in February. Instead of rushing into a decision today, we should, as the member for Orange has moved, refer this bill to a committee so that we do this once, we do it right, and we bring the community along to give the reforms social licence and hopefully save lives with a package of laws that would be acceptable and effective. Unfortunately, the Government has made the gun law changes part of the same bill as the hate speech and protest law changes that I would broadly support. However, the lack of consultation on the gun laws and the overall rushed nature of the bill mean that I cannot support the bill today.

It is disappointing that the Government has introduced what should be three separate pieces of legislation as one bill. If it was genuine about this and not trying to wedge different parts of the community, it would not have done that. Be that as it may, there has not been sufficient consultation with gun owners in the crafting of this legislation. The legislation is rushed and does not address key issues about the circumstances in which the killers were able to obtain those guns. It does not address the issues of antisemitism. Taken together, those facts mean that this bill is, frankly, in the realm of the performative, and that concerns me deeply. I do not believe that the victims, their communities and their families deserve that. They deserve to have us work hard on this in a considered nature. I will not support the bill. I would be happy to support a similar bill that has had proper consultation and examination. Let me make that clear. I agree that we need action, but we owe it to those who lost their lives, their families and the community to make sure that our actions are as effective as possible. That means proper consultation.

Mrs JUDY HANNAN ( Wollondilly ) ( 14:29 :38 ): I speak in debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Wollondilly is a great distance from Bondi, and despite only 0.1 per cent of my community having Jewish religious affiliation, I have heard the absolute grief, sympathy and horror at the events that took place at the Hannukah community celebration. The attack targeted Jewish Australians as they gathered, as they have done for decades. It has no place in Australia or, indeed, in any other place. It was targeted and seemingly well planned but had no justification at all, either morally or politically. What happened at Bondi was horrifying. In a place meant for everyday life—shopping, meeting friends and feeling safe—violence tore through the community and shattered that sense of normality.

As Jewish people gathered to celebrate light and all things good, such acts of terror are designed to do more than harm individuals; they aim to spread fear and to make ordinary people feel unsafe in their own city. The cruelty lies in not only the loss of innocent lives but also the trauma left behind—families grieving, witnesses scarred and a nation forced to confront how fragile peace can feel. No grievance, no ideology and no explanation can justify such brutality. Even in that darkness, we saw something powerful. We saw strangers helping strangers, first responders running toward danger and a community refusing to be defined by fear. The grieving Jewish community is asking us to do an act of kindness for someone. We must condemn such violence without hesitation, stand with the victims and commit ourselves to protecting one another so that terror never gets the final word.

In moments of tragedy, our instinct is to act immediately. That impulse comes from compassion, from shock and from a deep desire to make sure something like this never happens again. It is a shame that the bill is collecting together more than one issue. When it comes to gun laws, acting quickly does not always mean acting wisely. Laws passed in the heat of grief are often shaped by emotion rather than evidence. They risk being too broad, too vague or poorly designed, creating consequences we do not fully understand until it is too late to undo them. Public policy should be built on careful analysis, not on the understandable but temporary intensity of national sorrow.

Changing gun laws quickly can also distract us from asking the right questions, as other members have said. We need to understand how existing laws failed, whether enforcement was adequate and what specific gaps truly need to be addressed. Without that clarity, new laws may simply add complexity without improving safety. Rushed decisions can also erode public trust. When people feel laws are made reactively, without consultation or debate, confidence in institutions weakens and compliance suffers. Strong laws require public understanding and support, which only comes from transparent, thoughtful discussion. That does not mean doing nothing; it means doing it properly. It means taking the time to listen to experts, law enforcement, communities and victims' families. It means ensuring that any changes we make are effective, enforceable and respectful of fundamental rights.

My community has spoken loud and clear. They believe good policy is made not by creating headlines. If our goal is lasting safety, patience is not weakness; it is responsibility. The best way to honour victims is not with rushed legislation but with laws that are careful, deliberate and strong enough to actually protect lives. I will vote to ensure positive outcomes that will protect the Jewish community, stop hate speech and be based on consultation and evidence. I thank those who have communicated with me through email, in my office or on the phone. They have been respectful. I hope this Government will respect their views too.

Mr ROY BUTLER ( Barwon ) ( 14:34 :13 ): I make a contribution to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I acknowledge those in the gallery and thank them for being here. Having sat in the Chamber for many of the contributions, I make the observation that members speaking in support of the bill clearly have no knowledge about or experience with firearms. The language I have heard demonstrates to me that they do not understand what they are talking about. It is scary and worrying that the lawmakers of this State are making laws without understanding what they are about. We should all be worried about that. It is an abuse of power. It is bad government. Good policy comes from clear issue identification. It comes from good consultation with affected stakeholders, coming up with solutions and then delivering that consulted outcome to the community. That has not happened. The Government has moved quickly and has not used any evidence. It has not spoken to anyone. That is a problem.

I acknowledge the work of the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia, the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia and the expert lawyers in my office at the moment—I have a whole crew of about 10 people in my office—who have given up their time to work together today and over the past week. From what I am hearing, it looks like what the Government intends to do is a foregone conclusion. I asked the Premier to split up the bill, but that has not happened. The only way forward is for the Government to support a referral to an inquiry. If that happens, the Government gets its action and gets something done. It also gets an evidence-based outcome that relies on all stakeholders, whether they are pro-firearm or anti-firearm. It allows them all to put their stuff on the table, and we can gather that evidence and make good decisions using evidence. That is how we make good policy. We should be doing that.

The people of New South Wales are grieving. Fifteen innocent lives were lost in an horrific act of terrorism that has shattered our sense of safety and community harmony. The horrific nature of the event is a wound that our State and country will take a long time to heal from. I acknowledge that for some people, that wound will never heal. We all saw the stories of heroic behaviour. It made me cry when I saw those people who, with no regard for their own safety, protected their fellow human beings. That was incredible to see. While I appreciate the Government's desire to act in the wake of such an awful crime, we owe it to the people of New South Wales to ensure that any changes in law are measured and properly considered. Unfortunately, this package of laws is the opposite of measured and considered. The bill is unnecessarily rushed and there has been little to no consultation. There has certainly been no consultation with affected groups. As such, the bill will have unintended and damaging consequences. We know that when we rush it, we get it wrong.

The Government is saying the bill must be passed now to protect the people of New South Wales from any further terrorist acts. However, the legislative changes being proposed are complex and will take time to enact. Buybacks take time, as does changing firearms regulations. Those operational factors will determine the timeline, not the date of the passing of the bill, which is why I have said the recall of Parliament is not going to change anything before Christmas. We got the message that we are going to be safer by Christmas because we are here. That is not the case. It is going to take months or years to implement the changes. That is another argument to do it properly. We are just ahead of the Christmas and new year break, which will further slow down the regulatory changes required. Whether the bill is passed now or passed early next year after proper consideration will have no impact on the start date of the laws. Rushing for the sake of rushing is the enemy of good policy.

There has been no consultation with any of the affected parties. The New South Wales Government helped to pass my recent bill, which required regional people to be consulted about law changes. There was that whole thing about getting it wrong when we do not consult, and we are not consulting well so we should have standards about how we consult with regional communities on the issues that impact them. We have driven straight past that, even though we created a law saying we are going to do it. When someone does something different from what they say, it undermines trust. For a government, that is a bad thing.

Little more than a year later, we have driven straight past that bill and are basically legislating on the fly. There has been no consultation with any firearms groups, despite law-abiding firearm owners being the primary target of the bill and best placed to identify any unintended consequences. That would be dealers and peak organisations, which are all willing to help. The unnecessary rush to pass the bill combined with a lack of consultation leads to unintended consequences. Plenty of those unintended consequences are already obvious, even before the bill has been properly considered.

The Government wants to remove the right to appeal firearm licence refusals in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal [NCAT]. It says that police are concerned that criminal intelligence can be revealed through the NCAT process. That is not true, as NCAT can move to closed hearings where criminal intelligence can be considered by the tribunal but not revealed to the applicant. There are ways around it. We should not be taking procedural fairness off the table. We should be looking for opportunities to provide people with procedural fairness, natural justice and transparency, not taking it away. Forcing gun owners to appeal to the Supreme Court instead of NCAT actually increases the likelihood of criminal intelligence being revealed, due to the Supreme Court's more robust emphasis on procedural fairness.

Moving firearm licence appeals to the Supreme Court also weakens the Government's control of gun licensing. Think about it: Once the Supreme Court has established a legal precedent, decisions will be made by the court, not the Government. The New South Wales Government has already had a taste of this after a court allowed a Palestinian protest to cross the Sydney Harbour Bridge against the Government's wishes. We would see more of the courts deciding what happens. It will take control away from the Government. Believe me, there are enough people vested in this that such matters will be taken to court. People will fund it and there will be precedents set. The Government has a choice: It can do the reforms properly or try to ram the bill through. I do not know why the Government would want to give up more control to the courts.

Another unintended consequence is the enormous workload the proposed legislation would impose on police. Our Police Force is already understaffed, busy and operating with thousands fewer police than its authorised strength. The bill would require those police to handle a firearm buyback on top of their regular duties. Also, I do not think everyone understands that lots of police are responsible users of firearms. In fact, one of the heroes at Bondi, Cesar, who took the two terrorists out, is an avid target pistol shooter. His sport is very relevant to his work, because marksmanship is obviously an important skill for police. But this hero will have access to something he cares about taken off him. It is bizarre to me.

The firearms industry estimates about one‑third of its current dealers would likely be put out of business by the proposed reforms. Dealers handle most of the guns that are given up under the existing gun amnesty. I am hearing, loud and clear, that dealers will not continue to process the stuff that they are doing for free at the moment; they are going to send it all back to the police. All of the administrative work such as transfers and registering an unregistered firearm that might be found in a deceased estate will go back to the police. I do not think the police are going to be particularly happy about that.

Already we can see that, if passed, these rushed laws would increase the chances of exposing criminal intelligence, transfer more power to unelected judges and place an enormous burden on already overworked police. How many more unintended consequences might be revealed if the bill was properly considered and affected communities and parties were consulted? An unnecessary rush, combined with a lack of consultation, leads to unintended consequences; it always does. Ideally, the bill would be split to allow the revised rules around public assembly to go through now and the firearms legislation to be referred to a committee. Obviously, we are not going to be able to do that. [Extension of time]

We could refer the bill to a committee and use the evidence from its inquiry to come up with a better plan. It is clear that the bill will need to be amended to clear up unintended consequences—whether that is now or in the future, I am not sure. A parliamentary inquiry would help to flush issues out so they can be rectified before the bill becomes law. That is the course a good government would take. An additional issue is that the measures in the bill clash with some of the Coroner's recommendations to improve firearms licensing following the Edwards shooting in 2018. It is proof, again, of the extent to which the bill is not based on evidence and has been rushed.

I have asked the leader of the Liberals to agree that this bill needs to be considered properly through a formal inquiry that will allow for evidence‑based laws to be created. Again, that is what good governments do. Ramming legislation through always leads to problems. This will be no different. Perhaps the process of inquiring into the bill might also allow some consideration of whether or not firearm restrictions are even the right response to the Bondi terror attack. I suspect they are not. I am concerned that the underlying message of the Government's unseemly rush to ram through this legislation is that licensed firearm owners are somehow to blame. There is conflation between a terror event and law‑abiding firearm owners. They are very different. It is offensive to have "terrorism" in the title of a bill that also relates to law‑abiding people.

It is very clear that antisemitism and twisted ideologies were the drivers behind the Bondi terror attack. There are legitimate questions to ask about how the father of someone who was known to ASIO was allowed to have firearms. There are legitimate questions about why his firearm licence request was not automatically refused, as is usually the case. There are also legitimate questions about the failures of intelligence sharing between the Commonwealth and New South Wales. How is it that the terrorists were able to allegedly spend a month in a terrorist training area in the Philippines and then return to Australia with no change to their access to firearms? How does that happen?

A parliamentary inquiry would help clarify the different responsibilities between the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments, and the mechanisms of cooperation that clearly are not working. But the Government's proposed legislation does not do anything to address the drivers behind the attack or the operational failures of the firearm licensing scheme that facilitated it. So many controls could have stopped this happening, but the State and Federal governments failed to use existing laws and powers. It is a strange thing to do to make new laws when we are not even using the ones we already have.

This legislation punishes and demonises the thousands of safe and legal firearm licence holders in New South Wales. I say to all regional members, no matter what their political affiliation is, that their communities will be looking very closely at their behaviour here. The relationship that people in regional New South Wales have with firearms is something that those in the city do not have a good understanding of. Regional communities do not have cinemas, stage shows, theme parks—all of those things that people do for recreation. In the regions, for recreation and also for social connection, particularly for those people who live on isolated properties, we go to gun clubs and pistol clubs. We join to play sport with other people. Each member of a family needs to have a firearm that fits them so that they can safely participate in the sport. The proposed cap on the number of firearms will mean that families will not be able to participate. We will have to say to them, "Sorry, you can't have that many firearms. You've got too many kids." Obviously, a firearm cannot be registered in a child's name, it has to be registered in an adult's name, so the parent's cap will get hit because they have kids.

I urge regional members to not support the bill in its current form and to seek to have it referred to a committee. I have tried to be respectful through all of this. I do not like attacking the Government; it is not really in my nature to be negative, but I have been left with no real choice. My message to the Premier is that I do not think he understands just how significant the impact of the proposed changes will be from an electoral perspective, especially in marginal electorates. I think that he is going to get a bit of a fright. I have been in the firearms world since I was three years old. I started shooting at 10. I do not think the Government understands the level of concern and motivation that people have to try to set this right.

Mr STEVE WHAN ( Monaro—Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education) (14:47:04): I support the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I plan to speak on the condolence motion later today, so I will not go into detail now about my feelings about the tragic terrorist event that occurred at Bondi other than to say that my heart goes out to all those who have been affected by it. I will elaborate on that later. I was at the memorial event last night. It was a very emotional event and one that provided a great indication of the hope and human kindness that can rise above the acts of cruelty that we saw. In this contribution I will focus on the bill before us today. As we have heard, it has two elements: reforms around public gatherings and the use of slogans that spread hate, and firearm reforms.

I listened to the member for Barwon speak about the firearms aspect. There are about 12,000 licensed firearm owners in the regional electorate I represent, Monaro. I have met many of them over the years and speak with them regularly. I know that many of those firearm owners are active in a range of parts of our community. I am hearing from a number of them about their need for further explanation of how this is going to work. I am also receiving the form emails that some of the organisations have got going. They are probably not as constructive as some of the more thoughtful ones that I received from people who talked about their specific circumstances and how they would like clarification on some elements of the bill.

I address a couple of things. I have not read all the emails yet, but I have read a lot of them. I have also spoken to a couple of people. Some of the emails were from farmers who are also target shooters. They told me how they cross over and the number of weapons they need to cope with that. I also spoke to the Minister about this quite extensively. As has been reflected in some of the comments from members opposite, almost no-one has disagreed with the need to do more to make sure that when someone is considered for a licence, available intelligence information on them is matched and the Firearms Registry is resourced properly so that adequate checks on that person are conducted. Even though it would be annoying, I have not heard much vehement opposition to people potentially having to renew their licence every two years, as long as the Firearms Registry is resourced appropriately to make sure that renewals happen quickly and people do not lose access to their weapons if they are not processed in time. I think it is positive that those thoughts are out there.

A couple of Opposition members spoke earlier about the failures they have seen, but let us wait until there has been a bit more investigation into this. From the outside, it looks like legitimate questions can be asked about why the Firearms Registry was not aware that someone who lived in the same household as the licensed shooter was not flagged when the licence was granted. The Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism outlined in her second reading speech, as well as in discussions I have had with her, exactly how some of the changes in the bill will deal with that issue, including the way that appeals are dealt with. As I understand it, in the past, sharing intelligence information has been difficult because that information might then become publicly available. We need to ensure that there is a smooth line for intelligence sharing when it comes to really important information about who might be applying for gun licence, which this legislation creates.

I am strongly of the view that the changes in the bill to licensing and the enabling of intelligence sharing, with the availability of external appeals in some circumstances, are the best way to go in this really difficult situation. I know from correspondence I have received that some people share the view of the member for Barwon that they are being blamed for what happened at Bondi. That is absolutely not the case. However, there is also a call from many people in New South Wales, including some who have corresponded with me and my office, that they want to see action to reduce the overall number of guns, and people who are not legitimate hunters and recreational shooters stopped from owning weapons. That is a tough balance. As I have said to a couple of the people who have corresponded with me, one of the toughest things about being in government is making laws for people who do not do the right thing, not for the rest of the law-abiding citizens across the State. That is one of the unfortunate realities of government.

A number of things need to be worked through with this bill. I mentioned before the case of a farmer who has corresponded with me who has 16 guns of various types for the control of feral pests on their property, and who is also a target shooter. There is scope in the bill for what the Minister called commissioner exemptions. I urge the gun-owning community to bear with the Government while we talk through how those exemptions might work in a practical way to make sure that they take into account specific cases to make sure that somebody who is a landholder, not just a designated farmer, who also undertakes pest management activity has access to an exemption to the limit on the number of weapons they can own. [Extension of time]

Whether all farmers will need to be members of clubs has been raised with me, and I have asked the Minister to look at that in the regulations. People who cross over with different uses—people who are genuinely doing feral pest control and may be recreational users but do not own a property themselves—are the main cases that have been raised with me. There is room to deal with a number of the aspects that people have raised with me in their correspondence. The Government will not make everybody happy. There will be a reduction in the number of guns in the community, which the community expects to see. There will also be increased scrutiny on licensees, which, again, the community expects to see. The Government needs to work through this in a way that recognises the different needs of rural and regional communities.

In the Monaro electorate, there is a massive feral pest animal problem. Farmers are dealing with overwhelming numbers of deer, many of which were unfortunately deliberately freed to roam and not subject to feral pest controls for many years when they should have been. They are now causing a huge amount of damage to people's properties in the Monaro, knocking over fences, competing for pasture and destroying trees. The area also has a massive pig problem, as well as the old problems of rabbits and foxes. I absolutely recognise the very legitimate need for landholders in my electorate to have appropriate guns. I also absolutely recognise that animal welfare is not helped by shooting an animal with an inappropriate weapon or an inappropriate type of ammunition. That also needs to be considered as we go through the bill.

The Government is taking quick action. I recognise that that action is too fast for some people and that they want to see a lot more consultation, but we are taking quick action because New South Wales has gone through an incredibly tragic event that is unprecedented in Australian history. The Government needs to act now to make sure that we do not end up as a country where an event like this is not a massive shock. This should be it. We all need to do our part across every part of society, which means that some people will feel that they are being asked to sacrifice something for the benefit of the rest of society. I would ask in their correspondence over this that people work with the Government to see this through until the regulations, arrangements and resourcing have been put in place.

I recognise that organisations have people sending me emails saying that they will never vote for me again. That is their right. But if I was swayed in the positions I took on the basis of people threatening to not vote for me then there would be no point in being in politics. As politicians, we should try to do the right thing as we go through this business, which is what I will try to do in my consideration of the way this process is implemented.

Mr MARK COURE ( Oatley ) ( 14:58 :47 ): As previously mentioned by my colleague the member for Wahroonga, the New South Wales Liberals support the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. We do so because Parliament has a responsibility to respond when our community is shaken by violence and terror, and because community safety must always be paramount. While we support the bill, we will move sensible amendments that are designed to strengthen community safety, tackle hate and extremism more effectively and—most importantly—protect and rebuild social cohesion. The tragic attack at Bondi was not just an act of violence against innocent people; it was an assault on the sense of safety, trust and unity that binds our community together. In the days since, many Australians—particularly those from vulnerable multicultural and multifaith communities—have felt fear, grief and a deep unease.

The pain felt across our communities is immense. We are all mourning, particularly our Jewish community that was so brutally targeted in this act of terror. Events like this are not normal. They are not what we are—or should ever be—accustomed to in Australia. Many in our community remain shocked and, quite rightly, angry about what occurred that evening. A peaceful celebration of the first night of Chanukah was shattered by an act of hatred and violent antisemitism. To attack families, parents, young children and grandparents, along with religious leaders, at a joyous community festival is an act of true evil. That this attack occurred at such a holy time for the Jewish community underscores the targeted, antisemitic nature of this terrorist attack.

On behalf of the people of the Oatley electorate, I extend my deepest condolences to the 15 innocent victims and their families. The victims were deeply cherished members of the community—rabbis, refugees, migrants, soccer players, children and dedicated volunteers. Their names will be forever remembered, and their loss will be felt for generations. I still believe we are the most successful multicultural society anywhere in the world because reasonable, rational Australians understand and value the extraordinary contributions that migrants have made to our national success. But that success is not automatic. It has required constant care and effort over generations, and a commitment to respect, understanding and acceptance. We cannot allow our society to become polarised. The attack in Bondi underscores—now more than ever—the need to take a firm stand against all forms of hate, particularly antisemitism.

As I have said, an attack on one community is an attack on all communities because it strikes not only at people but also at the very principles that underpin our multicultural and multifaith society. The attack in Bondi should never have happened. We know that Jewish communities, migrant communities and many others have felt the weight of rising hatred and division. According to the Special Envoy's Plan to Combat Antisemitism, from October 2023 to September 2024, antisemitic incidents surged by 316 per cent with over 2,000 cases of reported threats, assaults, vandalism and intimidation. In October and November 2023 alone, episodes increased by over 700 per cent compared with the previous year, reflecting incitement by those with extremist views and by misinformation in the media and online. These figures exclude much of the hate online where antisemitism has exploded.

As shadow Minister for Multiculturalism and, previously, Minister for Multiculturalism, I want to be very clear: Terrorism, racism and hate have no place in New South Wales. Antisemitism and all forms of racial hatred must be confronted directly, decisively and without equivocation. Legislation plays a role in that task, but it must be the right legislation. The bill, as introduced by the Government, is a response to a breakdown in social cohesion, yet much of what it proposes is reactive rather than proactive. Many of the powers to prevent divisive protests contained in the bill are contingent on a terrorist act being declared, or on police forming a reasonable suspicion that an offence has already occurred.

Schedules 5 and 6 of the Government's proposal provide for the commencement of special public assembly provisions that will disallow a lawful protest if there is any authorisation by police that a terror attack has occurred. This does nothing to stop damaging protests taking place that are outside very narrow conditions and would not apply to a vast majority of protests we have seen in recent years. These laws do nothing to stop a protest occurring tomorrow in Hyde Park or in any area of Sydney outside a declared terrorist incident zone. Only twice in our State's history has a terrorist declaration been made, yet our city has endured weekly protests, highlighting the ineffectiveness of this proposal to tackle hatred and divisive marches. The bill is not the proactive framework that was promised. It is not the strong, decisive action the Jewish community deserves.

If we are serious about preventing radicalisation, stopping hate before it escalates and protecting vulnerable communities, then our laws must be strong, clear and enforceable before violence occurs, not merely after the fact. The Coalition has long argued for strong action against the public display and promotion of terrorist and extremist symbols. While schedule 1 to the bill makes changes to the Crimes Act in that regard, it falls short of what is required. It is weaker in scope than the Coalition's previous proposals. It excludes symbols, limits penalties and ties the hands of New South Wales by relying on Commonwealth definitions rather than allowing the State to respond swiftly to emerging threats.

Words and symbols matter. We know that extremist rhetoric and symbolism are often precursors to violence. When hateful slogans are chanted openly and when extremist symbols are paraded without consequence, they do real harm, particularly to multicultural and multifaith communities who feel targeted, isolated and unsafe. That is why the Coalition will move amendments to strengthen these provisions to ensure they are fit for purpose and send a clear message: Hate has no home in New South Wales. I also address the protest and public assembly provisions in the bill.

Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, but it must not be weaponised to intimidate communities, glorify violence or erode social cohesion. We have seen protests in recent times that have crossed that line—protests that have made ordinary people feel unsafe in their own suburbs, on public transport or near places of worship. From the Opera House to the Harbour Bridge, the warning signs have been clear for a long time to the Jewish community. We must not let public spaces be occupied for hateful purposes. The Government's approach to public assembly restrictions is narrow and largely ineffective. Without a declared terrorist act, these new provisions offer little additional capacity to prevent socially corrosive protests or to deal with bad actors who exploit crowds to evade identification and accountability.

Schedule 4 to the bill is a poor attempt to replicate Coalition proposals to ban face coverings for public protests. The Government's proposals only allow police to require the removal of a face covering if the officer suspects that a person is likely to commit an offence, which is very broad and undefined. In contrast, the Coalition's amendment will allow a person to be apprehended and their face covering removed before anyone knows whether they will commit an offence. The Government's legislation also fails to account or provide for religious exemptions to this law. The Coalition believes there is a better balance to be struck, one that protects the right to peaceful protest while ensuring police have the tools they need to maintain public order, prevent intimidation and protect vulnerable communities. Our amendments reflect that balance. [Extension of time]

As shadow Minister for Multiculturalism, I am particularly concerned about the real-world impact of rushed and poorly consulted on legislation for multicultural communities. The Government has rushed the bill through Parliament with minimal engagement. There has been a clear lack of meaningful consultation with the Opposition, the crossbench, community leaders, legal experts and those responsible for implementation. That is not best-practice lawmaking, especially in an area as sensitive as this one. Multicultural communities are not just stakeholders in these reforms; they are often the most directly affected by them. They are the communities most likely to experience backlash, stereotyping or fear in the aftermath of terror incidents. They deserve to be heard, respected and engaged with, not sidelined.

Strong laws require strong processes. Rushed laws risk unintended consequences, enforcement gaps and a loss of public confidence. That does nothing to strengthen social cohesion. Our social cohesion has indeed been tested in recent years, and the Jewish community has sadly borne the brunt of this breakdown. Jewish schoolchildren have faced attending school with armed guards at the gates. Jewish families have attended synagogues and community events surrounded by bollards, guards, and police circling on the street and in the air. When I attend my church on Sunday with my family, I do not face similar circumstances. It is a blight on our society that we have allowed this to happen. The fear, the worry and the anxiety the Jewish community has had to face is simply unacceptable and we must act now.

As legislators we have a duty of care to our communities and we must uphold our constituents' rights and freedoms to live safe, happy, fulfilling and peaceful lives. Let me be clear: Supporting vulnerable communities means more than words. It means ensuring our laws genuinely reduce hate, rather than inflame it. It means protecting communities from violence without unfairly targeting them. It means building trust between communities, police and government. That trust is fragile. Once lost, it is difficult to restore. The NSW Liberals will therefore use the parliamentary process in the months ahead to ensure these reforms are implemented in a way that genuinely meets their stated objectives. We will engage constructively, we will put forward improvements and we will call out weaknesses where they exist. We do this not to obstruct, but to strengthen, because social cohesion is not built by slogans or rushed press conferences. It is built through careful lawmaking, clear standards, strong enforcement and genuine engagement with the diverse communities that make up our great State.

In closing, I reaffirm that the Coalition stands with all communities affected by hatred, racism and extremism. It stands with the Jewish community during this time of deep grief and loss. It stands for safety, for unity and for a New South Wales where people of all faiths, cultures and backgrounds can live without fear. We will support this bill, but we also hope the Government will support us to make it better, stronger, fairer and more effective, because our community deserves nothing less.

Mr JIHAD DIB ( Bankstown—Minister for Customer Service and Digital Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Youth Justice) (15:11:43): I make a contribution to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I do so in the worst of circumstances: the realisation of our worst fears after an assault on the trust of all of society and the shock at the horror of what has unfolded. We tread through New South Wales's darkest days and we need to meet this moment of extraordinary sadness and of profound grief. I pray that our actions today define a better future for all of us, one we aspire to but are also motivated to play a role in creating. Recognising that the bill contains multiple elements, my speech will focus on restrictions imposed on the right to protest.

In a liberal democracy, careful consideration must always be given to the curtailment of civil liberties. The people we represent deserve to have these matters debated and positions made clear. For the people I represent in south-western Sydney who have exercised their right to protest, particularly over the past two years, it is important to explain why I support these reforms. To remove any doubt and clear up misinformation, I make it clear that the proposed laws apply at the time of a terrorism event designation. It is not, as some have spread, a ban on protests and assembly in general. The bill will enable the Commissioner of Police or Deputy Commissioner of Police, with the agreement of the Minister, to issue a restriction on public assembly applying to designated areas. This can occur only within 14 days of a terrorist incident if the police are satisfied that public assemblies in these areas would likely cause fear of harassment, intimidation or violence, or cause a risk to community safety.

These restrictions would last for 14 days, with the ability to extend for a period of not more than 14 days at a time, up to a total of 90 days. In effect, after the declaration of a terrorism incident, protests can be restricted for a period up to three months if the protest is a risk to safety and social cohesion. This is not a blanket three‑month ban. The police would need to be satisfied every two weeks that the restriction in certain areas needs to be extended. These actions, proposed by the Government, strike a balance between the right to protest, community safety and social cohesion at a time when tensions would be at their highest. This debate cannot and should not be divorced from the tragic context from which it has arisen. Hatred has manifested as violence and 15 innocent lives have been taken in an antisemitic terrorist attack. The families of those 15 innocent victims have had their worlds shattered.

As the Premier said at Bondi last night, the Government's highest duty is to protect its citizens. We did not do that one week ago. It is not enough to talk about social cohesion. Rather, we must do whatever is in our respective or collective ability to stamp out all forms of hate and all forms of racism. Racism and all forms of hatred must be dealt with. An attack on a minority group may be seen as an attack on all groups based on their race, their colour or faith. Many members have touched on that. An attack on one needs to be seen as an attack on many. As the Jewish community mourns, the only way we can right the past is by protecting the future. This mourning is felt by Australians everywhere regardless of faith, colour and postcode.

We have seen this in the outpouring of support, including very strong examples by the leadership of the Muslim community through their condemnation of such a despicable act. At a time of national grief, where the social fabric has frayed so dramatically, we must come together now more than ever. We must lean on that which unites us more than that which differentiates us. Each of us feels the grief, the anger and indeed the tension. I recognise that protest is an important part of democracy. It is in this precarious context that each of us knows protests have a time and place. That time is not now, straight after a terrorism event. Over the weekend, we saw attempts to protest immigration arising from the tragedy at Bondi, even though one of the heroes, the celebrated Ahmed al‑Ahmed, was a migrant himself.

A proposed violent protest event to be held on 27 December, aimed specifically at Muslims and other migrants, does nothing to help social cohesion. Irrespective of my views on those two protests, with which I profoundly disagree, people are entitled to protest for causes they believe in. But at a time when so many in the Jewish community, or the community of my faith, the Muslim community, feel on edge, when Muslim graves have been desecrated, women in hijabs have been attacked and people feel like they need to validate their Australianness, we know that such a protest is not for this time, nor this place. At a time when we are trying to heal, trying to further build social cohesion and trying to encourage acts of kindness, activities such as these only seek to divide us.

These proposed amendments would ensure that a protest with the stated intent of violence and division would not go ahead at a time like this. When a terrorist incident occurs, we recognise that the immediate priority of the police is to restore public safety. In the immediate aftermath, police resources cannot and should not be diverted towards managing public assemblies that may risk public safety or inflame social tension. Whilst the limiting of protests or gatherings that have the potential to harass, intimidate or cause violence may to some people seem excessive, given that it would only apply at a time of a terrorism designation, the legislation is important and pragmatic. These answers may not be perfect, but we cannot let perfect be the enemy of good when we know that a change is needed.

These matters are not easy. The balance of rights at best only ever creates a delicate equilibrium. It is on the public record that I joined hundreds of thousands of people at the March for Humanity across the Harbour Bridge—people from all parts of our society, ordinary people. I walked alongside people from all faiths, nationalities and people from across the State to add my voice to a call for peace and a ceasefire in Palestine. Everyone I spoke to said that peace was their purpose for joining this march, including those who were walking with me, my Jewish brothers and sisters, who crossed the bridge for a better future. I am deeply concerned that peaceful participation in this march for peace has been linked by some to last Sunday's atrocity. The right to peaceful protest and lawful expression is an important part of our democracy.

Members may not know that for much of my life I have sought to ensure social cohesion. Through my work as a board member for the Together for Humanity Foundation and as a former commissioner with Multicultural NSW—or the Community Relations Commission, as it was formerly known—I have worked alongside people of all faiths who shared a desire to celebrate humanity and our multicultural society. The way we will navigate the weeks and the months ahead is through kindness. We must think charitably towards one another. As I said earlier, we need to meet this moment and meet it well. All communities that are affected by racism and hatred suffer, and we must all stand in unity to ensure that does not happen. We must go out of our way to be our best selves—to highlight all that is good and call out all that is bad, and to act on that which causes division and encourages hatred, no matter where it is from or to whom it is directed.

Division represents a final and lasting victory for terrorism. I take this opportunity to extend my embrace to the grieving and to extend a hand of friendship to those with whom I have had disagreements. I extend my hand, as I always have, to those who seek to do good deeds. Small acts of charity and kindness are the needle and thread that mend the social fabric which we all hold dear. At this time, I implore everybody to hold that as dear as they can. Look after one another. Show a bit of love, show a bit of care, show a bit of kindness and show a bit of compassion because—my goodness—we need it.

Ms JENNY LEONG ( Newtown ) ( 15:20 :50 ): On behalf of The Greens I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I do so with a heavy heart. Just over a week ago, two terrorists engaged in a horrific act of violence: the mass shooting at Bondi. I make this contribution on behalf of The Greens members in the Legislative Assembly: the member for Ballina, the member for Balmain and myself. We express our collective and heartfelt sympathy to the people who were there and to the loved ones of those impacted by the tragedy. While there will be time later in this extraordinary parliamentary sitting to contribute in a more fulsome way to the condolence motion—which I intend to do—for those who lost their lives, it is clear that the targeting of the Jewish community during what should have been a time of celebration, peace and connection is beyond words.

The loss of life is deeply tragic, and The Greens condemn the blatant act of antisemitism and the mass shooting in our city. How a person—indeed, how a community, a government or a Parliament—responds to a crisis of this magnitude speaks volumes. In the past weeks, stories of the courage of those in our community who risked everything to protect others have filled us with a sense of hope and connection in a time of despair. On the other hand, the bill before the House risks doing the exact opposite by bundling much‑needed gun reforms in response to a mass shooting with moves to further constrain the right to peaceful protest in New South Wales. Conflating peaceful protest with a hate‑filled act of terror is truly worrying.

It is disappointing that the New South Wales Labor Government has chosen to put all of the reforms together. That is not in the interests of our democracy nor our society, and it will not help heal the pain and fissures in our communities. Rather, it will risk further inflaming them. We must not let a horrifying act of hatred and violence fuel further hatred and violence. No matter how much some people might wish to insulate our communities from global events, we must recognise that the very definition of being a successful multicultural society means that we will be inevitably connected with what is happening around the world. Those events will directly impact us. We cannot ignore them, we cannot deny them and we cannot shy away from them.

The Premier has said that he wants this to be a summer of peace, and The Greens share that hope for people in Sydney and around the globe. However, we know that there can be no real peace without justice. One cannot force peace. As someone who worked with Amnesty International for many years, I know that silencing dissent does not work. Eventually, the people will rise up in the face of draconian laws. They will rise up when their material needs are not being met. Real peace happens when there is no need for communities to dissent because there is no injustice. Peace comes from respect, equality and dignity for all people. Peace comes when civil liberties and human rights are protected and promoted. Removing the collective rights of people to engage in nonviolent, peaceful protest in New South Wales is a very disappointing use of a tragic event.

The Greens have always been committed to human rights and to peace. We are committed to fostering care, compassion and connection in our communities. We know that in order to do that, we need to empower and enable nonviolent collective action, not outlaw it. This bill, which is being debated just a week after the incident at Bondi and a few days before Christmas, brings together four areas of reform: strengthening gun laws; expanding the prohibition of the public display of prohibited terrorist symbols; broadening police powers to require a person to remove a face covering during a public assembly; and establishing a scheme for public assembly restriction declarations, giving power to the police and the police Minister to prevent authorised protests for a period of up to 90 days after a declared terrorist event.

The Greens absolutely support the reforms in the bill as they relate to guns and the prohibition of the public display of prohibited terror symbols. However, we cannot accept the disappointing overreach when it comes to increased police powers that would further erode the rights of peaceful members of our community to engage in public assemblies, and we hold grave concerns about the impact of increased powers for police to insist on the removal of face coverings. The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. It sets a dangerous precedent to curtail that right and to hand power over to the police and the government of the day to say how and when people can gather to express their collective views.

Australia has a proud history of peaceful protest movements—for reconciliation, for marriage equality, for workers' rights, for women's rights, for First Nations justice and for peace itself—that are responsible for many of the core things we have come to value in our society. It is true that over the past two years there have been massive rallies in Sydney and around the world in response to the genocide in Gaza and the deaths of innocent men, women and children. It is within our rights in a democratic society to peacefully gather and say that we do not want those atrocities to take place. It is important to call out those who seek to blame Sydneysiders who have engaged in peaceful protests opposing a genocide for the abhorrent, antisemitic actions of two violent, mass‑murdering men in Bondi. Peaceful protest is not what breeds hate; peaceful protest helps ensure our democracy is functioning as it should.

We do not want another kneejerk response that seeks to crack down on peaceful protest. We do not want more draconian laws rushed through Parliament. We know that people are scared and hurting. Everyone wants to do something to make this horror disappear and ensure that it never happens again. It is understandable that decisive action feels reassuring at the moment. However, the legislation we are debating will not make any of us safer. It might give some people false hope or fleeting comfort, but it will prevent many others from connecting with community and speaking out on the trauma and injustice that they have experienced and continue to experience.

In the past 24 hours, an anti-immigration rally was allowed in our city. In past months, a neo-Nazi rally was held outside this very building, while police watched on. Yet peaceful activists taking a stand against genocide are met with misinformation, accusations and police violence. Who gets to gather? Who gets to protest? Who decides what is acceptable? It is unacceptable that people who gathered peacefully to exercise their right to protest are now being blamed for the horrific actions of two deranged, radicalised, hate‑filled men with guns.

I turn briefly to the gun reforms in the bill. Everyone living in Australia has the right to live free from violence in all its forms, and that includes gun violence. Shockingly, it has been revealed that the two individuals who allegedly committed the antisemitic mass shooting on Sunday had access to legally licensed firearms. While Australia is often held up as a leader in gun violence prevention, this attack has highlighted significant loopholes that allow dangerous individuals to possess multiple high-powered weapons. We also know that the number of guns owned by individuals in New South Wales is far too high, which leaves us open to increased risk. Our gun laws must be strengthened to help prevent similar atrocities in the future.

The Greens support the 10-point plan of the Australian Gun Safety Alliance, which is made up of Australia's leading public health, community safety and firearm harm prevention organisations. This includes further restrictions on high‑capacity firearms, no metropolitan home storage for non-occupational firearms, strict limits on the number of firearms, prohibition on children using firearms, robust and regular renewals of firearm licences, removal of recreational hunting as a genuine reason to obtain a firearm licence, an end to unlicensed shooting at ranges, and a total ban on political donations from the gun lobby in New South Wales. [Extension of time]

The Greens want to see stronger gun laws, and we are committed to evidence-backed gun reform that will help prevent any future atrocities. Parliament has been recalled urgently as a result of the horrifying acts last week. This means that the final version of this legislation was only made available to members this morning, with debate happening on the same day. As such, and to allow for consultation with the many communities, organisations and experts that intersect with this broad bill, The Greens will be reserving our position on it in the Legislative Assembly. We will work with our Greens colleagues in the upper House to move significant amendments and to engage in more detail on some of the substantive elements of the bill.

Mass shootings are terrifying by their design, whether they are by a lone actor or two men. What rips at our sense of security and shreds our feeling of safety apart is that they come out of nowhere. If any agency, government or authority knew it was coming, they would issue warnings, put in place preventative measures and take action to protect those at risk. That is the thing: As much as we crave security, safety and protection in the face of such horror, violence and tragedy, there is a risk that, in a panic to respond and in the attempt to reassure and reassert a sense of power and control over evil actions of two individuals, we lose sight of the path we need to take in order to increase connection and demonstrate compassion and show true care.

Sunday was a day of reflection. On that day, we reflected on those who lost their lives as a result of horrific violence. Right now, we also need to reflect on what it means for light to overcome darkness. We need to reflect on those who will experience ongoing trauma as a result of the mass shooting in Bondi last week. The pain and impact on the Jewish community after this horrifying antisemitic attack will continue. We need to reflect on those who will be subjected to vitriol and hate as a result of the responses to it. We need to reflect on racism, antisemitism, islamophobia and white supremacy—what whips it up and what stamps it out.

While this is a challenging time for our communities, it does not have to be a dark time for our democracy. The Greens are disappointed that the Labor Government is combining unrelated reforms in the same bill. We will not stand in the way of gun reform, but we will not enable a crackdown on peaceful protest. We express our solidarity and support to all those in our community impacted by the mass shooting. Our heart goes out to those in the Jewish community who are grieving and coming to terms with this horror. To all members of our community who long for justice and peace, let us hold each other with care in these terrifying times and let us continue to use our collective power to make the world a better place for everyone.

Ms ROBYN PRESTON ( Hawkesbury ) ( 15:34 :06 ): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, which is before the House in response to the terrorist attack that has shaken our State to its core. The terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December claimed the lives of 15 innocent people and left many others injured, traumatised and scarred. That act of violence has reminded us all of the persistent and insidious threat posed by extremism in our communities. On behalf of my constituents of Hawkesbury and of all New South Wales, I offer my deepest condolences to the families, friends and communities affected by this horrific event. I also take the opportunity to commend the bravery and professionalism of our first responders—New South Wales police, lifesavers, paramedics and other emergency personnel—who ran towards danger to protect the lives of others. Their courage is commendable. It is in moments such as these that we witness the dedication and selflessness of those who protect our communities.

The attack at Bondi is not just a tragedy in human terms; it is also a wake-up call. The Jewish community has been warning the New South Wales Labor Government about this issue since October 7 in 2023. It urgently requires laws that are fit for purpose, targeted and capable of responding to the evolving threats posed by terrorist ideology. It is against this backdrop that we have been recalled, to consider the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Since October 7 evil and hate have been allowed to flourish in this State and in this country. Too often appeasement over enforcement has been the choice of governments, but too often it has been the choice of many of us. Too often the legitimate fears of the Jewish community have been downplayed. To anyone who believes the incident on 14 December was unimaginable, it happened because this Labor Government failed to hear the Jewish community.

When Jewish families were told not to attend the Opera House after October 7 and when extremists were allowed to denigrate the steps of that iconic building and spew hatred, to reiterate the words of the Leader of the Opposition, we should have known then. When students were subjected to harassment and vile abuse on university campuses, we should have known then. When Jewish parents advised their children not to wear their school uniforms in public, we should have known then. When Jewish people were abused online, when people were called to boycott Jewish businesses and when hate preachers in Sydney celebrated the murder of Jews, we should have known then. When protestors descended on our city weekly, shouting slogans such as "from the river to the sea" and "globalise the intifada", we should have known then. When cars were firebombed and when neo-Nazis stood outside New South Wales Parliament holding a sign that read "abolish the Jewish lobby", we should have known then.

When hate becomes normalised in a nation, how can we possibly believe there will be any other outcome than what we saw on 14 December? Since the First Fleet, the Jewish community has contributed immeasurably to this country. The greatest failure of our country—our national stain—is that any group should feel they cannot live free from fear. How can we claim to be a nation of the fair go when the Jewish community faces such hatred? The task of all Australians is to stand up and act. Hate and extremism, if left unchecked, will eventually come for all of us. On 14 December 2025 the Jewish community was targeted, but the victims were both Jews and non‑Jews alike.

The New South Wales Liberals will move amendments to the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 that aim to improve community safety and strengthen social cohesion. Our approach is constructive, responsible and principled. It is incumbent on this Parliament to ensure reforms are robust, targeted and fit for purpose, consistent with the principles we have previously outlined. We do, however, have serious reservations about the Government's approach. There has been a clear lack of meaningful engagement with key stakeholders, including the Opposition, the crossbench and those responsible for implementation. There has been an obvious lack of consultation with those impacted most—the real people around the State, not just Hawkesbury, who will bear the brunt of some of these amendments. In legislation as sensitive and consequential as this, rushed processes are not acceptable. Good lawmaking requires consultation, analysis and planning.

Earlier this year the Coalition proposed the Summary Offences Amendment (Public Assemblies) Bill 2025 and the Crimes Amendment (Display of Nazi and Terrorist Symbols) Bill 2025. Those bills were constructive, targeted and consistent with best practice, yet they were blocked by the Minns Labor Government and the crossbench. By refusing to support those bills, the Government delayed reforms that could have strengthened public safety, deterred extremism and provided clear protections to communities at risk. Now, in the wake of tragedy, the Government returns with an omnibus bill that will weaken several critical areas. This bill is lacking in many ways and deserves the consideration of amendments put forward by the Opposition to ensure it delivers on its objectives.

Schedule 1 amends the Crimes Act to criminalise the display of prohibited terrorist organisation symbols. While necessary, the Government's bill is weaker than the Coalition's previous proposals. It fails to capture symbols that are deceptively similar to Nazi or terrorist imagery. Penalties are weaker than those proposed in the Coalition's bill, matters are proposed to be heard in the Local Court rather than the District Court, and there is no standard non-parole period. Extremists deliberately adapt symbols to evade the law. Parliament must send a clear and unambiguous message that those symbols and the ideology they represent will not be tolerated.

Schedule 2 makes amendments to the Firearms Act, which is already among the strongest in the country. Licensing is a privilege, not a right, granted only in the interest of public safety. The Bondi attacker possessed four firearms at the site, yet this legislation does not demonstrate how the proposed amendments would have prevented the tragedy. The deletion of section 6B removes exemptions for unlicensed persons at approved ranges and for firearm safety training. Limits on firearms, mandatory club membership, reduced licence terms and the abolition of independent review by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal create uncertainty and an administrative burden. Transitional provisions, including the immediate cessation of non-citizen licences, raise significant fairness concerns. These changes require careful scrutiny to ensure that they do not unintentionally penalise legitimate firearms users, including farmers, sports shooters and collectors, while failing to enhance public safety.

Schedule 3 complements schedule 2 with consequential regulatory amendments. The removal of licence term references, deletion of proof of identity provisions and elimination of shooting range exemptions increase administrative complexity and uncertainty. While technical, these changes must be carefully implemented to avoid unintended consequences for lawful firearm users. Schedule 4 addresses police powers regarding face coverings at public assemblies. The Coalition legislation allowed police to act proactively at public assemblies. The Government's bill only allows action when an officer has reasonable suspicion, which is reactive rather than preventative. There is no religious exemption, creating potential legal uncertainty. The NSW Liberals will move amendments to ensure police have clear, proactive powers, while respecting religious freedoms.

Schedules 5 and 6 enable restrictions on public assemblies following a declaration of a terrorist act. Under the Government bill, assemblies may still occur lawfully without authorisation, which is insufficient. The Coalition will propose amendments to prohibit all assemblies in declared areas, impose fines on participants and hold organisations criminally liable. Greens members say that they will not enable the crackdown on protests. Personally speaking, a family member who is very close to me lives right in the city and is frightened to go out on weekends due to the fear that these protests can create. [Extension of time]

These protests cause fear and intimidation for people who live locally and just want to be able to walk about comfortably on a weekend. Tourists have these protests imposed on them as well. It is quite concerning, and I do not think members can ignore that. In considering the authorisation of protests, I support the amendments of my colleague the shadow Attorney General and member for Wahroonga, who rightly highlighted that police and the courts must take into account a range of relevant factors, including public safety; social cohesion; impacts on public amenity and convenience; economic consequences; effects on religious groups and businesses; frequency of marches and the routes taken; and the cost of policing, which is taxpayer funded. Community safety, public order and social cohesion must take precedence in these determinations. The NSW Liberals will move amendments to strengthen community safety, uphold social cohesion and deliver the intent of legislation.

We remain constructive and responsible, but the Government must engage in good faith with the Opposition, Parliament and relevant stakeholders to ensure these reforms are effective, implementable and fit for purpose. We owe it to the victims of Bondi, the Jewish community and all citizens of New South Wales to ensure the laws we pass are strong, targeted and enforceable. The failure to support the Coalition's bills in February of this year delayed reforms that could have protected our communities. Those lessons must not be forgotten, and we must ensure that hate and extremism are confronted decisively.

The Bondi tragedy has left an indelible mark on our State and it is now our responsibility to act decisively. The legislation before the House should be an opportunity to strengthen community safety, send a clear message to extremists and reinforce our commitment to protecting all communities, particularly the Jewish community, from hate and fear. We cannot afford to wait for another tragedy before action is taken. The Liberal Party's approach aims to ensure that the laws we pass today are strong, enforceable and capable of addressing the real threats facing our community. It is on all of us, as elected representatives of the people of New South Wales and as citizens, to ensure that extremism is confronted, that antisemitism is not tolerated and that public safety is prioritised above procedural convenience or political expedience.

Mr RICHIE WILLIAMSON ( Clarence ) ( 15:47 :29 ): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The reason that we are all here in this Chamber at this time is not lost on me. The act of terrorism we have witnessed was an atrocious, unspeakable crime against a peaceful community. To the Jewish community in New South Wales and to my electorate of Clarence, I clearly say that your grief is our shared grief. On behalf of everyone in the electorate of Clarence, I extend our condolences to the families and friends of those who lost their lives. I stand with you. We love you and we support you at this most unbelievable and unthinkable time.

I put on public record that I fully support the parts of this legislation that strengthen hate speech laws in New South Wales and make it unlawful to display prohibited terrorist organisation symbols. That, of course, goes without saying. I also put on public record that I have voted for very similar legislation in this House that was at the time opposed by the Government. The Opposition is committed to strengthening those laws that, unfortunately, the Government voted against.

My support for any bill in this place will never and should never come with conditions. The Government's refusal to deal with three bills separately on this occasion speaks volumes. The issue with the combined bill that we are dealing with today is the firearms reform—reform that, to me and the community I represent, seems to have been drafted on the back of a coaster, with no consultation and no public input at all. Do not take my word for it; the NSW Farmers Association said it has had no input. The Country Mayors Association said it has had no input. It is simply a kneejerk reaction that will not leave New South Wales a safer place.

I have to call out that it is a smokescreen for the real issues. For two years the Government has done nothing to stop hatred on our streets. From protests at Town Hall, on the steps of the Opera House and across the deck of the iconic Harbour Bridge to on the streets of Sydney every weekend—including one just weeks ago a couple of hundred metres from where I am standing now—hatred has been allowed to grow in New South Wales. The bill is a smokescreen for the failures of government agencies that have not enforced the current laws to protect our citizens. How the hell someone who had been training in a terrorist organisation was allowed a current gun licence and firearms in New South Wales is beyond me. Time and time again, the Opposition has called for action on hate. In just a few days, decent people whom I represent will be the target of poorly drafted legislation.

Not one thing in the firearms legislation before the House, which is being rushed through by the Minns Labor Government, will make New South Wales a safer place, nor would it have stopped the deaths of 15 innocent people days ago. It appears to be about politics and optics, not protection. Over the weekend I spoke with a number of responsible firearms owners in my electorate. I spoke with dealers, sporting shooters, hunters and farmers who feel utterly abandoned by this Government. In fact, the word "scapegoat" has been used more than once. I have spoken to small business owners who, in a couple of days, will have their businesses completely destroyed. They employ people in my electorate. They have homes, families and kids. They have mortgages and business loans to pay. There is no compensation for them. They have had no input in the legislation. There has been nothing from the State Government.

I am glad the New South Wales Government is holding a royal commission into the terrorist attacks. I commend the Premier for taking that action. It seems to be taking longer to draft the terms of reference than it did to draft the legislation that is being rushed through the Parliament. I have spoken to decent men and women in my electorate who have held gun licences for decades. They are farmers who use their firearms to keep feral animals at bay. At times, farming is difficult work. When an animal becomes so ill that it cannot be treated, weapons are sometimes used to euthanise those stock as well. I have spoken to sporting shooters who have won national medals who will have to hand in some of their weapons under the bill. I have spoken to business owners in Casino and Grafton who will lose their business, income and livelihood because of the rushed legislation.

Those same sporting shooters, farmers and business owners are willing to engage in a conversation with the Government. If there are ways to strengthen the laws, they are in. If there are ways that they can be a part of the conversation, they are in. We are all amazed that a person who is not an Australian citizen can get a gun licence in New South Wales. The people that I have spoken to in Clarence are very willing to work with the Government, but I can say that they feel very disenfranchised with the process they have seen over the past four or five days. To those people, I say on the public record that I cannot and will not support the legislation. Once again, regional New South Wales is paying the price for a city-focused government's shortcomings. To those responsible firearms owners in the Clarence electorate, I say that I cannot and will not in good faith support this bill that unfairly targets law-abiding citizens and small business owners who have done nothing wrong. They will be severely impacted by the rushed and heavy-handed policy that the Minns Labor Government is pushing through the House.

Ms JACQUI SCRUBY ( Pittwater ) ( 15:55 :59 ): I make a contribution to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Along with all those in Pittwater, I am profoundly shocked by the events that occurred on Sunday 14 December—a date that will forever be etched into the memory of many Australians. Those events have shattered the Jewish community, confirming the fears that they had been warning us about. There is no doubt that we must act and stop it from happening again. What occurred on that early evening was an horrific antisemitic terrorist attack. Two extremists set out to murder members of Sydney's Jewish community as they gathered to celebrate Hannukah. We live in one of the greatest cities in one of the greatest States in one of the greatest countries on earth. Bondi, like so many parts of the northern beaches, is a place of calm, of peace and of community. It has a thriving Jewish community. That calm was shattered last Sunday, with 15 innocent lives taken.

I speak in support of the bill and commend the Government for recalling Parliament and working in a multipartisan way. People want action this side of Christmas. They want swift action. I particularly acknowledge the leadership shown by the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in the days since the attack. They have demonstrated unity rather than the division that is being seen at the Federal level and in some of our media. The bill before us deals with both firearms reform and protest reform. It deals swiftly with some of the contributing factors that led to Sunday's attack, but it also falls short of doing everything we need to do over time. The bill is not the total answer, but it is the beginning. Australians are united in ensuring that such a horrific antisemitic attack never happens again.

As legislators, we must enact legislation that will be effective but also nuanced and balanced to ensure that our rights in a liberal democracy, including the right to protest, are balanced with the need to stamp out hatred, antisemitism and Islamic radicalisation and, in doing so, make sure that we do not have unintended consequences. The bill limits firearms licences, strengthens storage requirements of those firearms, removes unnecessary appeal processes and ensures that licence renewals are as rigorous as initial applications. In the days since the attack, many constituents have expressed to me disbelief that such a violent armed terrorist attack with high-powered firearms could occur nearly 30 years after Port Arthur.

There is strong support in Pittwater for tighter gun laws immediately. People were shocked by media reports that a person in Duffys Forest has over 200 guns, that someone in Narrabeen has 198 guns and that there are 233 gun owners in Avalon, not to mention that four million guns remain in Australia post Port Arthur. They were shocked by the type of firearms used. They were shocked that the alleged perpetrator was a licensed gun owner, given that their close family member had previously been a person of concern to ASIO. They were appalled that in 2025 agencies could not connect the dots, that part of our gun licensing system remains paper based, that individuals can legally accumulate multiple firearms and that non-citizens can hold firearms licences.

Many genuinely believed that gun reform was settled decades ago. They are demanding action now. However, I must also acknowledge that this legislation has been introduced very rapidly and without the level of consultation or evidence base expected for reform of this magnitude. I point out that, despite my electorate being an urban coastal electorate, in Pittwater and its surrounds we have gun ranges, firearms businesses and law‑abiding citizens who compete nationally and internationally in shooting sports. This may go to explain the gun ownership numbers in my electorate that came as a shock to some constituents.

In the past few days many people have contacted me very concerned that these reforms are being rushed. I thank them for their respectful and constructive engagement with me, particularly given the circumstances in which this bill has been introduced. They understand the need for reform to be looked at. Acknowledging my lack of understanding of guns, I have consulted heavily with my fellow regional Independents, including the member for Barwon, the member for Wagga Wagga, the member for Orange, the member for Wollondilly and others. I have been working with them to ensure that my constituents that have expressed the need for consultation with regard to gun ownership are represented. I acknowledge those who have written to or spoken with me, in particular, representatives and members of the New South Wales Gun Club Ltd, the Peninsular Firearm Academy and the St Ives Pistol Club.

I note the need for further consultation with the community to make sure that we bring it and the firearms industry along, avoid unintended consequences and ensure that the proposed laws work as intended. There is a strong feeling in the firearm‑owner community that they are taking the fall for circumstances for which they are not to blame. They feel that the reforms do not address the real issues and will produce a host of unintended consequences for invasive species management, for Olympic sports and for firearms businesses. However, it is clear that firearm licensing is wanted in my electorate, and I support that aspect of the bill. I defer to my previously mentioned crossbench colleagues to continue to advocate for those in the gun industry.

The bill also raises difficult questions about protest reform and freedom of expression through the use of symbols. I acknowledge that our world has changed since 14 December. Australia has changed. Sydney has changed. We must listen and take action that includes strengthening our approach to protest laws. We live in a liberal democracy and the right to protest and speak freely is, of course, fundamental. But it is not absolute. It must not come at the expense of social cohesion or the safety of others, particularly our Jewish community. I note that many people in Pittwater supported the March for Humanity, which called for peace in Gaza. They did so in good faith, motivated by humanitarian concern. For most of those people, it was their first protest march. Many who attended it have expressed to me that it was a clear position for them to take. Some have acknowledged that since the Bondi attack their position has changed; for others it has not. They have said to me that they feel that the march did not conflate criticism of the Israeli Government with antisemitism, and they would never want that. They believe that those issues cannot be conflated.

However, we must recognise that, for many Jewish people, in practice, those issues are inherently conflated. What I have come to understand more clearly is that, even when there is no intention to conflate the two issues, that is only a theoretical outcome for some. Even when protests are peaceful, the presence of antisemitic symbols, chants or rhetoric, even by a small number, has a profound and frightening impact on many Jewish Australians. Political expression can feel like an existential threat, and when Jewish Australians tell us that is how it is being experienced by them, we must listen. Many in my community, particularly in recent days, have also said that they want a pause to the protests. They want to stand with the Jewish community, and they feel enough is enough. Others have written to me concerned that the proposed legislation will limit the right to protest or that it will undermine our liberal democracy. I do not believe it does. It strikes the right balance. It provides a pause following a terrorist attack and also provides for geographical limitations.

The bill contains reasonable changes. It will be effective but not restrictive and does not go so far as to curtail rights that could lead to further inflammation. People recognise that the right to protest provides a valve for the release of tensions and have expressed the importance of keeping it as an aspect of our democracy. They also acknowledge that by making law to protect one group we might exacerbate other tensions, particularly given the rise in libertarian values and sovereign citizens. This is a day for decisive action. I have heard clearly from the Jewish community that firearms reform must not become a distraction from the real issues. I hope the bill before us today is the first of many more that will address those issues in the new year. [Extension of time]

In the future we need to also address hate speech, radicalisation and community antisemitism. Former Pittwater resident Ed Halmagyi recently announced the closure of his Jewish bakery, outlining the antisemitic graffiti and other attacks that have been occurring over a number of years. We must consider from first principles why any community should need private security to attend school, to worship or to go shopping, and why community security groups are necessary at all. We must build a society where this is no longer required. But in the meantime, both State and Federal governments must do more, through policing, intelligence, protective services and new legislation. The proposed legislation is necessary, but it is not sufficient. We need, and I am supportive of, a royal commission for comprehensive forensic investigation into intelligence sharing, firearms licensing, hate speech, violent extremism, neo‑Nazism, far-left and far-right radicalisation, and emerging threats such as the sovereign citizen movement. It is 2025—we must also ask serious questions about our data systems and why they are not coordinated. This Parliament is leading the way for other Australian governments and setting an example of robust debate and reform that is critically analysed but also bipartisan. It must be just the beginning. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr KEVIN A NDERSON ( Tamworth ) ( 16:07 :41 ): I speak in debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. From the outset, I express my deep sorrow and my solidarity with the Australian Jewish community, the Bondi community and every Australian who has felt a deep sense of grief over the horrific Bondi terrorist attack. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish community in the fight against extremism, antisemitism and terrorism. No Australian should live in fear due to their beliefs, and we stand united in our condemnation of the hatred that motivated this horrific attack. I attended the Bondi vigil to pay my respects for those lives lost. It was a service full of sorrow, but it was also a service of strength and solidarity—an example of the best of who we are. Jewish Australians deserve to live in peace and harmony in New South Wales without fear of persecution for who they are.

New South Wales has the strictest gun laws in Australia. That is why the Coalition supports strong action against hate speech, extremist ideology and the public display of Nazi and terrorist symbols. We have called for tougher laws in this space for many months. The Coalition offered a bipartisan approach to responding to this horrific attack. Unfortunately, the Labor Government has instead chosen to make announcements through the media and decline offers to brief the Opposition. It has left members and communities in the dark about what these reforms look like. Regional stakeholders have not been consulted. One phone call late yesterday was the only consultation regional stakeholders like the NSW Farmers Association, the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia and the Country Mayors Association of NSW received. The bill is rushed and confused. Much of it relies on regulation that the Parliament is in the dark about with regard to proper impacts.

I have deep concerns about the Government's proposed amendments to the Firearms Act. These reforms are not properly considered. They have been drafted without any consideration for our communities or any consultation with community members, including farmers, primary producers, business owners, recreational hunters, professional shooters and sporting shooters—stakeholders affected by this legislation. Throughout regional New South Wales, thousands of licensed, law-abiding firearms owners lives and livelihoods are affected by this legislation. They are everyday Australians, mums and dads who will be punished because of the terrible actions of these terrorists. Through no fault of their own, their lives, livelihoods, and passions will be taken from them without consultation, proper consideration or a democratic process

In the Tamworth electorate, there are more than 8,665 registered firearms owners. Why punish them? Why go after their legal right to own a firearm after someone picked up a firearm and committed an act of atrocity? They were not responsible for the horrors that occurred in Bondi last Sunday. Firearms are tools of the trade for farmers and primary producers who work hand in hand to manage land across New South Wales. My office has received hundreds of emails, calls and visits over the past week from constituents expressing their views on how this bill and process should be run. Legal firearms owners are horrified that this Government is painting them with the same brush as terrorists. This Government has labelled them as such, and legal firearms owners are deeply concerned about the impact of these reforms.

The bill is rushed, ill-considered and not evidence based. As the Executive Council of Australian Jewry says, "We don't have a gun problem; we have an antisemitism problem." Currently, the bill restricts ownership of certain guns under certain categories only but does not impose a general cap on the number of firearms a licensee may possess or use. It imposes a general cap of four on the number of firearms an individual licensee may possess or use across all licence categories, except in the case of dealer licences, collector licences, sport and target shooters and primary producers, which is capped at 10. The regulation allows elite shooters to apply to the commissioner for additional firearms above the limit. This proposal reveals a lack of understanding on the subject. Imposing arbitrary caps disregards the diverse needs of legitimate owners, such as farmers, contract shooters, pest controllers, target shooters, recreational hunters—who require multiple calibres and action types for pest control across varying terrains and weather conditions—or hunters who target different species.

In relation to gun clubs, currently there is an exemption for unlicensed persons to possess and use firearms under supervision without a licence or permit while shooting on an approved range or while participating in an approved firearms safety training course after they have completed a P650 form. The bill will remove this exemption. Future amendments will be made to the regulation to enable persons to obtain a permit to use and possess a firearm at an approved shooting range. Gun clubs, pistol clubs and rifle clubs across the region—as well as the secretary of Tamworth Gun Club, Chris Celovic—have said that this amendment threatens the future of gun clubs as they will no longer be able to undertake activities that rely on the P650 form. These include "come and try" days, corporate work functions and training. These types of events allow gun clubs to attract new members and generate income.

Gun clubs cannot legally pass a person for firearms safety training without actually handling and using a firearm. The abolition of the P650 form will prevent the person from touching a firearm and directly impact the recruitment of new members and initial training. These proposed changes would not have stopped what happened in Bondi last week. These reforms only punish legal firearms owners. The Government is not confronting the real issue this State is facing. We have seen the lock-up of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House. We have seen protestors out the front of the New South Wales Parliament, and in Hyde Park week in and week out, gridlocking Sydney. These protests have promoted rising fear and extremists. Some time ago, the Coalition put forward ways to fix that problem, but the Labor Government chose to ignore them. Regional New South Wales should not be held to ransom because of a rushed bill that has not considered regional New South Wales or consulted with regional communities.

I cannot support this bill. The Labor Government has tried to be clever by combining the protest laws and gun laws into one bill. It did that in the hope of wedging members to get them to vote for it. The National Party and I agree with some parts of the proposed protest laws, but there has been no consultation or discussion about the gun laws with any of the key stakeholders across the State. This is part of the Government's trickery, and complete ignorance and disregard for regional New South Wales. The National Party sees right through its diversionary tactic. The bill does not addresses the issues of antisemitism and radical extremists head on. That is why I cannot support the bill.

Mrs TANYA THOMPSON ( Myall Lakes ) ( 16:16 :57 ): I make a contribution to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. My first thoughts are with the victims of the terrorist attack at Bondi, their families and loved ones, and all those who were traumatised by that horrific act. I extend my deepest sympathies to the families of those who lost their lives and wish a full and speedy recovery to those who were injured. I also acknowledge the courage and professionalism of the first responders and members of the public who acted in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. I put on record my strong belief that this legislation should not be in the form of a single bill. We have before us two very separate issues: terrorism and antisemitism on the one hand, and firearms regulation on the other. Each deserves serious attention, thorough consultation and proper debate in this House, separately.

Instead, the Government has presented us with a kneejerk, mashed‑up and rushed response, brought forward under the pressure of tragedy, to address an issue that has been festering in our society for more than two years. That approach does not strengthen public safety or strengthen public confidence in our lawmaking. As others have said in this Chamber, I offer my unequivocal support for the Jewish community. Jewish Australians deserve to feel safe at home, in public spaces and in their places of worship. Laws that directly target terrorism, extremist ideology and the glorification of violence are necessary, proportionate and long overdue. I wholeheartedly support such measures, but this Parliament must also be honest about leadership, and the absence of it.

After the incident at the Sydney Opera House, communities—particularly the Jewish community—called clearly and consistently for stronger protections, clearer laws and decisive action. Those calls were not made just last week; they were made two years ago. During that time, the warnings were there. The rise in antisemitism was evident and community fear was real, yet the Premier chose not to act. Instead of confronting extremism and intimidation when the community was demanding leadership, the Minns Labor Government delayed. Now, following the most devastating, horrific terrorist attack, we are presented with rushed legislation developed under intense pressure. That is not proactive leadership; that is a reactive government.

We are now debating legislation developed in a highly charged environment, introduced before the completion of investigations into the Bondi attack, and without proper consultation. Where this bill goes wrong is in using legitimate counterterrorism concerns to justify sweeping firearms reforms that overwhelmingly burden lawful, licensed firearm owners, particularly in regional and rural New South Wales, while avoiding the harder work of confronting extremism, radicalisation and enforcement failures. In regional New South Wales, firearm ownership is not ideological; it is practical. We have large electorates with significant agricultural activity, extensive bushland, long distances between communities and ongoing pest and animal welfare challenges. Firearms are tools of trade, essential for primary production, pest control, animal welfare and regulated recreational hunting.

In my electorate of Myall Lakes, many licence holders hold firearms for multiple genuine reasons and require different firearms for different species, terrain and seasonal conditions. That reality has simply not been acknowledged in this bill. Importantly, the NSW Police Force has conducted comprehensive reviews of the Firearms Act and the mental health requirements for licence holders and did not recommend substantial legislative change. There were no recommendations to cap firearm numbers, to shorten licence terms, to abolish supervised training pathways or to remove independent review rights. Evidence matters, and this bill is not evidence led. Instead, the bill introduces sweeping restrictions on lawful firearm ownership, reduces licence terms and removes longstanding safeguards and review rights.

In particular, capacity limits fundamentally misunderstand both firearm use and public safety. Capacity limits do not stop terrorism or extremist violence. They assume lawful access and lawful intent, neither of which applies to terrorists or criminals. Someone willing to commit mass violence is not going to be deterred by arbitrary restrictions on magazine size. These reforms punish lawful firearm owners for the actions of radicalised individuals who operate entirely outside the licensing system. Lawful firearm owners are not the source of extremist violence. They are being asked to pay the price for this Labor Government's failure to act earlier on antisemitism, radicalisation and enforcement.

Serious concerns must also be raised about the financial and administrative reality of any buyback scheme. Any reform that renders lawfully owned firearms unlawful requires fair compensation not just for firearms, but for magazines, optics, regulated ancillaries, ammunition rendered unusable and dealer stock held in good faith. Past buyback programs demonstrate that once valuation, processing, storage, transport, destruction and compliance costs are fully accounted for, these schemes escalate rapidly into the billions of dollars. At a time of cost-of-living pressure and strained public finances, it is entirely reasonable to ask why taxpayers should be expected to foot the bill for years of inaction followed by rushed policy from this Government. I make it clear that I support strong terrorism laws. I support standing shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish community. But I do not support using tragedy to rush through firearm reforms that punish lawful people while sidestepping the failure to act when early warnings were visibly clear. I cannot support the bill in its current form.

Mr JUSTIN CLANCY ( Albury ) ( 16:23 :50 ): I speak on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I begin by acknowledging the seriousness of the events that have led to this bill being brought before the House. Acts of terrorism and violent extremism strike at the heart of our social cohesion and our sense of safety. Parliament has a duty to respond and to ensure our laws properly equip police and security agencies to protect the community. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition has approached this sitting constructively and responsibly. We recognise the seriousness of terrorism, extremism and threats to community safety. We do not shy away from taking firm action where it is genuinely required. However, this is a large and complex bill, spanning terrorism offences, firearms regulation, protest and public assembly powers and summary offences. It is precisely the kind of legislation that demands careful drafting, genuine consultation and proper parliamentary scrutiny.

On those tests, the Minns Government has fallen short. An exposure bill was provided to the Coalition only late on Saturday afternoon, with debate scheduled almost immediately. Stakeholders, including law-abiding firearms owners, small businesses, civil liberties groups and faith communities, have been given little or no opportunity to engage meaningfully. At a time when the Government calls for unity, it has instead chosen to rush legislation through Parliament and then ask questions later. That is not good lawmaking, and it is not respectful of this Parliament. The Government's own drafting gives the game away. Significant elements, particularly in relation to firearms, are to commence by proclamation, not immediately. That alone demonstrates there was time to consult properly and to produce better law.

Over recent days I have had a number of conversations with individuals, shooting clubs and businesses. Indeed, just five minutes before coming into this Chamber I was in a phone conversation with one of my former constituents. I appreciate the genuineness of each of those discussions. This is reinforced by my own background, coming from the land, and by the many people I know personally who are involved in recreational hunting or organised shooting sports. For those who live in metropolitan areas, firearms may be viewed primarily through the lens of crime or public safety risk. In regional New South Wales, firearms are also a legitimate and highly regulated tool of trade and land management. Farmers and primary producers rely on them for pest animal control, livestock protection, biosecurity and animal welfare. Recreational hunters play a recognised role in pest control, conservation programs and regional economies. These realities must be understood if legislation is to work on the ground.

The overwhelming majority of recreational shooters in New South Wales are law-abiding, decent, ordinary Australians. They comply with strict licensing, storage and safety requirements. They are not the problem and they should not be treated as collateral damage of rushed reform. Nor should we forget the small and generational firearms businesses, many in regional New South Wales, who do the right thing every day and who will be cruelled by poorly considered changes that threaten their livelihoods. I note the contribution from the member for Monaro. He spoke of the role of regulation and also of the importance of having a well-funded and well-resourced registry. I agree with him on both of those comments. We need to hold the Government to account on these matters.

In 2019, the Auditor-General of New South Wales conducted a detailed performance audit of firearms regulation in this State. One finding is particularly relevant to this debate. The Auditor-General found that the Firearms Registry was not adequately assessing the validity of reasons provided by licence holders when they apply to acquire firearms. Under the Firearms Act, a person must demonstrate a genuine reason to hold a firearms licence. But to acquire each additional firearm, the Act requires something different and more stringent—namely, that the applicant demonstrate a good reason. These are not the same legal tests. Parliament deliberately set a higher bar for acquisition than for licensing. The problem identified by the Auditor-General was not that Parliament lacked power; it was that the registry lacked clear guidance on what constitutes a good reason, consistent administrative policies and robust scrutiny of individual acquisition decisions.

There is much that well-intentioned reform could explore in that space. That is an administrative and governance failure, not a failure of the legislative framework. Instead of fixing that failure by strengthening discretion, clarifying the good‑reason test and improving risk‑based assessment, the Government has chosen a different path. If the Firearms Registry is not properly assessing why someone needs an additional firearm now, then simply imposing arbitrary limits does nothing to address the underlying risk identified by the Auditor‑General. It merely shifts the burden onto those who are already doing the right thing. This is not smart regulation; it is regulation that avoids judgement by replacing it with blunt instruments.

There is also a glaring inconsistency in the Government's approach to procedural fairness and appeal rights, which must be addressed. I note that in the initial exposure draft of the bill, the Government intended to remove the right to appeal to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal [NCAT]. That has been restored in the current bill—and for good reason. In September, during debate on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill (No 2) 2025, the Government told this Parliament that access to external review through the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal was so important that it needed to be restored, even for children. We were told that firearms prohibition orders are serious and wide reaching, that they can authorise police to search a person at any time without a warrant, and that they have no expiry date.

At that time, Labor argued that it was essential that those subject to such orders have access to independent merit reviews through NCAT. The fact that the ability to approach NCAT was removed from the exposure draft of the bill raises questions. The importance of that ability has already been recognised by the Government but—again, in its haste—it has had to restore it in this legislation. In my view, firearms reform would have been far better directed towards strengthening the fit and proper person test and tightening the discretions available to the commissioner. Better consultation by the Government would have resulted in better legislation.

Schedule 1 creates a new offence of displaying prohibited terrorist organised organisation symbols. The Coalition has been clear and consistent in condemning hate symbols and extremist ideology. Earlier this year we introduced the Crimes Amendment (Display of Nazi and Terrorist Symbols) Bill 2025. That legislation was blocked by Labor. Now, only months later, the Government has introduced its own version, which is narrower in scope, lower in penalties and rushed through as part of a much larger bill. The community is entitled to ask why the Coalition's bill was unacceptable then but a diluted version is acceptable now. If the Government truly believes that conduct is as serious as it claims, why does its response fall short of the framework it previously opposed? Consistency matters. Credibility matters.

The bill also contains significant expansions of police powers relating to protests and public assemblies, particularly through expanded powers related to face coverings and new public assembly restriction declarations. Earlier this year, during debate on the Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill 2025, the Government rejected Coalition amendments dealing with mass protests and public safety. Yet now, through a different legislative pathway, the Government advances broader protest controls, again with limited consultation and under the banner of urgency. Public safety must be balanced carefully with the right to lawful assembly. That balance requires transparency, consultation and restraint, not rushed lawmaking. [Extension of time]

Finally, these changes alone will not stop terrorism or radicalisation. Without serious action on intelligence, counterterrorism and social cohesion, these reforms risk being more about political theatre than genuine prevention. I support calls for a royal commission, but I also recognise that is where our focus needs to be. Good lawmaking, particularly in areas as sensitive as terrorism and firearms regulation, requires care. Acting too quickly risks creating laws that are difficult to administer, costly to comply with and ultimately ineffective in addressing the very threats they are designed to counter. The Premier has said that these changes must pass. Whilst I acknowledge that call, on behalf of my community, I urge the Premier to recognise that if the Government genuinely wants unity it must first demonstrate respect for Parliament and proper process and the people who will live with the consequences of these laws.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS ( Kellyville ) ( 16:34 :49 ): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. At the outset, I extend my sympathies and condolences to all members of the Jewish Australian community. I will place further words on Hansard in relation to my respect for that community and the dreadful attack on them through the loss of 15 lives only eight days ago. There is no doubt that Australia is the greatest country in the world, and New South Wales is the beating heart of our country's success. However, our once peaceful demeanour is currently under threat. People in this country enjoy great freedoms and opportunities and we, as the lawmakers of New South Wales, must ensure that our laws are effective and appropriate on behalf of the majority of our population and provide protections from danger for all of our communities. But, as lawmakers, we must act when action is required and when threats are present. We cannot be found wanting, lest we end up on the wrong side of history.

No person in this country should ever live with threats to their lives or their family's lives. Sadly, the Jewish Australian community has lived with that threat each and every day. That threat is imposed on them by radical Islamist extremists who have a completely incorrect and distorted perception of their own faith. Their hatred and vile actions grow like a cancer, sending the very worst message to young members of their own communities, and they must be excised. I state for the record that I do not condemn Muslims. I have many Muslim friends. But within our society there are Islamic radical extremists with one intention: to completely destroy every Jewish Australian in this country. That is a fact.

In terms of being on the wrong side of history, I make this point: The shadow Attorney General, on behalf of the Liberal‑Nationals Coalition, earlier this year introduced various pieces of legislation aimed at implementing strong laws and provisions to combat the increased violence and social unrest that has plagued our society, especially since 7 October. The rise of antisemitic violence in our State, particularly in the Bondi area, escalated significantly following the events that occurred in Israel in 2023. The Opposition has remained committed to introducing appropriate laws in Parliament—some with mandated sentences—to address the incitement of violence and hatred towards Jewish Australians in our society. Every piece of legislation the Liberal-Nationals Coalition has introduced to address antisemitism has been voted down, and today exactly the same thing happened.

This is a rapidly drafted and flawed piece of legislation by the Minns Government. There is not one mention of the word "antisemitism" in the bill before Parliament. How do we address the biggest threat to the Jewish Australian community if it is not even mentioned in the bill? The bill that the Coalition wanted to introduce and debate today—the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Display of Terrorist and Nazi Symbols, Public Assemblies and Law Enforcement Powers) Bill 2025—contained amendments that would address the gap in current New South Wales law by extending existing offences beyond Nazi symbols to cover a broader range of extremist and terrorist symbols. It would target the use of symbols that are deployed to intimidate communities, glorify violence and normalise extremist ideologies. It would also strengthen penalties to reflect the seriousness of the conduct, including higher five‑year maximum penalties in the District Court, not the Local Court jurisdiction, and the introduction of a standard non‑parole period of 1½ years imprisonment.

The Summary Offences Amendment (Public Assemblies) Bill 2025 would introduce measures to address repeat protests, the deliberate shielding of identity of protesters and the recovery of policing costs. It would also preserve the right to lawful protest, while discouraging conduct that imposes unreasonable costs or disruption to the wider community. However, within the Minns Government's bill, the Minister for Police and Counter‑terrorism will make the call on what is referred to as a terrorist event, remembering that only twice in the history of this country has that occurred—the Lindt Cafe siege in 2016 and in Bondi eight days ago. Excuse me if I sound cynical, but the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, who introduced this legislation today, talked about leadership. As the police Minister, she will make the call on whether a terrorist event is evident, but she is the same police Minister who could not even stop a bunch of people in canoes from blocking a coal ship in Newcastle Harbour, right next to her own electorate. So I place little faith in the Minister standing up to defend and be the saviour of Jewish Australians.

The Liberals and Nationals have addressed the serious scourge and continual rise of hateful racism and antisemitism with strong proposed laws, but we have been shouted down and ridiculed by the Labor Party, The Greens and Independent members of this Parliament each and every time—including today. By not addressing and weeding out the root cause of hatred towards the Jewish Australian community in New South Wales, the violence on our streets, the car bombings, the burning of Jewish preschools, the growth in despicable Nazi symbols, the illegal protests at the Opera House that the Jewish community were asked not to attend, and the neo‑Nazi protest at the front of this Parliament promoting the most offensive symbol in human history from the Holocaust in World War II when six million jews were exterminated, have all gone unpunished.

There are no serious punishments, laws or restrictions directed to the radical Islamist extremists who perpetrate those crimes. On the contrary, the lack of action from the Minns Government has resulted in the continual rise in antisemitism, culminating in the subsequent murder of 15 innocent people at Bondi Beach eight days ago. Real leadership is required, but today the Liberal-Nationals Coalition has once again been denied the opportunity to introduce our own bill—a tough bill that provides minimum jail sentences and real protections for Jewish Australians. The bill includes a limit of four guns per person. While I am not a supporter of anyone having guns apart from farmers in rural areas who use them to control feral animals and put down stock that are suffering, target shooters or professional shooters controlling pests, do we really believe restricting the number of guns that people have access to will prevent another terrorist attack in our city?

I put it to the House that I do not believe anyone should have a great arsenal of weapons—up to 300 in some Sydney suburbs, as was highlighted in the media. But do we think a violent terrorist with the objective of killing Jewish Australians cares whether his gun is legal or illegal? I suggest that they do not. A person who has such a radical and deadly disposition will access any gun they can to undertake their heinous, murderous work. The fact is that the murders committed eight days ago by violent, radical Islamist extremists were committed using a total of four guns—exactly the number the Minns Labor Government supports in the bill. In February this year, when the Liberal-Nationals Opposition introduced strong legislation to address the displaying of disgraceful Nazi symbols, the following comment was made by a member of this place. The Leader of the House, the member for Heffron and only Jewish member of the House, said:

This problem does not require a political response; it requires a bipartisan, unified response from both political parties to send out the message that antisemitic acts will not be tolerated by the Parliament of New South Wales.

Today the Leader of the House, the only Jewish member of the House, used politics to prevent the Liberal‑Nationals bill from being debated. He uses politics when it suits him and weasel words when real action is required.

Ms Trish Doyle: Point of order: Mr Speaker, I ask that you direct the member for Kellyville to return to the substance of the bill rather than calling out particular members, whether it is the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism or the Leader of the House, who are not in the Chamber to defend themselves.

The SPEAKER: The member for Kellyville will be more cautious in targeting individuals and speak to the provisions in the bill. I appreciate it is a vexed issue and there is a lot of emotion in the debate. The member has the call.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: I seek an extension of time.

The SPEAKER: A further five minutes is granted.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: I only call out those members who deserve to be called out. They are in government, making the decisions in relation to the bill. Those are the facts. That is why I called them out. I am not in any way attempting to call out members who have done something incorrect or wrong. They are the lawmakers in this Government who must address the rise in violence committed against the Jewish Australian community. I will leave my comments there but, ultimately, I am glad that they have been recorded in Hansard.

The Attorney General made similar remarks in relation to our bill and yet today purported to bring legislation before the House that he believes will strengthen the law and resolve the crimes that are currently being committed against Jewish Australians. I do not believe for one moment that this weak, lily-livered bill will do anything of the sort. Decisive, tough action is required and members cannot take a backward step. Laws must be put in place to address crime, whether that is hate speech, the displaying of Nazi symbols, antisemitism or illegal protests. All of that needs to be dealt with using the full force of the law.

In 2011 I was a member of the previous Government. I place on record that I put in place the legislation that introduced a mandatory jail sentence for anyone who swung a wild, cowardly punch on the streets of Sydney. That was the greatest scourge that the Liberal-Nationals addressed when we came to government in 2011—young people pre-fuelling, getting full of grog, going onto the streets of Sydney, throwing their fists around and killing people. Some of those people were from my electorate. I know their families. The needless loss of life through indiscriminate acts of violence was addressed by putting in place a law to mandate a minimum jail sentence of eight to 10 years. That nipped it in the bud.

I return to the legislation. The objective of the Jewish faith is to provide a peaceful world for everyone. I witnessed that firsthand as the Minister for Multiculturalism in the former Liberal-Nationals Government. In 2016 our then Premier, Mike Baird, was very moved by the photograph of a three-year-old child lying dead on a beach in Syria. That image, which went around the world, so affected the Premier that he decided to bring 5,000 Syrian refugees to New South Wales. That was above and beyond everything that the Federal Government did. The Premier was so moved that he brought those refugees to Australia. As the Minister for Multiculturalism, I was invited to see the care, education and support given to those Syrian refugees by none other than Jewish Australian people at a synagogue in Woollahra. I saw firsthand the dozens of them who were grasping our language and the meaning of being an Australian and who were gaining opportunities in the workforce.

One need look no further than members of the Jewish Australian community, who as their objective in life like to try and improve the life of every person. Yet here they are in fear of walking the streets and of sending their children to school unless they have armed guards and police. It is an absolute disgrace what they have put up with, and it will not be addressed by the weak, lily-livered piece of legislation before this House. The bill needs some guts. It needs some real law and order to undertake the appropriate actions to address this crime and stamp out antisemitism for good, which has no place in this great country.

Mr MARK HODGES ( Castle Hill ) ( 16:50 :44 ): I speak on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. As mentioned by the member for Wahroonga in his contribution to this debate, the Liberal Party will support the bill because we must do what we can to keep the community safe. We will, however, be moving some amendments to improve the Government's bill. The Government has recalled Parliament to introduce the bill to this House for debate because of the horrific actions that occurred at Bondi on 14 December 2025. I give my unequivocal support to members of the Jewish community and pledge that I will work with them to make sure they feel safe in our society.

The actions at Bondi were horrific and have damaged the peaceful Bondi community. Many years ago, when I joined the NSW Police Force and whilst I was attending the then Redfern Police Academy, I resided at North Bondi, a short distance from where the horrific acts of violence occurred. There is no doubt that we, as members of Parliament, must take action to keep our community safe. We must do more than make statements. We must take action to send the strongest possible message to those who propagate hatred in our community that we will not tolerate hate and prejudice in our society. Hate, prejudice and violence will never, ever be accepted in our community.

By recalling Parliament, the Government would have the community believe that New South Wales is facing a crisis that requires emergency action to amend the firearms legislation and other pieces of legislation. Let me be very clear: There is a crisis in this State, but it is not a crisis caused by a lack of legislation over firearms; it is a crisis of violent extremism. There is an emergency, but it is not an emergency which requires caps on licensed gun ownership. A dark ideology has taken root in our State and has been allowed to spread unchecked in our community. That dark ideology has now produced a tragedy of unimaginable proportions. Fifteen innocent and precious lives have been lost because of hatred and prejudice that has grown unchecked in our society and has not been sufficiently addressed.

I know it is uncomfortable for many to hear, particularly those members sitting on the Government benches, but it is necessary to acknowledge that much more could and perhaps should have been done to address the growing hatred and prejudice in our society. Many in our community would say that a much stronger message should have been sent by State and Federal governments that hate and prejudice in our society will not be tolerated. Irene Nemes, who was a senior visiting fellow of law at the University of New South Wales, wrote in a text called Hate Crimes in New South Wales, published by Hawkins Press in 1997, some comments that are relevant to this debate. I will read a paragraph from that particular text. Nemes stated:

In comparison to the alarming rise in antisemitic incidents in the United States and Europe, Australia appears to be a haven of safety for the Jewish people. Certainly, the level of antisemitism in this country is on a different scale. However, any level of antisemitism should be viewed as a danger sign, not only by those directly affected, but also by those to whom the signals are a warning of a trend, which once started, may irrevocably alter the environment in which we all live, Jew and non-Jew alike. Whether antisemitic incidents are on the rise because the level of antisemitic sentiments held by Australians are on the rise, or whether the perpetrators feel more confident about their acts being tolerated, is difficult to determine. One view is that once society begins to tolerate the previously unacceptable, those on the fringe whose inhibitions are released will feel more confident about acting out those prejudices that they already hold. The greater danger lies in allowing such violence to be carried out without challenge. How a society deals with racist elements will determine the quality of life for all its citizens. Violence against Jews which is motivated solely by their membership in that group threatens the safety of all Australians, not only those who are potential victims. Every citizen who experiences anti‑Jewish slogans or myths about the alleged power of Jews, even as a disinterested bystander, becomes a potential convert to antisemitic ideology. Antisemitic sentiments, if allowed to spread, may influence those who are either too young to remember the past, or too naive to question the myths.

It follows that we must do what we can to ensure that antisemitic violence, racial violence and hate-based violence are forever gone from our society. It is in the public interest that Parliament passes the strongest possible legislation to send a clear message. As the shadow Attorney said in his second reading debate speech, we should not tolerate public assemblies on the Sydney Harbour Bridge or on the forecourt of the Opera House. By tolerating such actions, we are sending the wrong message to those who wish to spew hatred in our community. Strong legislation with strong penalties would send a stronger message to those who perpetuate hate-based crimes that their actions are not and will never be tolerated in our society. Terrorism, hate and antisemitism have no place in our society. Whilst I agree that the Government's bill will send a message that hate, prejudice and any form of violence based on hate and prejudice will not be tolerated, I believe the bill could be improved. I also note that the Government only provided the final version of the bill this morning and the Opposition will be moving amendments.

I will now look at some elements of the bill. Schedule 1 amends the Crimes Act 1900. In particular, the bill inserts new section 93ZB, which would proscribe the use of terror symbols. The Government's bill is weaker than the Opposition's Crimes Amendment (Display of Terrorist and Nazi Symbols) Bill 2025, introduced on 11 February 2025. That bill provided that anyone who displayed a Nazi symbol, symbol of a terrorist organisation or a symbol that resembled a Nazi symbol or a terrorist organisation symbol without reasonable excuse would receive a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units or five years imprisonment. The Opposition bill also proposed such a matter be dealt with on indictment in the District Court. The Government's bill is an exceptionally weak facsimile of the Opposition bill. It is clear the Opposition bill was much stronger than the weak Government bill.

Schedule 2 makes amendments to the Firearms Act to introduce restrictions on gun ownership. The amendments to the Firearms Act have resulted in a large amount of correspondence being forwarded to my office, and no doubt to all other members of Parliament. For instance, I received correspondence from one member of society who has five firearms. He said:

I hope the Minns Government ties any gun law changes to the actual event and shows how they could have prevented it. Otherwise it's just scapegoating the gun-owning community and not confronting the actual cause.

Many members of the community will feel that changing the gun laws will not address the real failure to deal with the underlying hate and prejudice in our society. Serious questions need to be answered about why the current legislative powers were not invoked and enforced to prevent the terrorists who perpetuated the hatred on the 14 December from having access to guns. I have received emails from many members of the community who feel the legislation to reduce the number of firearms they hold will unfairly restrict the number of firearms they own. The debate today is about maintaining the civil liberties of law-abiding members of society, on the one hand, and maintaining the safety of the wider community on the other. The safety of the wider community could be maintained if existing laws were carried out and appropriate investigations made before firearms licences were issued.

The Government also did not consult with the community before bringing the bill to the House. I am aware of concerns of members of Parliament who represent regional communities as to the reduction of the number of firearms that a person may possess and use. There is a clear difference between the need for the possession and use of a firearm for those who live on farming land as opposed to those who live in metropolitan Sydney. There will be many people who live in metropolitan Sydney who will say that no person living in the city should need to possess a large number of firearms. We have heard stories of people living in the city with 300 or 400 firearms. I would have preferred a much more detailed consultation with the community before the bill was brought to the House for debate with little notice.

The bill also amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, or LEPRA, with respect to protests. The bill amends the powers of a police officer to require the removal of face coverings for identification purposes. It is another poor attempt by the Government to copy an earlier bill introduced by the Opposition. It is a shame that this Government does not simply adopt the sensible bill that was introduced by the shadow Attorney General earlier this year. The Opposition bill sought to amend LEPRA by inserting section 87ZD, which provided that a person participating in a public assembly must not hide the person's identity or disguise the person's appearance, including by wearing a face covering. [Extension of time]

The Government bill, however, permits a person who is participating in a public assembly to wear a face covering. The Government bill provides that a police officer may require a person to remove a face covering if that person is participating in a protest, demonstration, procession or assembly and the officer reasonably suspects that the person may have or is likely to commit an offence. Under the Government bill, if there is a protest of 200 or 300 people marching down the street, with some of them wearing face masks, police officers have got to go into that rabble, find a person and tell the person to remove their face mask. The sensible position would be to have no face masks when participating in a public assembly or a protest. That is not what the Government bill says. The bill allows a person to wear a face mask while participating in a protest. The Opposition bill said no face masks. Surely, the Opposition bill was far more sensible, but Government members did not want to adopt the sensible approach.

The Coalition will move amendments to strengthen public assembly restrictions after a declared terrorist event to make a protest in a declared area unlawful, with a $1,000 fine for people who participate and five years imprisonment for those who organise divisive public assemblies in the aftermath of a terrorist event. The Coalition amendments would also outlaw protests at the Opera House or on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, because our amendments make them "major facilities" by legislation. The Coalition amendments would strengthen the current protest laws and improve community safety.

Whilst I am disappointed that the Government has not consulted with the community, and I believe that the bill can be improved, we must do what we can to keep the community safe. The bill will not be the end of the work of this Parliament. It will not be the end of the work of the Liberal-Nationals Coalition to improve community safety. It will not be the end of the work of the Liberal-Nationals Coalition to improve the safety of all members of the Jewish community. When Parliament resumes in the new year, I expect that much further work will be carried out to improve public order, enhance social cohesion and keep our community safe. The Liberals and The Nationals will continue to work with the community to strengthen social cohesion and ensure that all communities feel safe in our society. It is totally unacceptable that members of the Jewish community feel persecuted, discriminated against and unsafe in our society. I commend the bill to the House, but I ask members to support the Opposition amendments.

Mr ROBERT DWYER ( Port Macquarie ) ( 17:03 :51 ): I speak in debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. In the wake of the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack in Bondi, it is entirely appropriate and necessary that this Parliament reflects carefully on whether our existing laws are adequate to ensure the safety of our community. First and foremost, my thoughts, and those of the Port Macquarie electorate, remain with the victims, their families and the Jewish community, which, once again, has been forced to confront hatred, fear and violence simply for who they are. The attack was not random. It was not accidental. It was an act of terrorism fuelled by antisemitism, and it must be called out as such.

The Coalition approaches the debate constructively and responsibly. We are here today working with colleagues across the Chamber to ensure that any legislative changes proposed by the Government are sensible, practical and subject to proper consultation. When it comes to laws that directly affect public safety, we have a responsibility to get the legislation right from the outset—not to rush it, politicise it or rely on symbolism at the expense of substance. While I support the bill in principle, I have serious concerns that, as currently drafted, there is a clear lack of consultation with key stakeholders. That is not best practice. It does not adequately address the very threat it claims to respond to.

This bill limits the number of firearms that our 254,000 law-abiding licence holders can have, without taking into account the more than 2,000 firearms that are stolen in Australia each year. Reducing the number of firearms that an individual may lawfully own is only one piece of a much larger and far more complex puzzle. On its own, it will not prevent terrorism. It will not dismantle extremist ideology. It will not address the growing problem of hatred being allowed to fester and spread within our society.

Many of my constituents, particularly those in rural communities, have contacted me with genuine concerns about the speed at which the Mims Labor Government is proposing changes to firearms laws. I quote two examples of the hundreds of emails from my electorate. One reads:

Both Premier Minns and Prime Minister Albanese, within hours of this horrific tragedy announced they would be considering stricter gun laws. This is clearly a knee jerk reaction, ill thought out, and failing to address the actual cause - terrorism, racism and radicalisation. They were quick to report that one of the shooters was licensed and legally owned the firearms used, and as such this is some how justification for tighter laws.

However, the real issue is a failure at both levels of Government in not recognising the risk and dealing with it.

And another reads:

The N.S.W firearm laws are more than sufficiently stringent but possibly not fully enforced due to a lack of authorised strength exacerbated by an unacceptable shortfall in actual Police numbers.

The proposed legislation does not address that shortfall. These are law-abiding people who follow strict licensing requirements, storage regulations and ongoing compliance obligations. For them, firearms are not a political talking point; they are an essential and tightly regulated tool of trade.

We share the view that decisions of this magnitude must be approached carefully, methodically and with proper consultation. Acting hastily risks unintended consequences that may disproportionately affect regional communities without delivering meaningful improvements in public safety. Let me be clear: It is not about resisting reform for the sake of it. The Government controls when Parliament sits and when legislation is introduced. When any bill is brought forward, we will always assess it on its merits, with a clear and unwavering focus on community safety, not on the speed of its introduction.

It is also essential to be honest about what the bill does not do. The bill does nothing to strengthen entry‑level firearms licence applications. In my view, that is a significant omission. If the Government is serious about preventing dangerous individuals from accessing firearms, then the front door—the initial licensing process—must be tougher, more rigorous and more thorough. The bill also does nothing to address the operational capacity of police officers when confronted with extreme and violent situations like the one we witnessed in Bondi. Our police deserve not just our praise but the tools, powers and resources to respond effectively to terrorist threats and active incidents. That conversation cannot be avoided.

Most importantly, we must be absolutely clear that the attack was driven by antisemitism. Firearms policy alone will not prevent terrorism or hatred. If we fail to confront antisemitism directly in our laws, in our institutions and in our public discourse, then we are failing the communities we claim to protect. Confronting antisemitism, radicalisation and violent extremism must remain central to our response. That means strong policing, robust intelligence sharing, early intervention and a willingness to call out hatred whenever it appears, whether online, on our streets or in our institutions. The amendments to protest laws will not stop public assemblies in sensitive areas. The Liberals and The Nationals will continue to stand up for regional communities, work to prevent unlawful firearm use and advocate for policies that genuinely improve community safety. This reform, which aims to improve community safety, strength and social cohesion, needs a royal commission to do it justice. All Australians deserve to live free from fear, hatred and violence. We stand for them. This Parliament must respond, but it must respond wisely, responsibly and with a clear‑eyed understanding of the problem that we are trying to solve.

Mr TIM JAMES ( Willoughby ) ( 17:10 :04 ): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. This should never have happened. To our Jewish community, I am so sorry, ashamed and appalled that it did. Likewise, to all Australians, including the wonderful people of Willoughby, this is not the Australia that I grew up in, know and love. What we saw at Bondi was radical Islamic terrorism. It was extremism. It was antisemitism. It was hate. It was pure evil. And it was what the Jewish community had warned about—begged for action upon—for over two years. So let us be clear about this. We are here because the nation failed, leaders State and Federal failed, agencies failed, systems failed, staff failed and more failed. Appeasement and apologists achieve nothing. That approach is, frankly, part of the failure.

This terrorist act came with many warnings—as I have previously spoken of—at the Opera House, on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and out the front of this very Parliament. Today, sadly, none of what we say and do can bring back those innocent, beautiful, 15 souls. But our response must surely reflect the gravity of what has happened, its truth, its meaning, its history and how we best address the evil and its effects. The most important response needed is moral clarity, leadership that is crystal clear, born out of conviction and with the courage to address the evil and its effects. At Chabad North Shore on Wednesday, within seconds of the completion of a beautiful vigil and the lighting of the menorah, with barely a dry eye in the house, I was asked by a The Sydney Morning Herald journalist what I thought about Chris Minns' proposal for gun law reform. I said, "Let's see what's on the table for gun law reform." I pause to note that I saw the proposal for gun law reform this morning, on this day of sittings, three days from Christmas—the day on which we must apparently vote on it.

More notably, I made it clear to the journalist that the response must be about much more than gun laws. I said, "It's about leadership, culture, rampant antisemitism, immigration and public safety." As I have said to many rabbis and Jewish community leaders this week, the turning point, the descent into darkness was, I believe, all too apparent after the horrors of 7 October 2023. What happened at the Sydney Opera House on 9 October, particularly, in effect, set the tone and the standard, horribly and terribly, for what would follow. It was not just that it was allowed on that night on 9 October, after what had happened in Israel—on what was to have been a night of mourning for the Jewish community, with the sails lit up for them. It proceeded, wildly out of control, with rampant wrongdoing in Sydney, and nothing was done about it. Then it was reviewed, officially, and somehow still little or no real action arose from it. They did not chant "Gas the Jews", the official investigation concluded. But the chants, the threats, the hate, the burning, the evil was plain for all to see. At that point in time, I think I had hardly seen a more disgusting display in my home city.

Then, predictably, there were so many incidents that followed. In the year that followed, 2,062 anti‑Jewish incidents were recorded by the Jewish community. The following year, until 1 October this year, there were 1,654. Every one of them represents a failure. Every one of them represents antisemitism and hatred. Every of them represents hurt. Every of one them harms our nation. The State's response must be so much more, better and more thoughtful and thorough than the bill before us. Good lawmaking is not a rushed, kneejerk reaction. Good lawmaking is not a quick fix and the optics of acting. Good lawmaking is not the subject of zero consultation with affected people and organisations. Good lawmaking is not diverting from the main issues at stake and getting it done in two days. This today feels as though this Parliament is applying a quick bandaid over an open, gaping wound that warrants so much more.

I understand the desire of the community for Parliament to act, to come together, to put politics aside, to show bipartisanship. We can do that. At the same time, let us be open, truthful and accountable. We can and must do so much more, and better. We can and should have a royal commission—a national one. If we can have a royal commission into Robodebt, pink batts and banks, then surely we can have a full royal commission into Australia's worst terrorist attack. I note that the Premier, in joining the call for a royal commission, said:

Until we've got a full and accurate picture of exactly how this happened, with a plan to ensure that it doesn't happen again, then I don't have answers [for] the people of New South Wales about what happened on Sunday.

Reconciling that sensible statement with this rushed and flawed bill is, frankly, impossible. How can he say on the one hand, "Let's take the time and resources of a royal commission and work through it and get it right", but on the other hand, "Let's rush hasty reforms through the Parliament in 48 hours on the eve of Christmas"? I applaud and echo the statements of Josh Frydenberg. His raw, real and personal appeal for action spoke volumes this week for so many people. He and his family—indeed, any family—should not have to live their lives as they do with constant security, high fences, police presence, countless precautions and curtailed freedoms. I want all Australians to be free to live their lives, practise their faiths, abide by our laws, raise their families and build our community with dignity, safety, respect and equality.

Now, a number of reforms in this bill are welcome and, yes, there is some common ground. Many of these reforms should have already been law, and would have been law under earlier Coalition efforts to strengthen our State. On symbols, on face coverings, on protests, the Coalition—many months ago—moved to bring real reform. We saw the need and the risk, and properly brought to this place responsible reforms. Where were those opposite? Why did they vote against them and why only now can they bring themselves to vote for them? On gun laws, we have a model for reform. John Howard showed the nation how to get it done: Work across parties, work with stakeholders and be among the communities concerned—turn up and seek to earn their respect on the reforms; explain your position. Ensure it is quality, not just urgency.

In New South Wales, many reforms relating to firearms can be dealt with administratively. As has been pointed out, the Firearms Act has a robust public safety framework grounded in suitability, lawful purpose and safe storage. Licences can be quickly and readily refused, suspended and revoked by the police commissioner. There are serious questions about why existing laws and processes were not exercised in this instance, and we must know the truth. I do not doubt some tightening can and should be made, but to do it this way, in this time frame, without even working for one moment with law‑abiding farmers and sporting shooters is not going to get us to where we need to be. That this bill is a cognate bill means it is basically take it or leave it in full. It seems clear, and I am told that the numbers will not be here for a better approach—namely, to work to get the reforms right, to scrutinise this further, to develop a real reform plan, to have the benefit of a royal commission's findings and more.

On balance, and regretting that such a serious matter is the subject of such rush and compromise under this Government, I will back this bill—but with a view to making real reforms, better reforms, in time that do much better for our State and community. This State can and must do so much better than this. To the preachers, peddlers and practisers of hate in Australia, I say this: Live by the values of our country and, if you can't, then leave. Go—and take your hate elsewhere. To the Jewish community, I once again say I am sorry. I grieve with you, I share your pain and anger, and I am with you. The light will prevail over the darkness. Your spirit and resolve amidst this terror is an inspiration and we will not let you down. To all Australians I say that this is a seminal moment in our nation's history. Australia must lead, and be led, with moral clarity, with conviction and with courage to do what is right, true and just. We must live accordingly. We must stand up and act for good, for light, for truth and for justice, for our very future depends on it. I thank the House.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS ( Lane Cove ) ( 17:19 :23 ): At the outset I make clear that I do not intend to traverse the technical detail of the clauses of the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Other members have undertaken that task and done so thoroughly. I listened carefully to the able contribution of the shadow Attorney General in particular. I endorse the substance of his remarks and place on record my support for the Opposition's proposed amendments to the Government's bill. This is serious legislation. It is being advanced in serious circumstances. It arises from one of the most confronting and traumatic events our State has experienced in recent memory—a terrorist attack in the heart of Sydney. Lives were lost. A community has been shattered. A deep sense of shock, fear and grief runs throughout New South Wales, the Commonwealth and, indeed, the world. Parliament needed to meet to express its collective sorrow, reflect on what has occurred, and stand in solidarity with those most deeply affected. In that respect, the recall of Parliament is entirely justified.

It is deeply disappointing that we have arrived at this moment only after catastrophe. As the member for Willoughby stated, we are now asked in the final days before Christmas to consider an expansive omnibus bill drafted at speed to amend multiple Acts. It is presented under conditions of urgency that leave this House with little time for proper scrutiny. That is not how strong laws are usually made. Mr Speaker, as you and the members of this House know, few laws passed by this Parliament have been written quickly, and fewer still have been written under the emotional pressure of national trauma.

This trauma did not come without warning. For years, Jewish Australians warned that antisemitism was on the rise. They warned that intimidation and harassment were becoming normalised. They warned that extremist hatred was being tolerated under the guise of protest by what some would regard as useful idiots. We all saw the scenes outside the Sydney Opera House and the marches that followed. We saw the weekly demonstrations. We saw the threats, arson, vandalism, violence and intimidation, yet the warnings were not heeded. The Government's response was hesitant and because of that hesitation, in some cases, it was legally unsound. Certain measures the Government passed were struck down by the Supreme Court. Other measures the Government pursued plainly failed to address the underlying problem. The core issue—deep-seated, organised and emboldened antisemitism—was not confronted with the seriousness it demanded.

The Liberal-Nationals Coalition introduced bills, yet they were ignored and voted down by those opposite. Now, in the aftermath of terror, the Government has been jolted into action. That is not a position of strength. It is a position of regret by this Government. As the shadow Attorney General outlined, the Opposition does not oppose the objective of protecting community safety. We do not oppose genuine counterterrorism measures. We do not oppose equipping police with appropriate powers where they are justified and proportionate. But, as we know, process matters. Precision matters. Accountability matters.

The bill casts a very wide net. It reaches well beyond the immediate drivers of the attack that have brought us here today. It is particularly concerning that law‑abiding firearms licence holders are now being drawn into the legislative response. They are people who comply with one of the most heavily regulated regimes in the world. They are not responsible for the growth of extremist hatred in our State. Using them as a substitute for confronting policy failures by this Government on antisemitism is profoundly disappointing. It risks deflecting responsibility rather than owning it. Responsibility that also lies beyond this Parliament. The failure of the Albanese Federal Labor Government to act decisively against the spread of antisemitism has shaped the national environment in which this hatred was allowed to flourish. That failure alone will be remembered by many Australians for many years to come.

The bill exists because earlier warnings were continually ignored, and earlier action was not taken. Because leadership came too late. As we debate this legislation, we must do so with seriousness and restraint. We must ensure that urgency does not become an excuse for poor lawmaking. I have been in this place for 22 years, and I can tell members the bill before us today is lacking on a number of levels. I ask this Government to accept its failures and the fact that the Opposition is—once again and in good faith—bringing it amendments that will make change. We must ensure that grief does not override good judgement. Most importantly, we must ensure that the Jewish community of New South Wales knows that this Parliament understands what measures have failed and what it can do better. That is the responsibility before us today. It is a responsibility we must meet with honesty, care and resolve. I ask members opposite to support us to ensure that a difference and a change is made.

Mrs WENDY TUCKERMAN ( Goulburn ) ( 17:27 :02 ): I speak in debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 in the shadow of an appalling act of violence that has shocked our State and our nation. On behalf of my electorate, I begin by acknowledging the victims of the terrorist attack at Bondi, their families, their friends and all those whose lives have been changed forever. I acknowledge the courage of the community, police and first responders who ran towards danger. I also acknowledge the Jewish community, which has endured fear, grief and unacceptable hatred that has led to this crime. This horrific, senseless act of terrorism was fuelled by religious vilification and extremist ideologies. It deserves our strongest condemnation and our most serious response.

It is precisely because of the gravity of this tragedy that Parliament must proceed with care, clarity and honesty. When we legislate in haste, the risk is not that we do too little but that we do the wrong thing. The bill avoids naming the dominant extremist threat. It speaks broadly of "terrorism" but avoids confronting Islamist violent extremism, which remains the dominant terror threat identified by Australian security agencies. When legislation avoids naming the threat, it defaults to broad restrictions on everyone instead of targeted disruption of extremist ideologies.

I turn to the part of the bill that speaks to changes to firearms legislation. Australia's firearms framework is not weak. In fact, it is globally recognised as one of the most stringent regulatory systems in the world. Since the reforms introduced after Port Arthur, mass casualty shootings in this country have been extraordinarily rare. Because such events are so rare, what occurred in Bondi is all the more confronting. But rarity does not justify reaction. It demands examination.

Since the events of Sunday, I have received an enormous volume of correspondence from constituents across the Goulburn electorate and beyond. These voices matter, because they are the people who live with the consequences of laws that we pass in this House. They include farmers, business owners, veterans, sporting shooters, firearms dealers and community leaders. While certainly some have supported sensible reforms, particularly around issues such as citizenship, overwhelmingly they are asking the same fundamental questions: Where did the system fail and why are compliant citizens now being treated as the cause of that failure?

Almost all of my constituents who have written to me expressed both their grief and sorrow at the events in Bondi. Most told me that they support strong firearms regulation and a sensible review of the laws, particularly where there are links to terrorism and violent extremism. But most also wrote to me to warn the Government that the public conversation has become dangerously narrow. They observed that media coverage has focused almost exclusively on firearms, while largely ignoring ideology, police resourcing, early intervention and radicalisation pathways. History shows us that individuals who are intent on terrorism adapt when firearms are unavailable. They turn to knives, vehicles, arson or explosives. We have seen this in Bondi. We have seen it in Melbourne. We have seen it internationally. The instrument changes; the intent does not.

This bill makes it harder for law-abiding farmers, sporting shooters, businesses and collectors to comply with the law. It does not meaningfully disrupt the pathways that lead to terrorist violence, and legislation must be honest enough to target it. Gun club membership provides technical compliance, not ideological safety. Club membership is not a substitute for counter-extremism screening. Currently, extremist individuals can appear compliant, attend clubs and remain under the radar. The Firearms Act amendments proposed are extensive, but to what end? The Firearms Act already provides broad powers to refuse, suspend or revoke licences where a person is not fit and proper, where criminal intelligence exists or where continued possession is not in the public interest. These powers have existed for many years. If they were not applied effectively in this case, that is not a legislative failure; it is a failure of enforcement, intelligence integration or oversight.

Firearms are not political abstractions that can be used as a scapegoat for this political theatre. Guns are tools used to protect livestock, manage feral animals and humanely euthanise injured stock. They are essential to animal welfare, biosecurity and land management. Constituents have made it clear that firearms are not interchangeable. Different calibres and platforms serve different purposes. Restricting access to particular types of firearms or imposing arbitrary numerical limits will not improve safety, but it will result in poorer animal welfare outcomes, increased pest populations and significant operational challenges for those working the land. I have also received correspondence from a local family-run business in Goulburn that uses firearms for essential pest control. It emphasised the practical realities of firearms use in its work, explaining that different pest species, locations, safety requirements and laws necessitate a variety of firearms. I read an excerpt from this letter, which states:

As a pest contractor, I can assure you for our business being told that 10 firearms will be sufficient is demonstrating zero knowledge on the matter. Currently we have over 20 firearms … to meet the operational requirements of peri-urban operations.

Restricting the number or type of legally held firearms, the business argued, would severely impact its operations, other professional pest contractors and sporting shooters, with potentially significant economic consequences. It also warned that reactionary legislative changes could unintentionally achieve the goals of those who seek to divide our society, rather than addressing the root causes of terrorism and violence.

I have heard from the sporting shooters including the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Goulburn and District Branch, representing hundreds of local members. They condemned the antisemitism and extremist ideology that motivated this attack. But they also raised serious concerns about the legislative haste being shown by the Labor Government. They asked why, when investigations are still underway and coronial findings are yet to be made, the Government is rushing to amend firearms legislation without giving Parliament, stakeholders or the community time to consider the evidence. NSW Farmers is also particularly concerned about the lack of meaningful consultation, particularly around firearms caps and the practicalities of farmers having to sign up to a gun club in order to keep their licence.

Changing the licence renewal period from five years to two years is just more red tape for law-abiding farmers who just want to get on with their job of producing the best food and fibre in the world. My constituents have asked why licensed firearms owners—arguably the most heavily scrutinised and legislated group in Australia—are being demonised, when preliminary reporting suggests there were significant red flags that were either missed or not acted upon within existing systems. While the bill is presented as a response to terrorism, we must carefully consider its practical effects. The Bondi attack, while abhorrent, involved individuals who exploited extreme ideology, not legal firearm frameworks. The amendments to the Firearms Act, while politically symbolic, will have a negligible effect on preventing such attacks and carry significant operational, financial and community impacts.

The Firearms Act already provides broad powers to refuse, suspend or revoke licences where a person is not fit and proper, where criminal intelligence exists or where continued possession is not in the public interest. These powers have existed for many years. I have also heard from firearms dealers in my electorate, including second-generation family businesses with decades of experience. They have seen what happens when sweeping changes are rushed through without proper consultation. They have described the economic damage, job losses, administrative chaos and confusion that followed previous reforms, often with minimal safety benefits. They have warned that proposals such as moving firearms between licence categories or imposing ownership caps may look decisive on paper, but in practice often achieves little beyond paperwork, compliance costs and enforcement strain.

The message from my electorate is not that reform should never occur; the message is that reform must be justified, proportionate, based on evidence not fear, and not a knee-jerk reaction so that politicians can be perceived as doing something. [Extension of time]

While this bill makes certain changes to firearms regulation and the display of terrorist symbols, it fails to address one of the root causes of extremism in our community: the public expression of hate. As the member for Wahroonga pointed out, despite repeated statements by the Premier, this legislation explicitly contains no restrictions on hate speech. Furthermore, the measures in the bill are all reactive—they depend on the declaration of a terrorist incident or police suspicion that an offence has occurred. This approach treats the symptoms, not the causes of the hatred that has led to tragic outcomes in our community. It is not the proactive legislation that was promised. For the past year, the Coalition in this place has been seeking to address this problem.

On 13 February the Coalition presented two private members' bills to strengthen laws regarding the public display of terrorist symbols and to tighten the laws around public assemblies. When we attempted to amend the Government's Crimes Legislation Amendment (Racial and Religious Hatred) Bill 2025 to outlaw terrorist symbols, close loopholes relating to symbols that are deceptively similar to terrorist symbols and increase penalties, those sensible amendments were opposed by the Premier, Labor members, The Greens and some Independents. Similarly, attempts to amend protest laws to prevent extremist demonstrations were both blocked. The legislation does little to proactively prevent hate-driven activity in New South Wales. It does not give police the tools they need to restrain socially corrosive protests or to intervene before innocent people are harmed.

The Coalition will continue to advocate for amendments that address the causes of extremism, empower law enforcement to act before tragedy strikes and send a clear message that the public expression of hate will not be tolerated in our State. I also address the deep concern about the broader context in which this bill is being debated. Many constituents have expressed frustration that warnings from Jewish leaders about rising antisemitism were not acted upon earlier. These are legitimate questions from my constituents and the constituents of New South Wales. Parliament, the Labor Government and Premier Chris Minns owe the public answers. We cannot allow the New South Wales Parliament to become a place where tragedies are followed by symbolism, blame is shifted onto compliant citizens and complex failures are reduced to simple narratives for a media headline. The role of government is not only to appear strong; it is also to be effective. If this Parliament is serious about preventing future acts of terrorism, then its focus must be on intelligence capability, earlier intervention, radicalisation pathways, enforcement of existing powers and community protection.

I do not oppose evidence‑based reform; I oppose legislation that alienates regional communities, and I oppose using law‑abiding Australians as a substitute for confronting uncomfortable failures within government systems. As the member for Goulburn, I will continue to advocate for policies that are fair, proportionate and grounded in reality. I will stand with my community in calling for accountability where systems have failed, and for restraint where reaction threatens to do more harm than good. The victims of Bondi deserve justice, the community deserves safety, and Parliament owes both of them laws that are thoughtful, effective and worthy of their trust. For those reasons, I cannot support the bill.

Mr MICHAEL KEMP ( Oxley ) ( 17:40 :39 ): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Our nation witnessed a devastating tragedy on 14 December at Bondi Beach. It is a horrifying reality that there are people living within Australia who are driven by radical and extreme views, consumed by hatred and capable of committing such senseless acts of violence. My thoughts are with the innocent Jewish Australian families who were targeted and with the first responders and bystanders who faced unimaginable scenes, risking their own lives to save others. My thoughts are also with every faith community and every Australian who has felt the shock of this attack. It must be clearly said that extreme ideology based on race, religion and radicalisation has no place in Australia.

The attack was un-Australian. It was antisemitic. It stood in direct opposition to the values that bind this country together: respect, acceptance, tolerance and following the rule of law. Antisemitic views and government inaction were part of the problem that caused the Bondi attack. Punishing law‑abiding gun owners now is not the answer. Pushing through rushed, kneejerk reactions on gun reform is not the answer. I say to the Premier that this is his vanity project: a decision made first, then policy on the run. We will not see the impact for months, despite the pretend urgency that has been set up to make the Premier think he looks good. He cannot seriously claim that this is the right way to reform legislation in New South Wales, when it is being done without evidence, without consultation and without addressing the real cause of what happened at Bondi.

Someone willing to commit mass violence is not deterred by magazine size or arbitrary capacity limits. They are not deterred by compliance. They are driven by ideology. They will use whatever means they can. We have seen that before, including in Sydney at the Lindt Cafe. Guns are being used as a scapegoat at the moment, while the Government avoids confronting extremism, radicalisation and its own inaction. This Government was warned by members of the public, and it was warned by members of Parliament through Opposition bills. One of my constituents even wrote directly to the Premier on 11 October 2023, clearly warning that without action on antisemitism, hatred and extremism an atrocity might occur. He followed that up on 13 November 2023, questioning why no action had been taken and asking how the Premier intended to address antisemitic views. That constituent is in the gallery today, and I have both letters right here to give the Premier if he needs reminding, because that warning was ignored.

The Jewish community warned the Government, but inaction allowed the threat to grow. Meanwhile, protests plastered across our most iconic landmarks were resourced with taxpayer money, giving extremists a platform and fuelling antisemitism. It was a disgusting waste of resources that the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House protests were allowed to go ahead. There were hundreds of police officers stationed to monitor the protests, compared with only three at Bondi during the Jewish celebration, after the Jewish community had expressed fear over antisemitic hate. Palestine remains ruled by Hamas, a recognised terrorist organisation. Until Palestinians are free from Hamas, aligning with that movement in this country means turning a blind eye to antisemitism. That is an uncomfortable truth, but it must be said.

I acknowledge the innocent people caught up in that conflict, but acknowledging suffering does not mean excusing terrorism, and this Government has failed to understand that line. Radicalisation does not appear overnight; it is allowed to grow where it is tolerated. Universities receiving taxpayer funding have become platforms for extremist ideology, such as the Palestinian encampment at the University of Sydney, where radical views were promoted, and Jewish students were harassed. Taxpayers should not be funding institutions or protests that foster hatred.

In February this year, because Labor would not do it, the Coalition put forward two strong pieces of legislation that would have helped protect against antisemitism: the Summary Offences and Other Legislation Amendment (Public Assemblies) Bill 2025 and the Crimes Amendment (Display of Nazi and Terrorist Symbols) Bill 2025. Premier Minns and his Labor Government voted against them. They blocked them. That decision helped create the environment in which this attack occurred. How can the people of New South Wales give a standing ovation to the Premier, whose Government played a role in the attack through inaction?

What we are seeing now are symbolic gestures and headline reforms designed to appease public anger and city voters. It is political game‑playing. We saw that when support was rushed out within days for businesses near Bondi—businesses that were physically impacted for a single day, and obviously significantly emotionally impacted. However, businesses in my electorate that were devastated by floods were closed for weeks, and in some cases have still not reopened. We waited months for the same level of help. If people want to give a leader a standing ovation, they should consider the Leader of the Opposition. Not only has she advocated strongly for antisemitism laws, but she also stood up when it counted and ran straight into the fray to help victims.

Let us talk about the Government's failure. We know the son was linked to ISIS—ASIO had him flagged. His New South Wales security licence is reported to have been revoked. Those warnings were passed to the NSW Police Force, but they were not then passed on to the New South Wales Firearms Registry. The father, a non‑citizen, applied for a firearms licence in 2020 and was granted one three years later, despite living with and being closely associated with someone involved with ISIS. Why? That is a failure of communication, enforcement and accountability across multiple government departments. Yet, instead of fixing that failure, this Government is choosing to punish law‑abiding firearms-owning citizens.

I own firearms. Four out of five families of the people who work in my electorate office have licensed firearm owners—and I am the only male. There are thousands of licensed firearm owners in Oxley. There has been zero consultation with regional MPs, who actually understand firearms. There has been zero consultation with farmers, zero consultation with sporting shooters and zero consultation with country mayors. A late-night five-minute phone call by the Minister is not consultation; it is proof that this policy was made on the run and has been rushed.

The Government acts as though firearms are one size fits all. I tell the Premier that he cannot use an air rifle to deal with a feral pig, and I would not use a shotgun to deal with a mouse. There are many flaws in the bill. Contract pest controllers are barely mentioned at all, yet they need the widest variety of guns. Arbitrary firearms caps ignore the reality of farming, hunting and competitive shooting. Removing P650 exemptions threatens gun clubs, training pathways and recruitment. The confusing references to belt‑fed firearms demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of what is actually already illegal.

Legislation that assumes every firearm user is a recreational shooter is misguided. I do not need to register at a gun club—I have 2,500 acres and shoot out of necessity to protect my livestock and my land. I do not have the time to join a gun club. It is not appropriate. Shortening licence periods adds bureaucracy with no safety benefit and places further strain on an already under‑resourced Firearms Registry. Who pays for that? Is it the farmer through higher costs or the consumer through higher food and fibre prices?

What makes the bill worse is that the loudest voices shaping this debate are city-based politicians with no practical firearms experience. That is exactly what is broken in Australian politics. If gun reform is to be discussed seriously, it should be led by those who understand firearms because they use them every day and are experts. This legislation is about appeasing anger in the city and deflecting responsibility, not improving safety. It will not bring back those 15 people who lost their lives. It will deepen the divide between city and country and punish people who have done nothing wrong, rather than the government departments that did. Extremism and radicalisation are the problem, and law-abiding firearm owners are not. We should be strengthening intelligence sharing, acting on warnings early, supporting a strong National Firearms Register, implementing recurring background checks linked to criminal intelligence and establishing a Commonwealth royal commission into the Bondi attack. [Extension of time]

We are a country of tolerance and acceptance. This attack was un-Australian. I stand beside the victims of Bondi, I stand beside the first responders and I stand beside my community. Australia must be clear about its values. Anyone in this country, whether on a visa or as a citizen, who rejects our values, engages in hate speech, glorifies terrorism, promotes antisemitism or desecrates our national flag must face the full force of the law. For non-citizens, that means deportation. For citizens, their citizenship should be reviewed. I condemn antisemitism and I condemn radical extremism. I stand with taxpayers who are not willing to foot the bill for ongoing protests. I stand with law-abiding gun licence holders in New South Wales who refuse to be scapegoated for government failure. The bill should be split into its separate components. For that reason, I cannot support it.

Ms STEPH COOKE ( Cootamundra ) ( 17:51 :50 ): I begin by expressing, on behalf of the people of the Cootamundra electorate, my deepest condolences to the victims of the horrific terror attack in Bondi, their families, loved ones and all those who have been affected. Our thoughts are also with the first responders, health workers and community members who acted with courage and compassion in the face of such violence. I oppose the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 based on schedules 2 and 3, which propose significant changes to the Firearms Act 1996. Those changes will have serious consequences for lawful firearm owners across rural and regional New South Wales, including in my electorate of Cootamundra.

My electorate lies many hours from Sydney, where the horrific events that have prompted the bill occurred. While those events demand a serious and thoughtful response, this legislation has been brought forward at speed, with insufficient consideration of its practical impacts and containing provisions that are flawed and poorly targeted. The Bondi terror attack was horrifying. It was a violent act driven by hatred and antisemitism. We owe the people of New South Wales measures that target the drivers of terror and hate, not measures that scapegoat lawful people who continue to do the right thing. In my electorate of Cootamundra, families are doing what families on the land have always done: protecting livestock, controlling pests and getting on with the job of earning a living. They do it under some of the strictest firearms laws in the world. They are hardworking, law-abiding people.

Schedule 2 makes significant changes to how firearms are classified. Moving entire classes of currently lawful firearms from one category to another is not a minor adjustment. It represents a fundamental change to the firearms framework, and its practical impact will fall most heavily on regional and rural users, including farmers managing pests and animal welfare and those legally contracted to assist them. Schedule 2 inserts a new section 8A that imposes a numerical cap on the number of firearms that a licensee may possess across all licence categories. For primary production, it sets the cap at 10. For sport or target shooting, it sets the cap at the greater of 10 or a number approved by the commissioner under the regulations. For all other licence holders, it sets the cap at four. Dealers and collectors are exempt.

That is one of the most damaging and least defensible elements of schedule 2—a cap and a number, written into law, regardless of the size of somebody's farm, the nature of their pest problem or what tools they need to manage animals and protect their livelihood humanely. For many people in the city, a cap might sound neat and tidy. But in the real world, on real farms, that is not how things work. A farmer might need different firearms for different purposes, used safely and lawfully. The bill treats that reality like it does not exist. Schedule 2 repeals section 6B altogether, which currently provides exemptions for unlicensed persons shooting on approved ranges under supervision, and for people undertaking firearms safety courses under supervision—that is, it removes a supervised pathway that is explicitly designed around safety, structured training and controlled environments.

In our electorate, clubs are not just sporting venues; they are community institutions, many of which have existed for over 100 years—such as the Cootamundra Rifle Club, which was established in 1888, and the Ungarie Rifle Club, established in 1921. They are run by volunteers. Removing the P650 process simply makes no sense. Schedule 2 amends deceased estates provisions so that executors must comply with nominated arrangements and authorises a police officer to seize a firearm that is the subject of the notification to the commissioner. Members should reflect on what that means in practice. Death is already a difficult time for families and estates already have legal frameworks. The bill adds a new pre-planning obligation for every licensee and then overlays it with enforcement settings that will create confusion and distress, especially in regional and rural areas where the tyranny of distance already makes access to dealers, transport and administrative support more difficult.

Schedule 2 ties the issue of licences and permits to Australian citizenship, with limited exceptions for certain New Zealand citizens and any classes prescribed by regulation. It also adds citizenship conditions to interstate recognition and interstate residents moving to New South Wales. The bill also provides that existing licences or permits held by non-Australian citizens cease to have effect from commencement, and states that no compensation is payable. Why the Government did not pursue those citizenship changes through a regulatory change is absolutely beyond me. Schedule 2 inserts a new condition into section 19 so that licensees must be a member of a club approved by the commissioner, unless exempted by regulation.

This is not a small matter. There are already genuine reason frameworks in the Act where club membership is relevant to particular reasons, such as sport and target shooting. But this change takes a longstanding, targeted concept and turns it into a broad condition, with exemptions to be sorted out later in regulation. That is not good lawmaking. Schedule 2 reduces the general term of a licence to two years. Whatever view members take about renewal cycles in theory, in practice that will increase the workload of the Firearms Registry, increase costs and the administrative burden for lawful licensees, and risk delays and processing errors. If the Government's priority is public safety, it should focus on capability and enforcement, not paper churning in the Firearms Registry.

Schedule 2 scraps NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal review pathways, and then goes further by providing that any application made to the tribunal and not finally determined before the commencement of this legislation is taken to have been withdrawn. This goes to the issue of basic fairness. Independent reviews exist for a reason. They protect the public from errors, protect individuals from arbitrary decision-making and strengthen confidence in our system of government. There are other measures to deal front on with terror and antisemitism and strengthen community safety without rushing through a bill that dramatically reshapes the lawful firearms regime in New South Wales. Schedule 2 to the bill is not just too broad, too blunt and too rushed; it is entirely unnecessary.

That brings me to what I believe sits underneath all of this for the people I represent across the Cootamundra electorate, whether they have a firearms licence and own firearms or not. There is no trust left in this Government on issues like this. People in the regions have watched this pattern again and again. They have watched decisions made here in Macquarie Street through a city lens, with city assumptions about how people live. They have watched government talk about consultation and then ignore what it is told. They have watched bureaucratic processes become heavier and heavier while the practical realities of rural life are dismissed as an inconvenience. When a government does not understand rural and regional communities, it ends up treating us like a problem to manage, not a part of New South Wales to respect. This bill reeks of that attitude. It is not right to punish lawful people for the actions of criminals. It is not right to pass major reform at speed without properly bringing the community along. It is another attack on rural and regional New South Wales. [Extension of time]

This is another message from a city-centric government that says, "We know best," while proving once again that it does not understand the lives of the people who feed and clothe this State—the people who keep our towns running and who raise families far from the services and the safety nets that city residents often take for granted. If the Government wants to protect the community, it should bring forward reforms that are targeted, evidence based, properly consulted on and aimed at the real causes of violence and extremism. But this bill, particularly schedule 2, is not that. It is unfair, and I fear it will deepen the divide between the city and the country at the very moment when we need unity.

In closing, I acknowledge the local shooting clubs across my electorate who took time over the weekend to share practical advice and local experience before the legislation was even available in a draft format. They are volunteer-run clubs. They are serious about safety, training and compliance, and they are part of the fabric of regional communities. In particular, I thank the Cowra Pistol Club, West Wyalong Clay Target Club, Junee Ex‑Services Memorial Rifle Club, Grenfell Gun Club, Junee Clay Target Club, West Wyalong Small Bore and Air Rifle Club, Cootamundra Rifle Club, Ungarie Rifle Club, Cowra Gun Club, Barellan Clay Target Club, Boorowa Clay Target Club and Ganmain Gun Club. I also acknowledge the assistance of a friend known as Chappo. He has given his time generously and shared his experience thoughtfully at all hours. His background spans rural New South Wales, frontline policing, fire safety training, and decades of lawful and responsible firearms use. I have valued his guidance greatly and could not have made this contribution today without his help. I oppose this bill, and I urge other members of this place to follow suit.

Mr MARK TAYLOR ( Winston Hills ) ( 18:04 :17 ): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I normally start my contributions to debates on bills by saying it is a pleasure, but I make today's contribution with a heavy heart. At the outset, I acknowledge the deep sadness felt across New South Wales following the horrific terrorist attack in Bondi. I place on record my condolences to the families and friends of the 15 victims who lost their lives, and note that sorrow is shared right across the Winston Hills electorate. This was a confronting and deeply distressing act of violence that has shaken communities and caused immense grief. Nothing in this debate should distract from the loss of innocent life or the trauma experienced by those who were directly affected.

I also recognise the outstanding bravery and professionalism of the first responders who attended the scene—the police, the paramedics, the lifeguards and the emergency personnel who acted so swiftly and courageously in very difficult circumstances. Their actions no doubt saved lives, brought order to chaos and provided compassion at a moment of profound distress. They deserve our sincere thanks and our respect. We also saw the outstanding bravery of civilian bystanders whose instinctive actions to assist others in moments of danger deserve equal recognition and our heartfelt thanks.

This bill brings together a wide range of amendments across several pieces of legislation, including the Crimes Act, the Firearms Act, laws governing policing powers and provisions relating to public assemblies. Since the attack in Bondi on 14 December, my office has received a huge amount of correspondence from constituents right across the Winston Hills electorate. The messages have been thoughtful, respectful and united in their condemnation of terrorism and their solidarity with the Jewish community. This feedback highlights the importance of identifying the root cause of the problem that we are here seeking to address. There is concern within my community that elements of this bill, particularly those relating to lawful firearms ownership, may not have direct connection to preventing acts of terrorism or immediately improving public safety.

That is not to suggest that firearms regulation is unimportant, nor to diminish the role of strong regulation frameworks. Rather, it is to question whether reforms of this scale and breadth should be advanced in the context of a counterterrorism response without sufficient consultation with the affected stakeholders. I place on record the concerns raised by the sporting shooters, hunters and those associated with the primary production industries that are from the Winston Hills electorate. Those groups have contacted my office to express unease that lawful and responsible firearms use is being drawn into the legislative response to terrorism. For many of these constituents, firearms are tools of the trade, sporting equipment or land management tools that have been used safely and lawfully for many decades.

Several messages from constituents illustrate this message clearly. One constituent from Toongabbie wrote to my office, noting that the overwhelming majority of firearms licence holders in New South Wales are law abiding, comply with strict regulation requirements and are committed to safety. He expressed concern that changes risk undermining trust between responsible licence holders and the government of the day. Another constituent, from Kings Langley, wrote to express his solidarity with the Jewish community following the attack while sharing his fear that the proposed changes may lead to the loss of his firearms that hold deep personal and family significance for him. For him, those firearms represent a connection to his family history and shared experiences passed down through the generations. He expressed dismay that he now must carry the responsibility for the actions of some radicalised criminal.

Others from across the electorate wrote about how this these changes may unfairly have a significant impact on law-abiding farmers, hunters and those involved in the primary industries. These are just some examples of the countless emails, phone calls and visits to my office that I have received from constituents who are grieving, who are concerned, and who are seeking reassurance that the legislative response will be fair, proportionate and directed at the true cause of the violence. In considering the bill, I acknowledge and concur with views expressed by the member for Wahroonga regarding the breadth of the legislation and the importance of separating complex reforms for proper scrutiny. The bundling of multiple significant changes into a single bill makes it difficult for the Parliament and the community to assess each measure on its merits.

Good legislation is built through consultation, evidence and careful deliberation. Many constituents have expressed concern that the bill appears rushed and that meaningful consultation with affected communities has been limited. There is also a strong view that much of what is proposed will not deliver immediate improvements to community safety. While protections and responses are being debated, the question remains whether the measures directly address the risks they seek to mitigate. I also emphasise that the underlying drivers of the Bondi attack were antisemitism, extremist ideology and hatred. Those concerns align with broader concerns about the growth of division, hostility and radicalisation in our community over time.

I refer to comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in outlining the shocking events that have taken place in New South Wales over the past couple of years in the lead-up to the attack at Bondi Beach. They include the chanting on the Opera House steps on 9 October 2023, harassment of Jewish students at university campuses, Jewish children being unable to wear school uniform in public, online doxxing, boycotting of Jewish businesses and the firebombing of property and synagogues. Recognising and addressing drivers like those events requires a sustained effort, vigilance and leadership beyond legislative change.

I conclude by acknowledging the deep sadness felt across the Winston Hills community in response to the events. Constituents are grieving. They are concerned and seeking reassurance that Parliament will respond thoughtfully and responsibly. It is in that spirit that I make my remarks, with the hope that our response will honour the victims, support affected communities and strengthen social cohesion as we move forward.

Mr JORDAN LANE ( Ryde ) ( 18:11 :45 ): I support the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 but lament the circumstances in which it is being considered. Only after the murder of 15 innocent people, in what was a heinous act of evil, are we in this place to rush through legislation that deals with three main issues. I will deal with each individually but not without first acknowledging what the bill does not deal with, and the main cause of the tragedy in Bondi: unchecked antisemitism and the erosion of social harmony in this State. The bill should be about that. Instead, it deals with the ancillary. That is important but by no means the reason that two people committed Australia's deadliest terrorist attack in Bondi just over a week ago.

I feel I have to raise that matter to reflect what I hear all too often from my constituents in Ryde: that governments and Parliaments only ever act when it is too late. We see it every day with traffic black spots. The data never supports action until there is a fatality. Regional communities are almost always forgotten until there is a devastating flood or bushfire. I am watching it play out now with artificial intelligence. The Government barely understands it, let alone knows how to empower it for good. That latency drives cynicism in politics, which is why today cannot be the end of our response to the Bondi incident. However, the bill does some things that I believe offer some good for society, even if imperfect or incomplete.

This moment marks an inflection point for our country. How we decide to act now will determine the course of our society into the future. If we take a stand, it will signal that we take the issue seriously, that we recognise that the culture of our country has changed and that we are choosing not to accept an erosion of our way of life, thrust upon us by our enemies. If we do not act, the signal we send is one of acceptance—that we accept forces of evil dictating our lives, that we accept a less safe society and that we accept that harmony and diversity are no longer the hallmarks that attract the best and brightest to our shores from everywhere in the world. We need to decide. While the bill deals with only part of the issue, it is nevertheless a part that cannot be ignored if it will make even a small difference.

On guns, I have long held serious concerns about firearms. I respect primary producers and regional communities, and I do not claim to fully understand the lived experience of lawful firearm owners whose livelihoods or way of life depend on them. But the community I represent is metropolitan, culturally diverse, increasingly dense and composed of people working professional, service-based or localised jobs. We do not have the same need for firearms that exist elsewhere, and the risks associated with them are necessarily different. It is for that reason that I was so outraged when the same Government now introducing these laws today sought to weaken gun laws just a matter of months ago. It sought to do that as part of a political deal with the Shooters party to secure political support for completely unrelated laws concerning workers compensation.

For those who oppose guns, it was deeply offensive. But even for those who support sensible and lawful gun ownership, it should have been equally troubling to see such a serious matter treated as a bargaining chip for political convenience. It was wrong on every level and exposed an uncomfortable truth about the standards of integrity of this Government. I raise that because the only thing that frustrates the public more than latency and a reactionary approach to policy is when we fail to exceed the frankly low public expectation for integrity in their political leaders.

In that vein, I am remaining consistent in my conviction that we can do more on guns in this State, not just because of the events in Bondi. That it took a tragedy to act is, in fact, a tragedy, but I would not be consistent with my own conscience if I did not support the changes. Requiring the recipient of a gun licence to be an Australian citizen, communicating with intelligence agencies before determining whether to issue a gun licence and seeking to reduce the number of guns available overall, particularly high-powered ones, are all commonsense reforms that I support.

Those aspects of the bill that encroach further on a lawful gun owner's ability to obtain and use guns have caused consternation. I acknowledge those who have expressed that to me respectfully. It is for that reason that I feel it is appropriate for the new laws to be reviewed promptly—that is, within 12 months—so we can resolve any unintended consequences, weigh up risks with benefits and learn from the data collected. That should be standard with most legislation, but particularly legislation that is rushed. We should also seek to ensure that the $7.9 million of funding inserted into the budget by the Minns Government to promote guns and hunting is not just reapportioned, but that such a callous act can never happen again. Guns should not be a card for the Government to trade away next time it finds itself in political trouble. As we now know, lives are lost when guns fall into the wrong hands, and that must never be enabled.

On protests, since October 7 we have seen ongoing and relentless protests in this State—too much of it provocative, dangerous and hateful. I am a strong supporter of civic engagement, but the right to protest is not absolute. There is a fundamental difference between protesting the actions of a foreign government and targeting people under the guise of protesting a government. Australians are entitled to protest government policies, foreign or domestic, but not to harass, intimidate or incite hatred against fellow citizens, nor to express support for organisations designated as terrorist groups.

It should not need to be said, but the unchecked spread of extremism has shifted the Overton window to the point where it must now be stated clearly and unequivocally: It is acceptable to criticise governments, their parties, their politicians and their political decisions; it is not acceptable to protest against people because of who they are or what they choose to believe, nor is it acceptable to drain police and emergency resources to perpetuate division. For that reason, I support amendments that place reasonable constraints on protest locations, particularly for ongoing demonstrations.

Without these changes, it would be entirely lawful for the types of protests that we have seen weekly in the Sydney CBD to occur in Bondi tomorrow—an outcome that would be patently unreasonable. The cause of protest matters. We rightly prohibit discrimination in workplaces, so why should the public be forced to fund protests that do precisely that? We know and accept that it is wrong, so let us not be so stupid as to pay to be insulted. We should be amending this bill to develop a mechanism to recover costs and ensure more public resources are dedicated to public services and ventures that promote harmony, not division.

One of the clearest indicators that a protest is not being conducted in good faith is the use of terrorist symbols or rhetoric. There is a world of difference between a nurse marching for fair pay and someone chanting threats, displaying terrorist paraphernalia or calling for the destruction of a people. The latter is not a protest; it is intimidation. It is not advocacy; it is hate. I therefore support measures that strengthen the ability of law enforcement to act against those who misuse democratic freedoms to undermine democracy itself. I find it deeply offensive that individuals exploit the tolerance of our system to promote intolerant ideologies. There must be limits to our tolerance. If we begin to tolerate the intolerant, we will inevitably destroy ourselves. That is the choice before us, and it is why we must act today.

This brings me to what I find most troubling. The bill does not mention antisemitism, it does not confront hate, it does not speak to harmony, cohesion or the social fabric that has been so violently torn, nor does it interrogate the extraordinary claim made repeatedly by the Prime Minister following the attack that this extremism was somehow right wing. Extremism is not an extension of political belief; it is a rejection of it. It is a repudiation of democracy itself, sitting beyond the bounds of lawful civil society. I have never hesitated to condemn far-right ideology. I reject reactionary politics, despise culture wars and believe strongly in inclusion over division. But far‑right ideology was not responsible for the murder of 15 innocent people in Bondi; Islamist extremism and antisemitism were. [Extension of time]

I thank the House. These are not partisan phenomena. They are not ideological labels to be assigned for political expediency. They are evils and they must be confronted honestly. Addressing this core societal problem is where I want this Parliament to go next. Politicians who seek to attribute the Bondi tragedy to anything else are being disingenuous at a time when leadership beckons, because the strength of our democracy depends on our willingness to tell the truth, even when it is uncomfortable, and to hold the centre by refusing both denial and distortion. That is what I have sought to do in this debate. I hope colleagues will do the same. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms STEPHANIE DI PASQUA ( Drummoyne ) ( 18:22 :32 ): What happened eight days ago on Sunday 14 December was an immense and devastating atrocity, a terrorist attack that has shaken our nation, shattered families and taken precious innocent lives. To their loved ones, to those injured and to a community now living with deep trauma, my thoughts are always with you. There are no words that can fully capture the grief, the fear, the shock or the anger that follows this act filled with so much hate. But what I can say to the Jewish community, clearly and without reservation, is this: I am deeply sorry, and I join all members of this Parliament in expressing our sincerest condolences to every member, every victim, every witness and every person whose life has been changed forever.

At moments like this, people look to their leaders for reassurance and responsibility. I make a brief contribution to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I understand why this legislation has been brought forward urgently. I understand the need for Parliament to act swiftly at a time when people are frightened and confidence in public safety has been shaken, and when the Jewish community needs to see us unequivocally support them and stand with them in solidarity. We must be clear that antisemitism, hatred, extremism and terrorism have no place in our society. Our Jewish community deserves to live without fear, to worship freely and to be safe.

All reforms are being dealt with together in this bill. Our Opposition leader has said that we will not prevent the bill from passing Parliament this week. The community needs certainty, and it needs action. Community safety and social cohesion must come first. However, that is not a blank cheque. It does not mean that I do not hold some reservations about certain elements of the bill. The Opposition will move sensible, measured, proportionate amendments in good faith and I hope they will be adopted. I acknowledge the significant correspondence I have received from constituents in my electorate who are concerned about the ramifications of the proposed changes. I say to them from the outset that I understand their points of view. I hear their concerns, and I am prepared to listen to them and to the evidence of experts.

I agree with the principles expressed to me that we should not be punishing law‑abiding people who do the right thing. But the reality is that the way the reforms have been presented to Parliament in the one bill means voting against them would also mean holding up laws that are designed to keep our community safe. This includes important reforms and measures such as outlawing terrorist symbols and tightening rules around public assemblies and protests that spread hatred. I believe that, overwhelmingly, our communities want to see us act on those two things swiftly. In order to do that, we have to vote on this bill today.

It is disappointing that the Government has essentially put three different reforms dealing with three different issues together in one bill. In the weeks and months ahead, the Opposition will continue to hold the Government to account for how these laws are implemented and enforced, and we will ensure that stakeholders are consulted appropriately. This should be the beginning of the conversation about gun control, not the end. It is critical that we do not rush into changes without appropriate research and consultation. Gun control and getting guns out of the hands of the wrong people is something I support. I believe the majority of my community supports that also, including reforms like only allowing Australian citizens to hold a firearms licence.

Our community is upset; that is undeniable. I have also heard from people who are angry because they believe warning signs were missed or not acted upon. They are angry because they want answers. There must come a time, and that time must not be avoided, when difficult questions are asked, such as, how was somebody whose son was on an ASIO watchlist able to obtain a gun licence? There have been genuine calls for a royal commission. I support that. We need to look into the causes of antisemitism and of violent extremism and take much more action to address both. We also need to understand the circumstances in which these killers were able to get the guns they had.

Right now, we need unity in our community. We need compassion. We need to stand together and reject the extremist forces that seek to divide us through fear and hatred. I reiterate that we stand in solidarity with our Jewish community. We stand with them to overcome, to heal and to call out racism and prejudice wherever it appears, without hesitation. Terrorism seeks to fracture our society, but we will not allow that to happen. We will remain united. I thank the House.

Ms FELICITY WILSON ( North Shore ) ( 18:27 :47 ): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. It is unfortunate that we are gathered in this place today to consider this bill in the wake of the devastating and horrific terrorist attack that took place on Sunday in Bondi a week ago. Of course, my thoughts, and those of my colleagues, are with the families and friends of those who lost their lives and with those who put their lives in danger to stop this evil violence and save lives. We will have an opportunity to talk about that during the condolence motion. We must utterly condemn the antisemitic rhetoric and consequent violence that has become rife in this State and across our country, particularly over recent years, because everyone should be able to worship as they see fit, without the fear of violence and racist abuse. They should be able to walk along the beach or the street without being worried that they will be killed.

Keeping our community safe must always be the first responsibility of this Parliament. Any measure that genuinely reduces the risk of gun violence, terrorism or serious harm deserves careful and respectful consideration. It is hard to give that level of consideration to legislation that is rushed through the Parliament. I am concerned about the speed with which this Labor Government is seeking to essentially ram this legislation through the Parliament in such a short amount of time. I will always support measures to protect the community from the risk of gun harm. However, from the outset, I put forward my concerns regarding the lack of community consultation and a broader comprehensive strategy, and the significant implementation challenges that will arise because of this legislation.

If we look to the Port Arthur massacre—which resulted in the single largest loss of life to gun violence in Australia—we can compare and contrast the reaction of that Government, that Prime Minister and that leadership at that time with the decision to push through this bill at short notice in New South Wales. We need to be honest. This legislation would not have prevented what happened at Bondi. We also need to be unwavering in our commitment to stamp out prohibited terrorist organisations and symbols, particularly those associated with Nazis. The Liberals and The Nationals have had legislation before this House on multiple occasions this year that the Labor Government refused to deal with. This morning the Labor Government again refused to allow us to have our legislation considered.

The bill attempts to make some improvements in these areas and brings three different components of legislation together. It seeks to cap and restrict the number and types of firearms, and to impose a cap of four firearms per individual, with strict exemptions for primary producers and sports shooters who may hold a maximum of 10 firearms. It will reclassify straight-pull and pump-action and button lever release firearms, limiting their access primarily to primary producers, and reducing magazine capacity for category A and B firearms to a maximum of five to 10 rounds from a current unlimited capacity. It also introduces a complete ban on firearms that can use belt-fed magazines.

The bill also strengthens firearms licence checks and accountability, including reducing standard firearms licence terms from five years to two years and restricting firearms licences to Australian citizens only, with a carve-out for New Zealand permanent residents in specific circumstances. It will make gun club membership mandatory for all firearms licence holders and require gun clubs to use the Gun Safe online platform to improve record keeping and compliance. It will also make safe storage inspections mandatory prior to the issue of a first permit to acquire a firearm. Unfortunately, the bill does not have a lot of detail on how these changes will be administered across the State, and particularly what this will mean for those who currently hold firearms licences.

Those individuals should not be demonised in this process. They have accessed firearms licences legally and hold their firearms with the expectation that they do so in line with the law and community expectations. We also do not understand how this mooted potential buyback scheme will be administered. How will registered firearms licensees return any extra guns? Will there be an amnesty period? When will people be required to do so? Will the weapons be destroyed? In effect, putting this cap on licensed firearms owners will take out the bottom of the second-hand firearms market. There will be no residual value left in the weapons that are disposed of because there will be no market for them. The Commonwealth Government has mooted a buyback scheme, but we do not know how it will be funded or administered, or the level of recompense that will be given to individual weapons owners.

The former Commonwealth Government under Prime Minister John Howard and his National Party Deputy Prime Minister—I note also the exemplary leadership of then National Party Queensland Premier Rob Borbidge—delivered some of the toughest gun laws in the world following the Port Arthur massacre. It did so after comprehensive feedback, consultation and stakeholder analysis, and detailed policy implementation planning. Today we still see challenges to the effectiveness of gun laws in Australia, particularly from those who seek to operate outside the law. For example, despite the buyback scheme, large numbers of unregistered firearms are still in circulation. Changes and advances in technology also mean that it is easier to modify guns or 3D print gun parts to circumvent importation restrictions. The bill does not address how these issues will be resolved. I believe broader consultation with our communities and industry stakeholders should have been undertaken in order to draft stronger and more effective legislation.

The bill also would not have restricted the number of firearms that were taken to Bondi on Sunday one week ago. That day the two murderers took only four firearms to Bondi. I received numerous emails and phone calls last week that, firstly, unequivocally condemned the terrorist attack that took place in Bondi. They said that this was not their nation or their city and that they would wrap their arms around the Jewish community. They also expressed their concern about this kneejerk legislation that places the burden on gun owners and lays the blame for Bondi on gun ownership rather than on the real reason that this terrorist attack occurred, which is the far-right, extremist Islamic sentiment and antisemitism that has been allowed to fester in our community. I mention a couple of comments I have heard from people in my community.

Gerard from Wollstonecraft is concerned that "any kneejerk reaction from this Parliament will unfairly affect law-abiding citizens who currently hold gun licences". Thomas from Mosman believes there is a responsible path forward that focuses on prevention, strengthening the system and identifying risk early rather than expanding broad restrictions that do not address the root cause of violence. I have also been contacted by members of my community who want to see swift action taken to address the gaps in firearms legislation and regulations. I also note that I have received numerous emails regarding concerns about the components of this legislation that restrict protests. Locals, like Sandra from Crows Nest, have urged us not to use the terrible attack in Bondi as a pretext for suppressing the rights of those who wish to express their opinions publicly and collectively.

I reiterate the words of a number of members who have spoken on this legislation today. There are real concerns about what should be three separate bills being moved as a single bill that entwines three separate issues into one piece of legislation without the different components being considered in and of themselves. We must always ensure that our work in this place keeps our local communities safe. I believe there are enough components in this legislation to improve the level of safety in our society, particularly the gun reforms. The Government has yet to prove whether some of them will be effective or whether they can be administered. Components of the bill limit protests and ensure that public gatherings that risk public safety after terrorist events are prevented. The Government should support the amendments that the Opposition will move to strengthen these components in line with the legislation it has moved repeatedly in the House throughout the year to address the antisemitism and terrorism that are the root causes of these types of action.

I want to ensure that we consider and support the challenges faced by people across our community by addressing the root causes of antisemitism. We must consider Nazi symbols and ensure that the police have appropriate powers to address this effectively. We must do more to combat the scourge of antisemitism in our State. We will have many opportunities to do that. We cannot just have the nice words that have been spoken in Parliament, in our streets and in the many speeches made by our leaders this week. We need action. We can, and we must, do more.

Mr ADAM CROUCH ( Terrigal ) ( 18:37 :45 ): I speak in debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. From the outset, I express the deep condolences of the people of the Terrigal electorate for the murder of 15 innocent people at Bondi on Sunday one week ago. It was a barbaric act of terrorism carried out by Islamic extremists against our Jewish community. We must be clear and call it out for exactly what it was. It was a disgusting, cowardly act perpetrated on innocent people. The effect it has had on the wider community has been absolutely devastating. I have listened to all of the speeches today. I support this legislation because the Opposition believes community safety and social cohesion must come first, but I will also outline my concerns.

I acknowledge Rabbi Yossi Rodal and his lovely wife, Malki Rodal.

I had the honour of attending a Hanukkah celebration yesterday on the Central Coast. It was a pleasure to attend that event, and humbling to be given the opportunity to say a few words on behalf of the Opposition. I thank the rabbi, who said to me, "I'm sorry that there aren't as many people as we would have liked." I explained to him that was completely understandable. I said last night that those people wanted to scare our Jewish community into not going about their daily lives. It is so important that we back our Jewish community wholeheartedly.

I was the only member of the Parliament of New South Wales at the event. I was proud to be there. The weather held off and it turned out to be a lovely evening. I thank the almost a hundred people who turned out for being brave enough. It was interesting, because it was not just the Jewish community coming forward; people from all faiths were represented at the event last night. That speaks volumes about the support that the Central Coast community has for people in times of need. I was very proud of that. It was really exciting to hear from the rabbi that we will look to have a synagogue on the Central Coast. I think that is an absolutely wonderful step forward for our Jewish community.

But the people were scared. An overwhelming message that was repeated so many times was, "We knew this was going to happen. We begged for the antisemitic slogans and protests to stop. We warned everybody time and time again, yet that did not happen." Sadly, they believed that what happened in Bondi was bound to happen. They were quite right, as it turns out. Their fear is that it could happen again. What happened in Bondi could have happened in Terrigal, in Ettalong Beach, in Dee Why or in Manly. It could have happened anywhere in New South Wales.

Twenty-three Opposition members have spoken in debate on this bill today and six members of the Government, being five Ministers and one Parliamentary Secretary but no backbenchers. Considering how important this piece of legislation is, I would have expected more Government members to speak on it. It harks back to what I saw six to eight months ago with the workers compensation reform bill, when very few members on the Government side spoke on the bill with the exception of half a dozen members. This is important legislation but sadly, as the Manager of Opposition Business pointed out, this bill is weak. It does not go far enough. It does not deal with the fear and the concerns of our Jewish community that were expressed to me last night. It does not stop the hate speech that has pervaded our community like a cancer. I note in her condolence speech the Leader of the Opposition pointed out very succinctly:

Since October 7, evil and hate have been allowed to flourish in this State and in this country. Appeasement over enforcement has too often been the choices of governments, but also the choice of too many … downplaying the fears of the Jewish community.

I heard that again last night in the conversations I had. The Leader of the Opposition continued:

If anyone believed that 14 December was unimaginable, it is because we have failed to hear the Jewish community. When Jews were told not to go to the Sydney Opera House after October 7, when thugs were allowed to denigrate the steps of the Opera House and spew their hatred, we should have known then. When students were subjected to harassment and vile abuse on our university campuses and Jewish parents have had to tell their children not to wear their school uniform in public, we should have known then. When Jews were doxxed and abused online, when people were called to boycott Jewish businesses, when hate preachers in Sydney celebrated the murder of Jews on October 7, we should have known then. When protesters were allowed to descend on our city each week and scream, "From the river to the sea—globalise the intifada", we should have known then. When cars were firebombed, when neo‑Nazis stood outside this Parliament with a sign that read "Abolish the Jewish lobby", we should have known then.

When hate becomes normalised in a nation, how can we possibly believe there will be any other outcome than what we saw on 14 December?

Since the First Fleet, the Jewish community has contributed so much to our country.

Those were the excellent words spoken by Leader of the Opposition this morning. This atrocity occurred in her electorate. I can only begin to imagine how my community on the Central Coast would have reacted had something like that occurred there or in the electorate of the member for Wyong, the member for The Entrance or the member for Gosford. We would be demanding the obliteration of the disgusting antisemitic behaviour that we have seen pervade this country over the past few years.

We have to stop this. The time for talking is done. These issues have been skirted and danced around. Sadly, this weak bill still does not address these issues. A long line of Opposition members have said that this bill does not go far enough. The Government needs to do more. The reason we are here is that time and time again the Opposition said to do more. We introduced legislation in this place to do more, yet the Government did not support it. Here we are two years on and we find ourselves in the worst situation, where people have been disgustingly murdered in a cowardly act of barbarism. All year the Coalition has promoted laws to prevent and punish the public expression of hate in our community. This legislation does not go far enough.

On 13 February this year, the Coalition presented two private members' bills to address the display of terrorist symbols, the very symbols that were found in the back of the car of the two murderers who committed the act in Bondi, and to strengthen laws around public assemblies, but these were not acted on. When the Opposition tried to amend the Government's Crimes Legislation Amendment (Racial and Religious Hatred) Bill 2025 to outlaw terrorist symbols, to close that ridiculous loophole and criminalise for the first time symbols that were deceptively similar to terrorist symbols and Nazi symbols and to increase penalties, the Premier and other Labor MPs, The Greens and a number of Independents voted against those sensible amendments. We also attempted to introduce protest law changes by amendment to the Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill 2025. That was blocked on procedural grounds and opposed by Labor and The Greens in the upper House when the Coalition moved amendments there.

On 5 August 2025, in the lead-up to the Harbour Bridge protest when ISIS flags were flown during the march, and on 12 November 2025, when Nazi protesters stood outside this very Parliament—our home of democracy—under existing protest laws, we tried to have urgent debate on the Coalition's changes. But time and again, on each occasion, we were blocked from putting the argument forward, as we also saw today. This is not what our community expects. Our community expects legislation that genuinely protects them. [Extension of time]

Schedule 1 to the bill today is an incredibly weak response to the need for proper laws to outlaw terrorist symbols. It provides that if somebody carries a terrorist symbol, the matter will be heard in the Local Court and will carry a maximum penalty of only two years imprisonment or $22,000, or both. There is nothing about the clear legal loophole that allows people to make minor amendments to a terrorist symbol and therefore evade responsibility completely under the proposed New South Wales law or under the existing Commonwealth law. We have been asking for that to be changed since February of this year. We believe that carrying terrorist symbols—the same flag that those murderers carried in the back seat of their car in Bondi—is so corrosive and destructive to social cohesion and harmony within our community that there should be proper and strong penalties. We will seek to amend this weak law by proposing amendments to schedule 1. The list goes on. We also need to look at increasing the penalties in many areas of the bill.

We will also seek to amend the law so that a terrorist organisation symbol can be designated by the Commonwealth Government. The New South Wales Government's bill will do that, but we also want to allow the New South Wales Government, under advice from the Commissioner of Police, to designate organisations other than one designated by the Commonwealth as a terrorist organisation. That is because of the weakness of the Federal Government—and we saw the community's reaction to the weakness of the Federal Government only yesterday. It has not designated terrorist organisations other than those that other foreign governments have already designated. We want the New South Wales Government to add additional terrorist organisations if the Commissioner of the NSW Police Force believes it is necessary.

We also understand that the rush by the State Labor Government has more than a tinge of disgraceful hypocrisy about it. As mentioned by the member for Ryde and others in this place, it was only a few months ago that the Government gave up Government time in the Legislative Council for the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party to debate the Game and Feral Animal Legislation Amendment (Conservation Hunting) Bill. This is a government that had already put $8 million into the budget in the middle of the year to support the expansion of gun rights in New South Wales, which have not been part of the law since 1996.

It is very interesting. I suspect the loving relationship with the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party has come to a screeching halt in the past 48 hours. However, the Government was going to do the direct opposite. It was going to allow shooters into our national parks and weaken these same gun laws, and there was an $8 million slush fund to help do that. I strongly suggest that the $8 million should be sent to the Firearms Registry, which is going to be incredibly short‑staffed, having to deal with the mess and the regulations that have not even been created yet with regard to firearm usage.

I thank all the people who reached out to my office about their concerns over the Government's poor bill, which tries to shift the blame for what happened in Bondi to shooters and people who have firearms and use them recreationally and professionally. They are rightly disgusted by what has been put forward, and appropriately offended. This is not a good piece of legislation. While the Liberal Party is supporting it, a good long look needs to be taken. We will be scrutinising the legislation closely. This is the sort of dodgy, fly-by-night legislation that needs to be reviewed within 12 months. Whenever we rush legislation, we have a bad outcome.

It is more of the same from this Government. We saw it with workers compensation and we are seeing it again. This Premier is desperately trying to stay more popular than a very unpopular Prime Minister, and this is his way of dealing with it. The Prime Minister does not have the guts to have a royal commission into this failure. It is a disgrace. While the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill, we will keep the Government and its failures over the past two years under close scrutiny.

Again, I thank members of the Jewish community who have reached out to me. I thank them for their time yesterday in Gosford. It was a pleasure to spend time talking and listening to their concerns. They wanted more than this bill and they will be deeply disappointed. That is why I ask the Government to support the strong amendments that will be put forward by the Opposition. That is what our community expects when it comes to this legislation—not this weak, sad response to a tragic incident where 15 innocent people were murdered by Islamic extremists in Bondi.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (18:52:52): In reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I thank members representing the electorates of Wahroonga, Maroubra, Sydney, Maitland, Coffs Harbour, Murray, The Entrance, Bathurst, Charlestown, Orange, Northern Tablelands, Wagga Wagga, Wollondilly, Barwon, Monaro, Oatley, Bankstown, Newtown, Hawkesbury, Clarence, Pittwater, Tamworth, Myall Lakes, Albury, Kellyville, Castle Hill, Port Macquarie, Willoughby, Lane Cove, Goulburn, Cootamundra, Winston Hills, Ryde, Drummoyne, North Shore and Terrigal.

The measures in the bill are critical changes that respond to the horrific events at Bondi and are necessary to keep our community safe and protect social cohesion. I turn to some of the matters raised in debate. The member for Wahroonga said that the bill does nothing to fix deficiencies in criminal intelligence. That is simply not the case. The amendments and restrictions to appeal pathways are designed to do just that. Those reforms are designed to enhance confidence between law enforcement and intelligence agencies to ensure that those agencies can provide information more freely to the NSW Police Force, which can be used as the basis to deny a person a firearm. I also note contributions by the member for Orange and others who have raised questions surrounding the circumstances giving rise to the person being granted a licence. This Government has committed to a transparent and independent inquiry that will examine these and many more questions.

I hear concern from members of the House and stakeholders about the speed with which the Government is moving. My answer is twofold. Firstly, the reforms will not commence tomorrow. The majority of the firearms reforms will commence by proclamation. The Act has provided broad regulation-making powers in order to ensure that, before we commence the provisions, we have consulted with our stakeholders across the community to minimise the impact to the hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners across the community. The only reforms that will commence on assent in relation to the Firearms Act are the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal review provisions. Additionally, from the time of assent to the commencement of the limit on the number of firearms, licensees will not be able to apply for permits to acquire a firearm if that would put them in excess of their limit. Secondly, what happened at Bondi last Sunday demands that we act.

It demands that we make sure that our framework for the owning and use of firearms is fit for purpose and gets the balance right between those law‑abiding gun owners and the safety of the community. We are determined to make sure that we minimise the risk of a repeat of that atrocity, and we believe the bill does that. The amendments are squarely aimed at fixing that issue. The member for Wahroonga raised that the Government was supporting a bill by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party in the other place. I correct the record: The Government did not support the changes to the Firearms Act contained in that bill to allow greater access to suppressors or for there to be a right to hunt, and actually supported amendments to remove that. This Government will never change the fundamental principle contained under the National Firearms Agreement and continued within the Firearms Act that possessing a firearm is a privilege, not a right.

The member for Wahroonga and the member for Orange raised concerns about removing the P650 forms. We are not removing the ability of people to try a firearm in a supervised setting as they currently can under the exemption in section 6B of the Firearms Act. A person can currently apply for that exemption by submitting a P650 form. This current system lacks oversight. I want to make clear that bill is only removing the exemption in section 6B of the Act in order to replace it with a permit scheme to be administered by New South Wales police. The P650 form was used by John Edwards, who murdered his children before turning the gun on himself. The Coroner found that the P650 form "poses extensive risks to both public safety in general as well as to the safety of those working within gun clubs and club members." The Coroner recommended that the system be scrapped and replaced. That is what the reforms do. They give effect to the coronial recommendations and make the system safer.

By replacing the P650 form administered by approved clubs and shooting ranges with a permit scheme administered by the New South Wales police, we will ensure that there is greater oversight by police on all who wish to use a firearm in New South Wales. The member for Wahroonga and other members of the Opposition said that there was "nothing" in our bill that actually addresses the root cause of the hate that led to the horrific events at Bondi, and criticised our bill for, in their view, not going far enough. I had hoped that when we returned to this place to pass this urgent and critical legislation, we would find bipartisanship. I am disappointed that we have not.

I am disappointed that instead of working with our Government, the member for Wahroonga has chosen a different path. I am disappointed that after he was briefed in person on Friday and sent the bill on Saturday, he chose to claim that we have not pursued a path of bipartisanship. I am disappointed that after criticising us for our apparent lack of consultation, he chose to foreshadow in his contribution to the second reading debate some Opposition amendments that he never raised with the Government. Before the member for Wahroonga says that we were previously sent a proposed bill, let me make clear that we have never seen the amendments now proposed by the Opposition.

I note that amendments to give effect to the proposals foreshadowed by the member for Wahroonga have now been tabled, with no offer of a briefing and no offer of discussion. The Government will outline its position further during consideration in detail, but let me say that we still strive for bipartisanship, and we still strive to work together on legislation that will keep our community safe. The member for Wahroonga suggested that the Opposition's proposals were somehow stronger and better than the measures proposed by the Government. The member for Wahroonga said that those opposite had put forward legislation all year that would tackle hatred and division in our community.

Let us take an honest look at what the Opposition proposed and see where the truth lies. The key measures that the member proposes in the Opposition amendments are a new offence criminalising the public display of terrorist organisation symbols, which we also have in our bill; declaring the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Sydney Opera House as major facilities, when clearly they are not, with a measure that unnecessarily duplicates the effect of section 144G of the Roads Act 1993 in relation to the Sydney Harbour Bridge; and a new provision on the wearing of face masks during public assemblies, which we also address in our bill.

The Opposition amendments also contain a provision clarifying that those participating in public assemblies can still be guilty of offences, which copies a measure already introduced by the Government in the Crimes and Summary Offences Amendment Bill 2025; a laundry list of factors already taken into account when decisions are made about public assemblies; and a user‑pays system that lets cashed-up activists protest when they want, including, without the amendment in the Government's bill, following a terrorist incident; a poorly conceived offence that would criminalise peaceful gatherings like vigils in the area in which a public assembly restriction declaration is made, which we do not think is the intention of those opposite and is an alarming proposal; and an unnecessary provision that seeks to amend our public assembly restrictions declaration to introduce a provision the effect of which is already incorporated in the Government's bill.

What is it that the Opposition says it had in its bills that would address hatred to much greater effect and that was so much stronger than the Government's bill? When members cut through the spin, there is nothing. On public assemblies, the Opposition seeks to reintroduce measures that would not prohibit all public assemblies from being authorised after terrorist events. The measures that do not allow for public assemblies to be authorised following a terrorist attack are in the Government's bill and have never been raised by those opposite. The Opposition seeks to revive proposals that have already been considered in relation to terrorism symbols and the administration of authorised public assemblies, including payment by organisers.

Those measures are not effective, raise constitutional concerns and would have serious unintended consequences, like criminalising peaceful vigils and memorials in honour of victims. Let me also remind members of this House who talk about action against hatred that when our Government introduced an offence criminalising the incitement of racial hatred, those opposite sought to limit it to supporting a sunset provision that would have it cease in three years. Instead of giving their full-throated support to combat racial hatred, they said to the people of New South Wales that they thought racial hatred had a time limit of only three years.

As I said, I will address each of the Opposition amendments in detail when they are moved. But let me be clear: The measures proposed by the member for Wahroonga are not stronger. They are based on fundamental misunderstandings of the law. The member for Wahroonga has, unfortunately, been incorrect about key things, including what is covered as a terrorist organisation symbol in the bill, the effect of his own amendments to the Government's public assembly restriction declaration scheme, the application of existing laws that restrict serious obstruction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the current framework outlawing Nazi symbols in New South Wales, and how his proposed amendments would negatively impact the Government's proposed laws to outlaw conduct that supports Nazi ideology.

I do not think that members opposite want to prohibit peaceful vigils and the coming together of members of our community. I do not think they want to negatively impact the framework criminalising Nazi symbols and, we hope, legislation that will pass to criminalise conduct supporting Nazi ideologies. I do not think that members opposite want to introduce legislation about terrorist symbols based on a misunderstanding of the current law. The Government does not support the Opposition amendments because it strives for the best for New South Wales, and the way to achieve that is through the measures in the bill.

The member for Newtown expressed strong opposition to the creation of public assembly restriction declarations. PARDs are an extraordinary power designed to respond to extraordinary circumstances. Terrorist attacks in New South Wales are, thankfully, rare. But, as we saw with the horrific and tragic events of 14 December, they do happen. New South Wales needs to be in a strong position to respond and keep the community safe. PARDs mean that public assemblies in the declared area and for the declared period are not able to be authorised under the Summary Offences Act 1988. Where a PARD is in place and a public assembly proceeds, New South Wales police will have the powers to move on participants where the assembly is blocking people or traffic or is likely to cause fear or to intimidate a person.

PARDs have in-built safeguards and limitations that aim to provide for community safety and to continue to support our flourishing democracy. Those include that a PARD may be declared only by the Commissioner of Police or Deputy Commissioner of Police with the concurrence of the Minister for Police and Counter‑terrorism where the commissioner has already declared an event to be a terrorist attack under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. That is a rare event in New South Wales. A PARD can only be made within 14 days of a declared terrorist attack when the decision-makers are satisfied that the holding of public assemblies in the area in which the declaration applies would be likely to cause a reasonable person to fear harassment, intimidation or violence, or to fear for the person's safety, or is likely to risk community safety, including the safety of participants in public assemblies in the area.

Once declared, a PARD will operate in a de‑marked area only. Once declared, a PARD will be operable for 14 days after the day on which the declaration is made, unless extended once satisfied that the test for a PARD still exists. PARDs can be varied or revoked to respond to the situation. PARDs do not prevent groups gathering in the declared area where the group does not obstruct, harass or cause fear—for example, at a large family picnic or a vigil. PARDs are a proportionate response to extraordinary events and to risks to the community.

Similarly, the amendments under schedule 4 [1], which extend the powers of police to require the removal of face coverings, are a necessary safety measure for public assemblies and are subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards. Critically, police cannot simply direct the removal of a face covering at will. Instead, they must reasonably suspect that the person may have committed or is likely to commit an offence. That goes directly to the purpose of the provision, which is to ensure safety and uphold law and order. Additionally, those powers remain subject to all the general safeguards and limitations on the use of police powers under part 15 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PHILIP DONATO ( Orange ) ( 19:10 :16 ): By leave: During my contribution to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, I moved an amendment to refer the bill to the Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety for inquiry and report. I will keep my contribution fairly short. There are a number of amendments to be dealt with this evening. The legislation is being put through eight days after the tragedy at Bondi. There has been a lack of genuine consultation with industry participants or relevant stakeholders. I note that Xavier Martin is in the gallery on behalf of NSW Farmers and as president of the association. He put out a press release today seeking more consultation on the bill and stating that farmers had not been consulted during its preparation.

The bill will have significant implications on lawful firearms owners and primary producers in many regional parts of New South Wales. The bill has been rushed through with little to no consultation. It needs to be properly considered and scrutinised. The opportunity to deal with and delve into matters would be afforded by virtue of a committee inquiry. The committee is chaired by the member for Mount Druitt. I am a member of the committee as well. I seek the support of the House in referring the bill to the committee at this stage.

The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time, to which the member for Orange has moved an amendment. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes6

Noes68

Majority62

AYES

Butler, R (teller)

Donato, P (teller)

McGirr, J

Dalton, H

Hannan, J

Scruby, J

NOES

Aitchison, J

Haylen, J

Regan, M

Anderson, K

Henskens, A

Roberts, A

Atalla, E (teller)

Hodges, M

Saffin, J

Ayyad, T

Hoenig, R

Saliba, D

Bali, S

Holland, M

Scully, P

Catley, Y

James, T

Singh, G

Chanthivong, A

Kaliyanda, C

Sloane, K

Clancy, J

Kamper, S

Stuart, M

Cotsis, S

Kemp, M

Taylor, M

Coure, M

Kirby, W

Thompson, T

Crouch, A

Lane, J

Tuckerman, W

Daley, M

Leong, J

Tudehope, M

Davis, D

Li, J

Vo, T

Di Pasqua, S

McDermott, H

Voltz, L

Dib, J

McInerney, K

Wallace, J

Doyle, T

McKeown, K

Warren, G

Dwyer, R

Mehan, D

Washington, K

Finn, J

Minns, C

Whan, S

Greenwich, A

Moylan, B

Wilkinson, K

Griffin, J

O'Neill, M

Williams, R

Hagarty, N (teller)

Preston, R

Williamson, R

Harris, D

Provest, G

Wilson, F

Harrison, J

Quinnell, S

Amendment negatived.

The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

The House divided.

Ayes60

Noes15

Majority45

AYES

Aitchison, J

Harris, D

Quinnell, S

Atalla, E (teller)

Harrison, J

Regan, M

Ayyad, T

Haylen, J

Roberts, A

Bali, S

Henskens, A

Saffin, J

Catley, Y

Hodges, M

Saliba, D

Chanthivong, A

Hoenig, R

Scruby, J

Clancy, J

Holland, M

Scully, P

Cotsis, S

James, T

Sloane, K

Coure, M

Kaliyanda, C

Stuart, M

Crouch, A (teller)

Kamper, S

Taylor, M

Daley, M

Kirby, W

Tudehope, M

Davis, D

Lane, J

Vo, T

Di Pasqua, S

Li, J

Voltz, L

Dib, J

McDermott, H

Wallace, J

Doyle, T

McInerney, K

Warren, G

Dwyer, R

McKeown, K

Washington, K

Finn, J

Mehan, D

Whan, S

Greenwich, A

Minns, C

Wilkinson, K

Griffin, J

O'Neill, M

Williams, R

Hagarty, N (teller)

Preston, R

Wilson, F

NOES

Anderson, K

Hannan, J

Singh, G

Butler, R

Kemp, M

Thompson, T

Cooke, S

McGirr, J

Toole, P

Dalton, H

Moylan, B

Tuckerman, W

Donato, P

Provest, G

Williamson, R (teller)

Motion agreed to.

Consideration in detail requested by Mr Alister Henskens, Mr Roy Butler, Mr Gurmesh Singh and Mr Alex Greenwich.

Consideration in Detail

The SPEAKER: By leave: I will deal with the bill in groups of clauses and schedules. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 and schedules 1 to 6 be agreed to.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 19:30 :16 ): By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 3 on sheet c2025-335E in globo:

No. 1Displaying terrorist organisation symbols

Page 3, Schedule 1, lines 1–21. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—

Schedule 1Amendment of Crimes Act 1900 No 40

[1]Part 3A, Division 9

Omit the division. Insert instead—

Division 9Display of Nazi and terrorist organisation symbols

93ZAOffence of displaying Nazi and terrorist organisation symbols

(1)A person who knowingly displays, by public act and without reasonable excuse, the following commits an offence—

(a)a Nazi symbol,

(b)a terrorist organisation symbol,

(c)a symbol that—

(i)resembles a Nazi symbol or terrorist organisation symbol, and

(ii)a reasonable person is likely to believe is displayed to show support for Nazi ideology or the terrorist organisation, respectively.

Maximum penalty—

(a)for an individual—200 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, or both, or

(b)otherwise—1,000 penalty units.

(2)For subsection (1)(a) and (c), the display of a swastika, or a symbol that resembles a swastika, in connection with Buddhism, Hinduism or Jainism does not constitute the display of a Nazi symbol or a symbol that resembles a Nazi symbol.

(3)Also, without limiting subsection (1), a reasonable excuse includes the display of a symbol done reasonably and in good faith—

(a)for an academic, artistic or educational purpose, or

(b)for another purpose in the public interest.

(4)Proceedings for an offence against this section must be dealt with on indictment.

(5)In this section—

Commonwealth Criminal Code means the Criminal Code set out in the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 of the Commonwealth.

public act has the same meaning as in section 93Z.

terrorist organisation means the following—

(a)a terrorist organisation within the meaning of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, Division 102,

(b)an organisation prescribed by the regulations for this section made on the recommendation of—

(i)the Minister administering the Police Act 1990, and

(ii)the Commissioner of Police.

No. 3Displaying terrorist organisation symbols

Page 3. Insert after line 21—

Schedule 1AAmendment of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 92

Part 4, Division 1A, Table

Insert after item 10P—

10QSection 93ZA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (displaying Nazi and terrorist organisation symbols) 1.5 years

The amendments seek to replace the current schedule 1 to the bill as well as current section 93ZA of the Crimes Act because, between them, they seek to criminalise the public display of terrorist symbols and Nazi symbols. An anomaly will be created by schedule 1 to the bill because it will seek to criminalise the display of terrorism symbols anywhere with a penalty of two years maximum imprisonment, a $22,000 fine, or both. In respect of Nazi symbols, it will create under existing section 93AZ a two-tier system whereby if someone displays a Nazi symbol outside a synagogue, a Jewish school or the Sydney Jewish Museum, they will receive a two-year maximum penalty, a $22,000 fine, or both, but if someone displays a Nazi symbol anywhere else, they will get only 12 months imprisonment, or a fine of $11,000.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kellyville will come to order.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: The bill suggests that the public display of Nazi symbols away from synagogues, the Sydney Jewish Museum or a Jewish school somehow is less of a criminal offence and less of an act of hate in our community than the display of a terrorist symbol is. Clearly, in the Government's rushed legislation, that is an oversight my amendment will fix. My amendment will prescribe the same penalties for the display of Nazi symbols anywhere in our State and the same penalty for the display of terrorism symbols anywhere in our State. My amendments will clear up the Government's oversight with regard to this ridiculous and unfathomable two-tier criminalisation of the display of hate symbols within our State.

The penalty proposed in the bill in schedule 1 is wholly inadequate. The bill will have the display of hate symbols and terrorism symbols within our community penalised for two years maximum imprisonment. The Opposition thinks the penalty should be five years with a standard non‑parole period of 1.5 years. The people who want to have hate symbols in our community, like the murderers in Bondi Beach who had ISIS flags in the back of their car, need to go to jail. Our amendments will send them to jail, but the Government's amendments will not.

Secondly, there is a real problem with the definition of a terrorist symbol because, under the Government's legislation, it will only include terrorist symbols designated as such by the Federal Government. The Federal Government is the weakest government ever in the history of our country when it comes to terrorism. There are terrorist symbols and terrorist organisations linked to the Bondi murders that are not currently registered as such, and will not constitute a crime under this Government's bill. I am talking about Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is a registered terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Pakistan, Turkey, China, Kazakhstan and most Arab countries.

However, it is not a registered terrorist organisation under this weak Federal Labor Government in Australia. It should be because one of the terrorists was associated with the Al Madina Dawah Centre, which is associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir. We have a weak response from this weak Government here in New South Wales during this crisis. It is only eight days since the worst terrorist event ever in our country's history, and it cannot even get this right. The Opposition, which has only had the bill for 24 hours, is fixing up the weakness. We did not get the bill on Friday. The police Minister said we had the bill on Friday, but in the briefing at four o'clock on Friday she told us she had not seen the bill. She is pretending that we had the bill. Do not pretend. You know you did not have the bill.

T he SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. The Attorney General and the Minster will come to order.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: Our amendment fixes up a clear loophole in both the Federal legislation and this bill. If a terrorist symbol has the slightest change, an individual can evade any criminal prosecution. Our amendment will create a third category:

(a)a Nazi symbol,

(b)a terrorist organisation symbol,

(c)a symbol that—

(i)resembles a Nazi symbol or terrorist organisation symbol, and

(ii)a reasonable person is likely to believe is displayed to show support for Nazi ideology or the terrorist organisation, respectively.

Mr Michael Daley: Why didn't you do it when you were in government?

The SPEAKER: The Attorney General will have an opportunity to contribute soon.

Mr Michael Daley: And it's your penalties as well.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: We did not have a terrorist event eight days ago like you did, so do not try to hold us responsible for your own weakness. However, aware of this—and putting the Government on notice about this—on 3 September this year the Hon. Susan Carter questioned the acting deputy commissioner, Peter McKenna, at the budget estimates hearing for the Police and Counter-terrorism portfolio:

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: Was there an al-Qaeda flag being flown in the bridge protest?

PETER McKENNA: We've got no evidence that an al-Qaeda flag or a flag that was a prohibited symbol was flown.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: I have a photograph here from a news website where it said it's an al Qaeda flag.

PETER McKENNA: Some of the flags—and we see this all the time—are just slightly changed. When they are changed even slightly, they no longer fulfil the prohibited symbol legislation.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: If a swastika is slightly changed, does that still not convey the same message to those people who are seeing that symbol painted on a wall, for example?

PETER McKENNA: I can only tell you what the law says, ma'am.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: Are you saying to us that we need to consider changes to the law so that if something is perceived to be a terrorist symbol as well as being an actual symbol, it should be prohibited?

PETER McKENNA: That's a matter for politicians.

He said that was a matter for politicians—"not something to blame on us". The Government has known about this for months. We tried to move these changes in Parliament in February of this year. Guess what? Labor, The Greens and the independents voted against it in this House and they voted against it in the upper House. The same ISIS flag was in the back seat of the car of the murderers who murdered 15 citizens of this State only eight days ago. I implore the Government and all members of this House to support these changes, because they improve what the Government is trying to do.

The Government has had these amendments for months. In her speech in reply, the Minister for Police and Counter‑terrorism complained that the Government had not seen our amendments. They were in our legislation that the Government voted against and in amendments to Government legislation that it also voted against months and months ago, but they have not seen it. What were they looking at when they voted against it? We need to have higher penalties and standard non-parole periods. We need to cover up loopholes and standardise penalties for hate whenever Nazi or terrorist symbols are flown. The Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, on the advice of the police commissioner, needs to be able to designate an organisation as a terrorist organisation, because we have a weak Federal Labor Government that is not adequately protecting our citizens. That is what we are asking the members opposite to support. They know they should support it, so let us hear what they have to say.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (19:41:45): The Government opposes these amendments for a number of reasons. First, the Opposition amendments would remove the separate aggravated offence for the display of such symbols on synagogues, Jewish schools and the Sydney Jewish Museum. It is important to specifically call out this conduct with a specific offence and we do not agree with its removal. Second, the Opposition seeks to expand the existing Nazi symbols offence to a symbol that "resembles a Nazi symbol". This is perplexing. Interference with this specific definition risks undermining an important body of work currently being undertaken.

In November the New South Wales Government introduced the Crimes and Summary Offences Amendment Bill 2025, which would create a new offence for engaging in public conduct that indicates support for Nazi ideology. It not only covers Nazi symbols but also targets anything that supports Nazi ideology. The bill is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety, which will report back in February 2026. The changes in that bill are important. The amendments proposed by the Opposition would fundamentally alter the relevant part of the Crimes Act 1900, meaning they could not be incorporated and would be watered down.

I acknowledge the Opposition's role in suggesting a standalone offence for the public display of terrorist symbols. The New South Wales Government has taken that suggestion and, with advice and careful consideration, incorporated it into the existing New South Wales legislative framework in a way that is consistent, coherent and workable. The Opposition has also moved an amendment to this effect, but there are two important reasons why its amendment is deficient.

First, the Opposition's proposal would undercut the existing Commonwealth offence for the public display of prohibited terrorist organisation symbols which carries a higher penalty than the Government's proposed offence because it contains further elements like the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or the advocacy of hatred which constitutes incitement of others. Prescribing the same maximum penalties for offences with different elements risks creating uncertainty, inconsistency, additional challenges for law enforcement and problems for sentencing. Terrorism is not an area where we want uncertainty, confusion or a lack of clarity. The New South Wales offence imposes a lower threshold of proof and, as a result, carries a lower penalty. It is crucial that the scope of the New South Wales and Commonwealth offences are clear.

Secondly, the member for Wahroonga also spoke at length about the supposed loophole in the offence around prohibited terrorist symbols—namely, that the offence would not capture symbols that appear to resemble such symbols. I inform the House that this is simply untrue. Proposed new section 93ZB provides that a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol has the same meaning as the Commonwealth Criminal Code section 80.2E (3). This definition includes both symbols and proscribed terrorist organisations and something that so nearly resembles a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol that it is likely to be confused with or mistaken for that symbol. The loophole the member for Wahroonga spoke about does not exist.

The member for Wahroonga saw fit to criticise the Government for what he called "rushed and problematic legislation" when he is not even aware of a basic component of the law that his own bill relates to. The member for Wahroonga also spoke about the importance of New South Wales being able to proscribe terrorist organisations in New South Wales regulation. The responsibility for declaring terrorist organisations sits with the Commonwealth, and rightly so, as national security is a responsibility of the Commonwealth. If New South Wales started declaring individual terrorist organisations, it would cause considerable confusion and, critically, inconsistency across the country. We do not need confusion and inconsistency on terrorism. We need clear and workable laws.

Finally, the Opposition amendments set out that proceedings from offences against section 93ZA should be dealt with on indictment, creating a requirement for every matter under this section to be dealt with by the District Court. That will have serious consequences for the justice system and overlooks the competence, professionalism and excellence of the Local Court as the place in our State where over 90 per cent of criminal matters are dealt with. Dealing with matters of indictment in the District Court is extremely resource intensive and, for contested matters, frequently requires a jury trial. The Local Court has a proven track record of effectively and diligently dealing with serious matters, including those under section 93ZA.

In fact, the former Government substantially increased the jurisdiction and ability of the Local Court to deal with very serious matters when it added further offences, including robbery, as table offences. Every matter dealt with in the District Court on indictment has serious flow-on effects for the justice system, putting pressure on the resolution of child sexual assault, sexual assault and serious domestic violence proceedings. With 47 matters being finalised under section 93ZA to 31 October 2025, it is clear that the Opposition's proposal would place a substantial burden on that court, with no forethought or consideration of this by those opposite. It is in the interest of ensuring just and timely outcomes for not only hate crime matters but all matters that these Opposition amendments are not supported.

In addition, the shadow Attorney General wanted to introduce terrorism symbols offences in New South Wales. Those that he did introduce are deeply flawed and based on a misconception of the law. I do not intend to repeat those comments. It is clear that the Opposition is seeking to introduce a confusing provision that undercuts a Commonwealth offence that carries a mandatory sentence. I find myself again asking how we can trust those opposite on terrorism or on anything when they fail to understand something as straightforward as a standard non‑parole period. The Government cannot support these amendments. They are flawed and incoherent.

Mr ALI STER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 19:48 :27 ): To address the seven points that fell from the police Minister, I am very happy that she is telling me that I do not understand the law. Apparently my two law degrees and being appointed Senior Counsel in 2011 means I should defer to the librarian! But let us deal with the seven points that fell from the police Minister—

Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: Just because the shadow Attorney General was passed over for the leadership, it does not mean that he can come in here and talk like a grub.

The SPEAKER: The Attorney General knows that is not a point of order. It is certainly not helpful.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: That is right. We will not talk about Chinese PhDs, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: No, we will not.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: The police Minister relied on seven points. Let us start with the first one. She said that we should not do away with the distinction under this Government's legislation between people flying Nazi flags or symbols in some parts of our State getting a two-year penalty and those in other parts getting a one-year penalty. The Opposition thinks we should do away with those distinctions and make the maximum term of imprisonment five years—not one year, not two years but five years, because this is a serious offence. When murderers in our community are incited by those symbols, we need to take it seriously.

Secondly, the police Minister said, "Well, there's a committee that's going to report in February." I thought this was a matter of national crisis that has required the recalling of Parliament, but now the police Minister is saying, "Oh, we can just wait until February for that. There's nothing serious going on here." Eight days ago 15 people were killed and Parliament has been recalled and the police Minister is suggesting that we should just leave it until the committee reports in February. That is not good enough. Thirdly, the Minister said that she does not want to undercut the Commonwealth offence. Can I give her a little bit of free legal advice? You can have New South Wales offences and you can have Commonwealth criminal offences.

When a Commonwealth criminal offence is considered in court during a prosecution, nobody refers to the New South Wales criminal offence and vice versa. There is no such thing as undercutting a Commonwealth offence. Different criminal offences under Commonwealth and State law have different elements. You can have two different criminal offences. They do not undercut each other. Maybe the New South Wales Parliament, in circumstances where 15 people were killed eight days ago, might want to say, "We're happy to have a five-year term, even if there are fewer elements to the offence than the Commonwealth offence." It is not good enough from the police Minister. Fourthly, she referred to the lower threshold of proof under the Commonwealth offence. I have dealt with that already. It does not matter.

Apparently, the police Minister knows more about the loophole highlighted on oath three months ago before a parliamentary inquiry by Assistant Commissioner McKenna, who makes decisions on behalf of the NSW Police Force about whether people are prosecuted for hate symbols in our community. The police Minister got up in Parliament to read a prepared speech written by someone who does not know what they are talking about and suggested that he was wrong. She is always telling the Opposition not to bag the cops, yet she is bagging the assistant commissioner's evidence and saying he does not know what he is talking about. He does know what he is talking about, and he knows a damn sight more than the police Minister and whoever wrote that stupid speech on these amendments for her to deliver.

He said that the national Government should be in charge of designating terrorist organisations, not the New South Wales Government. I am not talking about de-registering terrorist organisations. These amendments allow the police Minister to add terrorist organisations. The point is the Federal Government is not designating the terrorist organisations that it should be designating. Despite being designated a terrorist organisation all over the world, somehow the group that has links to the murders eight days ago is not in Australia. She does not want that power. She has the title of Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, but she does not want to take the responsibility of her title and take advice from the police as to which organisations should be designated as terrorist organisations under the New South Wales criminal provisions we seek to create.

Then there was perhaps the worst excuse of all. "We don't want to be putting this in the District Court." Oh my goodness! How terrible that we would take seriously the symbols that were used by the murderers eight days ago. For goodness sake, all it requires is for the Government to provide more resources for the District Court if it is going to give the court more work. Let us hope that such a law in our State will stop terrorists from killing people—that it will not need to be used and will not need to come before our courts. Isn't the purpose of the criminal law to deter people from committing crimes?

I implore members not to listen to the nonsense we just heard about the amendments, and to support the amendments as necessary and important improvements to the criminal laws of our State. We have begged the Government since February of this year to put it on the statute books of New South Wales. If what happened in Bondi eight days ago is not enough to convince the Government, I do not know what is. We are seeking to strengthen a weak provision in the bill. We need a strong government in New South Wales, not this weakness.

The SPEAKER: The question is that Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 3 on sheet c2025-335E be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes34

Noes40

Majority6

AYES

Anderson, K

Hodges, M

Singh, G

Ayyad, T

James, T

Sloane, K

Butler, R

Kemp, M

Taylor, M

Clancy, J

Lane, J

Thompson, T

Cooke, S

McGirr, J

Toole, P

Coure, M

Moylan, B

Tuckerman, W

Crouch, A (teller)

Preston, R

Tudehope, M

Dalton, H

Provest, G

Wallace, J

Donato, P

Regan, M

Williams, R

Dwyer, R

Roberts, A

Williamson, R (teller)

Hannan, J

Scruby, J

Wilson, F

Henskens, A

NOES

Aitchison, J

Harrison, J

Minns, C

Atalla, E (teller)

Haylen, J

O'Neill, M

Bali, S

Hoenig, R

Quinnell, S

Catley, Y

Holland, M

Saffin, J

Chanthivong, A

Kaliyanda, C

Saliba, D

Cotsis, S

Kamper, S

Scully, P

Daley, M

Kirby, W

Stuart, M

Davis, D

Leong, J

Vo, T

Dib, J

Li, J

Voltz, L

Doyle, T

McDermott, H

Warren, G

Finn, J

McInerney, K

Washington, K

Greenwich, A

McKeown, K

Whan, S

Hagarty, N (teller)

Mehan, D

Wilkinson, K

Harris, D

PAIRS

Cross, M

Tesch, L

Davies, T

Barr, C

Di Pasqua, S

Watson, A

Layzell, D

Park, R

Petinos, E

Hornery, S

Saunders, D

Crakanthorp, T

Speakman, M

Car, P

Amendments negatived.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 20:04 :13 ): I move Opposition amendment No. 2 on sheet c2025‑335E:

No. 2Public assemblies—Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House

Page 3, Schedule 1. Insert after line 21—

[2]Section 214A Damage or disruption to major facility

Omit "regulations." from section 214(7), definition of major facility, paragraph (c).

Insert instead—

regulations,

(d)Sydney Harbour Bridge,

(e)the Opera House within the meaning of the Sydney Opera House Trust Act 1961.

I will spend less time and be possibly less animated in speaking to this amendment. Many of the problems within our community began when the steps of the Opera House were occupied by people chanting hateful slogans two years ago. This amendment seeks to deal with that issue. In 2022 the Coalition Government, recognising that there were disruptive protests taking place across Sydney for various causes, brought into play amendments to the Crimes Act and the Roads Act that designated various places as major facilities, with particular criminal offences for people who blocked those major facilities. As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, in the Roads Act the Harbour Bridge was, either by regulation or expressly, designated as a major facility but the Opera House was not. This amendment seeks to designate both the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House under the Crimes Act so there is no doubt about the matter.

It was entirely anomalous that when a form 1 was sought for a protest that would block the Sydney Harbour Bridge and there was a hearing in the Supreme Court in relation to that matter, at no point in time did anyone on behalf of the New South Wales Government point out to the court—and it appears nowhere within the judgement—that the Sydney Harbour Bridge was a major facility that could not be exempt from criminal action under the Summary Offences Act as it currently exists. We need to protect our major national symbols from being appropriated by any individual group, and this amendment seeks to do that. No particular group should be able to get the benefit of national symbols as a confirmation of their ideological position. Clearly, on very few matters is there a clear consensus within our nation.

The 2022 law that designated major facilities was supported by 89 of the 93 members of this House. It passed with the almost unanimous consent of this House. The law should include the Sydney Opera House as well as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which is what this amendment seeks to do. Regrettably, the Sydney Harbour Bridge protest featured people flying ISIS flags and holding pictures of the Ayatollah Khomeini. We know Iran is involved in actions within our country that undermine our national interest. That is why it is important that our national icons, like the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House, cannot be appropriated by any particular group. This amendment will go some way to ensuring that is the case. I commend the amendment to the House.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (20:08:55): The Government opposes this amendment because it is unnecessary and based on a misunderstanding of the law. It is already an offence to disrupt and obstruct the Sydney Harbour Bridge and other major bridges, tunnels and roads under section 144G of the Roads Act 1993. That section has the same elements as section 214A of the Crimes Act, which criminalises damage or disruption to a major facility. It also carries the same penalty, which is 200 penalty units or 200 years imprisonment, or both. Why was the member for Wahroonga silent on that? Because he did not know. It is regrettable that the Opposition chose not to work on the proposed changes in a bipartisan way. Let me remind members that working together is quite possible. When the former Government made changes to the Crimes Act 1900 and to the Roads Act 1993 in relation to major facilities, expanding the application of section 144G beyond the Sydney Harbour Bridge to major roads, the former Attorney General said:

The bill has been prepared after some feedback from the Labor Opposition. I thank the member for Maroubra for his engagement and comments on an earlier draft.

Who said that to the member for Maroubra?

Mr Michael Daley: That was the last good Coalition AG.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY: How disappointing that the member for Wahroonga could not adopt the same approach.

The SPEAKER: The Minister and the Attorney General will come to order.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY: Damaging the Sydney Opera House is also already an offence, and obstructing a person trying to access the Sydney Opera House is an offence. Section 214A was introduced to prevent assemblies from disrupting the movement of people and economic activity. That is why it focuses on major facilities. That means facilities that are, or that support, major infrastructure in New South Wales. It is not appropriate to include the Sydney Opera House in that offence because the Sydney Opera House is not, by its nature, a major facility of the kind contemplated by that offence provision.

People do not watch plays or take their kids to shows at a private port or an infrastructure facility. Section 214A is specifically designed to prevent the disruption or obstruction of those types of facilities. In direct contrast, we encourage visitors to the Sydney Opera House. We encourage people to sit on the steps and enjoy the city. We encourage people to gather outside for festivals and shows. It is a meeting point for large groups. Unfortunately, the amendment proposed by the member for Wahroonga is both duplicative of existing offences and completely misunderstands the scope and application of section 214A. For those reasons, the Government does not support the amendment.

Mr ALIS TER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 20:12 :01 ): Again, I do not know who writes the Minister's lines. I assume that the Parliamentary Counsel, who drafted this, actually understands the law reasonably well. It was the Parliamentary Counsel who selected section 214A as the appropriate vehicle to criminalise disruption and blocking of the Opera House. I assume that the Parliamentary Counsel, as I do, understands—

The SPEAKER: The Attorney General and the Minister will come to order.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: It is interesting that they do not want to hear what the Opposition has to say on these matters. There have been calls for bipartisanship, an urgent recall of Parliament and abuse has been hurled at Opposition members, when the Government gave us the bill only 24 hours ago. It has taken us a bit of time to go through and formulate amendments on a bill supplied to us so late in the day but, somehow, Opposition members are supposed to consult. There was no consultation from Government members about how the schedules would be drafted within the legislation. Consultation is a one-way street as far as the Government is concerned, as is bipartisanship. Bipartisanship disappears as soon as Chris Minns leaves a press conference. That is the way the Government operates, and it is absolutely pathetic to hear the way that Government members are carrying on. There is no reason why the Opera House cannot be designated as a major facility under section 214A. There is no existing provision that stops people from blocking entry to, climbing on, jumping from or otherwise trespassing on the Sydney Opera House. That is exactly what happened two years ago.

Mr Michael Daley: It's a public place.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: I hear the Attorney General screaming across the Chamber. He seems to have forgotten that there was a recent Supreme Court decision in which the Government relied on the breach of the by‑laws of the Sydney Opera House as a reason why there could not be a protest. The breach of those by‑laws is a fairly minimal offence. We want stronger penalties for people who try to occupy our Sydney Opera House. It is a masterpiece of architecture by Jørn Utzon. It is one of the great buildings of the world. It is one of the seven wonders of the modern world. We want to keep people from getting on the steps of the Opera House and spewing hatred towards the section of our community that had 15 people murdered eight days ago. Is that so unreasonable? Is it so unreasonable to accept that a government acting in good faith on an urgent recall of the Parliament might support such a criminalisation rather than oppose it?

Are Government members tone deaf? Do they not understand what happened eight days ago? They are looking at their phones because they will not face up to the fact that their conduct on these amendments is appalling. Fifteen people died eight days ago, and they are playing stupid politics instead of doing the right thing and supporting sensible amendments to toughen laws in this State. It is disgraceful. The amendment should be supported. I urge members to support it. I urge Government members to look into their hearts and start supporting the strengthening of laws in this State, having regard to the tragedy that happened eight days ago.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY ( Maroubra—Attorney General) (20:17:07): I remind members, particularly that guy, that I lost a friend eight days ago. I do not need to be lectured by you, pal, on any aspect of this. I have been a member of this place for 20 years, and I have never heard anyone launch such a cowardly attack on Parliamentary Counsel. I publicly thank Annette O'Callaghan.

The SPEAKER: Members will come to order. They will tone it down a bit. I know it is an emotional issue.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: He has made it so. Annette O'Callaghan and her team at Parliamentary Counsel have worked wonders in the past few days. They have been inundated with myriad requests from members of both Houses to get legislation here and deal with amendments on the run. In 20 years here, I have never heard anyone impugn or blame the Parliamentary Counsel for mis-instruction. I publicly thank the Parliamentary Counsel team. They do an unbelievable job. We have the best Parliamentary Counsel office in the nation. I thank them for that.

The SPEAKER: The question is that Opposition amendment No. 2 on sheet c2025-335E be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes32

Noes42

Majority10

AYES

Anderson, K

Hannan, J

Sloane, K

Ayyad, T

Henskens, A

Taylor, M

Butler, R

Hodges, M

Thompson, T

Clancy, J

James, T

Toole, P

Cooke, S

Lane, J

Tuckerman, W

Coure, M

Moylan, B

Tudehope, M

Crouch, A (teller)

Preston, R

Wallace, J

Dalton, H

Provest, G

Williams, R

Donato, P

Regan, M

Williamson, R (teller)

Dwyer, R

Roberts, A

Wilson, F

Griffin, J

Singh, G

NOES

Aitchison, J

Harrison, J

Minns, C

Atalla, E (teller)

Haylen, J

O'Neill, M

Bali, S

Hoenig, R

Quinnell, S

Catley, Y

Holland, M

Saffin, J

Chanthivong, A

Kaliyanda, C

Saliba, D

Cotsis, S

Kamper, S

Scruby, J

Daley, M

Kirby, W

Scully, P

Davis, D

Leong, J

Stuart, M

Dib, J

Li, J

Vo, T

Doyle, T

McDermott, H

Voltz, L

Finn, J

McGirr, J

Warren, G

Greenwich, A

McInerney, K

Washington, K

Hagarty, N (teller)

McKeown, K

Whan, S

Harris, D

Mehan, D

Wilkinson, K

PAIRS

Cross, M

Barr, C

Davies, T

Tesch, L

Di Pasqua, S

Butler, L

Kemp, M

Park, R

Layzell, D

Hornery, S

Petinos, E

Watson, A

Saunders, D

Crakanthorp, T

Speakman, M

Car, P

Amendment negatived.

Mr GURMESH SINGH ( Coffs Harbour ) ( 20:26 :12 ): By leave: I move The Nationals amendments Nos 1, 3, 6 and 7 on sheet c2025‑340C in globo:

No. 1Approval for shooting ranges

Page 4, Schedule 2[2], lines 26–28. Omit all words on the lines.

No. 3Requirement for club membership

Page 7, Schedule 2[16], lines 33–42. Omit all words on the lines.

No. 6Approval for shooting ranges

Page 13, Schedule 2[32], proposed clause 45, lines 12–22. Omit all words on the lines.

No. 7Approval for shooting ranges

Page 14, Schedule 3[6], lines 13–15. Omit all words on the lines.

These amendments are important to The Nationals. Amendments Nos 1, 6 and 7 deal with the part of the bill that seeks to get rid of the P650 form. The bill removes the current exemption under section 6B of the Act that enables a person to possess and use firearms without a licence or permit while shooting under supervision on an approved range or while participating in an approved firearms safety training course. The exemption would be replaced with a permit scheme that will still facilitate unlicensed persons to use and possess a firearm at an approved shooting range or in a safety training course. Currently, a person can apply for the exemption by submitting a dedicated form, known as a P650 form, to a club or range official or instructor. Having consulted with our stakeholders, we move to remove the provision of the bill that seeks to omit section 6B of the Act.

Amendment No. 3 removes the proposed requirement for licensed firearm owners to have a club membership. Farmers across New South Wales, and across the country, often work incredibly long hours. They require firearms as tools, just like they need tractors and shovels. The bill places a further impost on primary producers to have to join a club, which could be a few hours drive away. Potentially this could mean that during harvest time, when they have zero time to spare, farmers may have to drive a few hours to the nearest range just to satisfy that arbitrary condition. I commend the amendments to the House.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (20:29:00): The amendments would retain the current exemption in section 6B of the Act that enables a person to possess and use firearms without a licence or permit while shooting under supervision on an approved range or while participating in an approved firearms safety training course. I stress that the New South Wales Government is not removing the ability of people to try firearms in a supervised setting, as currently provided under section 6B of the Firearms Act. The bill is only removing the exemption in section 6B of the Act to replace it with a permit scheme to be administered by the police. This is important, as it gives effect to a recommendation from the coronial inquest into the deaths of John, Jack and Jennifer Edwards. The P650 form was used by John Edwards, who murdered his children before turning the gun on himself.

The Coroner found that the P650 form poses extensive risk to public safety in general, as well as to safety of those working within gun clubs and club members, and recommended that the system be scrapped and replaced. Also, as I indicated this morning, the amendment requires a gun owner to be a member of an approved club as a condition of their licence unless they are exempt from complying with this condition under the regulation. This is an important amendment to support oversight of licensees through increased touchpoints with other law-abiding firearms licence holders and clubs. The participation requirements associated with club membership would provide an opportunity for firearms licensees to be part of the firearms community and for club officials or members to identify and report any unusual behaviour or concerns to the NSW Police Force, should they identify such behaviour—which is what happened with the coronial inquiry into the Edwards deaths.

Also, the amendments would be supported by updates of the Firearms Regulation to ensure that the participation requirements remain fit for purpose. The Government will work closely with community stakeholders to ensure that the regulations are practical and workable. This includes considering whether primary producers, farmers, those employed in vertebrate pest animal control, very remote licence holders or employees using firearms in the course of their employment could be exempt categories for mandatory club membership. The Government does not support the amendments.

The SPEAKER: The question is that The Nationals amendments Nos 1, 3, 6 and 7 on sheet c2025-340C be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes15

Noes60

Majority45

AYES

Anderson, K

Hannan, J

Singh, G

Butler, R

Kemp, M

Thompson, T

Cooke, S

McGirr, J

Toole, P

Dalton, H

Moylan, B

Tuckerman, W

Donato, P

Provest, G (teller)

Williamson, R (teller)

NOES

Aitchison, J

Harris, D

Preston, R

Atalla, E (teller)

Harrison, J

Quinnell, S

Ayyad, T

Haylen, J

Regan, M

Bali, S

Henskens, A

Roberts, A

Catley, Y

Hodges, M

Saffin, J

Chanthivong, A

Hoenig, R

Saliba, D

Clancy, J

Holland, M

Scruby, J

Cotsis, S

James, T

Scully, P

Coure, M

Kaliyanda, C

Sloane, K

Crouch, A

Kamper, S

Stuart, M

Daley, M

Kirby, W

Tudehope, M

Davis, D

Lane, J

Vo, T

Di Pasqua, S

Leong, J

Voltz, L

Dib, J

Li, J

Wallace, J

Doyle, T

McDermott, H

Warren, G

Dwyer, R

McInerney, K

Washington, K

Finn, J

McKeown, K

Whan, S

Greenwich, A

Mehan, D

Wilkinson, K

Griffin, J

Minns, C

Williams, R

Hagarty, N (teller)

O'Neill, M

Wilson, F

Amendments negatived.

Mr ROY BUTLER ( Barwon ) ( 20:40 :35 ): By leave: I move my amendments Nos 2 and 5 on sheet c2025‑330A in globo:

No. 2Maximum number of firearms

Pages 5 and 6, Schedule 2[9], line 17 on page 5 to line 3 on page 6. Omit all words on the lines.

No. 5Maximum number of firearms (only to be moved if amendment No. 2 succeeds)

Page 12, Schedule 2[32], proposed Schedule 3, Part 13, clause 38, lines 1–13. Omit all words on the lines.

The amendments essentially remove the parts of the legislation that cap the number of firearms that people can own. I have already gone into the reasons for that, and I will not keep members for a long time explaining it again. I am concerned about heirlooms—generational firearms that have been in the family for a long time. Would I be left with a choice? The only thing I have that belonged to my maternal grandfather is a shotgun that I was given when I was three. I shot my first rabbit with it when I was 10. I do not have anything else from him. Would that gun have to count towards the number of firearms that I own, for example? Those matters have not yet been worked out.

Removing the cap also takes care of primary production. I note that Xavier Martin is in the gallery; he has had a long day there. Glenn Kable is in the gallery as well; he has been giving us a hand today. He is a bit of a legal expert. Another example of a very old shotgun on a category A licence that I can use is my 1893 Greener facile princeps. It is a really old shotgun. Originally, it was made as a black powder gun. It went back to the Tower of London and got restamped and nitro-proofed, which means they put big crackers in it and it did not blow up. It is a piece of history. I like to use it because it is nostalgic, but if I use it then it counts towards the firearms that I own. I do not think we have thought that through.

I have already talked about families of shooters. It is anticipated that the four or five manufacturers in New South Wales will be reduced to one. Obviously, removing the cap would mean that those manufacturing businesses could stay open. The 30 per cent of gun shops that will close could also stay open. On top of that—and the Minister knows I say this in absolutely good faith—if the amendments were to proceed, I would be more than happy to work with the Government to come up with positive and practical measures that we can put in place that will actually improve public safety. That is all I need to say on that.

Ms YASMIN CAT LEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (20:43:00): I thank the member for Barwon for working with me on the bill. However, the Government does not support the amendments. Their effect is to remove the provisions in the bill that would limit the overall number of firearms that an individual can possess and use. The Government considers it important to limit the number of firearms circulating in the community. Introducing a limit on the number of firearms that a licensee can possess and use will support that. The bill will prioritise public safety and reduce the risk of tragedies occurring such as the devastating incident at Bondi Beach. A limit on the number of firearms is also particularly important as it acts to limit the number of firearms that may be unlawfully obtained, for example, via theft.

As I said this morning, the Government recognises that the majority of firearms owners are responsible and law-abiding. We also recognise that there are classes of persons who may have a genuine need for more than four but less than 10 firearms. To that end, the bill includes new section 8A (1) (e), which allows a person who is a member of a class of persons prescribed by the regulations for that paragraph to have a limit of no more than 10 firearms. This section also includes sensible exceptions for sport and target shooters, dealers and collectors and provides for a person who is a member of a class of persons prescribed by the regulations. This ensures that those who legitimately need more than four or 10 firearms are able to have them under their licence. I thank the member for Barwon.

The SPEAKER: The question is that amendments Nos 2 and 5 on sheet c2025-330A of the member for Barwon be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes15

Noes60

Majority45

AYES

Anderson, K

Hannan, J

Singh, G

Butler, R (teller)

Kemp, M

Thompson, T

Cooke, S

McGirr, J

Toole, P

Dalton, H

Moylan, B

Tuckerman, W

Donato, P (teller)

Provest, G

Williamson, R

NOES

Aitchison, J

Harris, D

Preston, R

Atalla, E

Harrison, J

Quinnell, S

Ayyad, T

Haylen, J

Regan, M

Bali, S

Henskens, A

Roberts, A

Catley, Y

Hodges, M

Saffin, J

Chanthivong, A

Hoenig, R

Saliba, D

Clancy, J

Holland, M

Scruby, J

Cotsis, S

James, T

Scully, P

Coure, M

Kaliyanda, C

Sloane, K

Crouch, A (teller)

Kamper, S

Stuart, M

Daley, M

Kirby, W

Tudehope, M

Davis, D

Lane, J

Vo, T

Di Pasqua, S

Leong, J

Voltz, L

Dib, J

Li, J

Wallace, J

Doyle, T

McDermott, H

Warren, G

Dwyer, R

McInerney, K

Washington, K

Finn, J

McKeown, K

Whan, S

Greenwich, A

Mehan, D

Wilkinson, K

Griffin, J

Minns, C

Williams, R

Hagarty, N (teller)

O'Neill, M

Wilson, F

Amendments negatived.

Mr GURMESH SINGH ( Coffs Harbour ) ( 20:51 :46 ): I move The Nationals amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-346B:

No. 1Limitation on number of firearms

Page 5, Schedule 2[9], line 26. Omit "no more than 10 firearms". Insert instead "no limitation".

After consultation with farming groups and NSW Farmers—I note the chair of NSW Farmers has left the gallery for a well-earned break—we propose an amendment to remove a phrase that limits primary producers to no more than 10 firearms, inserting instead "no limitation". We have been told during our consultation with farming groups that, yes, most farmers will have fewer than 10 firearms, but some farmers will require many more for bigger properties. This amendment will not fix the whole bill because it is a terrible bill, but it will at least make life a little bit easier for primary producers, people living on the land who are already doing it tough. One of the reasons we are disappointed with this bill in general is that all the amendments we are moving should have come out of a broad, long, detailed consultation phase with groups like NSW Farmers. Instead, they got a phone call on Sunday night at 5.00 p.m., which was not consultation. It was "This is what we're doing—like it or lump it." I commend the amendment to the House.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (20:53:47): The Government does not support this amendment. The Government considers that the limit of 10 firearms for genuine reasons—set out in new section 8A (1) (a)—including primary reduction, rural occupation requirements and animal welfare, appropriately balances these genuine reasons with the number of firearms necessary to fulfil these purposes. The bill recognises that different genuine reasons and licence types will require different limits. This is why a limit of 10 instead of four is proposed to apply to these genuine reasons.

I note that the Government will support a regulation-making power that will enable licensees with a genuine reason of sport and target shooting, vertebrate pest animal control, and business and employment to apply to the Commissioner of Police to possess and use more than 10 firearms. The Government will work in close consultation with community stakeholders for this purpose.

The SPEAKER: The question is that Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-346B be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes15

Noes60

Majority45

AYES

Anderson, K

Hannan, J

Singh, G

Butler, R

Kemp, M

Thompson, T

Cooke, S

McGirr, J

Toole, P

Dalton, H

Moylan, B

Tuckerman, W

Donato, P

Provest, G (teller)

Williamson, R (teller)

NOES

Aitchison, J

Harris, D

Preston, R

Atalla, E

Harrison, J

Quinnell, S

Ayyad, T

Haylen, J

Regan, M

Bali, S

Henskens, A

Roberts, A

Catley, Y

Hodges, M

Saffin, J

Chanthivong, A

Hoenig, R

Saliba, D

Clancy, J

Holland, M

Scruby, J

Cotsis, S

James, T

Scully, P

Coure, M

Kaliyanda, C

Sloane, K

Crouch, A (teller)

Kamper, S

Stuart, M

Daley, M

Kirby, W

Tudehope, M

Davis, D

Lane, J

Vo, T

Di Pasqua, S

Leong, J

Voltz, L

Dib, J

Li, J

Wallace, J

Doyle, T

McDermott, H

Warren, G

Dwyer, R

McInerney, K

Washington, K

Finn, J

McKeown, K

Whan, S

Greenwich, A

Mehan, D

Wilkinson, K

Griffin, J

Minns, C

Williams, R

Hagarty, N (teller)

O'Neill, M

Wilson, F

Amendment negatived.

Mr GURMESH SINGH ( Coffs Harbour ) ( 21:00 :53 ): I move The Nationals amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-345B:

No. 1Limitation on number of firearms

Page 5, Schedule 2[9], line 26. Insert "or a greater number of firearms approved by the Commissioner in accordance with the regulations" after "10 firearms".

Many of our amendments have tried to fix parts of the bill that we think are deficient. We understand that the Government will also move an amendment to this part of the bill. However, the Government's amendment is only regarding vertebrate pest and animal control or business and employment. The Nationals amendment allows for no more than 10 firearms or a greater number of firearms approved by the commissioner in accordance with the regulations. That brings it into line with sporting shooters.

I understand that the Government's amendment will only apply for vertebrate pest control and business or employment. How does the Government propose to deal with what is business or employment and what is primary production? A primary producer is also a business. "Occupational requirements relating to rural purposes" is also primary production, as is animal welfare. All five of the points in the bill—primary production, vertebrate pest and animal control, business or employment, occupational requirements relating to rural purposes and animal welfare—could rightly be said to be primary production. Our amendment would allow no more than 10 firearms or a greater number of firearms approved by the commissioner in accordance with the regulations.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (21:02:49): The amendment would allow the Commissioner of Police to approve, in accordance with the regulations, a licence holder using and possessing more than 10 firearms for specific genuine reasons. I note that the Government will support another amendment, which extends the regulation‑making power in the bill to enable licensees with the genuine reason of sport target shooting to apply to the Commissioner of Police to possess and use more than 10 firearms. The regulation‑making power will be extended to the genuine reasons of vertebrate pest animal control and business and employment. The Government will work in close consultation with community stakeholders to develop the specific parameters of the regulation.

The reason for that support is because the Government has been advised that there are very unique circumstances where a licence holder requires more than 10 firearms—for example, where the licence holder is a legitimate entity or business, such as an armed security firm, and holds a licence for the genuine reason of business or employment. That licence holder is required to possess a high number of firearms for use by their licensed armed employees in the execution of their duties. The Government is aware of similar situations that may apply for the genuine reason of vertebrate pest and animal control. The Government does not support the amendment.

The SPEAKER: The question is that The Nationals amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-345B be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes16

Noes59

Majority43

AYES

Anderson, K

Kemp, M

Singh, G

Butler, R

McGirr, J

Thompson, T

Cooke, S

Moylan, B

Toole, P

Dalton, H

Provest, G (teller)

Tuckerman, W

Donato, P

Scruby, J

Williamson, R (teller)

Hannan, J

NOES

Aitchison, J

Harris, D

Preston, R

Atalla, E

Harrison, J

Quinnell, S

Ayyad, T

Haylen, J

Regan, M

Bali, S

Henskens, A

Roberts, A

Catley, Y

Hodges, M

Saffin, J

Chanthivong, A

Hoenig, R

Saliba, D

Clancy, J

Holland, M

Scully, P

Cotsis, S

James, T

Sloane, K

Coure, M

Kaliyanda, C

Stuart, M

Crouch, A (teller)

Kamper, S

Tudehope, M

Daley, M

Kirby, W

Vo, T

Davis, D

Lane, J

Voltz, L

Di Pasqua, S

Leong, J

Wallace, J

Dib, J

Li, J

Warren, G

Doyle, T

McDermott, H

Washington, K

Dwyer, R

McInerney, K

Whan, S

Finn, J

McKeown, K

Wilkinson, K

Greenwich, A

Mehan, D

Williams, R

Griffin, J

Minns, C

Wilson, F

Hagarty, N (teller)

O'Neill, M

Amendment negatived.

Mr ROY BUTLER ( Barwon ) ( 21:11 :15 ): By leave: I move my amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4 on sheet c2025‑330A in globo:

No. 1Commencement—consequential on amendment No. 3 (only to be moved if amendment No. 4 succeeds)

Page 2, clause 2, line 6. Insert "37A," after "37,".

No. 3Sport/target shooting (only to be moved if amendment No. 2 fails)

Page 5, Schedule 2[9], proposed section 8A, lines 33–36. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—

sport/target shooting—no limitation,

No. 4Savings provision—Maximum number of firearms (only to be moved if amendment No. 2 fails)

Page 11, Schedule 2[32], proposed Schedule 3, Part 13. Insert after line 41—

37AExisting number of firearms

(1)This clause applies if immediately before the commencement of section 8A, as inserted by the amendment Act, a licensee is lawfully in possession of a number of firearms that, after the commencement of section 8A, would be more than the maximum number of firearms the licensee would be authorised to possess under that section.

(2)From the commencement of this clause, the licensee is authorised by the licensee's licence to possess and use the firearms despite section 8A.

These amendments relate to what I am calling a grandfather clause. Over a lifetime a person might have had a firearms licence for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. They have acquired firearms legally and justly and they own them. I have talked about the heirloom issues. I have talked about the older firearms that an owner wants to use sparingly because they do not want to break them. You cannot get parts for 130-year-old firearms. The grandfather clause would mean that those people who have legally purchased those firearms, held them for decades and have not used them inappropriately would be allowed to keep whatever firearms they had in their possession or which were paid for by 22 December 2025. I think that is very practical. There would be a huge cost saving for Government, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars that it does not have to spend.

It is evidence based. If a firearm owner has not done anything wrong for 10, 20 or 30 years, they are probably not going to. They have not been a public safety risk and there is no evidence that they would be. Members should keep in mind that people have relics as well. I had a .38 revolver that blew up in my hand. It is still a registered firearm and I have still got it because you do not forget guns blowing up in your hand. I still have my hand! Members have not considered a whole lot of things in this bill. I understand that the Minister is unlikely to support these amendments, but they are evidence based and represent a cost saving for her and her Government. They also do not unjustly treat law-abiding people who have not done the wrong thing.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (21:13:36): The Government does not support these amendments. The Government's expectation is that licensees with a higher number of guns than the applicable limit will reduce the number they own. The Government considers that there is no good reason why a licensee should need to own an excessive number of firearms. I note that the provision in the bill that introduces the limit will commence on proclamation and not right away. That will provide firearm licence holders with sufficient time to understand, prepare for and comply with the new legislation by, for example, participating in the New South Wales gun buyback scheme or making the relevant applications to ensure that they have the appropriate continuing licence authority ahead of commencement.

The SPEAKER: The question is that amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4 on sheet c2025-330A of the member for Barwon be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes17

Noes58

Majority41

AYES

Anderson, K

Kemp, M

Singh, G

Butler, R (teller)

McGirr, J

Thompson, T

Cooke, S

Moylan, B

Toole, P

Dalton, H

Provest, G

Tuckerman, W

Donato, P

Regan, M

Williamson, R (teller)

Hannan, J

Roberts, A

NOES

Aitchison, J

Harris, D

O'Neill, M

Atalla, E

Harrison, J

Preston, R

Ayyad, T

Haylen, J

Quinnell, S

Bali, S

Henskens, A

Saffin, J

Catley, Y

Hodges, M

Saliba, D

Chanthivong, A

Hoenig, R

Scruby, J

Clancy, J

Holland, M

Scully, P

Cotsis, S

James, T

Sloane, K

Coure, M

Kaliyanda, C

Stuart, M

Crouch, A (teller)

Kamper, S

Tudehope, M

Daley, M

Kirby, W

Vo, T

Davis, D

Lane, J

Voltz, L

Di Pasqua, S

Leong, J

Wallace, J

Dib, J

Li, J

Warren, G

Doyle, T

McDermott, H

Washington, K

Dwyer, R

McInerney, K

Whan, S

Finn, J

McKeown, K

Wilkinson, K

Greenwich, A

Mehan, D

Williams, R

Griffin, J

Minns, C

Wilson, F

Hagarty, N (teller)

Amendments negatived.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (21:20:43): By leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet c2025-356A in globo:

No. 1Number of firearms—vertebrate pest animal control and business or employment

Page 5, Schedule 2[9], proposed section 8A(1)(a)(ii) and (iii), lines 28 and 29. Omit all words on the lines.

No. 2Number of firearms—vertebrate pest animal control and business or employment

Page 5, Schedule 2[9], proposed section 8A(1)(b), line 33. Insert ", vertebrate pest animal control or business or employment" after "sport/target shooting".

The amendments will allow the Commissioner of Police to approve, in accordance with the regulations, a licence holder to use and possess more than 10 firearms for additional genuine reasons of vertebrate pest animal control and business or employment. The bill currently only allows that for the genuine reason of sport/target shooting. I am advised that there are specific situations where licensees with a genuine reason of vertebrate pest animal control and business or employment will require in excess of 10 firearms. It is critical that the regulation-making power in proposed new section 8A (1) (b) in the bill be expanded to avoid impacting those licensees. The amendments are crucial so that the Commissioner of Police can approve more than 10 firearms for such licensees in accordance with the regulations. I am advised that the Government will consult closely with impacted stakeholders.

Mrs WENDY TUCKERMAN ( Goulburn ) ( 21:22 :05 ): The Opposition will support the amendments. At last, there is some common sense. When we talk about hasty legislation and not consulting with communities and businesses that are important to regional communities, this is the result we get. I am glad that I mentioned this very thing in my second reading contribution. I have spoken to businesses that would be impacted if the original bill was applied. The amendments are much welcomed.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (21:22:53): I thank the member for Goulburn for her contribution and her suggestion. It was certainly worthy, and the Government took it on board.

Mr GURMESH SINGH ( Coffs Harbour ) ( 21:23 :06 ): I think my colleague said it best: There is some common sense. We would have loved to have seen the same provision extended to primary production, occupational requirements relating to rural purposes and animal welfare as well, but that amendment was voted down. Further consultation with farming groups is required because of the significant overlap between primary production, vertebrate pest animal control, business or employment, occupational requirements relating to rural purposes and animal welfare. They are all primary production. It beggars belief that we are singling out two specific but vague components of primary production but leaving out the whole. If the bill passes, I hope we can make further amendments in the future to help our farmers.

The SPEAKER: The question is that Government amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet c2025-356A be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr ALEX GREENWICH ( Sydney ) ( 21:24 :30 ): I move my amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025‑354B:

No. 1Review rights

Page 14, Schedule 3[8] and [9], lines 18–21. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—

[8]Clause 154, heading

Omit "to Civil and Administrative Tribunal under section 75 (1) (g)".

Insert instead "for internal review under section 75A(1)(f)".

[9]Clause 154(1)

Omit "section 75 (1) (g)". Insert instead "section 75A(1)(f)".

[10]Clause 154(2)

Omit "to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal under section 75 (1) (g)".

Insert instead "for internal review under section 75A(1)(f)".

My amendment fixes two drafting errors in the bill relating to the Firearms Regulation 2017 to ensure that the regulation gives effect to the internal review process for applicants who seek to appeal a firearms decision. Currently, section 75 of the Firearms Act provides for the types of decisions that may be reviewed by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal [NCAT] and empowers the regulations to prescribe additional types of decisions. The additional types of decisions are set out in section 154 of the regulation. The bill replaces the existing NCAT appeal process for firearm licence refusals for all decisions except a firearms prohibition order with a new internal review process.

The internal review process is set out in new section 75A, which also empowers the regulation to prescribe additional types of decisions that can be subject to an internal review. The additional types of decisions will continue to sit in section 154 of the regulation, except that section will now apply to the internal review process, not NCAT. As drafted, the provisions in the bill that amend the regulation to give effect to this new internal review process incorrectly refer to section 75 instead of 75A and incorrectly refer to NCAT instead of the internal review. My amendment fixes the cross-references, ensuring that NCAT reviews are replaced with internal police reviews, as intended. The amendment should be supported regardless of members' positions on the bill to ensure that drafting reflects the policy intent. I commend the amendment to the House.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (21:26:12): The Government supports the amendment. It makes minor changes to the Firearms Regulation 2017 to ensure it accurately reflects changes to the Firearms Act relating to internal reviews. The amendment ensures the regulation correctly refers to the regulation-making power in the Act, section 75A (1) (f). It also ensures references about applications made to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal refer to an internal review process. That reflects proposed new section 75A, which will provide that a person will only be able to apply to the NSW Police Force for an internal review of most of the decisions. They will not be able to apply to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal for an external review. The amendment is supported because it is necessary to give effect to the Government's policy intent in the bill.

The SPEAKER: The question is that amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-354B of the member for Sydney be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 21:27 :27 ): I move Opposition amendment No. 5 on sheet c2025‑335E:

No. 5Masks, disguises and other face coverings

Page 15, Schedule 4, lines 3–13. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—

[1]Part 6C

Insert after section 87ZC—

Part 6CPublic assemblies

87ZDCertain masks and disguises must not be worn during public assemblies

(1)A person participating in a public assembly must not hide the person's identity or disguise the person's appearance, including by wearing a face covering.

(2)A person does not contravene subsection (1) merely by wearing an item of clothing or another thing for religious purposes.

(3)If a person contravenes subsection (1), a police officer may do one or more of the following—

(a)direct the person to surrender the thing hiding the person's identity or disguising the person's appearance, or if the thing is make-up, face paint or a similar thing, remove the thing,

(b)direct the person to leave the vicinity of the public assembly,

(c)remove the person from the vicinity of the public assembly,

(d)detain the person until the earlier of the following—

(i)the conclusion of the public assembly,

(ii)the person surrendering the thing hiding the person's identity or disguising the person's appearance, or if the thing is make-up, face paint or a similar thing, removing the thing.

(4)A person must not—

(a)contravene a direction given under subsection (3)(a) or (b), or

(b)resist a police officer carrying out an action under subsection (3)(c) or (d).

Maximum penalty—100 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.

This amendment deals with the issue of protesters wearing face coverings. While the Opposition thanks the Government for making an attempt to deal with it, regrettably it has not been dealt with sufficiently. The problem with the amendment to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act in schedule 4 to the bill is that the power given to police to require protesters to remove face coverings is extraordinarily limited. The power is limited to circumstances in which a police officer reasonably suspects that the person with a face covering may have committed, or is likely to commit, an offence.

I have discussed with police officers the problem of protesters wearing face coverings in public assemblies. It is very difficult for the police to arrest people in large crowds who chant slogans in breach of criminal provisions such as section 93ZAA of the Crimes Act—publicly inciting hatred on ground of race and other various criteria—when they obscure their faces. The problem is a policing one. Our solution, which is in the amendment and was in our private member's bill in February of this year—and unfortunately has been rejected by the Government on previous occasions—is that police officers should have the power to stop people with face coverings from joining protests. That is a reasonable, proportionate and practical way of ensuring that photographs and videos of protesters can be used to identify their criminal conduct during a public assembly.

Unfortunately, the bill does not provide for that because the person has to commit an offence or show that they are likely to commit an offence before the police officer is given the power under schedule 4 to do something, and that only arises in circumstances where, practically, they are unable to go in and arrest somebody. That is the problem. For example, my understanding is that those persons who carried ISIS flags on the Sydney Harbour Bridge have now been identified and subsequently charged, but they were not capable of being charged, on a practical level, while they were on the Harbour Bridge protesting and carrying those flags. Our amendment to schedule 4 will give the police powers which they have told us they have asked for, which they need and which will operate in a practical fashion. Of course, this is an incredibly important extra measure to give the police the tools that they need in order to properly police matters. I commend the amendment to the House.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (21:32:12): The Government opposes the amendment. The member for Wahroonga claimed that the Government's approach to the removal of face coverings during public assemblies does not go far enough and that there should be a blanket ban on face coverings other than those for religious purposes. I want to be very clear that the Government supports the right of people, under the Constitution, to engage in political speech. However, it draws the line where that right is abused in a manner that facilitates criminal activity, and that is exactly what the amendments in the Government's bill do. In contrast, the Opposition's amendment is a disproportionate and unworkable response.

There is no link to suspicion of criminal behaviour in the Opposition's proposed measure. There are no thresholds or safeguards in relation to invasive powers such as removing a person or detaining a person. It is not clear why such powers should be available in all circumstances involving face coverings. The Opposition's model makes no distinction, for example, in relation to people who wear masks for legitimate medical reasons. It is also a shame that those opposite have not been honest about the fact that, in serious circumstances, police already have powers that enable them to move people on or detain them. Those powers let police sufficiently and appropriately respond to public safety concerns. The lack of proportionality in the Opposition's approach carries a significant legal risk of improperly burdening an implied freedom of political communication, therefore rendering the provision invalid. There is no value in the Opposition touting strong laws that they know will fall over, but the member for Wahroonga does not care if the laws he proposes survive long enough to protect the community because, as he said, "the Parliament is not a court of law, so the Government should not throw up constitutional problems".

When discussing the same measures in relation to protests, which the Opposition seeks to now put forward as new ideas, on 5 August 2025 the former Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Mark Speakman, was asked whether the measures would withstand a constitutional challenge. He said, "I have taken direct advice." I do not think Alister has taken direct advice. I am disappointed that members opposite would tout their proposals as strong and necessary when they are deeply flawed and highly amenable to challenge and, ultimately, failure. That is not what our community needs. The Government's approach is a targeted and focused response that strikes the right balance between our important rights of speech and expression with the need to protect the community and prevent criminal activity. A problematic and one-size-fits-all approach is not the kind of law that we need.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 21:34 :56 ): Having practised extensively in the area of defamation law and being familiar with the legislation and the decisions which first gave rise to the implied right to freedom of political expression in our country, I am somewhat staggered by the contribution that we have just heard from the police Minister. As I understand her argument, if you are not able to express an opinion at a public rally with a face mask on, disguising your identity, that somehow is an infringement of the implied right to communicate. That is an extraordinary proposition: Being able to hide your identity to evade the consequences of potentially illegal hate speech is said to infringe the constitutional implied right and not be proportionate.

Of course, in determining whether it would be proportionate, one would ask oneself, "Is it a proportionate response to the problem of people disguising their appearance and evading the criminal law to require them to join a public assembly without disguising their appearance?" Apparently the police Minister thinks that people should be able to evade hate speech provisions in our Crimes Act by disguising their appearance, and that to stop them from doing that would be a disproportionate response. This is the sort of constant weakness that we hear time and again from this Government and this police Minister. I have said on public record that this is the worst police Minister in the history of New South Wales, and I repeat it. That performance and that statement from the police Minister exemplify what I have been talking about.

Mr Greg Warren: Point of order—

TEMPORARY SPEAKER ( Ms Stephanie Di Pasqua ): Order! The House will come to order.

Mr Greg Warren: The member for Wahroonga has moved right away from the boundaries of what he was proposing in his amendment. I ask that you direct him back to the amendment.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER ( Ms Stephanie Di Pasqua ): There is no point of order. The member for Wahroonga will continue.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: I thought it was somewhat ironic that, on an argument about people's right to freedom of expression, the member would try to stop me from expressing my point of view in the manner in which I chose to express it. If anything could get more ridiculous in the way in which this Government is approaching these very serious issues, then the member opposite just proved my point exactly. This is a very serious matter. We are trying to deal with hate speech, the sort of hate speech which caused 15 people to be killed eight days ago.

The callous indifference of members opposite as to the powers that the police may need to deal with hate speech in our community is appalling. We are trying to give the police the powers that they say they need to properly deal with hate speech at public assemblies in our community. So far there have been inadequate attempts to provide that. The Government is coming up with absolutely bogus constitutional objections. People can express their opinions, just not in a way which disguises their identities, so that, if their opinions expressed in public are unlawful, the police can actually enforce the law.

What is going on here, what we are seeing from this Government, is quite extraordinary. The Opposition seeks to strengthen schedule 4 to the bill so that the police get the powers they have asked for. There is no constitutional reason for not giving the police those powers. Those who are suggesting there is really need to go back and read the cases that I read many times. This is a proportionate response. It is not unconstitutional. This Government should stop trying to be a kangaroo court and instead be lawmakers. The Government should make the laws the State needs.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER ( Ms Stephanie Di Pasqua ): The question is that Opposition amendment No. 5 on sheet c2025‑335E be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes32

Noes42

Majority10

AYES

Anderson, K

Hannan, J

Sloane, K

Ayyad, T

Henskens, A

Taylor, M

Butler, R

Hodges, M

Thompson, T

Clancy, J

James, T

Toole, P

Cooke, S

Kemp, M

Tuckerman, W

Coure, M

Lane, J

Tudehope, M

Crouch, A (teller)

Moylan, B

Wallace, J

Dalton, H

Preston, R

Williams, R

Di Pasqua, S

Provest, G

Williamson, R (teller)

Dwyer, R

Scruby, J

Wilson, F

Griffin, J

Singh, G

NOES

Aitchison, J

Harrison, J

Minns, C

Atalla, E (teller)

Haylen, J

O'Neill, M

Bali, S

Hoenig, R

Quinnell, S

Catley, Y

Holland, M

Regan, M

Chanthivong, A

Kaliyanda, C

Saffin, J

Cotsis, S

Kamper, S

Saliba, D

Daley, M

Kirby, W

Scully, P

Davis, D

Leong, J

Stuart, M

Dib, J

Li, J

Vo, T

Doyle, T

McDermott, H

Voltz, L

Finn, J

McGirr, J

Warren, G

Greenwich, A

McInerney, K

Washington, K

Hagarty, N (teller)

McKeown, K

Whan, S

Harris, D

Mehan, D

Wilkinson, K

PAIRS

Cross, M

Crakanthorp, T

Davies, T

Watson, A

Layzell, D

Hornery, S

Petinos, E

Tesch, L

Roberts, A

Butler, L

Saunders, D

Barr, C

Speakman, M

Car, P

Amendment negatived.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 21:48 :03 ): I move Opposition amendment No. 6 on sheet c2025-335E:

No. 6Public assemblies—participation

Page 16, Schedule 5. Insert after line 6—

[1A]Section 24 Participation in authorised public assembly Insert at the end of the section—

(2)To avoid doubt, a person participating in an authorised assembly held substantially in accordance with particulars furnished under section 23(1)(c), or particulars as amended by agreement, may still be guilty of another offence, including an offence related to the purpose of the assembly.

Example of other offences— an offence against the Crimes Act 1900, Part 3A, Division 9 or Part 4AF

This amendment seeks to add to section 24 of the Summary Offences Act by way of further clarification. I have not been going too well tonight, but I hope that this amendment might get the support of the Government.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (21:48:39): The Government opposes this amendment. The New South Wales Government has already proposed an amendment to the Summary Offences Act 1988 to clarify that a person can still be guilty of any offence if they participate in an authorised assembly. Schedule 2 to the Crimes and Summary Offences Amendment Bill 2025 includes a new section that amends section 24 of the Summary Offences Act to clarify that:

… a person participating in an authorised assembly held substantially in accordance with particulars furnished under section 23(1)(c), or particulars as amended by agreement, may still be guilty of another offence, including an offence related to the purpose of the assembly.

It then provides an example of other offences, which includes an offence against the Crimes Act 1900 section 97ZAA or 97ZA. I may not have a law degree, but as a librarian I know how to read! The Government opposes the amendment.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 21:49 :40 ): I instructed the Parliamentary Counsel to copy the Government's bill and put the provisions in this bill. If those opposite think it is a good idea and we think it is a good idea, why would we wait for some committee to consider it? It is quite extraordinary that the urgent circumstances of 15 people being killed might actually be a reason that we should put it through now. For a government that talks about bipartisanship, it is extraordinary that when we actually agree with something that was put in a bill in the last week of Parliament and now seek to put it in this bill as an amendment, Government members oppose it. I think that says everything you need to know about Government members and their attitude to good lawmaking in this State.

The SPEAKER: The question is that Opposition amendment No. 6 on sheet c2025-335E be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes31

Noes42

Majority11

AYES

Anderson, K

Hannan, J

Singh, G

Ayyad, T

Henskens, A

Sloane, K

Clancy, J

Hodges, M

Taylor, M

Cooke, S

James, T

Thompson, T

Coure, M

Kemp, M

Toole, P

Crouch, A (teller)

Lane, J

Tuckerman, W

Dalton, H

Preston, R

Wallace, J

Di Pasqua, S

Provest, G

Williams, R

Donato, P

Roberts, A

Williamson, R (teller)

Dwyer, R

Scruby, J

Wilson, F

Griffin, J

NOES

Aitchison, J

Harrison, J

Minns, C

Atalla, E (teller)

Haylen, J

O'Neill, M

Bali, S

Hoenig, R

Quinnell, S

Catley, Y

Holland, M

Regan, M

Chanthivong, A

Kaliyanda, C

Saffin, J

Cotsis, S

Kamper, S

Saliba, D

Daley, M

Kirby, W

Scully, P

Davis, D

Leong, J

Stuart, M

Dib, J

Li, J

Vo, T

Doyle, T

McDermott, H

Voltz, L

Finn, J

McGirr, J

Warren, G

Greenwich, A

McInerney, K

Washington, K

Hagarty, N (teller)

McKeown, K

Whan, S

Harris, D

Mehan, D

Wilkinson, K

PAIRS

Cross, M

Barr, C

Davies, T

Tesch, L

Layzell, D

Car, P

Moylan, B

Park, R

Petinos, E

Crakanthorp, T

Saunders, D

Butler, L

Speakman, M

Hornery, S

Tudehope, M

Watson, A

Amendment negatived.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 21:56 :45 ): I move Opposition amendment No. 7 on sheet c2025-335E:

No. 7Public assemblies—mandatory considerations

Page 16, Schedule 5. Insert before line 7—

[1B]Sections 27AA

Insert after section 27—

27AAMandatory considerations before certain decisions about public assemblies

(1)This section applies to the following decisions—

(a)a decision by the Commissioner whether the Commissioner does or does not oppose the holding of a public assembly as referred to in section 23(1)(f),

(b)a decision by a Court whether or not to prohibit the holding of a public assembly under section 25,

(c)a decision by a Court whether or not to authorise the holding of a public assembly under section 26.

(2)Before making a decision to which this section applies, the Commissioner or Court must consider all relevant matters, including the following—

(a)public safety,

(b)social cohesion,

(c)the impact of the public assembly on public amenity and convenience,

(d)adverse impacts of the public assembly on the economy, including businesses,

(e)impacts of the public assembly on groups, organisations or religious groups in the vicinity of the public assembly,

(f)the frequency of similar public assemblies using the same or a similar route or location,

(g)other uses of the route or location of the public assembly that will be disrupted or prevented by the public assembly,

(h)the availability of other, less disruptive routes or locations for the public assembly,

(i)the costs incurred by the State and the diversion and use of police resources in policing the public assembly and the costs and resources used in making or responding to applications under this part.

The Opposition has attempted to insert this amendment, which was first advanced in February of this year, into New South Wales law on a number of occasions. Under the Summary Offences Act form 1 process for the authorisation of a public assembly, there is, in fact, no direction given to either the Commissioner of Police or the courts to determine what criteria should be considered when deeming whether a public assembly is lawful or not. With this amendment, the Opposition is seeking to establish some criteria for the decision-makers, either the Commissioner of Police or the court, to take into account when arriving at their decision. It does not tell them how they should make that decision or what weight they should give to the various different criteria.

The criteria the Opposition thinks they should take into account includes matters like public safety; social cohesion; the impact of an assembly on public amenity and convenience; the impact of a public assembly on the economy, including businesses; the adverse impacts of a public assembly on groups, organisations or religious groups within the vicinity of the public assembly; the frequency of similar public assemblies; the use of the route or alternative less disruptive routes that could be taken; the costs incurred by the State for the diversion and use of police resources in policing the public assembly; and the costs for the resources used in making or responding to applications under this part.

This amendment could not, in any way, be objected to on the grounds of a constitutional issue. All it does is simply set out criteria. It does not tell the decision-maker how to weigh the various different factors; it just gives guidance. It is a sensible addition to the Summary Offences Act. I am sure we will hear some not very sensible reasons for opposing it, but the reality is that it should be approved. It should be entered into the laws of our State as an improvement on the current situation, which is that the authorisation of public assemblies in the decisions to date seems to be only ever argued on the grounds of public safety.

There are clearly much more important public interests that should be taken into account in addition to public safety—including, very importantly, social cohesion. I see the Minister for Multiculturalism in the Chamber. We have not heard him speak today, but I am sure that he is intently listening to the debate. I assume that he is interested in social cohesion, although we have not heard that. The shadow Minister spoke, but not the Minister for Multiculturalism. Social cohesion has been greatly under threat in our State over the past two years due to public assemblies. We want that to be taken into account by decision‑makers. Let us hope that the Government will surprise me and support the amendment.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (22:00:04): The Government opposes the amendment. We do not agree with the Opposition that a list of factors that reflects matters already taken into account by our incredible NSW Police Force will somehow make our community safer. The benefit of the broad discretion to take into account all relevant conditions—and disregard irrelevant considerations—is that it allows the Commissioner of Police and the court to consider the unique circumstances of each application. Requiring a minimum list of factors to be taken into account may result in a lengthier and more burdensome process for organisers and police.

The Opposition's drafting prescribes every enumerated factor as relevant, meaning that every single one has to be considered in every single case. There is a risk that information relevant to all of the considerations will not be able to be provided to police by organisers, and the Opposition's proposal may then have the opposite effect of discouraging organisers from notifying police of their intent to hold a public assembly. That deprives police of the opportunity to work with organisers to ensure that the assembly is safe and minimises disruption to the community. Ultimately, that negatively impacts community safety. Police may also have to allocate more resources to respond to assemblies that have not been notified and organised through the statutory process to maintain public order and safety. In such circumstances, there will be a risk of increased disruption for the community. For those reasons, the Government opposes the amendment.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 22:02 :06 ): I am not sure that the police Minister has read many of the decisions that are considered the law on this matter, but I have read quite a number of them, and I can assure members—

The SPEAKER: The member for Canterbury will come to order. Members will come to order. There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The member for Wahroonga will be heard in silence.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: In reading those decisions, I note they all focus on public safety. They do not consider—

Dr Hugh McDermott: Name them. You're the expert—name them all.

The SPEAKER: Who was that?

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: That idiot over there.

The SPEAKER: The member for Prospect will come to order. Interjecting in that way is very disorderly.

Mr Geoff Provest: He's three sheets to the wind, mate.

The SPEAKER: That is an inappropriate comment.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: It is accurate but inappropriate. The reality is that the decisions always concentrate on public assembly; they do not deal with the other factors. They do not deal with economic impact. They do not deal with social cohesion. They do not deal with so many of the factors that we think the decision‑makers should be turning their minds to. They only have to consider them—the amendment does not tell them how much weight to give to them or whether they particularly apply. They might just say, "This doesn't apply in this particular case." In no sense could that be considered a burden of the kind the police Minister alluded to. We should be introducing this into our law. We have been contending for this since February. It is the right thing to do. I encourage the House to support the amendment.

The SPEAKER: The question is that Opposition amendment No. 7 on sheet c2025-335E be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes32

Noes42

Majority10

AYES

Anderson, K

Hannan, J

Singh, G

Ayyad, T

Henskens, A

Sloane, K

Butler, R

Hodges, M

Taylor, M

Clancy, J

James, T

Thompson, T

Cooke, S

Kemp, M

Tuckerman, W

Coure, M

Lane, J

Tudehope, M

Crouch, A (teller)

Moylan, B

Wallace, J

Dalton, H

Preston, R

Williams, R

Donato, P

Provest, G

Williamson, R (teller)

Dwyer, R

Roberts, A

Wilson, F

Griffin, J

Scruby, J

NOES

Aitchison, J

Harrison, J

Minns, C

Atalla, E (teller)

Haylen, J

O'Neill, M

Bali, S

Hoenig, R

Quinnell, S

Catley, Y

Holland, M

Regan, M

Chanthivong, A

Kaliyanda, C

Saffin, J

Cotsis, S

Kamper, S

Saliba, D

Daley, M

Kirby, W

Scully, P

Davis, D

Leong, J

Stuart, M

Dib, J

Li, J

Vo, T

Doyle, T

McDermott, H

Voltz, L

Finn, J

McGirr, J

Warren, G

Greenwich, A

McInerney, K

Washington, K

Hagarty, N (teller)

McKeown, K

Whan, S

Harris, D

Mehan, D

Wilkinson, K

PAIRS

Cross, M

Watson, A

Davies, T

Barr, C

Di Pasqua, S

Park, R

Layzell, D

Tesch, L

Petinos, E

Hornery, S

Saunders, D

Car, P

Speakman, M

Crakanthorp, T

Toole, P

Butler, L

Amendment negatived.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 22:09 :50 ): I move Opposition amendment No. 8 on sheet c2025‑335E:

No. 8Public assemblies—public assembly restriction declarations

Page 16, Schedule 5[2], lines 7 and 8. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—

[2]Sections 27A–27C

Insert after section 27AB, as inserted by item [1C]—

27ABOrganisers may be required to pay costs to police of certain repeat public assemblies in advance

(1)This section applies to the following decisions—

(a)a decision by the Commissioner that the Commissioner does not oppose the holding of a public assembly as referred to in section 23(1)(f),

(b)a decision by a Court not to prohibit the holding of a public assembly under section 25,

(c)a decision by a Court to authorise the holding of a public assembly under section 26.

(2)The Commissioner or Court may, before making a decision to which this section applies in relation to a repeat public assembly, require the organiser of the public assembly to pay a specified amount to the State as a contribution to the cost of policing the public assembly.

(3)The specified amount may be the whole or part of the amount that, in the Commissioner's opinion, is the likely cost of policing the public assembly.

(4)The Commissioner or Court may refuse to make the decision until the organiser has paid the specified amount.

(5)To avoid doubt, subsection (2) applies—

(a)whether or not the organiser of the public assembly is the same person as an organiser of one or more of the earlier relevant public assemblies, and

(b)subject to the implied constitutional right of freedom of political communication.

(6)In this section—

repeat public assembly means a public assembly where, on 3 or more days during the previous 12 months, other public assemblies have been held for the same or a similar purpose at the same or another location in the State, regardless of whether the other public assemblies were held—

on consecutive or non-consecutive days, and

for a full day or a part of a day.

This is another amendment we have been advocating for since February of this year. It provides for three free protests a year. After the three free protests within a 12-month period, protest organisers do not get an extra steak knife. Instead, the Commissioner of Police or the courts could require them to pay some or all of the costs of those further protests. There is no requirement that they have to pay some or all of those costs; it is a discretion given to decision-makers that is expressly subject to the implied constitutional right of freedom of political communication. That discretion has to be exercised proportionately, having regard to that implied right.

I have no doubt that the Government will oppose this amendment, but it is actually a good idea. Tens of millions of dollars of public funds—taxpayers' funds—have been spent on police overtime. These weekly protests have been sucking away police resources that perhaps could have been spent on counterterrorism, domestic violence or other things. That taxpayers' money could have been spent on our schools, hospitals, roads or for other public purposes. Instead, it has been spent on police accompanying protesters week after week and saying the same thing over and over again rather actually used for a beneficial purpose. We think that this is an incredibly important and fair provision. I have spoken on this measure on a number of occasions since February, when we first introduced it, and I commend it to the House.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (22:12:24): The Government opposes this amendment. I am disappointed that those opposite chose to rehash old proposals that are problematic, unworkable and carry constitutional risk, which members have already spoken about at length. There is no point enacting laws only to see them fall over. A user-pays model for public assemblies is not appropriate. It leaves the door open for people who can crowdfund enough money or can otherwise afford it to have as many public assemblies as they want. It may also discourage organisers from cooperating with the authorities and result in greater disruption and adverse resourcing and safety consequences.

I also note that the Opposition's proposal is not retrospective. Any talk of this model being able to impact public assembly in coming days or weeks is simply untrue. It relies on repeat public assemblies having occurred after its enactment. In contrast, our measures in relation to public assemblies are retrospective. We say in the wake of a terrorist incident that the critical power to provide is the ability to completely prohibit the authorisation of any public assemblies. That will ensure public safety. That is our position, and that is what we have in our bill.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 22:13 :45 ): Hearing the police Minister make constitutional arguments reminds me that I used to appear in real courts of law and am now in a kangaroo court presided over by her. The points she makes are completely bogus. We should enact these provisions so that public funds are directed properly and not at the whim of organisations within the community that seek to suck up police resources and send them in the wrong direction. Police resources should be sent in the right direction. That is the role of government. It is not the role of courts, and it is certainly not the role of a librarian anticipating what a court might find.

The SPEAKER: The question is that Opposition amendment No. 8 on sheet c2025-335E be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes30

Noes44

Majority14

AYES

Anderson, K

Griffin, J

Singh, G

Ayyad, T

Henskens, A

Sloane, K

Butler, R

Hodges, M

Taylor, M

Clancy, J

James, T

Toole, P

Cooke, S

Kemp, M

Tuckerman, W

Coure, M

Lane, J

Tudehope, M

Crouch, A (teller)

Moylan, B

Wallace, J

Dalton, H

Preston, R

Williams, R

Di Pasqua, S

Provest, G

Williamson, R (teller)

Donato, P

Roberts, A

Wilson, F

NOES

Aitchison, J

Harrison, J

O'Neill, M

Atalla, E (teller)

Haylen, J

Quinnell, S

Bali, S

Hoenig, R

Regan, M

Catley, Y

Holland, M

Saffin, J

Cotsis, S

Kaliyanda, C

Saliba, D

Crakanthorp, T

Kamper, S

Scruby, J

Daley, M

Kirby, W

Scully, P

Davis, D

Leong, J

Stuart, M

Dib, J

Li, J

Vo, T

Doyle, T

McDermott, H

Voltz, L

Finn, J

McGirr, J

Warren, G

Greenwich, A

McInerney, K

Washington, K

Hagarty, N (teller)

McKeown, K

Whan, S

Hannan, J

Mehan, D

Wilkinson, K

Harris, D

Minns, C

PAIRS

Cross, M

Chanthivong, A

Davies, T

Barr, C

Dwyer, R

Butler, L

Layzell, D

Car, P

Petinos, E

Hornery, S

Saunders, D

Watson, A

Speakman, M

Park, R

Thompson, T

Tesch, L

Amendment negatived.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 22:21 :02 ): By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 4 and 9 on sheet c2025-335E in globo:

No. 4Masks, disguises and face coverings

Page 3. Insert after line 21—

Schedule 1AAmendment of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 92

Part 4, Division 1A, Table

Insert after item 23—

23ASection 27C of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (organising, conducting or participating in public assembly in area the subject of a public assembly restriction declaration)

No. 9Public assemblies—public assembly restriction declarations

Page 16, Schedule 5. Insert after line 29—

27COffence to organise or participate in public assembly in area subject of public assembly restriction declaration

The following persons commit an offence if a public assembly is held, or partially held, in an area the subject of a public assembly restriction declaration while the declaration is in force—

(a)a person who organises or conducts the public assembly,

(b)a person who participates in the public assembly.

Maximum penalty for a person who organises or conducts the public assembly—

(a)for an individual—200 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, or both, or

(b)otherwise—1,000 penalty units.

Penalty for a person who participates in the public assembly—$1,000.

These amendments are an attempt to strengthen what the Government is trying to do with public assembly restriction declarations. A public assembly restriction declaration after a terrorist event does not stop public assemblies within the public assembly restriction area. That is a big weakness with what the Government is trying to do. Just because a person does not have a form 1 does not mean they cannot have a lawful public assembly in this State. The problem is that if the bill is passed by the Parliament, there will be nothing to stop a pro-Hamas protest or assembly on Bondi Beach at the end of the week. Nobody wants to see that. There has to be consequences for somebody who is holding a public assembly that would cause, under this legislation, a reasonable person to fear harassment, intimidation or violence, or for the person's safety, or cause a risk to community safety, including the safety of participants in the public assembly in the area.

Unfortunately, the legislation has no teeth as it is currently drafted. There is nothing to stop people from having a public assembly without a form 1. The amendments give the legislation teeth. If the amendments pass, there will be real consequences for somebody who holds a public assembly after a declaration in an area designated by the Commissioner of Police. Each participant would be automatically fined $1,000, and the organisers would have strict penalties of up to five years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 1.5 years if they threaten our social cohesion in the aftermath of a terrorist attack like we saw at Bondi Beach.

If the Government truly thinks it wants to designate areas that should have public assembly restrictions, then it should give some teeth to the legislation. It should not be window-dressing or merely rejecting form 1 applications under the Summary Offences Act. There should be real consequences for breaking our social cohesion at this time of national tragedy and mourning. Although somewhat a forlorn hope, I encourage the Government to support this amendment, because the Opposition is trying to help it deal with a very difficult situation. It is important that if there truly is fear of harassment, intimidation, violence, risk to personal safety and risk to community safety, which are the triggers to exercise the declaration, then there should be no public assemblies, and there should be real consequences for people that have them.

Ms YASMIN CATLEY ( Swansea—Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter) (22:25:14): The Government opposes the amendments. They are new proposals that have never been provided to the Government. It is a shame that they were not—because they are deeply problematic. Principally, this amendment will create two criminal offences. First, it will be an offence for anyone to participate in a public assembly in the designated area while the declaration is in force, punishable with a fine of $1,000. Under section 22 of the Summary Offences Act 1988, public assembly is defined as "an assembly held in a public place, and includes a procession so held". Assembly takes on its ordinary meaning. The Macquarie Dictionary defines it as:

a company of persons gathered together, usually for the same purpose, whether religious, political, educational, or social.

I thank the good parliamentary librarian. This new offence proposed by the Opposition would apply to all public assemblies in designated areas. What that means is that it would be a criminal offence for people to participate in lawful and peaceful vigils, just like the ones we have seen at Bondi Beach. It would criminalise gatherings such as those that happen in The Domain, one of which is being setting up now—Carols by Candlelight. It should be clear to all that this is a step too far.

The amendment is even more problematic regarding the second offence. It will be an offence for an organiser to hold a public assembly in a declared area, and attracts a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. That is a significant penalty. Again, it does not appear that those opposite thought about peaceful gatherings of members in our community who come together to seek comfort from one another. An organiser may be organising a vigil, a large picnic or a family event in a park. The Opposition's response is extremely disproportionate and likely to be unconstitutional again. The Government does not support it.

In times of significant tragedy, one of the most important things is for the community to come together. We have seen that at Bondi Beach and around the country, and we want that to continue. The Government does not support the Opposition's ban on those activities. Our focus in this bill—and what all members should be focused on—is to prohibit the kinds of assemblies that present a risk to safety, not blanket prohibitions that make no distinction between gatherings that bring us together and those that drive us apart.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 22:27 :52 ): The Minister for Police Minister and Counter‑terrorism says there is no distinction, but that is exactly what the legislation does. A peaceful gathering cannot get a form 1 any more than a Hamas protest can get a form 1, so it is a blanket prohibition on getting a form 1 under the Summary Offences Act. Either we have a provision that prohibits public assemblies in those designated areas or we do not. If we are going to have it, give it some teeth, for goodness sake.

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Lane Cove to order for the first time. I call the member for Lane Cove to order for the second time.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: If there should be exemptions for peaceful gatherings, then they should be in the Government's legislation as well as in our provision, and our provision would dovetail into that. The fact of the matter is that there is no prohibition on unpeaceful demonstrations in the designated areas, and I rather thought that was what this legislation was designed to achieve.

The SPEAKER: The question is that Opposition amendments Nos 4 and 9 on sheet c2025‑335E be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes32

Noes42

Majority10

AYES

Anderson, K

Hannan, J

Singh, G

Ayyad, T

Henskens, A

Sloane, K

Butler, R

Hodges, M

Taylor, M

Clancy, J

James, T

Thompson, T

Coure, M

Kemp, M

Toole, P

Crouch, A (teller)

Lane, J

Tuckerman, W

Dalton, H

Moylan, B

Tudehope, M

Di Pasqua, S

Preston, R

Wallace, J

Donato, P

Provest, G

Williams, R

Dwyer, R

Roberts, A

Williamson, R (teller)

Griffin, J

Scruby, J

NOES

Aitchison, J

Harrison, J

Minns, C

Atalla, E (teller)

Haylen, J

O'Neill, M

Bali, S

Hoenig, R

Quinnell, S

Catley, Y

Holland, M

Regan, M

Chanthivong, A

Kaliyanda, C

Saffin, J

Cotsis, S

Kamper, S

Saliba, D

Daley, M

Kirby, W

Scully, P

Davis, D

Leong, J

Stuart, M

Dib, J

Li, J

Vo, T

Doyle, T

McDermott, H

Voltz, L

Finn, J

McGirr, J

Warren, G

Greenwich, A

McInerney, K

Washington, K

Hagarty, N (teller)

McKeown, K

Whan, S

Harris, D

Mehan, D

Wilkinson, K

PAIRS

Cooke, S

Park, R

Cross, M

Crakanthorp, T

Davies, T

Hornery, S

Layzell, D

Tesch, L

Petinos, E

Butler, L

Saunders, D

Watson, A

Speakman, M

Car, P

Wilson, F

Barr, C

Amendments negatived.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Wahroonga ) ( 22:34 :29 ): I move Opposition amendment No. 10 on sheet c2025-335E:

No. 10Additional areas may be added to public assembly restriction declaration

Page 18, Schedule 6. Insert after line 19—

(2)Without limiting subsection (1), a public assembly restriction declaration may be varied under that subsection to include different areas to which the declaration applies, including areas that are not contiguous with the area for which the declaration was made.

The amendment is an attempt to deal with a potential problem with the way in which proposed new section 23D is drafted. A declared area lasts for 14 days from the original Terrorism (Police Powers) Act declaration. It can be extended beyond the 14 days and, under new section 23D, the area to which the declaration applies can be changed. Let us say that, after the legislation is passed, the area of Bondi is declared and stays an area for 14 days and then is extended. Then, on the fifteenth day after the original declaration, there is a firebombing at a synagogue in St Ives. The amendment will make it clear that the Government can add a non-contiguous, extra area to the original area. We do not want this legislation to be read down by the courts. We want it to be as expansive as possible to deal with that situation. We are here to help.

The SPEAKER: The Attorney General will come to order.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: We are trying to make sure that the legislation is given the absolute broadest breadth to deal with circumstances that may arise in the way in which it could be interpreted, and the amendment dispels any uncertainty.