Public Assembly Restriction Declarations

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.

Banning Hate Symbols

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.

Removing Face Coverings

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. 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.

Proposed 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.

Proposed 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.

Proposed 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.Proposed 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 inproposed 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.Proposed 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.Proposed 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 proposed 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 inproposed 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, underproposed 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 inproposed 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 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 newsection 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 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.

Proposed 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.

Displaying Hate Symbols

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.

Proposed 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.

Proposed 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 atsection 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.

Removing Face Masks

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 furtheramends 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.

Public Assembly Restriction Declarations

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.

Conclusion

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.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (11:43): The day after the horrific, antisemitic, hate-fuelled mass shooting at Bondi, the Premier showed a moment of leadership when he said he would recall the Parliament and work together with members to pass strong and effective gun laws. It is clear to everyone that there are too many guns in our communities, in our streets and in our suburbs. It is also clear that those hate-fuelled, depraved murderers should not have had a gun, let alone four or six guns. At the time, I thought it was reasonable to recall Parliament and take this action. I supported taking a strong, evidence-based stand against hate-fuelled extreme gun violence by drawing a line in the sand and passing world-leading gun law reform. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, I saw glimpses of genuine leadership from our Premier and from our Opposition leader, who batted away Sky News presenters attempting to politicise a horror mass shooting in the mere hours following the brazen, hate-fuelled antisemitic attack.

But partisanship and division have crowded out the capacity for leadership from these individuals and the anti-protest provisions of this bill are a departure from the fundamental principles of peace, nonviolence and good governance. Ahmed al-Ahmed, who wrestled a gun from the hands of one of the vile killers, is a living example of the commitment to peace and nonviolence. Ahmed al-Ahmed is a Syrian-born Arab Muslim, and that should not even be a relevant consideration. But Ahmed's lived experience pierces the myriad racist, divisive arguments made by some of the worst in Australian politics.

The question must be was it love, courage and bravery that was brought here when Ahmed immigrated to these lands—our beautiful island home that has been inhabited for over 60,000 years by the oldest continuing living culture, the First Nations people of these lands? The point that needs to be made is that the circumstances surrounding this horrific act should not be politicised. We are in a time of mourning and our focus should be on supporting the Jewish community. We should take time and consider our response, and there simply has not been time and consideration afforded to many aspects of this bill.

Symbols that encourage violence, extremism and racial hatred on the basis of one's race or religion have no place in our communities. Bringing laws to this effect has a basis. However, we must also ensure we do not stop here in our efforts to curb antisemitism, racism and extremism. We will never be able simply to criminalise our way to social cohesion. We need education, social support and deradicalisation programs. We need genuine social justice countering violent extremism programs co-designed with the Jewish community, the Muslim community and indeed all communities. Islamic extremism should not be singled out. We know that nazis are a significant threat. We know that there are other threats posed by religious fundamentalism and threats posed by all forms of racism.

It has been reported inThe Sydney Morning Herald that, despite calls from the Muslim community, the police had refused to shut down the hate preacher Wissam Haddad, who had links to the horrific men who used guns to massacre innocent people, because Haddad was "a good intel source". It is clear that we need to rethink our approach to counterterrorism and violent extremism in the wake of this horrific, hate-filled antisemitic mass shooting. The Greens are strongly supportive, however, of the gun law reform—the schedules of this bill that introduce strict restrictions on gun ownership. It is regrettable that it took an act of senseless, hate-fuelled antisemitism done using guns for this bill to be before this House.

The Government had the opportunity to spend all of this last week making these laws better, getting them fit for purpose and consulting with communities—particularly the community that does have firearms and that is interested in firearms restrictions, limitations and ownership—bringing communities along and consulting with experts and affected communities to make these gun laws the best they could be in the circumstances. Instead, the Government has wasted time cooking up and promoting anti-protest laws and police powers that are ambiguous and make no attempt to pretend to have any regard for civil liberties or, in fact, the constitutionality of those laws when they are considered in the context of the implied freedom of political communication.

There are those who argue that the gun law reforms are rushed, and The Greens have sympathy for those concerns. But the evidence setting out what we must do to prevent gun violence has, in fact, been in place and supported by many for decades, particularly the Gun Safety Alliance. After all, we have been dealing with gun laws in this place for much of this year.

Let us not forget that it was the Premier, who has been driving the laws before us today, who nearly endorsed through this Parliament a right to hunt—the very precursor to the right to bear arms. That is the known path. We have seen a clear evidence‑based path to prevent gun violence and to keep communities safer. The Greens would support these gun reforms had they been proposed a week ago, a month ago, a year ago or 10 years ago. However, there is no doubt that this bill has been drafted too fast and has errors, and we will seek to amend the bill to make it more sound and evidence based. All that said and done, ultimately, The Greens support these reforms.

Gun reform cannot be our only response to the horrific mass shooting we saw at Bondi. We must tackle the antisemitism, extremism and violence at its root. But that struggle will take time, careful consideration and a whole‑of‑government approach. There are people amongst us now who want to inflict violence upon the innocent. It is so hard to reconcile and contemplate, but we know that to be the case; we have now seen it. Guns are implements of violence that those individuals cannot and must not have access to. The reality is that vile antisemites can get access to guns when they should not be able to. They have used those guns to inflict pain and death upon the innocent, and we must take those guns away. We cannot ignore these cold facts.

There is no right to gun ownership. There is a right to safety and security, and that includes a right to not be shot with a gun wherever we are. The proposed laws are ultimately reasonable. As a rural landholder and farmer, I know about the need for guns. We involve guns in our land management. The rules that are being proposed will not impede upon the ability of rural landholders to manage their land. The bill imposes the strictest limits on gun ownership in Australia, with a 10-firearm limit for primary production and related purposes and a four‑gun limit otherwise. The bill also ends unlicensed shooting at gun ranges. The Greens do not support a gun club requirement for all shooters—only those whose main form of shooting arises through gun club membership, like sporting shooters. We believe in centralised information of firearms, but that should be maintained by the New South Wales Government, and it should not be privatised.

Truthfully, the bill should end at schedule 3. The fact that it does not is a slap in the face to social cohesion, and it is a departure from the principles of peace, nonviolence and good governance that we should all uphold. The Greens cannot and do not support schedule 4 to the bill. A massive expansion on the grounds upon which face coverings can be ordered to be removed is not what we should be rushing through in an inconsiderate way with the inclusion of this schedule in the bill. Face coverings are of incredible importance to certain sections of the Muslim community and to those with chronic illness. The communities affected by these reforms have not been consulted meaningfully, and this bill has not been drafted remotely with those communities in mind. Expanding police powers in the midst of this horror and tragedy is unacceptably politicising the grief and trauma.

I am utterly dismayed, blindsided and appalled with schedules 5 and 6 to the bill before the Parliament today. In the aftermath of the horrific, hate-filled and antisemitic Bondi Beach mass shooting, Australians have been called upon to unify, to wrap our arms around the Jewish community and to check in on one another. We have not been called upon to divide communities by infringing upon civil liberties. Peaceful assembly is a fundamental civil liberty, and now is not the time to restrict our civil liberties. If the Government is hell-bent on doing this, at the very least it must make those powers temporary. Otherwise, this move will be read in history as disingenuous opportunism and not for a legitimate purpose. The NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Timothy Roberts wrote in The Guardian:

The New South Wales premier, Chris Minns, cannot be shaken from his mistaken belief that it is a strength to propose radical, rushed and regressive laws in media conferences. It is actually a weakness and poor political leadership. In these distressing times, it is dangerous.

…

The banning of protests will not stop antisemitism, and the premier is wrong to disgracefully link years of peaceful protest to such a horrific and unrelated event.

The creep of authoritarianism exploits moments of tragedy and fear. That is clear throughout our modern history. We saw the unjustified and politically motivated war in Afghanistan and Iraq advance under the cover of fear created by the 11 September attacks. Schedules 5 and 6 give rise to a new regime of public assembly restriction declarations—or PARDs, as they will come to be known—in both the Summary Offences Act and the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act. The bill makes any peaceful assembly held or partially held within a PARD area unauthorised, with the exception of industrial action. That is already cause for concern. In recent days and months, we have seen wild inconsistency in how police choose to approach assemblies of different ideologies. A group of hateful, hateful Nazis had a police escort when they spewed vile antisemitism outside this very Parliament. A vile anti-immigration protest occurred on Sunday at the urging of One Nation. None of those attendees were moved on by police. That protest was not dispersed.

It begs an important question: Which protests will the police move on and which will they permit? The sole power to answer that question, if this law is passed, will rest with an unelected police commissioner, with the concurrence of a single Minister of the Cabinet. In this respect, these provisions erode our democracy to the greatest extent ever proposed in this State or, in fact, in this country. Concentrating sole power in the hands of one police commissioner and one politician to say yes or no as to who can protest, and where, is an extreme authoritarian overreach, the kind never before seen in our democracy. Members can do what they like in this Parliament, but the power will always be with the people. Importantly, this is not a blanket ban on protest in New South Wales; the commissioner and the Minister could choose not to apply a PARD to a protest that serves their own political aims. That is hellishly dangerous.

Declarations made under part 2AAA of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act enliven police powers to respond to an incident that is or is likely to be a terrorist act. That is an unacceptably broad threshold when considering the rights of people to gather together to express their political communication, whether it be their support or dissent. It is unclear how many times these provisions are enlivened within any given year. Four enlivenments per year would theoretically give rise to a yearlong ban on protest. There is nothing connecting the circumstances surrounding a terror attack to the circumstances surrounding a protest, and there is no mechanism for a court to enforce any safeguarding against a spurious PARD that is enlivened falsely or politically motivated.

New section 23C, which allows an initial 14‑day PARD to be extended for three months, is of the most concern both morally and constitutionally. There is no requirement for justification. There is an illusory test at best, and there is no oversight from the court. There is not even oversight from the Parliament or the public. In the 90 days following a PARD, the police Minister could use these powers to shut down protests against her own Police Force, invasion day rallies on the 26 January, school strikes for climate or any other peaceful assembly that the Labor Party or its corporate friends disagree with.

We warned the Minns Labor Government that their last bout of anti-protest laws would be struck out by the court, and we were right. I warn again today that these laws will likely be struck down by a court. Again we warn today—and I fear we may be right again—that this bill will impermissibly burden the freedom of political communication in our Constitution. In the aftermath of the Dural caravan hoax, we were asked to pass similarly draconian anti-protest laws. Those laws were knocked out by Justice Anna Mitchelmore for impermissibly burdening the constitutional implied freedom of political communication. This bill runs afoul of the same limits.

It is now time for truth-telling. The truth is that innocent people were massacred at Bondi by violent, hate‑fuelled, antisemitic men using guns. And the truth is that Israel is perpetrating a genocide against the Palestinian people. They have spent years killing and maiming hundreds of innocent Palestinian men, women and children. The truth does not disappear in difficult moments. The truth does not bend to satisfy political convenience. The humanity that motivates someone to assemble to demand a ceasefire in Gaza is the very same humanity that motivates someone to assemble at a vigil for the victims of the horrific antisemitic mass shooting, to wrap people with love and unity and stand with the Jewish community. It is the same humanity. To put people who hold that common humanity in their hearts at odds with each other is to demonise and divide people who advocate for peace. It is the wrong thing to do.

There is no link between peaceful protesters who demand nonviolence and hateful extremists who perpetrate violence. If you attend a vigil for the victims of Bondi, you will see many of the very same faces you would see if you attended a peaceful protest demanding nonviolence in Gaza. I have seen a huge number of the Jewish community not just in attendance at pro-Palestine rallies but platformed, celebrated and listened to. There is no confirmed link whatsoever between any part of the pro-Palestine movement and the two hateful men who used guns to massacre innocent Jewish people at Bondi. There is, however, a clear link between the fact that they owned guns, they were licensed to have guns, and innocent people were shot dead with those guns. That is why action for strong gun law reform is urgent and must happen now.

I reject and abhor antisemitic attacks that see Jewish people gunned down in Australia simply for their faith. I also reject racially motivated attacks that have seen Palestinians assaulted in Australia or gunned down in Gaza. You simply cannot be selective in which violence you reject and which you accept or which you ignore. To impose a hierarchy upon suffering and grief is to diminish suffering and grief. Ultimately, this Parliament is using tragedy and suffering to prosecute a political agenda. That exploitation is wrong. Within hours of the Bondi attack, Pauline Hanson used this tragedy to litigate her racist views. Within hours of the attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used the tragedy to justify the evil genocide in Gaza.

We must not curtail civil liberties. Now is not the time. We must not prevent peaceful assembly and rush expanded police powers. It is impossible to consider the two contradictory and unrelated parts of this bill in tandem. I will move a motion to split the bill and, on behalf of The Greens, I will move amendments in the Committee of the Whole. One of those will be to spare this Parliament the shame and embarrassment of once again enacting unconstitutional laws. I ask all members between now and the Committee of the Whole to please go and get advice. Let us do this work together and fix this ridiculous bill.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (12:03): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 as Leader of The Nationals in this place. I reiterate what I said yesterday in my contribution to the condolence debate that the tragic events at Bondi have rightly shaken our nation. Innocent lives were lost and families have been devastated. Many Australians, including Jewish Australians, have been left deeply unsettled. It is appropriate that the Parliament yesterday reflected on those events and on how we protect community safety. As a proud member of the New South Wales Nationals, I put on record that I know our entire party stands shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish community against antisemitism and terrorism. That support is unwavering. As I said yesterday, Jewish Australians should never ever have to live in fear, and hatred in any form has no place in our society.

The Nationals absolutely support strong, targeted action against hate speech, extremist ideology and the public display of terrorist symbols. Our position on this is longstanding and genuine. But the question before the House is not just about where we stand on hate; it is about whether the bill we are debating right now has been developed properly, consulted on adequately and drafted carefully enough to avoid serious unintended consequences. For our party in particular, when it comes to the changes proposed to the Firearms Act, we do not believe that is the case.

We have specific issues with the substance of the bill that I will speak about later today or during the Committee stage. Overwhelming, the biggest issue for me and many of my colleagues is the way the bill has come to Parliament, particularly the lack of meaningful consultation with regional communities, farmers and lawful firearms users who will be directly affected by these changes. I acknowledge the remarks made by my colleagues in the other place, particularly by the Leader of The Nationals, Gurmesh Singh, and all of my lower House colleagues who have put on record the concerns raised by their communities. This is our job. As a regional party, we are here to stick up for regional communities and we will do that every day of the week.

The Nationals made it very clear that we were absolutely willing to have discussions with the Government in good faith. We were prepared to engage constructively on a range of issues, including firearms regulation, provided that proposed changes were evidence based, proportionate and developed through proper consultation. Unfortunately, that did not occur. Regional stakeholders have reached out to us. We spoke to them over the weekend. Literally hours before the debate on the bill started in the other place, the Government still had not spoken to them. These are not insignificant people. They include members of the Country Mayors Association of NSW, which represents tens of councils across regional New South Wales and thousands of ratepayers.

The NSW Farmers Association—another key regional stakeholder—was not engaged with early enough. It was not given draft legislation to work through or given time to identify risks or unintended consequences. I understand it was notified in a phone call after all the decisions had already been made. It was notified on Sunday evening after the Government had had its Cabinet meeting and party processes. That is not consultation. That is not co-design. Certainly, it is not how good laws are made, particularly laws that will affect people and their livelihoods. As legislators, our job is not to legislate quickly; it is to legislate well. That has not happened in this case.

For our farmers, firearms are not a political issue; they are practical tools that they use responsibly and lawfully as part of day-to-day operations. Our farmers already operate under some of the strictest firearms laws in the country, and they take those obligations seriously. When changes to the Firearms Act are proposed without proper consultation, without clarity and without time to identify any unintended consequences, it creates uncertainty for people who are already doing the right thing. It risks undermining livelihoods, disrupting legitimate businesses and eroding confidence in a system that relies on cooperation and compliance. Process matters. Consultation matters. The Nationals cannot support a bill that proposes significant changes that will affect regional New South Wales but has not been developed through genuine consultation with people who will have to live with the consequences of what we pass today.

With regard to the firearms components, the bill introduces significant changes through limits and expanded regulatory powers while leaving many of the key details to regulation that no-one has seen. We are being asked to pass legislation without understanding how it will operate in practice, be enforced, or interact with existing licensing arrangements. This applies particularly in complex regional and agricultural settings. As foreshadowed, The Nationals will move amendments during the Committee stage, but I will highlight one point in particular.

We have not had a lot of time to speak to a lot of people, but I have spoken to a few farmers about the proposed cap of 10 firearms. When you say that in this Parliament or in the community, some people will say, "Ten sounds like enough." For a lot of farmers, 10 probably would be enough and I happy to acknowledge that. I have spoken to farmers who said, "I need a few different types of firearms depending on what the purpose is." Some people have two or three, some have six or seven. But there are others who legitimately need more than 10. Our leader, Gurmesh Singh, made some really good comments about that on 2GB this morning. I suspect that the Hon. Scott Barrett, the Hon. Wes Fang, the Hon. Nichole Overall and other members will make good comments as well.

For people on larger properties in western New South Wales, there may be a need for more than 10 guns. There may be a legitimate reason, but we do not know that in this House because—beyond the discussions we have had with individuals who have come to us—no‑one has had the time or the chance to talk about it properly. There are carve‑outs in the bill—some exemptions apply for sporting shooters to have more than 10 guns—but not for farmers. That makes no sense to The Nationals. I foreshadow that we will move amendments. This legislation has not been done properly. The firearms part is of particular concern. As I said, The Nationals would be very happy to support the rest of the bill, but the firearms piece is a line in the sand for us because it has not been consulted on properly. That is the issue we have.

I touch on the fact that the Government made the choice to bundle the firearms changes into the broader package. In one bill, we are dealing with hate speech, illegal assembly and firearms changes, despite the fact that those are different policy areas. They require different expertise, consultation processes and safeguards. Once again, that is not good government. That is not how to legislate properly. We have real concerns about that. We would have absolutely supported legislation to strengthen hate speech laws and address illegal assemblies and the public display of terrorist symbols, if the Government had chosen to bring that forward as a separate bill. However, it has chosen not to do that, and that is on the Government. We cannot support a bill that has firearms reform added into it, and that was developed with no proper consultation and pushed through without giving regional communities confidence that their realities have been understood by members in this place.

Opposing the bill in its current form does not mean that The Nationals oppose action on antisemitism. It does not mean we oppose community safety. It means we insist on proper process. We will be moving amendments in the Committee stage to address some of our most serious concerns. Frankly, many of the flaws we are debating today stem from a process that failed to bring people along from the start. We will always stand up for farmers and regional communities. We will always push for laws that are practical, proportionate and properly developed. The bill in its current form does not meet that standard.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (12:11): On behalf of law‑abiding firearms owners, I speak against the firearms provisions in the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Let me be clear from the outset: The Bondi terrorist attack was an act of unspeakable evil. Fifteen innocents died and a further 40 innocent people were wounded at the hands of two unspeakable individuals affiliated with the Islamic State organisation. Families, children, grandparents, mothers and fathers have been forever scarred by that cowardly act of terror. However, while the grief is real and lasting, the kneejerk response offered in the bill is neither real nor will provide a lasting positive effect on the safety of the citizens of New South Wales.

It is profoundly insulting to law-abiding firearms owners in New South Wales and across Australia that legitimate firearms regulation has been bundled into terrorism legislation by the Minns Labor Government. That conflation treats responsible, licensed citizens—who comply with some of the most stringent firearms laws in the democratic world—as though they are a latent security threat. It collapses the vital distinction between criminal extremism and lawful civilian conduct, eroding trust in government and undermining the principle that legislation should be evidence based, proportionate and directed at real sources of risk. Law-abiding firearms owners are not terrorists, nor are they adjacent to terrorism. To legislate as if they are is a gross mischaracterisation that offends fairness, reason and the rule of law.

In the past week and a half, we have witnessed deplorable and appalling avoidance and obfuscation from the Prime Minister and his Federal Labor Government. In the context of this debate, it is also important to note how the Federal Labor Government has responded to that horrific attack. The Prime Minister, the foreign Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs have all notably avoided any meaningful mention of the Islamic extremist nature of the attack. Inexplicably, Albanese, Wong and Burke instead invoked the spectre of right-wing extremism in relation to an event clearly motivated by Islamic State ideology. That misrepresentation is more than semantics; it demonstrates a refusal to confront the ideological drivers of terror in Australia.

At a time when law-abiding firearms owners are being vilified in New South Wales, the Federal Government is ignoring the real extremist threat, failing to communicate honestly with the public and focusing on politically convenient narratives rather than evidence-based policy. The disconnect at the Federal level only reinforces why kneejerk firearms laws at the State level are not the solution. Real safety comes from accurate threat assessment, proper intelligence and effective intervention, not from penalising lawful citizens.

Further to that, there is another layer of accountability that must be addressed during the debate: the absolute hypocrisy of politicians in this House, and in the other place, at rallies and at media events over the past two years. They justifiably deserve particular recognition and censure. Those who engaged in that and who failed to condemn or excused the hatred that was expressed time and again must confront the moral and political consequences of their actions. If members of this House or the other place cannot or refuse to recognise that, serious questions must be asked about what place they have in making decisions, shaping law and leading this great State. Shame on them. They should consider leaving this place and providing the defence for the surviving terrorist. It is right up their alley.

The reforms before the House are the product of haste, not judgement. By the Attorney General's own admission, the legislation was assembled in a matter of days. It is rushed, it is poorly cobbled together, it is poorly thought through and, worst of all, it is simply politically expedient. The majority of people in New South Wales and throughout Australia see and know that. We heard the police Minister speak at length about "consultation" in her second reading speech in the other place. Talking about consultation is not the same thing as meaningfully undertaking it. Consultation is only genuine if it occurs before legislation is drafted, not after a bill has been drafted, rushed through Cabinet and presented to the Parliament as a fait accompli.

The bill would not have prevented the Bondi attack. It would not have interrupted the radicalisation of a single extremist or dismantled a single hate network. It will penalise law-abiding citizens, particularly farmers and law-abiding sporting shooters and conservation hunters, who already comply with some of the strictest firearms laws in the democratic world. Ultimately, the legislation serves as a convenient distraction from the Government's failure to confront the real and growing threats of antisemitism and extremist radicalisation in this city and throughout Australia. The legislation, introduced without consultation and lacking proper expertise in firearms management, is the worst example of an exercise in symbolic politics. It is legislative theatre designed to make headlines, not to make New South Wales safer.

New South Wales already operates one of the most restrictive firearms regimes in the democratic world. We have the Firearms Act 1996, with mandatory licensing, "genuine reason" requirements and continuous fit and proper person tests; extensive police powers to cancel licences, seize firearms and intervene preventively; and weapons prohibition orders, stop and search powers, preventive detention and public safety measures under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. The reality is that the NSW Police Force already has ample legal authority to intervene against dangerous individuals. Where harm occurs, it is not because the law was insufficient; it is because the systems for identification, escalation and execution failed.

The evidence presented by Dr Samara McPhedran is clear. Dr McPhedran is a highly respected multidisciplinary researcher and expert in violence, public policy and firearms-related research. She holds advanced degrees in psychology and law, and has published extensively on topics including firearm violence and gun policy, homicide, domestic and family violence, suicide, mental health and broader violence prevention and public policy issues. Dr McPhedran's 2020 peer-reviewed study of Australian mass shootings over 50 years demonstrates conclusively that the type of firearm, the legal status of the owner or stricter restrictions do not prevent mass shootings. In Australia, mass violence is overwhelmingly driven by life stressors, obsessional grievance, social isolation and escalating hostility.

Prior threats and fixation behaviours are strong predictors. Mental illness alone is not. Most importantly, offenders are often known but unmanaged, known to authorities but not effectively monitored. In the case of Bondi, the attackers were reportedly already on the intelligence watchlists. Existing laws already allowed surveillance, preventative detention, mental health interventions, firearms prohibition orders and Commonwealth control orders. None of the additional firearms restrictions proposed in this bill would have triggered earlier identification, compelled intelligence escalation or prevented the attackers' access to non-firearm weapons.

The proposed reforms are symbolic and not functional. Further restrictions carry real risks. They create a false sense of security, distracting attention from the failures in the intelligence and police response. They misallocate resources, devoting police time to law-abiding firearms owners rather than high-risk individuals. They erode trust between authorities and compliant shooters, reducing the flow of vital information. They risk displacement, where violent actors substitute knives, vehicles or improvised weapons, a pattern seen repeatedly amongst terrorists internationally. It is not just the guns.

The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party believes that if New South Wales truly wants to honour the victims of the Bondi attack, it must fix the systems that failed, not punish law-abiding citizens. The reforms that would genuinely enhance safety are clear. We must have mandatory escalation obligations for individuals on watchlists who are exhibiting concerning behaviour. We must we must have rigour and clarity for underused preventative powers, including mental health interventions and firearms prohibition orders. We must have weapon-neutral public safety measures, including enhanced knife and vehicle controls on high-footfall areas. We must have post‑release and post-watchlist supervision, with compulsory multi-agency case conferencing and risk assessment. We must have emergency response designed to include armed patrol saturation and real-time threat reporting.

Any firearms legislation must satisfy four fundamental principles: causal relevance to harm, evidence‑based necessity, proportionality, and non-punishment of lawful compliance. The Premier's proposed rushed and obviously poorly thought-through approach meets none of these principles. Let us be honest here: All Chris Minns is trying to do is out-Roger Premier Roger Cook of the Western Australian Labor Government while trying to out-Liberal the Libs in a fight for inner-city votes. What an utter shit fight and fiasco this firearms law has turned out to be. If Roger allows five firearms, Chris will out-Roger him with four firearms, with no risk assessment or real criminal data or research to back it up. It is just one-upmanship, pure and simple. Even John Howard has said it is utter BS.

Let me also address The Greens and their clueless Animal Justice Party lap muppet, who consistently advocate for a blanket vilification of firearms owners. The Greens seem to prefer demonising law-abiding shooters, rather than focusing on the intelligence and policing failures that allowed the Bondi tragedy to occur. Compliant, law-abiding firearms owners are not the source of violent crime. Yet the Premier's proposals have been applauded by the lunatic left and the wokeists in both major parties in this and other place, and the woke Independents in the other place punish them anyway.

Regarding the Commonwealth firearms buyback, any such scheme must be grounded in current market replacement value, not historical cost. Past paper buybacks have shown that under-compensation erodes trust, penalises compliance and delivers negligible safety benefits. New South Wales shooters, fishers and farmers operate under some of the strictest regulations in the country. Any buyback that ignores the true value of firearms will be deeply unfair, but we know that inner-city Labor and Liberal politicians do not care about fairness when it comes to people in regional New South Wales or law-abiding and compliant firearms owners. The cost of this unnecessary punitive policy change must be borne by government, not by law-abiding citizens. Members are here because NSW Labor has recalled us to rush through changes to the Firearms Act that would not have prevented the Bondi attack. Bondi was not a failure of firearms law or paperwork; it was a failure of intelligence, escalation and intervention.

The Minns Government is pushing gun caps so that the Premier looks decisive on television, not because caps will make the community safer. We must remember that the perpetrator held only six registered firearms. A numerical cap changes nothing about whether authorities identify risk, act on warnings or intervene when they must. A gun cap will not stop radicalisation. A gun cap will not stop hatred. A gun cap will not stop extremists who are prepared to kill. Nor will a gun cap provide opportunist politicians with a conscience, such as those who marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge at the front of the line with protesters who were carrying images of Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a known supporter of terrorism. Shame on them all for doing that—as if they did not understand that it was like calling out "Fire!" in a cinema. They knew what the consequences would be.

The bill punishes people who already comply with New South Wales law, while the Government avoids the far more difficult question of why existing powers were not used when warning signs were clearly present. Those warning signs were being reported by the Jewish community for years. The same pattern is repeated throughout the bill. This is not public safety; it is administrative muscle applied to compliant citizens because it is easier than fixing intelligence failures or enforcing the law that is already on the books. It is the old political trick of changing categories, tightening definitions and announcing it as toughness, all while avoiding the real work of identifying extremists early and acting before they strike.

The Government is proposing tighter licensing controls and a further squeeze on the "genuine reason" test, not because it has demonstrated any causal link between lawful firearms ownership and terrorism, but because it wants fewer lawful owners on paper—plain and simple. That approach will not make New South Wales safer. Fixing intelligence failures will make New South Wales safer. Acting on warning signs will make New South Wales safer. Using the powers that already exist will make New South Wales safer. The Bondi massacre was not caused by insufficient firearms law; it was caused by intelligence failures, escalation failures, intervention failures and accountability failures. Further restrictions on law‑abiding firearms owners will not prevent future acts of terror.

If the Minns Government truly wants to make New South Wales safer, it must fix the systems that failed. We should force Prime Minister Albanese to call a royal commission into the attack. We can then look at the findings, draft real legislation and have a real debate about how to make New South Wales safer. That is how we will make our beautiful State safer. I urge members of this House to reject all the theatre, this kneejerk tightening of firearms laws, and instead support evidence‑based reforms that target real risks and real failures. I will not support the bill in its current form. I urge members to do what is right—oppose the bill. I do not commend the bill to the House.

Its application to all protests in the up to three-month period will in substance mean that, once any of the preconditions in section 197 of LEPRA are enlivened, police will be able to issue a move on direction. This matter is addressed in the Minister's second reading speech in the other place. It is relevant to note that many, if not most, protests might cause a police officer to form a reasonable belief that a person is obstructed. Certainly, any sizeable protest in a square or other public space in the CBD will obstruct entry and egress in that place.

In summary, our freedom to communicate politically by way of protest will be limited by this bill. Street processions, which are the essence of street protests, will be a crime. Static protests will be able to be moved on, and failure to comply will be a criminal offence. I must say, as I said of the places of worship bill previously debated in this House and subsequently in part struck down, I do not believe these laws are consistent with international human rights law, noting that the right to freedom of assembly and association is contained in articles 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But nor do they need to be. Of course, the Government is free to depart from the guidance of international human rights standards. I assume that the Government's view is they are consistent with the implied freedom of political communication, and that is obviously the important matter.

I must say the argument as to it being reasonable and adapted is elusive to me. The lack of connection between the powers and, at a minimum, anything other than obstruction will give police a wide range of decision‑making freedom. For example, a large snap protest occurs at Town Hall Square of a type the Government strongly disapproves. It will be open to police to use these powers to attempt to disperse that protest. Noncompliance with move on directions will be a criminal offence. In that scenario, we could potentially be in 1978 Mardi Gras territory. Violence may occur. Protests may be ended that are non‑threatening and in a way that is fundamentally inconsistent with free speech and the right to free association and assembly.

The need for caution I raise should not be understood as a criticism of the way that New South Wales police have handled protest‑related matters of event. A lot has changed since 1978, and I think the police have been impeccable since October 2023 in how they have facilitated protest. I say that in respect of protests in the CBD. The senior police who tend to handle these matters are excellent and understand that it is a key part of their job to uphold the human rights of the community—an understanding that many in this place could do well to reflect upon. I have defended our police almost every step of the way—their operational decisions at the Opera House in respect of the Nazi protest—whereas others chose to second‑guess and criticise them, and all to achieve a political gain.

It is us, not the police, who will decide by passing this bill to up the ante; to remove the pressure valve of protest; to create a pressure cooker; and to tell the community that summer should be a time for barbeques, a time with family, and not a time of protest and politics—a dystopian vision, if ever I heard one. But our hardworking police will have to enforce it, and I wish them all the best of luck. This could go so wrong.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (12:42): Not long ago in this Chamber, there was quite a creative and effective filibuster to stop the Shooters hunting bill from even getting to a second reading vote—a vote that the Minns Labor Government would have supported. This is the same hunting bill that the Premier supported publicly when it clearly stated there would be a legal right to hunt and shoot in New South Wales. Labor initially promised to give the bill Government debating time in this Chamber, but then that commitment was withdrawn. Let us be clear: Two weeks ago, Chris Minns supported licensed recreational shooters and gun owners like Sajid Akram, so much so that he wanted to extend these shooting rights into national parks, taking as many guns as people liked for that activity, which would be legalised under Labor. With the Premier's support, the numbers were there for that to be carried in the Chamber.

The guns the Government supported for shooting in national parks are the same types of guns that the Akrams took to Bondi nine days ago to shoot dead 15 innocent civilians and injure dozens more. Today the same Premier and his party have recalled the Parliament in the shadow of Christmas to introduce this rushed and ill‑considered bill to ban and limit the ownership of guns that two weeks ago they strongly supported. It can be said of Chris Minns that he is a leader with an open mind—it is just that it is open at both ends. Again, the comparison to Huey Long comes to mind—he was a wonderfully principled leader if only he had had a single guiding principle by which to steer his public life. One can only feel sorry for the Shooters party out of its Minns triple backflip with pike because it invested 15 years of political capital in the Australian Labor Party, only to find out—somewhat inevitably—that, on guns, Labor is as woke as any nanny state teal matron.

For the 230,000 recreational gun owners in New South Wales, this is a day of dismay and anger. Our law-abiding gun owners would detest someone like Sajid Akram, an insane jihadi from India who never became an Australian citizen and who ended his life shooting at small children from a small bridge in Bondi. But now, for the sake of political convenience rather than logical evidence, these gun owners are being punished for the sins of a single jihadi and his son. In truth, if the terrorists have not got guns then they will use trucks, buses, planes, knives and poison in their hatred of the West and evil pursuit of martyrdom. The Koran does not tell them to use a particular weapon; it just gives them licence to kill the infidels, if taken literally.

The Shooters in this Chamber and their supporters around the State must be besides themselves with anger. Labor is the party that has never been able to say the three words "radical Islamic terrorism" let alone deal with it. It has decided that the weight of responsibility for the Bondi massacre needs to be borne by the State's gun owners rather than the Islamic hate preachers in places like Bankstown, who radicalised the young Indian Muslim Naveed Akram. Never have so many had to pay the price for the sins of so few. Instead of the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill before Parliament today, we should have the "Islamic hate preachers incarceration and recommended deportation bill" up for debate and assent, because that is where this problem has festered for decades.

The Bondi massacre can be understood only from outside the boundaries of normal political analysis. Two jihadis, a father and son, went there to die and find what they regarded as the glory of martyrdom in an attack on a high‑profile institution and place of Western civilisation. That is the key. These people are not motivated by the regular institutions of politics. They detest The Greens as much as they detest One Nation. They hate all political parties and the democratic ideal itself. They are not interested in political slogans, chants, graffiti or bridge marches; they want murder, massacres and martyrdom. That is the problem with the antisemitism mantra that has been wheeled out time after time over the past nine days. It runs along the lines of "Chants and protest marches lead to graffiti on bridges. Graffiti on bridges leads to car fires. Car fires lead to attacks on Jewish buildings. Attacks on Jewish buildings lead to the murder of Jewish people." This is, unfortunately, simplistic propaganda, and too much of it is self-serving.

We know from New South Wales police data that up until 13 December, there had not been a serious, homegrown criminal attack on people or property on the streets of New South Wales that was motivated by antisemitic ideology. Some members do not like that evidence. They do not accept that evidence because it does not fit their predetermined narrative, but it is a fact that no intelligent, rational person would dispute—it is the official police data. It is ludicrous to maintain that the evil of Sajid and Naveed Akram was motivated and spurred on by chanting at a protest rally or by graffiti paid for by organised crime. The graffiti in the eastern suburbs did not spell "Israel" correctly or get the swastika the right way round. It is an insult to the 15 people who died in Bondi to even suggest this. Sharri Markson and the other simpletons at Sky News should take note.

Naveed Akram, the son, learned his hatred of the West and cultivated his evil intent well away from the eastern suburbs, Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge. He worshipped at the Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown under the influence of Wissam Haddad. For the past seven years, he absorbed lessons of hate and jihad. Earlier this year, the ABCFour Corners program identified Haddad as the spiritual leader of Australia's pro-ISIS network. The only official response at that point was for the Al Madina Dawah Centre to lose its charitable status and government tax concessions. The ABC and the Australian Taxation Office acted to close down the centre, but no-one else—not ASIO, the AFP, Albanese Government or Minns Government.

Last week, Josh Frydenberg visited Bondi. In an emotional display, he called for the Al Madina Dawah Centre to be closed, but he was giving it tax concessions as Federal Treasurer in the Morrison Government. Frydenberg's old boss, John Howard, also appeared at Bondi to denounce all things Albo. Who let Sajid Akram into Australia from India in 1998? It was the Howard Government. The constant refrain on social media is, "Who let them in?" In this case, it was old Uncle Arthur himself. To avoid this sort of hypocrisy in the future, he should stay home dribbling on himself and watching the cricket. In moments of crisis, the last thing we need is political hypocrites falsely beating their chests over dead bodies. How many hate preachers were kicked out of Australia by the Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison or Albanese governments?

Tony Burke acted promptly to deport a South African who appeared in the neo-Nazi line‑up out the front of this building a month ago in what was actually a police-approved protest on the footpath in which no-one was physically attacked or harmed. Yet the same Tony Burke will never deport an Islamic hate preacher for fear of losing the Muslim vote in his seat of Watson. He is a prisoner of his own cowardice and captive to his own moral depravity. Can any member find a single Labor figure who uses the three words "radical Islamic terrorism"? This stunning vocabulary vacuum is part of the leftist delusion that multiculturalism is perfect. When we see Indians clustering at Harris Park and Marsden Park, Chinese in Chatswood, Vietnamese in Cabramatta, Assyrians in Fairfield, Lebanese in Lakemba and Islanders in Miller, it is clear that the Whitlamite vision for multiculturalism has not been realised.

The theory was for a blended, not a segregated society; for people from different cultures and backgrounds to be living in the same street, united by a common commitment to Australia and Australian values. I wish it was not so, having lived in Western Sydney for 60 years now, but the project has failed. That is the street‑level reality: The project has failed. After that scarifying Sunday night in Bondi, anyone saying that Australia is a successful multicultural nation is lying to themselves. Both major parties have imported to this country people and propaganda designed to destroy us, to take a literal reading of the Koran and turn Islam, which can be a constructive, peaceful religion, into a religion of hate and destruction. For electoral reasons, and seduced by the sloganeering of multiculturalism, the big parties have been willing to ignore this problem.

The failure, though, has not just been political. Canberra's intelligence agencies have also failed, despite record levels of funding and their constant public reassurance that they are best practice. At the Bankstown Dawah Centre, Naveed Akram also came under the influence of Isaac El Matari, who fashioned himself as the leader of Islamic State in Australia. El Matari was later jailed for seven years for plotting terrorist attacks. Despite this history stretching back to 2019, Naveed Akram's father was granted a gun licence two years ago. We know that the Premier is giving no public explanation or transparency at all as to why that application process took three years.

On the way through, ASIO and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service [ASIS] missed everything. They missed every single sign of what manifested at Bondi two Sundays ago: the Dawah Centre connections; the father, Sajid, owning six weapons in the same house as Naveed Akram; the unresolved investigation of ISIS influence; and the visit by the father and the son to the Philippines just last month for a jihadi training camp, with no interview or inspection of their phones and possessions as the two Akrams returned to Sydney airport. One would expect ASIS, with an annual budget now approaching $1 billion, to have agents posted in Indonesia, the Middle East and the Philippines to pick up any Australian visitors to jihadi training camps. It is not that hard to know when they fly out of Australia and when they fly back in. So too at the other end—it is not hard to know when they fly in and out of the Philippines. This seems an unforgiveable failure.

At ASIO, Mike Burgess has made a name for himself popping up publicly with speeches about so-called right‑wing extremism, while under his nose in plain view the worst Islamic terrorist attack in Australia's history was unfolding. I know the Jewish community hates the idea of neo-Nazism. We all do. But the Führers coming up from Victoria are deluded into thinking they can build public support with their media stunts just like Hitler did—Look Who's Back! Surely it has been obvious, though, that the greatest threat to public safety is from jihadists—the ones who fly planes into buildings, run trucks through Christmas markets and shoot at Christmas festivities. Mike Burgess should have resigned a week ago. He has been part of the distraction away from the real threat, the real phantom menace. What is wrong with these public officials, running a protection racket for radical Islam?

The Australia Federal Police's [AFP] Krissy Barrett—like Karen Webb, a DEI hire—said that the Bondi massacre was not motivated by religion. Seriously? She is the head of the AFP and said it was not motivated by religion. This is the kind of ignorance that costs lives and the kind of official stupor about Islam from which we need to break free. It is a cliché, but it is also true, that Bondi is our great national wake-up call. The starting point is a proper understanding of the enemy. As the counterterrorism expert Carrick Ryanh has written:

… as someone who spent years investigating men like those who carried out these attacks … it is simply absurd to suggest they have been influenced by pro-Palestinian university protesters, Greens politicians, or even "anti-Zionist" conspiracy theorists. The men who conducted these attacks would have despised those activists as much as anyone on the political right … Jihadists do not have a political goal. They are inspired by a toxic interpretation of their faith that encourages them to die in an act of violence against any perceived enemy of their faith. It is this dogmatic devotion to their own deaths that the general public continue to fail to understand when we look at this kind of violence.

How true Ryan has got it. The truth is if Donald Trump had been travelling through Sydney two weekends ago, he would have been a target. They always go for the highest profile target in their macabre determination to become martyrs and try to create international jihadism.

It needs to be understood that ISIS is hostile to the Palestinian movement, seeing it as too nationalistic and not theological enough. The terrorists have a simple common denominator: a burning hatred of each of the institutions of the West—the nation-state, democracy, political parties, political freedom and protest, secular education and so the list goes on. Left-of-centre politics and the woke absurdity of focus on feelings has been way too tolerant of that intolerance. We should feel no shame in saying that a legitimate objective of Australian governments today must be to destroy those who want to destroy us.

We only need to look at this pathetic bill before the Parliament. The Minns Government's priority is to destroy guns rather than the terrorists themselves. The Minns Government's priority is to focus on chants, flags and insignia rather than rubbing out the Islamic hate preachers. The Minns Government's priority is to fiddle with the State's protest laws rather than to work night and day in eradicating radical Islamic terrorism from our society. This is a bill drafted by clowns and cowards. The Attorney General, Mr Daley, has promoted this bill as—it is hard to believe this is what he said—"dealing with the offences that cause division, that cause hatred, that cause effrontery". Was effrontery the big problem at Bondi two Sundays ago? It is hard to believe the Attorney could say that he wants to stamp out effrontery, not radical Islamic terrorism and the murder of innocent people. Anyone would take a thousand bursts of effrontery compared with what happened at Bondi two Sundays ago. Are these Ministers for real? How more comprehensively could they insult the dead?

Mr Daley also said he wants to ban political symbols that have "an intention to insult, intimidate and scare". What does any of that have to do with the slaughter of 15 people at Bondi nine days ago? How about we focus on terrorists who fire guns to kill 10-year-olds? What does the removal of face coverings at protest marches have to do with two jihadis from Bonnyrigg shooting up Bondi? Those two jihadis were very unlikely to have gone to the Harbour Bridge and Opera House protests. Bonnyrigg is not that sort of place, and they were not engaged in that sort of activity and political objective. They were not political at all. What has the chanting of slogans or the waving of flags got to do with the murder of innocent people at a national icon? How deranged and foolish the Minns Government has become.

The Premier says he wants a royal commission to find out what has gone wrong. If that is the case, why not have that inquiry and its recommendations first before rushing into this mostly irrelevant legislation today? If it needs a royal commission, what are we doing here two days out from Christmas? What we are witnessing is the ultimate manifestation of Minnsism inside the Labor Party—the callow politics of the need to be seen to be doing something from a Premier who, quite frankly, does not know what he is doing. The proposition only needs to be stated to be dismissed as absurd: The best way of ending jihadi terrorism is to ban flags, chants, symbols, protest marches and guns held by law-abiding recreational shooters, not to eliminate the terrorists themselves.

Incredibly, nothing in the bill before the House is directly relevant to the way in which the two Akram ISIS jihadis shot up Bondi. It takes a special kind of political cynicism to exploit the Bondi tragedy by using it as a weapon and mechanism for legislating a wish list of unrelated draconian measures. That is what this bill is. The bill seeks to ban displays of neo-Nazi ideology but has nothing about banning radical Islamic extremism that promotes terrorism, Islamic hate preachers indoctrinating young people to become jihadis, or practices that pervert the nature of Islam to turn it into a dogma of hate, violence and martyrdom. Forget all the pious words of sympathy about Bondi. Labor is not fair dinkum in standing up to radical Islamic terrorism, and this bill is evidence of that.

The Government has a bill in the other place to do something about neo-Nazi ideology, but there is nothing in this bill to do with the real threat. I will move amendments to try to correct those shortcomings during the Committee of the Whole and otherwise will vote against most aspects of this atrocious, politically opportunistic and irrelevant bill.

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (12:59): The Government asserts that the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 represents a serious response to extremism, terrorism and threats to social cohesion in New South Wales. The Opposition supports the bill because community safety must always come first, but we will not allow the Government to pretend that this legislation meets the standard that the moment demands. Our support should not be construed as a blank cheque. It is the responsible, sober response of a party that has long taken these issues more seriously than the Government now pretending to lead on them. The truth is simple: Nearly every meaningful reform in the bill was proposed by the Opposition months ago. The Government rejected them.

Today, after public pressure and mounting disorder, Government members return to Parliament with diluted versions of the very reforms that they voted against. That is not leadership; it is legislative hindsight masquerading as foresight. The people of New South Wales deserve honesty about how we arrived at this point. Firstly, the Government is now introducing reforms that the Opposition tried to pass earlier and which Labor blocked. I will elaborate. There should be no confusion in the public mind about how these ideas entered the debate. The Opposition introduced the Crimes Amendment (Display of Nazi and Terrorist Symbols) Bill 2025, the Summary Offences Amendment (Public Assemblies) Bill 2025—a comprehensive package.

Those bills were thoughtful, robust, legally sound and proportionate. Labor, The Greens and the key Independents voted against them. The Government said the measures were too strong, too broad, unnecessary and politically driven. Now, after extremist symbols have appeared on our streets, after public confidence has been shaken and after Jewish communities in particular have been targeted, the Government proposes the very measures it once rejected. However, the measures are weaker and narrower, and come only after delay and disorder forced the Government's hand. That is not the behaviour of a government that understands the threat. It is the behaviour of a government that reacts only when events overwhelm it. The Opposition supports the creation of an offence for the displaying of terrorist organisation symbols, but the Government's model is insufficient.

Our proposed amendments will increase the maximum penalty from two years to five years, matching the Commonwealth standard; require matters to be heard in the District Court, reflecting their seriousness; introduce a standard non‑parole period of 1.5 years, ensuring real consequences; create an offence for displaying symbols that resemble terrorist or Nazi symbols, closing the loophole that extremists exploit; and expand the definition of terrorist symbols to include organisations proscribed by the police Minister on the advice of the commissioner, enabling action against groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir. That is what real deterrence looks like. The Government's model is a partial adoption of Opposition policy, but with the edges sanded off, the penalties softened and the scope limited. Our amendments will fix that.

Regarding protest laws, the past 18 months have shown the strain on public order in the State. We have all seen protests turning into intimidation, masked participants engaging in threatening behaviour, major public facilities being targeted, extremist chants echoing across public spaces and the Jewish community subjected to public hostility and harassment. Yet the Government's protest amendments fail to meet the moment. Under the Government's bill, public assemblies may still occur in a declared area after a terrorist attack. That is indefensible.

The Opposition amendments will make protests unlawful in declared areas following a terrorist event; impose $1,000 fines on participants; impose up to five years imprisonment for organisers of divisive post‑terror assemblies; statutorily designate the Sydney Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge as major facilities where protests are prohibited; prohibit disguised identities altogether, not only after an offence has occurred, as Labor proposes; clarify that a form 1 protest does not authorise hate speech, hate symbols or conduct around major facilities; require police and the courts to consider public safety, social cohesion, economic impacts, community impacts and the diversion of police resources before approving a protest; and allow police to recover policing costs from organisers after the first three protests in any 12‑month period. The Government's approach is the bare minimum politically necessary. Our approach is what public safety actually requires.

In respect of social cohesion, the Government avoids the real problem. The bill avoids the central truth: New South Wales is not simply experiencing protest; it is experiencing organised extremist mobilisation. The rise in antisemitic hostility since October 7 is unprecedented in modern Australian life. Jewish students are avoiding university campuses. Jewish families are avoiding public spaces. The public square has been dominated by heated, aggressive and, at times, explicitly extremist rhetoric. The Government does not mention that once—not one reference, not one acknowledgement, not one specific provision dealing with those targeted, real-world threats. The Government legislates for the abstract, not the actual. The Opposition will ensure the law recognises—and responds to—the real-world risks facing the people of New South Wales.

The firearms schedules to the bill require careful scrutiny. They represent a departure from best practice, national consistency and sound legislative method. Crucially, they bear no demonstrated nexus to counterterrorism policy. I say that for a number of reasons. The explanatory note identifies no intelligence, risk analysis or operational rationale connecting these changes to counterterrorism outcomes. They are regulatory measures seeking a legislative home, placed there without relevance to the bill's stated purpose. Secondly, reducing the licence from five years to two years imposes a substantial administrative burden on New South Wales police, recurrent costs on tens of thousands of licence holders and no demonstrable safety benefit. There is no evidence that this disrupts extremist behaviour.

Next is the numerical cap on firearms. The selection of four firearms is unexplained, ungrounded in risk assessment and inconsistent with legitimate needs of primary producers, competitive shooters and collectors. Arbitrary limits undermine the integrity of regulation. The re-categorisation is not aligned with the National Firearms Agreement. The new classifications conflict with the National Firearms Agreement principles, lack national consultation and risk creating confusion for both industry and enforcement. Firearms classification is a national process for good reason. The removal of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal [NCAT] merits review is the most concerning element. The NCAT review ensures procedural fairness, does not impede police action, safeguards against administrative error and protects livelihoods affected by licensing decisions. Removing independent review diminishes fairness without improving security.

Finally, proper firearms reform should be separate. Firearms policy requires evidence, consultation, national consistency and clear regulatory purpose. It should not be embedded in counterterrorism legislation. The schedules lack coherence and should be amended or removed. The Government has rushed this process. On legislation of this gravity, process does matter. The Government has under-consulted stakeholders, sidelined the Opposition, left agencies scrambling and produced legislation that is neither complete nor cohesive. Rushed process leads to weak implementation. Weak implementation increases risk. The Government must start taking the issues seriously.

The Opposition will move a number of amendments, which are serious, proportional and enforceable. Those amendments will strengthen the terrorist symbol offence, prohibit protests in declared areas, criminalise organisers of divisive post-terror protests, protect major facilities, ban disguised identities, require mandatory protest approval criteria, address social cohesion risks explicitly, restore the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal review, correct or remove flawed firearms schedules, and allow cost recovery for repeated high-risk protests. These changes are practical and proportionate and will make this legislation more fit for purpose.

In conclusion, the Government wants the appearance of decisiveness. The people of New South Wales want the reality of security. The Liberal Party will support the bill because community safety demands it. We will amend the bill because the Government has not done the job properly. We will strengthen the bill because the people of this State deserve nothing less. I commend the bill. However, I foreshadow the Opposition's amendments.

The Hon. TANIA MIHAILUK (13:10): I speak on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. This Parliament has been recalled in the midst of Christmas and Hanukkah because Australia has suffered a terrorist atrocity of the gravest kind. On the evening of 14 December 2025, during the Chanukah by the Sea gathering at Bondi Beach, Jewish Australian families were deliberately targeted while celebrating the first night of one of the most sacred and joyful observances in the Jewish calendar. What unfolded was not random violence. It was not accidental. It was a targeted ideological and antisemitic act of terrorism directed at Jewish Australians.

I condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms. An attack on people gathered in prayer and celebration is an attack on our shared values and on Australia itself. Fifteen innocent people were murdered. Dozens more were injured. At the time of this debate, a number of victims remain in hospital, continuing to recover from physical injuries and enduring profound psychological trauma. Families have been shattered forever. Australia stands with these families, with those still recovering, and with Jewish Australians at this moment of profound national grief. This was the largest massacre of innocent life on Australian soil since Port Arthur. That fact alone demands serious leadership and honesty about what went wrong.

The Premier has introduced the bill as a response to the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach. The bill is divided into distinct tranches. The first amends the Firearms Act 1996, which the Government claims is necessary to manage risks associated with high‑powered firearms following the Bondi attack. The second tranche introduces a new framework relating to public assemblies, terrorist symbols and face coverings, while significantly expanding police powers in the aftermath of terrorist incidents. These measures are framed as necessary to protect public safety, promote social cohesion and prevent intimidation and violence.

I will be very clear about my position: Firearms regulation is not the core failure exposed by Bondi. The failure that led to this atrocity was the longstanding reluctance of authorities and political leaders to confront antisemitism and radicalisation directly, consistently and without fear. The core failure is that two alleged terrorists may have been radicalised here at home, in New South Wales, and were able to progress along a pathway of extremist ideology to commit mass murder against Jewish Australians, many of whom migrated to this country seeking safety from persecution in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. This is a problem that this bill does not solve.

Turning to specific provisions within the bill, schedule 2 to the bill proposes to amend the Firearms Act to do several things, including limiting to four the number of firearms that may be possessed by an individual across most licence categories, with higher limits for primary producers and sport shooters, and provision for elite shooters to apply for additional firearms. The bill further tightens reclassification, magazine capacity, identity verification, safekeeping requirements, licence duration and renewal thresholds, and expands police powers to refuse, revoke and seize firearms where public safety or the public interest is at risk. External merits review is removed, with the Government relying instead on internal police review mechanisms. I am particularly concerned by the removal of external merits review through the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal for decisions by police to refuse, revoke or vary a firearms licence.

The bill strips law‑abiding gun owners of the longstanding right to seek independent review of an adverse licensing decision, and replaces it with only an internal police review. That change fundamentally alters the balance between public safety and procedural fairness. Even in areas involving national security and serious risk, this Parliament has traditionally preserved access to independent oversight. Removing the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal review does not enhance intelligence capability or counter‑radicalisation efforts; it simply concentrates decision‑making power within the same agency that made the original determination to incorrectly grant one of the terrorists a firearms licence.

I place on record my concern that none of the changes proposed in the bill would have prevented the alleged terrorists of the Bondi attack from committing that atrocity. That was not a failure of gun laws; it was a failure of intelligence, prevention and early intervention. The 260,000 law‑abiding firearms licence holders in New South Wales did not radicalise the terrorists, nor do they contribute to the ideological pathway that led to that attack. What failed was our collective ability to confront and disrupt the radicalisation process before it turned violent. Antisemitic hatred has been allowed to fester in public discourse, online spaces and some activist environments. If this Parliament is to respond honestly, it must begin by correctly identifying the nature of the threat we are dealing with—that is, radical Islam.

We have, of course, seen this before. I note that during the Lindt Cafe siege in 2014, Man Monis carried out an Islamist terrorist attack without holding a firearms licence at all. His case demonstrated that terrorists do not operate within lawful regulatory frameworks. I said this yesterday: Terrorists operate outside the law. They act on ideology. They are not interested in what we pass in this place. It is of no consequence to them whatsoever. The same pattern was evident in the 2015 Parramatta police headquarters shooting. The perpetrator, Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, was not known to police and did not hold a firearms licence. Shortly before the attack, he had attended a local mosque where he listened to a lecture by the extremist Islamist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir. Once again, the failure was not regulatory but ideological—a failure to identify, confront and disrupt radicalisation before it turned lethal.

I make the point that, according to media reports, one of the alleged perpetrators, Sajid Akram, was granted a category A and B firearms licence only in 2023, three years after he reapplied in 2020 and nearly a decade after an early application lapsed due to administrative issues. That issue alone, I say to this Chamber, has to be explored in the new year. I hope efforts are done in a unanimous way—that we can actually explore what exactly went wrong. I also note that during that period, his son, Naveed Akram, was unlicensed. He remained unlicensed and never made an application. He has now been charged with multiple offences, including murder and committing a terrorist act, in relation to the Bondi attack, and had already come to the attention of national security agencies.

The unusually long delay, followed by the subsequent approval and rapid acquisition of multiple firearms, has raised serious questions about the effectiveness of the licensing system and the adequacy of information sharing between intelligence agencies and the New South Wales Firearms Registry. That is where I think our focus should have been as a Parliament. When extremist rhetoric is excused, rationalised or ignored, it creates the conditions in which violent ideology is legitimised. That radicalisation, as we know, did not happen overnight. It is fuelled by sustained exposure to hate, incitement and the failure to intervene when warning signs are visible.

The definition of a terrorist act is set out in section 100.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995—a definition currently under review by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. I note for the record that the Commonwealth security and intelligence agencies—including ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and the Federal Attorney‑General's department—have all supported the current definition, which requires the presence of a terrorist motive: namely, that the act is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's own issues paper found that nearly 95 per cent of terrorism convictions in Australia have involved religious motivation, predominantly linked to Islamist extremism. That makes one thing clear: We do not have a gun law problem in this country; we have a radical Islamist terrorism problem.

I acknowledge that there is an ongoing police investigation into the Bondi terrorist attack. It is not for this Parliament to determine criminal guilt. However, when violence is deliberately directed at a specific religious community during a religious celebration in a manner consistent with globally recognised patterns of extremist violence, it is not speculative to say that ideological or religious extremism is an obvious line of inquiry. When radical Islamist ideology is allowed to take hold, whether through online propaganda, local networks or exposure to extremist rhetoric, and when that process is not identified, disrupted or confronted early, the failure lies squarely with intelligence and counter-radicalisation systems.

The attack did not occur in a vacuum. It reflects a broader, deeper, troubling pattern in which antisemitic hatred is incubated, normalised and eventually weaponised. When that process is missed, ignored or downplayed, the consequence is not abstract; it is catastrophic violence. No adjustment to firearms licensing would have interrupted that pathway. It is important to understand that. Only effective intelligence gathering, community‑based reporting and decisive intervention against radicalisation could have done so. The overwhelming majority of Australian Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who reject terrorism and extremism. However, if we are serious about stopping radical Islam, community leadership matters.

Islamic organisations and community leaders are often best placed to identify early signs of radicalisation. They must work closely with police and intelligence agencies and report even the earliest indicators so that individuals can be de-radicalised, monitored or disrupted before violence occurs. Where prayer halls or associations have been named in credible media reporting in connection with extremist rhetoric, the appropriate response is transparency and cooperation, not denial or silence. Extremism does not appear overnight; it grows when warning signs are ignored. If this Parliament allows firearms reform to become a substitute for confronting radicalisation, recruitment and incitement within extremist networks, then we have all learnt nothing from what happened at Bondi.

Schedule 5 to the bill introduces a new framework for restricting public assemblies following terrorist incidents through the creation of public assembly restriction declarations, or PARDs. Under the scheme, the Commissioner of Police or Deputy Commissioner of Police, with the concurrence of the Minister, may issue a PARD applying to designated areas within 14 days of a terrorist incident if satisfied that public assemblies in those areas would be likely to cause fear of harassment, intimidation or violence, or pose a risk to community safety. A declaration may last for 14 days and may be extended in increments of up to 14 days for a total period of 90 days. Within a declared area, police may exercise expanded move on powers regarding certain conduct. Public assemblies may not be authorised under the Summary Offences Act 1988 in those areas, unless the assembly relates to industrial action, an industrial dispute or an industrial campaign.

I acknowledge the seriousness of the environment in which these provisions have been proposed. I also acknowledge that the Premier has responded strongly in the aftermath of the Bondi terrorist attack, particularly in supporting victims and their families. However, I do not support that aspect of the bill. The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental civic right in a democratic society. It is one of the primary ways in which citizens express legitimate opposition to Government policy and decision-making. It is part of the primary reason that my family left a communist regime to come to a democratic country here in Australia.

Australians have protested on issues such as the Voice to Parliament, offshore wind farms, council amalgamations, union rights, environmental policy, end-of-life care, the right to life, marriage rights and so forth. That right must not be curtailed lightly, broadly or for prolonged periods. A framework that allows protest restrictions to operate for up to 90 days following a terrorist incident is, in my view, excessive and disproportionate. It risks capturing lawful, peaceful and legitimate dissent that has no connection whatsoever to terrorism, extremism or public disorder.

In New South Wales, the statutory framework governing protests reflects a longstanding legislative balance between public safety and democratic participation. Under the Summary Offences Act 1988 and associated provisions, organisers may notify police of a proposed public assembly. Unless police legitimately oppose such an assembly, it becomes an authorised public assembly, with limited legal protections against summary offences such as obstruction. That authorisation process is not a permission regime in principle but a mechanism designed to facilitate peaceful protest while managing risks. Where police legitimately oppose an authorised assembly, the matter may be determined by a court, reflecting judicial oversight rather than Executive power.

Although there is no express constitutional right to protest under the Australian Constitution, the High Court has recognised an implied freedom of political communication as an integral aspect of the system of representative and responsible government here in Australia. In Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the court reaffirmed an implied limitation on legislative and Executive power to deny the people of the Commonwealth the right to communicate with each other on matters relevant to the choice of political representatives. This implied freedom operates as a constitutional constraint on laws that impermissibly burden communication concerning government and public policy, including the expression of political views in public protest.

There have been many such cases. In McCloy v New South Wales, the court confirmed that a law burdening political communication must be reasonably appropriate and adapted, or proportionate to achieving a legitimate purpose compatible with the system of government established by the Constitution. Similarly, in Brown v Tasmania the High Court held that provisions of the Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014 were invalid because they imposed an unjustified burden on the implied freedom that was proportionate to any legitimate objective of protecting business interests. Common law has well established that laws restricting protests must be narrowly tailored, proportionate and justified by legitimate public interest. In Lees v State of New South Wales, the Supreme Court of New South Wales struck down provisions in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 that extended police move on powers to protests in or near places of worship, holding that the challenge provisions burden the implied freedom of political communication.

The PARD framework proposed in this bill raises serious constitutional legal concerns, and I know a number of members will also speak to this. A regime that empowers the Executive, on the advice of police, to suspend the operation of the existing authorisation scheme across designated areas for up to 90 days following a terrorist incident operates well beyond the narrow, targeted restrictions contemplated by the High Court inMcCloy v New South Wales and Brown v Tasmania. The PARD framework is capable of burdening peaceful and lawful political communication that bears no rational connection to any ongoing risk of intimidation, violence or public disorder.

New South Wales already possesses a mature legal framework to manage public assemblies, prevent intimidation and respond to unlawful conduct. The imposition of prolonged protest restrictions through PARDs risks failing the proportional analysis required by the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution. While the protection of public safety is a legitimate and important objective, constitutional principles require that restrictions on political communication go no further than is reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose. In my view, the PARD regime as drafted does not strike that balance and therefore sits uneasily with the settled constitutional principles articulated by the High Court and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of this State.

This bill fails to make a critical distinction between legitimate protest and the sustained campaign of intimidation and hate that Jewish Australians have experienced over the past two years. Radical left‑wing zealots and some university-based anarchist groups have engaged in conduct that goes far beyond peaceful protests. Since 7 October 2023, Jewish students have been harassed and intimidated on campus. Synagogues and Jewish‑owned restaurants have been graffitied and damaged. Communities have been targeted, not debated with. That conduct was not legitimate protest. It was intimidation, it was antisemitism, it was criminal and it was too often legitimised under the guise of peaceful assembly. That is the issue the State Government should have been addressing.

This bill does not adequately draw that distinction. Instead, it reaches for broad protest restrictions at the risk of suppressing lawful dissent, rather than directly confronting and disrupting the specific networks and behaviours that engage in hate-based intimidation. Of course, my concern with this is that we are presenting an illusory and false narrative to Jewish Australians that somehow the bill we will pass here today is going to remove the intimidation that many of them have suffered in the last two years, and will likely continue to suffer until we address the core issues of radical Islam and antisemitic behaviour that are prevalent on our shores. I acknowledge and understand that the Premier recognised the dangers of importing overseas conflicts onto Australian streets. He tried to prevent the Harbour Bridge rally of hate. That instinct was, of course, correct in some respects. I know that many members in this Chamber went to that particular rally.

For 12 years I represented an electorate that had a very multicultural demographic. It included people of Islamic and Christian faiths. Many different religions were represented in my electorate. I was invited to many rallies. But because I was an elected representative, whose job was to represent each of my constituents, I chose not to attend any rally that involved conflicts that did not relate to Australia. I did not attend any rallies that related to matters in Europe or the Middle East. I will not attend rallies that do not relate to what I am here to do, which is to represent the people of this State. I ask all members of Parliament to reflect on that when they consider attending those events. Some members do not appreciate or completely understand the ramifications of them being at those particular rallies, standing there with people who are preachers of hate and people with radical views. I have more to say, but I will leave it at that. I oppose the bill. [Time expired.]

The Hon. WES FANG (13:30): I speak on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Before I make any comments about the bill itself, I reiterate the comments that I made yesterday about the Bondi terrorist attack. It was an absolute tragedy. It was clearly targeted at Jewish people, and that is unacceptable. But that does not excuse this Government introducing a bad bill and trying to rush it through in the manner that it is. When providing commentary to the media in relation to the bill, the Attorney General suggested that it was cobbled together. It is quite clear that the bill has a number of distinct parts forced together and that the Government is trying to ram it through Parliament just before Christmas. If it could be demonstrated that the bill could have stopped the events that occurred in Bondi on 14 December then that would be understandable, but the fact is that nothing in the bill is really aimed at stopping similar acts of terrorism from occurring in the future.

This was an antisemitic terrorist attack targeted at the Jewish people who were celebrating on Bondi Beach that day. To understand what caused it, we need to look at what happened in the lead‑up to it. Both the Minns Labor Government and the Albanese Federal Government failed to address the rise in antisemitism. The Jewish community warned them about it and this Government did nothing. It is concerning that a Jewish‑owned business in regional New South Wales was today the target of an antisemitic graffiti attack. Acts of hatred are still occurring, not only here in Sydney but across regional New South Wales as well. The Government failed to tackle the issue of rising antisemitism and also failed to stop a terrorist from obtaining a firearms licence. Other members have spoken about the circumstances around this, but it is clear that questions need to be answered. I will come to that in a bit.

This bill is a kneejerk reaction from a government that has failed to heed the warnings from the Jewish community about the risks that they have felt, heard and saw since the October 7 attacks. It is not as if they did not try to communicate those risks. I think that there is a level of contrition from the Government and an acknowledgement that it did not heed those warnings when it should have. Looking objectively at the causes of the terrorist event, there is no doubt that the Minns Labor Government's failures were at the heart of what occurred in Bondi a couple of weeks ago. In the questioning by the media about the circumstances behind the Bondi attack it has been clear that the Government has failed to explain how the terrorist received his firearms licence.

We know that he made a number of applications—an earlier one in around 2015 or 2016 and another in 2020. Three years passed before the licence was granted. It was granted in 2023, presumably after the Labor Government came to power. The question is, what role did Labor play in relation to a terrorist being granted a firearms licence? Did an MP make representation on the terrorist's behalf? If that is the case, then that would be known by the Government at this stage. It may explain why the Premier and the Government have refused to provide more details about the three-year vacuum of information about a firearms licence being granted to a terrorist. There are questions about how it took three years and who actually provided information.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Inspector Fang.

The Hon. WES FANG: I acknowledge the interjection. The Leader of the Government likes to interject while I am speaking. She has done it a number of times. She has called me Inspector Fang. I am asking the question; maybe the Leader of the Government can provide an answer. How did a terrorist, after three years, get a firearms licence?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine): The Hon. Wes Fang will resume his seat. Members will direct their comments through the Chair. Interjections are always disorderly, but the Hon. Wes Fang will reflect on whether he inspires such interjections through the role he plays. The member may continue, but he will direct his remarks through me.

The Hon. WES FANG: Through you, Madam Deputy President, there are obviously questions about what role Labor played in assisting a terrorist to get a firearms licence three years after he made the application. It was only after Labor came to government that that terrorist got his firearms licence. There are questions that have not been answered by this Government. Instead, there has been misdirection. Here we see a bill rushed through Parliament as a distraction from what has actually occurred. If anyone needs further evidence that it is a rushed bill that has been cobbled together, as the Attorney General rightfully said to the media last week, it is the fact that there has been absolutely no consultation with affected stakeholders, particularly about the firearms provisions. There was no consultation with the NSW Farmers Association or the Country Mayors Association of NSW. I assert that the Premier lied when he said that he had consulted because there has clearly been no consultation.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: The Hon. Wes Fang has had a fair go, but accusing a member of the other place of lying is unparliamentary. I ask that he withdraw the comment and use more appropriate language in the debate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine): The Hon. Wes Fang will continue his contribution in a way that is more consistent with parliamentary standards. He has been asked to withdraw the comment about the Premier.

The Hon. WES FANG: I will withdraw the word "lying", but I do not believe the Premier was telling the truth when he said that there had been consultation because the NSW Farmers Association wrote a letter indicating that the Government had failed to consult with them. It is misleading to infer that there had been consultation when clearly there was not. It was not only the NSW Farmers Association; it was also the Country Mayors Association of NSW. This cobbled-together legislation project of the Government has clearly been rushed, and that is an endemic problem with what has occurred. No consultation has occurred, and, when that happens, issues arise. We know that there are issues with the bill because the Government needed to move amendments to the bill in the other place last night, on sheet c2025-356A. The Government moved amendments to the bill because, as the police Minister indicated—

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: You should be happy about that.

The Hon. WES FANG: I note the Leader of the Government is yet again interjecting during my contribution. She said I should be happy about it. Well, I would be happy if you addressed some of the other issues, but instead you have addressed only one issue instead of actually—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine): Again, the Hon. Wes Fang will direct his comments through the Chair. I will decide when interjections will be commented upon. I am starting to lose my patience.

The Hon. WES FANG: Point of order: The interjections of the Leader of the Government are also disorderly.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine): The Leader of the Government will desist from interjecting.

The Hon. Courtney Houssos: Point of order: I ask that you call the Hon. Wes Fang to order. He showed great disrespect to the Chair by speaking over you whilst you were providing a direction. This is a debate where tensions and emotions are high. But a level of respect is required, and that member was not showing the level of respect to you or to the chair that you are occupying at the moment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine): I remind the Hon. Wes Fang that he must meet the appropriate parliamentary standards whomever he is speaking to, including the Chair.

The Hon. WES FANG: Last night, when moving the amendments to try to fix some of the mess that the Government brought to the Parliament, the police Minister in the other place said, "I am advised that there are specific situations" as the reason the amendment needed to be moved. The Government might have known that, had it consulted on the bill before trying to ram it through. Yet again, we see a government scrambling to try to fix messes that are being rushed because it has tried to distract from the fact that it did nothing about antisemitism prior to what occurred on Bondi Beach on 14 December. The need to move the amendments was a clear demonstration of the fact that the bill is flawed. But the flaws go deeper than what the Government has done with its amendments. There are contradictions between some of the provisions in the bill. The primary production aspect allows 10 firearms. I do not understand why licensed shooters who are participating in sports shooting are permitted to apply to the commissioner to receive permission for a greater number of firearms, but that provision has not been extended to primary producers. NSW Farmers raised absolutely valid concerns about large property holders who may have firearms in different places and who will have to transport their firearms between some of their landholdings. Potentially, that opens the door to issues around security of those firearms.

I reiterate that changes to limit the ownership of firearms would not have stopped what occurred on Bondi Beach because, ultimately, this Government gave a terrorist a firearms licence. Instead of owning six firearms, the terrorist that the Minns Labor Government gave a firearms licence to will now be allowed to own four firearms. I do not think that will stop terrorists from using firearms. What will stop terrorists using firearms is the Government not giving a terrorist a firearms licence, but that is not in this bill.

In relation to firearms licensing, this bill will make it more difficult for primary producers to keep their firearms licences. The two-year gap between applications will require more work not only from the holders of firearms licences but also from the registry. We know the Premier was loose with the truth when he said the licences are perpetual; they are not, and firearms owners will have to reapply. Clearly, the Premier was incorrect and that is another inconsistency by the Premier. The requirement around needing to attend a sports shooting location to maintain an active licence will be problematic in the future.

Why was this bill introduced as a whole with, as the Attorney General said, everything cobbled together? Why was the legislation not introduced in separate components so that members could have addressed concerns without having to vote against other aspects? I want to support the Jewish community and the anti‑protest aspects of the bill as well as the banning of ISIS symbols, without being forced to vote for parts of the bill—a bill that has been introduced without consultation—that will so dramatically impact rural and regional New South Wales. This is a rushed, ad hoc firearms reduction bill that is not evidence‑based, other than being based on the Premier's offhand comment that New South Wales will have the toughest firearms laws in the country.

After the Premier made that comment, he discovered that the State with the toughest firearms laws was Western Australia, so he decided that New South Wales legislation would allow one fewer firearm than the laws of Western Australia allow. That is how the Premier arrived at the number of firearms allowed in New South Wales. There was no science, no consultation or evidence‑based analyses, but pure politics. The Premier decided that whatever Western Australia has, New South Wales would permit one fewer firearm. That is the legislation this Government is trying to ram through Parliament today.

The Government is forcing members to accept the bill as a whole. I understand that because I know the Government was cobbling together any number of problematic aspects. The Government decided it would ram provisions of the bill through Parliament and try to wedge the Opposition, in particular. We cannot allow the firearms aspects of the bill to impact our rural and regional communities, particularly our farmers, because the Government clearly does not understand the impact of its decisions. It is with a heavy heart that I say I am not able to support my Jewish friends and family in the community that are so desperate for the anti-protest laws to pass. I cannot do so while knowing that I would also be voting to cause immeasurable and irreparable harm to rural and regional communities in New South Wales. It is for those reasons that The Nationals will oppose this bill as a whole. This is not because we do not support our Jewish communities, but because this Government has played politics with this issue for way too long.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine): I call the Hon. Emma Hurst and thank the member for her forbearance with the unorthodox speaking list choices that have been made due to some external constraints.

The Hon. EMMA HURST (13:49): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. On behalf of the Animal Justice Party, I once again express my sincere sympathies to everyone who has been affected by the horrific terrorist attack at Bondi Beach, particularly the friends and family of the 15 people who were killed, those who were injured and the Jewish community that was the target of this horrific attack. As I said in my contribution yesterday, I believe that, as politicians, our duty is not just to express sympathy. We must use our position as lawmakers to take decisive action and do everything we can to ensure an event like this never happens again. One step towards that is to pass the toughest gun laws possible to keep our community safe.

It is simple as this: Access to high-powered rifles means that an attack can be more brutal, take many more lives and injure large numbers of people. Having fewer guns and restricting access to guns reduces that risk. I have made a conscious decision not to play politics. It is not the right time, and it would be inappropriate to do so. But there are a few things I need to put on record, as I believe some things need to change in this House. As members know, I spent a large part of this year fighting against a Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party bill to relax gun laws in this State. Thankfully, the bill did not pass. It took a massive effort. If I did not have the support of the Liberals and crossbench to block the bill from proceeding to a vote, it may have passed. The Shooters' bill will no longer pass through this House, and it cannot possibly be supported.

We came close to relaxing gun laws in New South Wales only moments before this horrific incident. Many parts of the bill before us today are made up of amendments I took to the Premier in September this year. It is not just the Government that is to blame. At the time, I could not get support from the majority of members to help pass the amendments to our gun laws. I do not criticise the Government for acting in response to this recent tragedy, but prevention should always be our focus.

The amendments I was attempting to get support for were not my ideas. They came from those with lived experience and from experts in the space, like the Australian Gun Safety Alliance and the Alannah and Madeline Foundation. We should be listening to stakeholders earlier and acting earlier, not after the fact. This cannot simply be a reactive Parliament. We must work towards prevention and be willing to listen to experts earlier. Now we are here today in the wake of a catastrophic tragedy. A licensed firearms holder with six guns registered in his name murdered at least 15 people. He committed this crime with his son, who was reportedly a member of a Sydney hunting club, where he had undertaken training, despite there being no record of him ever having a firearms licence.

The people of Australia do not want to become like the United States. I have seen a lot of videos on social media of Americans praising Australia's position on this issue and praising our leaders for bringing in stronger gun legislation as a reaction to this incident. Australians will not stand by and allow a tragedy like this to occur nor accept it as the new norm, as has occurred after mass shootings in the United States. We must do everything we can to prevent anything like this happening again. That starts today with tougher gun laws to keep our community safe.

I have spoken to many in the Jewish community who support this legislation as a step towards safety. High‑powered rifles and other guns become dangerous weapons in the wrong hands. Having fewer guns and less access to guns is a step towards making the community safer and reduces the chance of such an event happening again. However, the feedback makes clear that this is only one step, and that much more needs to be done. I suggest that the $7.9 million set aside by the Government in its last budget to set up a lobby to promote more gun ownership be redirected to safety measures. Consultation with the Jewish community should take place to ask how that money can and should be spent.

I comment on some of the messages we have received since it was announced that the New South Wales Government was introducing gun reform. I received several emails and comments that were racist, aggressive and inappropriate. In the past I have spoken in this place about receiving death threats and rape threats. My great concern is that these people, who think it is okay to send these types of messages, own guns in New South Wales. They have the means to take someone's life, which makes their comments and threats all the more terrifying, and reminds me yet again why it is so damn important that we restrict access to guns. These comments and messages are strengthening my resolve, not weakening it.

Days after the attack, the member for Sydney and I put together a 12‑point plan of key gun safety reforms informed by the work of experts from the Australian Gun Safety Alliance and the Alannah and Madeline Foundation. I pay tribute to the tireless work of Walter Mikac, Steven Bendall, Sarah Davies and everyone at the Australian Gun Safety Alliance and the Alannah and Madeline Foundation. I can only imagine how distressing the attack at Bondi has been for all of them, particularly Walter. I thank them for their ongoing efforts and expert advice to this House.

I am pleased that a number of the reforms in our 12‑point plan have been included in the bill before us today. This includes a cap on the number of firearms an individual can possess and use, with a limit of four firearms for most licensed owners. This is a long‑overdue reform and follows the lead of Western Australia, which recently introduced similar caps. I think most people would be genuinely shocked to learn that until now there has been no meaningful limit at all on how many firearms a single person can hold. Many in the community were horrified to learn just how many firearms there are in our country. There are now more registered firearms in Australia than there were before the Port Arthur massacre. Over one million of them are here in New South Wales—more than any other State.

Even more concerning, several licence holders in New South Wales have over 300 individual weapons linked to their licence. It has been reported that six of the top 10 gun owners in the State live in suburban Sydney. They are not collectors or dealers. There is no logical reason that someone living in metropolitan Sydney should need access to that many firearms, and the fact that this has been permitted at all represents a serious failure of our gun laws. I think it is fair to say that many of us do not feel safe knowing there are that many firearms in our cities and suburbs, particularly in light of what has just occurred in Bondi. A cap is a sensible, evidence-based way to prevent firearms stockpiling and misuse. Unchecked gun accumulation is a recipe for disaster. It is a serious liability and a clear risk to public safety, one that we have seen can have devastating consequences.

In addition, the bill limits the types of guns that can be used by category A and category B firearms licence holders, which is the category of licence that the older gunman had and is the licence category held by most recreational hunters. This bill reclassifies straight-pull, pump‑action and button/lever release firearms into the higher class of category C and limits the magazine capacity for category A and B firearms to a maximum of five to 10 rounds. These reforms, particularly when combined with the firearms buyback scheme announced by the Federal Government, will significantly reduce the firepower available to our community and represent a meaningful step towards improving public safety.

I am also pleased that this bill will eliminate unlicensed firearm use in New South Wales. This is an amendment I strongly advocated for during debate on the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party conservation hunting bill, and I welcome that it has been taken onboard in this legislation. At present, under the Firearms Act, a person can possess and use as firearm at a shooting range without ever obtaining a firearms licence. All they are required to do is complete a P650 form, which relies entirely on the honesty of the person completing it to declare whether they have any prior convictions for violent crimes, previous firearm offences, are experiencing mental health concerns or have made prior suicide attempts.

Crucially, the information provided on this form is not subject to any verification or oversight by the police or the Firearms Registry. The accuracy of the details is accepted entirely on faith. The problems with this system are obvious: An unlicensed person can simply turn up to a shooting range on any given day, complete a form with no verification or oversight, and be handed a gun. This creates a deeply troubling situation where a person with a violent criminal history who is prohibited from possessing firearms or who poses a risk to themselves or others can make a false declaration and gain access to a firearm at a shooting range.

Tragically, that lack of verification has already had devastating consequences. A 2021 inquest into the deaths of John, Jack and Jennifer Edwards recommended that the New South Wales Government revoke the use of the P650 form, citing the "extensive risks" associated with the scheme. This horrific case involved John Edwards, a man with a decades-long history of domestic violence, who shot and killed his two children before taking his own life. The children's mother, Olga Edwards, herself a victim of prolonged domestic violence, later also took her own life. The inquest found that Mr Edwards was first able to access a firearm several years before this shocking crime by providing false information on a P650 form. Yet, to date, this clear recommendation of the Coroner has not been acted upon. This amendment will finally implement that recommendation and remove the deeply flawed P650 system. I understand that the New South Wales Government intends to introduce regulations to establish a new permit system to replace it, and that is something I will be watching closely.

The bill contains some other sensible amendments, such as reducing standard firearms licence terms from five years to two years, increasing the frequency of safety and suitability checks, and making safe storage inspections mandatory prior to the issue of a first permit to acquire a firearm, although I would have liked to see the Government go further and ban storage of guns in homes in metropolitan areas. Despite these positive reforms, quite a number of amendments from the 12-point plan circulated by me and Alex Greenwich have not been adopted by the New South Wales Government, which is disappointing, especially since those reforms came from leading experts in this space. I will have more to say about this when we get to the Committee stage, and I foreshadow amendments to add in two key points of the plan that I believe have been missed—namely, around children having access to firearms via minors permits and allowing recreational hunting to be a "genuine reason" to get a firearm.

Moving on from the firearms reforms, I express my serious concerns about other elements of the bill, including the far-reaching anti-protest laws. The Premier himself acknowledged that these laws are extraordinary. I am concerned about some of the impacts these laws may have, particularly in regard to non‑hate‑fuelled protests. These laws are so far-reaching that they would stop any normally lawful protest from being able to take place. It could stop a protest from occurring anywhere in the State against atrocities unrelated to a terrorist attack, such as puppy farming or greyhound racing or environmental destruction, for up to three months. We are concerned the bill simply goes too far and will likely be found unconstitutional. We find ourselves in extraordinary circumstances today, and this is an important piece of legislation to be considered. I will have more to say in the Committee stage.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine): I shall now leave the chair. The House will resume at 3.00 p.m.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (15:00): On behalf of the Legalise Cannabis Party, I support the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I put on record my disappointment that this is a contentious bill at a time when our entire society has been king hit a coward's punch by a disgraceful Islamist organisation and its acolytes. The attack was aimed at the Jewish community, but it was also an attack on all of us. The Jewish community and our communities cannot be differentiated; it was an attack on us all and an act of war. It was an ideological attack on every element of our society—our freedoms, our democracy, our way of life, our associations and the like. It is a time when we should come together. I think those members who come to this place to attack the efforts of the Government should hang their heads in shame.

It is only a week after these attacks, and the Government has reconvened the Parliament to try to do something and to be seen to be doing something. When we get king hit and knocked to the ground, we should get back up, dust off and punch back. This legislation is fighting back against the hate, the terror and the violence of those people who would destroy us. The bill contains modest measures. I accept that not everyone is going to agree with them, but we should put the public good first. The public good is for the elected representatives of the State—and of the country—to put aside their partisan, petty politicking to take action collectively. We did that after 9/11 and Port Arthur. We have done that after natural disasters, and we should be doing it now.

There are elements of the bill that cause some concern to my Libertarian Party colleague and I, but we looked at the intention of the Premier and the Government in taking this step. It is about public safety and reassuring the community that the Government and all members of Parliament are doing something collectively. It is the first step on a long road to redress this egregious and unjust situation. It is incredibly disappointing for there to be petty pointscoring in this place. No member of the public is paying attention to that. They want to see our leaders united, collectively working together to deliver public safety and to create a sense of unity. That is what people want.

The terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December was a moment of profound shock. As I have said, in the aftermath of such events, the public quite rightly expects Parliament to respond. That is what we are doing, not symbolically but practically, to prevent further harm and to restore safety. The bill tightens firearms legislation to reduce the number of guns and the types of firearms in New South Wales. I note with some trepidation the contribution of the Hon. Wes Fang, who said that this bill came out of nowhere. It did not come out of nowhere. People have been calling for these reforms since Port Arthur in 1996. The reforms have been on the table for a very long time. Advocates for gun control or coalition for gun control, Walter Mikac and his group, have been calling for this for a very long time. It is no surprise that the Government is pulling the lever of gun control, restoring public order and moving to ban the flags of certain organisations.

The bill tightens firearm legislation to reduce the number and types of firearms in New South Wales. Sajid Akram, the murderer, was granted a gun licence in July 2023 and bought three identical shotguns within 18 months. After draping a black Islamic State flag across his windscreen, he and his son pulled out high-powered hunting rifles and murdered 15 people. In 10 seconds, Naveed Akram shot 10 shots—one every second. Within the first minute, 33 shots were fired. Within two minutes 50 shots had been fired. According to the Financial Review, security expert Dr John Coyne believed that police were outgunned by the murderers. Police had nine‑millimetre Glock pistols, which have a 20-metre or less accuracy range for an average marksman. Dr Coyne estimated that the rifle used by Naveed Akram had an accuracy range of at least 100 metres, with Sajid Akram's estimated at 40 to 50 metres.

Existing systems have clearly failed. They must be fixed. This is a step on the road to reform and to restoring public certainty and public safety. The primary objectives should be public safety and public freedom. The firearm restrictions may assist in preventing terrorists and criminals from accessing firearms. The legislation proposes to limit the number of firearms possessed from unlimited to 10 for farmers and to four for recreational shooters. Firearm types, such as straight-pull guns, will be reclassified. People will have to demonstrate a special need for those firearms. Currently, there are few magazine restrictions. Belt-fed magazines will be prohibited with a penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment. These changes will reduce the number of people easily killed in mass shootings.

Gun control measures work. We saw that after the Port Arthur massacre. I was on the Tasman peninsula on the afternoon or night of that massacre and I understand about knowing where your family members are, whether or not they have been shot by a madman. I understood that we were just at the beginning of a long journey of reform to restore public safety and public order. The shock of Port Arthur is still felt in Tasmania. That community is still reeling and still scarred by that. This is something we will have to deal with in this place for a very long time. We should be coming together to build a consensus about the reforms. Licences will be restricted to citizens of Australia or a New Zealand permanent resident of Australia and licence holders required to be members of gun clubs. To protect leaking intelligence information, decisions by New South Wales police to refuse gun licences will not be subject to NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal review.

There will be an administrative burden and cost for people renewing their licence every two years instead of every five years. We understand that, but we believe that it is in the public interest. Approved clubs will be required to use the online portal—Gun Safe—and identity must be provided using an identity biometric check. The bill removes the exemption that allows shooting by an unlicensed person at a club. I have put on the table my call that category H guns, or pistols, have to be kept at the club. For some classes of licensed gun users, that is appropriate. We should move towards that and discontinue the practice of storing guns in our suburbs. I do not think that is necessary. One argument put to me is that we do not want to create an armoury in certain areas, but these guns can be dismantled, and parts can be kept in different places. This would be especially appropriate with new or provisional licensed gun owners and is something we should look at.

History teaches us that laws made in the shadow of trauma require discipline. Extraordinary circumstances can justify extraordinary powers—that is exactly where we are now—but only if those powers are narrow, time‑limited and subject to scrutiny. We have applied that test to these laws and we believe they pass that test. This legislation does many things. It creates a framework for public assembly restriction declarations which allow police, with ministerial concurrence, to restrict public assemblies in defined areas for limited periods following a terrorist incident where there is a genuine risk of fear, harassment, intimidation or violence. These powers are not general crowd control measures. They are triggered by a declared terrorist incident, confined geographically, and limited to short periods with extensions requiring active decision-making rather than inertia.

I am all for public protest. I have been to too many protests in my life, but I think these laws are necessary. I am disappointed to hear members of this place say, "We are going to strike this law down and dismantle the Government's work to create public certainty that people can be safe." It is very disappointing. It is a misstep. Design matters. The bill recognises the fundamental right to assemble but also accepts the reality that, in the immediate aftermath of terrorism, public assemblies can be deliberately exploited, not to protest policy, but to intimidate communities, glorify violence or provoke disorder. Allowing police to prioritise prevention and intelligence over crowd management in those circumstances is not an erosion of democracy; it is a temporary stabilising measure.

The bill also prohibits the knowing public display of terrorist organisation symbols. This is a necessary line to draw. Such symbols are not abstract political statements. They are used to celebrate mass violence and menace communities already bearing the psychological weight of terrorism. They allow our streets to become platforms for behaviour that undermines social cohesion and public safety. Appallingly, in Australia in 2025, I know people who have had a red triangle painted on their business—Avner's in Surry Hills. A business in King Street has had a pink triangle painted on their window. They keep it there. A bakery run by a Jewish family has had a Hamas symbol signifying death painted on their building. That is absolutely abysmal, and we should make sure that that symbol is made illegal as well.

Importantly, the bill does not criminalise discussion, education or critique. The reasonable excuse provisions preserve space for academic, artistic, educational, journalistic and public interest uses. That balance is essential. A democracy must be able to study terrorism without tolerating its glorification. The bill clarifies police powers in relation to face coverings at public assemblies. This provision deserves careful attention, but it is grounded in practical necessity. Police must be able to identify individuals who are engaging in intimidation, disorder or criminal conduct at otherwise peaceful protests. The power is not enlivened by protest itself, but by a reasonable suspicion of offending. Used properly, it will allow police to isolate and address harmful behaviour without disrupting lawful assembly.

None of these powers are insignificant. They do touch fundamental freedoms, but they are also conditional, reviewable and purpose‑specific. They restore a sense of calm and confidence that the Government is acting to keep communities safer. They are not open-ended expansions of State power, nor are they designed to suppress dissent or political opposition. For those of us who approach legislation from a civil libertarian perspective, that distinction matters. I support the bill because it recognises that freedom is not protected by inaction in the face of violence. Vulnerable communities suffer most when intimidation goes unanswered. We are going to punch back. When extremist symbolism and rhetoric are allowed to flourish unchecked after an attack, the community loses faith.

The support from the Legalise Cannabis Party comes with expectations. Those powers must be exercised sparingly and transparently. They must not become routine tools of protest management or political convenience. Parliament must and will retain oversight, require reporting and be prepared to revisit those provisions if they begin to drift beyond their original justification. Extraordinary powers should never become permanent by default. The bill appears to strike a workable balance between safety and liberty in the current awful and extraordinary circumstances. Whether that balance holds will depend not only on what is written in the legislation but also on how faithfully it is applied. For those reasons, I and my party will support the bill—not uncritically, but responsibly—with the clear expectation that Parliament will remain vigilant long after the immediate sense of urgency has passed.

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (15:15): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, conscious of the gravity of this moment and of the pain that has brought us here. I begin by acknowledging the 15 lives lost in the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi. I acknowledge their families, their friends and the Jewish community, who are grieving, traumatised and understandably seeking reassurance that their safety truly matters. Nothing we say or do in this Chamber should lose sight of them. This debate is not abstract; it is about real people, real loss and real fear. It demands care, restraint and seriousness from all of us.

I do not contribute to play politics. I accept that Parliament needs to respond, and I recognise the need for the Government to come out strong in the face of terrorism, antisemitism and hatred. For that reason, I will be supporting the bill, preferably with the amendments foreshadowed by the Hon. Susan Carter. At the same time, I do not think it serves the victims or the broader community to pretend that this legislation has been developed in an ideal way. If our aim is truly to honour the lives lost and to do good for the many people who have been impacted, then we must be honest about the process as well as the intent.

The bill has been brought forward under intense pressure in an atmosphere of grief and shock. That is understandable. But it has also been rushed, with limited consultation, significant reliance on future regulation and very little opportunity for Parliament or affected communities to properly test how those measures will work in practice. That matters, not because anyone doubts the seriousness of the threats we face but because laws made in haste, even with the best intentions, can fall short of their purpose. There is also a reality we should acknowledge quietly and respectfully: Even if the bill passes today, much of it will take time to implement. Regulations will need to be finalised, systems will need to be updated and police will need training and guidance. This is not an immediate fix, and we should not suggest to the community that it is. That does not mean the legislation is pointless, but it means it cannot be the end of the conversation.

It has become clear in this debate that terrorism, antisemitism and extremism are complex problems. They are not solved by one bill, nor by focusing on one lever alone. Legislative responses must sit alongside prevention, intelligence, enforcement, education and community engagement if they are to be effective and lasting. If the bill is passed, it must be monitored closely. We owe it to the victims and to the communities affected to ensure that the laws we pass are not just symbolic but actually workable, enforceable and fair. Where unintended consequences arise, the Parliament must be prepared to address them. Where gaps remain, we must be honest about them. Supporting amendments to strengthen the bill is not obstructionism; it is part of taking our responsibility seriously.

I welcome the constructive approach that has been outlined by the Opposition, particularly through the amendments foreshadowed by the Hon. Susan Carter. They are directed at making the legislation clearer, stronger and more effective to better align it with the promises that were made to the community in the aftermath of the tragedy. This House has heard strong views today and emotions are understandably high. The measure of our response will not be how loudly we speak but whether the laws we pass genuinely make people safer and help heal the fractures in our society. For that reason, I support the bill, but I urge the Government to engage constructively with amendments that improve it, because doing so honours the victims far more than pretending that the work is finished.

The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (15:20): I speak in debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Events like the attack at Bondi test us. They test our values, our democracy and our commitment to applying the principles on which our democracy rest. Pluralism, due process, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are all key elements in our democratic society. They must be defended, even in the most difficult of times. I am for reason. I believe in rational policymaking guided by evidence. I believe in policymaking that is proportionate and guided by values that are applied consistently. Politics is not always rational, because humans are not always rational. Politics is often governed by the vagaries of human emotions. At the moment, society is hurting, angry and feeling the need to react. That is a human thing. We feel exposed. Our vulnerabilities are exposed, and our instinct is to protect. That is a noble instinct. We now find ourselves in this place.

The Government can read the mood. It must act. Society demands nothing less. We can understand the motive and we can empathise with it, while also expressing reservations about the nature of the response. That is where I find myself. I am not here to throw rocks at the Premier. It is an incredibly difficult time for leadership. How one exercises that leadership is a challenge in the circumstance, having to try to balance contending calls and contending forces. I am not in that position, so I am not here to judge what the Premier is doing. It is fair that the Government is seen to act consistent with the expectations of society. The tool at the disposal of the Government is the legislative tool. That is the best way that it can immediately show that it is prepared to act in response to a significant crisis and a horrific set of circumstances.

There have been a number of suggestions made about causality during the debate today and in the public debate in general. My view is that only two people were responsible for the horrible crime. To entertain arguments around a line of causality that extends beyond those two people is to absolve those perpetrators of some level of responsibility for their criminal act. I do not think we should be doing that. Individuals make choices. At the heart of the criminal law is that individuals are held accountable for those choices. Ultimately, the question of criminality rests with individuals, not with broader social groups.

There is an argument around words leading to action. To some extent that is true, but the causal link is pretty tenuous, particularly in this circumstance around protest activity. It is hard to establish. When we find ourselves arguing about the words, and even the meaning of specific words, it becomes very hard to see how specific words, specific symbols or specific ways of communicating can necessarily lead to a series of actions. Ultimately, the individuals make the choice to take the actions that they do. They act on the words, but ultimately that culpability and responsibility rests with them. Yesterday the Hon. Jacqui Munro talked about a permissive climate. I think about the nature of that term and the sort of impulse that it draws public debate towards—that somehow we should try to stomp out a permissive climate.

If we look at the history, the notion of what types of ideas are permissible in our society is actually the foundation of an oppressive society, not a democratic society. We should resist the arguments around using the coercive tools available to the State to stomp on a permissive climate. We have to allow for all sorts of ideas to percolate in our society, even those that are abhorrent. There is also little information at the moment about the exact process that led to the radicalisation of these perpetrators. I do not know which world everyone else lives in, but I live in a world where information does not stop at borders. There are all sorts of sources of information. To suggest that somehow sermons delivered in Western Sydney or slogans yelled in Hyde Park are contributing factors to a process of radicalisation that encompasses a whole world of information and a whole world of influences is unrealistic.

The idea that we should be trying to legislate to constrain those forces is a fool's errand, really. I do not think we can do it, and I do not think we should try. It is also dangerous to think about the idea of hateful views. When thinking about what I would say today, the starting point has to be empathy. We have to try and put ourselves in other people's shoes and think through what the circumstances might be like when the shoe is on the other foot. I thought about abortion laws. There are some who think that people who conduct abortions are murderers—that they are killing babies. In their contributions to the public debate, they suggested that those people are perhaps not worthy of being treated fairly and should not be allowed to undertake their lawful activities. Certainly, those kinds of sentiments have led to violent action against abortion practitioners in the United States.

If we follow the logic being adopted by some members in this debate, would it not be fair to say that those in this Chamber who have been public in their advocacy against abortion, who have defended the right to life, who have participated in pro‑life rallies, should somehow be apportioned some contributory responsibility for the violent actions of radical elements within the movement that they are part of and for the horrible crimes perpetrated by them in other jurisdictions? That is the logic that we are embracing here. There is a spread of ideas. There are lawful ways to express views and there are unlawful ways to pursue an agenda; we need to be able to make a distinction between the two if we are to protect our democracy. We must reject arguments around the tenuous causality that is associated with the assumptions that underpin some elements of this legislation, particularly with regard to protests.

What is the purpose of proscribing protests? It seems that what we are really objecting to are slogans and posters, and so, in order to prevent people from saying particular words or displaying particular symbols, we think it is appropriate to ban all protest activity. It strikes me that that is neither proportionate nor directed to a specific purpose. When we are exercising legislative power, we should always apply those principles of proportionality and specificity, so that we are using State power only to the minimum extent necessary to achieve a public purpose. We should not ban all people from protesting just to prevent people who are asserted to be engaging in conduct that could be construed by some in society as antisemitic.

At this point in time, as we debate controversial legislation that relates to gun ownership, perhaps gun owners might want to exercise their right to lawfully protest, and that is a legitimate thing. They should be allowed to do that in a democracy. Applying a blanket ban on protests for a three‑month period seems to be disproportionate to the objective that is supposedly being pursued. I want to talk a little bit about guns. In New South Wales, firecrackers are banned. People like firecrackers; they are arguably part of our culture. On certain days of the year, we let off firecrackers. We used to be able to use them privately in our backyards. When used responsibly, they can be safe and fun, but when used irresponsibly or maliciously, they can cause real harm.

When we made the decision to ban firecrackers, we basically made an assessment around the recreational value versus the potential harm. We decided that the risks were too great. We are having a similar debate now about firearms. We know that guns are a tool for killing, and some people use guns to kill animals for fun. Recreational hunting is not the only purpose for which firearm ownership is available, but it is one of them. The more people who have access to firearms, the higher the risk that they will cause harm; that is incontrovertible. After the attack at Bondi, the risk appetite of society has changed, and we need to take that into account. That means our gun laws need to be changed to minimise the risk.

Ultimately the Government is weighing people's use of firearms for fun against the potential risk that many people will be killed. I have heard the argument about alternatives to firearms in the pursuit of terrorist agendas, but there is no question that a firearm can kill a lot more people than a knife or a pipe bomb, so the Government is taking action to try to reduce that risk in a relatively proportionate way. Maybe the Government should have been more consultative; I can acknowledge that. It is a complex issue, but the Government is not banning firearms. It will rely on the firearms community to make the changes operative.

While a cooperative approach may be more effective in achieving the policy end, weighed against that is the urgency of taking decisive action. There was a critique of the Government for taking symbolic action, as if that is illegitimate. It is not illegitimate because the Government works in the domain of symbolism and communicating messages, and it needs to communicate a message that it is prepared to act with haste in defence of public safety. That is why, on balance, we have to pass these laws today in relation to guns. It is unfortunate that it has not been done in a way that was conducive to further consultation, but that is the trade-off that governments make when they try to exercise leadership in a crisis.

Although the Government is using legislative tools to try to address the evident issue of antisemitism, I am not sure that we can legislate away hate. There is no question that there is antisemitism in our society, and it needs to be eliminated. I do feel a burden when I hear stories of Jewish children being afraid to go to school. That is a terrible thing for our society, and we must do something to address that. However, the debate about antisemitism needs to be much more sophisticated. There are other tools available to the Executive to try to assist with that agenda, and I urge the Government to deploy them, particularly focusing on social cohesion and reasserting its commitment to multiculturalism.

I was disturbed by comments made earlier in this debate that seemed to suggest that the multicultural project is a failed project. I utterly reject that. There is no question that we are still, despite Bondi, an incredibly successful multicultural society. By and large, Australians live together in peace and harmony, and we get on despite our differences of ethnicity or faith. It is a dangerous and corrosive thing to try to encourage a debate about rejecting multiculturalism. I am not sure what the alternative looks like. There is no going back. We are a multi‑faith, multicultural society.

There is no returning to a white Anglo-Saxon era. Those days have passed. The only option for us is to find a way through to a place where we get along, look after each other, express social solidarity and find strength in our differences. We need to work hard to eliminate racism of all stripes. We need to recommit to that endeavour by trying to find bonds of commonality, not look for division. For those reasons, and with those reservations, I support the bill. I support the Government, and I remain a committed member of the Government. I will be voting in favour of the bill.

Dr AMANDA COHN (15:39): I build on the excellent contribution of my colleague Ms Sue Higginson. Yesterday we paid tribute and condolences to the victims and survivors of the Bondi mass shooting. We gave our thanks to those who provided them with care and support. In the wake of the attack, we must tackle significant and complex challenges head-on: antisemitism, gun violence, prejudice, hate, racism, radicalism and extremism. The attack targeting the Jewish community was motivated by hateful ideology. Of course, it was not because of guns alone, but guns are the tool that was used to convert hatred into mass murder. Without access to weapons, 15 people might not have been murdered. The Greens support tightening gun control as part of the required response to this atrocity. It was the multipartisan, decisive response to the Port Arthur massacre that means gun violence is as rare in Australia as it is. Experts and advocates have long warned that gun ownership has been steadily rising and is now at levels higher than it was before the Port Arthur massacre.

The question many people have been rightly asking is why did two men known to ASIO, living in Sydney's suburbia, legally own six firearms? The guns were all registered in New South Wales. Gun ownership figures are both surprising and alarming. There are too many guns in our suburbs: 2,621 licensed gun owners in Camden; 2,232 in Windsor; 2,010 in Liverpool; and more than 3,000 on the Central Coast. Reducing the number of guns in the community and reclassifying the most dangerous are the right things to do. I acknowledge the many people who have reached out to me with concerns about the unintended impact of the legislation, particularly in rural communities. It has been well explained to me that, for primary production and invasive species control, there can be legitimate reasons to need more than one firearm. For example, you cannot shoot a rabbit with the same firearm that you would use to shoot a cow. What is being proposed is a limit of 10 firearms in those circumstances and four otherwise. This is still higher than what experts and The Greens believe is necessary for legitimate purposes.

I now turn to the parts of the bill which restrict protest, and which The Greens cannot support. What is proposed is a frightening, authoritarian overreach to limit people's ability to gather together and express their views peacefully. Protest is critical in a healthy and functioning democracy. My colleague Ms Sue Higginson will be moving some sensible amendments to add safeguards to these extraordinary powers. How does taking away people's right to peacefully express their views make anyone safer? It is a fundamental human need to express ourselves and to feel heard. In a healthy democracy, that includes being able to do so publicly and with others. I am not talking about hate speech. This is about the right to express legitimate opinions. Taking away that right builds tension and does not make anyone safer. The only beneficiary of restrictions on protest is a government that wants to avoid scrutiny.

During his time as President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, speaking during the Cold War shortly after the Cuban Revolution, argued that governments must allow peaceful, political and social reform if they want to avoid violent uprisings. He said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." We already have laws against hate speech and incitement to violence. Existing laws can and have dealt with gatherings that incite people to violence. The proposal is about shutting down peaceful protest, and it will not meaningfully address antisemitism in the community. The Government has had the good sense to refer its proposed measures to prohibit slogans that incite hatred to a parliamentary inquiry rather than trying to ram them through the Parliament today. Unfortunately, doing so over the holidays with a remarkably short time frame for public input raises questions about how serious the Government is about community consultation and transparency regarding the reforms.

This legislation restricting protest does not specify whose public gatherings should be deemed unauthorised, but it is clear in the commentary from the Premier and from speeches in Parliament that the pro‑Palestine movement is the intended target. That is quite extraordinary when there is no link between these terrorists and the pro‑Palestine movement, and when there has not been antisemitic hate speech or incitement to violence at these peaceful protests. Indeed, if there had been, that can be dealt with under existing laws. It is frankly dangerous to conflate the Bondi antisemitic attack with those advocating for peace and safety for Palestinian people.

I understand that many Jewish Australians feel a strong connection to Israel, but criticism of Israel and its actions should not, and does not, threaten the safety of Jewish Australians, who should never be targeted because of who they are; yet this is what occurred so heinously last Sunday. It is a basic act of human decency to stand against the murder of innocent people. This should not be controversial, whether the innocent deaths are in Bondi or in Gaza. The story of my grandparents, Jewish German Holocaust refugees, taught me the importance of standing up for all persecuted people. I was proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the 300,000 people who marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge against the genocide in Gaza. A keffiyeh poses absolutely no threat to Jewish Australians, who of course deserve the very basic right to live safely and express their faith within our communities.

The comments made by the Premier and others, including in this House today, that people who have peacefully advocated for Palestine are somehow responsible for this attack are not only wrong and deeply hurtful, but also cause real harm. Neighbours and colleagues have turned against each other. People have received death threats. This is exactly the type of division we ought to be quelling, not stoking. It has been pointed out by people with significant legal expertise in this area that these laws are likely to be unconstitutional. The inevitable court challenge to these new laws will create uncertainty and continue to distract from, and delay, actual solutions.

Finally, this bill proposes to expand police power to require removal of face coverings. This threatens the rights of parts of our community to participate in peaceful protests, including people with chronic illness who wear masks to protect themselves from airborne illness. If not restricting protest, what could, and should, we be doing to address antisemitism within the communities we represent? Antisemitism is a very serious and present issue, as we all acknowledged in this place yesterday. Antisemitism is a social issue that no government can stamp out with a law and order approach. While measures to restrict the display of terrorist and Nazi symbols are sensible, we cannot police our way out of this problem.

Responding to hatred and prejudice must include addressing reasons some members of our community learn to hate each other and turn to extremist ideologies. Changing racist attitudes requires people to understand and value identities and experiences different to their own. It requires building community, connection and trust. The Australian Human Rights Commission National Anti-Racism Framework was tabled more than a year ago in November 2024. The Race Discrimination Commissioner said in the report:

More recently, increased antisemitism, anti-Palestinian racism, anti-Arab racism, and Islamophobia has had devastating effects on communities. Our next step in the journey must be one that results in a fairer and more equitable society that allows us all to be our whole selves with dignity.

Racism has profoundly detrimental effects on people's lives.

…

Our work has revealed that current approaches to anti-racism are ad-hoc, disjointed, and often ineffective. In some senses, that is hardly surprising in a society where a person calling out racism often endures more negative repercussions than the perpetrator.

The report contains 63 recommendations, including many for State governments to implement in sectors including education, health and the justice system. There is no mention in that report of changing our protest laws. The Jewish Council of Australia supports the Australian Human Rights Commission anti‑racism framework and has called on the Government to protect our rights to protest and speak up against injustice. It has also asked the Government to crack down on tech companies profiting from spreading hate online. I am sure that we have all seen antisemitic and racist hate speech online. This is not new, but it certainly feels as though it has escalated in the past few years, and even further in the past week.

I have lost count of the number of explicitly hateful posts and comments, often explicitly racist or homophobic, that I have reported via the platform's own channels. Those reports are largely completely ignored. Major social media corporations do not just allow this hateful content to spread unchecked; they encourage it through algorithms that prioritise profit and engagement over safety. This approach promotes radicalisation by reducing people's exposure to views that are different from their own. The Federal Government recognised the harms caused by those online spaces. But instead of taking on the corporations by imposing protections from hate speech and radicalisation, it tried to ban young people from those spaces, pushing them even further into unregulated and dangerous online spaces.

The Victorian Legislative Council Legal and Social Issues Committee conducted an inquiry into extremism in 2022. The inquiry made important recommendations, which the New South Wales Government could implement today without the need for any legislative change. They would meaningfully address antisemitism, prejudice and hate in the community. The recommendations include supporting community-driven social cohesion initiatives aimed at building connections and trust amongst community members, and between community members and civic institutions; supporting the ongoing provision of anti-racism education programs, and actively seeking to improve and increase the provision of such programs in the community; identifying opportunities to improve and expand the digital literacy and critical literacy skills taught in schools; and ensuring that youth workers are adequately resourced to effectively provide youth supports and programs aimed at strengthening trust and social connectedness and mitigating the risks of radicalisation. That inquiry also recommended a national database of registered firearms and firearm licence holders.

In speaking to those sorts of initiatives, I acknowledge the work of the Sydney Jewish Museum, which received significant government support to upgrade its critical educational facility to include the new Centre of Jewish Life and Tolerance. No legislation is needed to support the reach of those educational programs in the community and beyond inner Sydney. On a similar note, I was distressed to hear that Together for Humanity had to scale back its important intercultural education programs following October 7, when that kind of work is needed now more than ever.

Finally, if we are striving for social cohesion and connected communities, people's basic needs need to be met. The Victorian inquiry into extremism found that social isolation, economic insecurity and inequality are risk factors that play a part in increasing susceptibility to extremist narratives. The recent statistics from the NSW Council of Social Service are distressing. More than a million people in New South Wales live in poverty, and more than one in seven children live below the poverty line. People with an extremist agenda have a much easier time scapegoating people who are different when people are struggling and desperate. They offer seemingly simple explanations and solutions that offer a feeling of empowerment that comes at the cost of the diversity of our communities and the safety of marginalised communities.

I am inspired by the response of the communities we represent to the atrocity that occurred at Bondi. There has been an outpouring of grief, compassion and love for the Jewish community. There has been an outpouring of practical support and generosity, from the record number of blood donations to the funds that were raised for Ahmed al‑Ahmed. We should reflect that compassion and solidarity today. To that end, it is really disgraceful that there have been so many partisan and personal attacks and so much flagrant Islamophobia during this debate. During debate on the condolence motion yesterday, speaker after speaker invoked the symbol of Hanukkah—light in the darkness. It is a shame that we have not been able to hold onto that spirit for even one day. I finish by reading a quote from the funeral service held today for Marika Pogany, one of the victims. Her son, Romy, said:

There's one thing my mum would've wanted us to do today, it's this: hug your family, hold your friends close, choose compassion over anger, and remember that deep in tragedy, connection is what carries you through …

The Hon. RACHEL MERTON (15:53): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. As legislators and as Australians, we grieve the mass murder of so many members of our Australian community, particularly our Jewish Australian community, at Bondi Beach on Sunday a week ago. I again pay my respects to the Jewish community of our State. Since October 7 and the disgraceful events at the Sydney Opera House, the Jewish community has, quite frankly, endured more in their streets, homes, schools and places of worship than any community should ever have to.

Antisemitism is not new. The events of that dark night have reverberated each day in our State. Actions have consequences. In this case, the consequences of the excuse-making, the moral equivalence and the total cowardice of the New South Wales and Federal Labor governments when called upon to address Islamic extremism and hate were catastrophic. How many convictions arose from the Opera House protest? How many people were jailed? The fact is it was illegal. It was against the bylaws of the Sydney Opera House for that protest to take place. But nothing was done by the Minns Government to stop it. The moral rot that has infected our city and our nation set in that night. It is not on a map, but there is a direct link in the environment we have today from the Sydney Opera House to Bondi Beach.

I support strong action to keep our community safe and secure. I stand firmly for community safety, the rule of law and the protection of our democratic freedoms. No person in New South Wales should ever live with threats to their lives or their family's lives, as we have seen with the Jewish community. This legislation bundles together three distinct areas: prohibiting the display of terrorist symbols, significant reforms to firearm laws and new powers to restrict public assemblies following a terrorist incident. While some elements are necessary and proportionate, others as currently drafted, in my personal opinion, go too far too fast, and need further consideration and consultation with stakeholders to achieve their intended outcomes. They will need further reform and examination after this bill passes.

We need strong action, like ensuring the New South Wales police have the tools they need to do their job keeping our community safe. I recognise the bravery that was demonstrated by the outgunned NSW Police Force at Bondi Beach. Taking down heavily armed terrorists and killers with pistols whilst under fire is the very definition of courage. But Canadian police have had long arms in their cars for decades. Why do our police not? More firepower for the police would do much more for community safety than what is contained in this hastily cobbled together bill. We need strong action on combating the cause of the terrorism we witnessed last Sunday week.

It was Islamist terror that came to Bondi Beach, but that word does not even appear in the bill. There is plenty about law-abiding Australian citizens, farmers, producers and sporting shooters who happen to own firearms, but nothing about the causes of the terrorism and hate that drove the mass murder at Bondi Beach. There is nothing about addressing the endless hate preaching that has brought division and death to our shores on multiple occasions now. This cobbled together bill, quite frankly, is not strong action. In my opinion, it is a rush job pulled together by Labor in an attempt to deflect from its catastrophic failure to rein in Islamist hate ideology by directing attention onto someone else—in this case, the many thousands of law-abiding firearm owners of New South Wales.

The Government needs to do more to stop those who seek to attack us, rather than attacking the rights of those whose first duty it is to protect—our law-abiding citizens. We all support responsible gun laws, but the process followed with this bill is no way to run a responsible government. This attempt by the Premier and his Labor mate the Prime Minister to hide behind the John Howard reforms of 1996 is disingenuous. It is an irresponsible attempt to deflect from the real issue, which is the catastrophic failings of the Labor Government regarding the rise of Islamist hate and ideology in our State and in our nation. Anthony Albanese is no John Howard.

The Premier does not want us to remember it was members of this Labor Government who supported the march over the Sydney Harbour Bridge, where ISIS flags were on display. Many marched—there were photos on the front pages of newspapers—and continued those marches every Sunday. Now they are telling us that we need to vote for their legislation.

It is a fact that Australia has strong gun laws today. I have been through the licensing process. As a legislator, I am always open to reforms that genuinely keep our community safe. The bill contains reforms such as restricting gun ownership to Australian citizens, which I particularly applaud. But the broader legislation on firearms should be considered, effective and appropriate when it comes before this place. Impacted stakeholders need to be properly consulted. As legislators, we should not have been dumped with a shoddy, cobbled-together bill and a "take it or leave it" demand from a disingenuous Labor Party. It is disrespectful to the Opposition, to the Parliament and to the people of New South Wales.

In the other place, the member for Wahroonga noted that the first consultation draft was provided early Sunday afternoon, and the final copy was supplied to the Opposition yesterday morning during debate on the condolence motion. We have heard from impacted stakeholders of being kept totally in the dark despite attempts to reach out to the Minns Government. Is this really the way to deliver considered legislation that will have a sweeping and profound impact on people across this State? John Howard did not rush straight to Parliament in 1996. Rather, he went out and talked to the public and to stakeholders and engaged with legislators. Do the Premier and his good mate the Prime Minister really think they know better than John Howard on matters like gun reform? Yet this bill is what we are left with.

We have been told that the legislation before the Legislative Council today is an urgent response to what happened at Bondi on Sunday last week. However, nothing in this bill actually addresses the root cause of that terrorist attack—Islamist extremism—which caused the killings of so many of our fellow Australians. Quite frankly, it is staggering. This current bill is an example of the Government's denial on an important issue and is kicking the can down the road. In the wake of Bondi, people are saying to each other that this is not the Australia they grew up in. Many of us are thinking the same thing: If there is another Islamist terror attack, then what is our Government's next response? Do we remove more firearms from law-abiding citizens, cut licences back to six months, place more restrictions on our civil rights and broadcast more commercials starring Eddie McGuire and Kyle Sandilands helpfully telling us to remain united? Will that finally resonate with the hate preachers? The correct answer is probably not.

I now turn to address elements of the bill. Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Firearms Act to introduce further restrictions on gun ownership, while schedule 3 introduces changes to the Firearms Regulation. I hold a New South Wales firearms licence, and I have a longstanding family association with primary producers relating to wool and beef production in the Central West of the State. I am aware of the fact that farmers and the agriculture sector have specific needs for multiple firearms on their properties. Quite simply, they are tools of the trade and are essential to land management, biosecurity and animal welfare. Various rifles and calibres play different roles on a working property. They are used responsibly and lawfully. Reducing the number of firearms a working farmer can have from 12 to 10 will not stop the next terrorism attack. We would get better outcomes with this bill if the Government had consulted with people on the land. I hope in the new year the Government will pick up the recommendation to go out there, talk and listen.

Requiring farmers to join a gun club to hold their licence when the closest club might be hundreds of kilometres away is, in my view, ridiculous and could only have been drafted by someone who has never visited a working farm. What is the point of forcing gun club membership? The purpose of a gun club is to provide technical compliance, not ideological screening. The red tape does not end there, with a reduction, by way of new section 21, of the term of a licence from five years to two years. No good reason has so far been provided for how more bureaucracy is going to counter the spread of terrorism in our community. Perhaps the Premier and his Government might like to talk to NSW Farmers and the Country Mayors Association, who report that they have been essentially ignored.

The haste in which the bill has been cobbled together is evident in how the Government keeps changing its mind about appeals going to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal [NCAT] for review of a decision made in respect of a firearms prohibition order. In September the Government wanted to extend NCAT appeals to under-18‑year‑olds. But suddenly in the first draft of the bill on Sunday, no‑one had the right to an NCAT appeal and only an internal review. As I understand, that has now been changed again, via a more sensible amendment that allows a person to have a review but not in situations where the firearms prohibition order was made because of criminal intelligence or criminal information. But who knows what Labor will be thinking this afternoon. This is the sort of shoddy legislative reform and incoherent thinking that emerges when everything is made up on the run.

It is right to recognise that our current Firearms Act is strong and provides authorities with sweeping authority to refuse, suspend or revoke licences where someone is not a fit and proper person, where criminal intelligence exists or where continued possession is not in the public interest. The overriding principle within the Firearms Act is contained in section 3, which clearly states that a gun licence is a privilege that is only to be granted on the condition that public safety is ensured. Clearly, the laws we have today have been in place for many years. If they were not applied appropriately, as in this case, that is a failing of administration rather than the law. We must also consider whether existing risk assessment processes in firearms licensing are adequate for instances where there are known and demonstrated links to extremist activity within a household and why. Those matters deserve consideration and review. For instance, the inclusion of the remaining Bondi terrorist on a terrorism watchlist should have been enough, under existing law, to trigger seizure of his father's rifles and guns. Why did nothing happen?

We should also have a conversation about the resourcing of the Firearms Registry. How many, or how few, full‑time employees does that organisation have? The question must also be asked as to why there is the haste to try to ram through this legislation today. This place holds inquiries into all manner of legislation and issues, big and small. Yet we are now legislating a bill with basically zero consultation. It was introduced yesterday and represents a sweeping and far-ranging change to the rights of citizens across the State. A full, fair dinkum parliamentary inquiry would help identify clear areas for debate and consideration, such as the risk assessment processes. Respect for parliamentary process and procedure is not unreasonable to follow, but that was all too hard for the Government that wanted a pre-Christmas headline. So here we are today.

Citizens are asking why the Government, as legislators, has introduced what should be three separate pieces of legislation as one single bill. Bundling three measures into one omnibus bill, rushed through in an emergency sitting just before Christmas, denies Parliament the opportunity for proper scrutiny. Complex firearms reforms warrant detailed inquiry, and protest restrictions demand the careful balancing of rights. Combining them forces members to choose between supporting safety measures or opposing overreach; it is a false dichotomy that undermines good governance. That is an appalling way to treat both the Parliament and the wider New South Wales community.

I put on record that I strongly support parts of the legislation that strengthen hate speech laws in New South Wales and make it unlawful to display prohibited terrorist organisation symbols. Superior legislation for that was recently put up by the Opposition and was, of course, opposed by the Government. No-one in this Chamber disputes the need for strong measures to combat terrorism and to keep New South Wales safe. That is why the Liberal Party has approached the bill with a commitment to bipartisan cooperation in extraordinary times. It is to the Labor Party's shame that it has not reciprocated. Ultimately, I am a team player and I will vote in support of the bill. I will also support much-needed urgent surgery in the new year on what emerges today.

The fact is that New South Wales—and Australia—is at the crossroads. If we are talking about gun laws and terrorism, let us also talk about culture, Australian values and the compatibility of some groups and people who have come to our fair nation. We also need to have a much broader conversation where organisations like our woke universities, NGOs that cultivate or, at best, turn a blind eye to hate speech and Islamist extremism are held to account with cuts to government funding. We also need more emphasis in schools about shared Australian values and not the embedding of differences. I will have much more to say about all of these issues in the new year.

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (16:10): I speak in debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The community has been rightly horrified by the events of Sunday 14 December. It is understandable that the Government is now being asked questions about how was this allowed to happen and can we prevent it from happening again. As legislators, we need to take those questions seriously. We hold the levers that can establish inquiries. We have the privileged position of being able to review and tighten any laws that provide a narrow loophole for terrorists to squeeze through. As legislators, we generally make laws in hindsight, once something has already gone wrong, attempting to ensure that it does not occur again. New laws are drafted with the thought that, if they were originally in place, they would have made the previous event unlikely.

With that thought in mind, I come to the bill, which contains three separate sections: displaying prohibited terrorist symbols; changes to the Firearms Act 1996 and Firearms Regulation 2017; and greater powers given to the New South Wales police regarding protest management. I will address each section but begin my remarks by stating that I am disappointed that the Government has brought these important matters to the House via an omnibus bill. My speech will elucidate my views on each schedule, but I make it clear that I would have been content to support schedules 1 and 4 to 6—although I feel they do not go far enough and will talk to that shortly—whilst rejecting schedule 2 changes to firearms legislation. As it stands, due to the way the bill has been drafted, I will be forced to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Returning to the contents of the bill and changes it makes to the Firearms Act and regulation, in reviewing schedules 2 and 3, members must ask themselves one simple question: How would these changes have prevented the events of Sunday 14 December? That is the only question we need to answer. It is a simple question but it exposes much. The straightforward answer is that the changes would not have stopped the events of Sunday 14 December. The truth is that the ideology behind the fingers on the triggers is a direct threat to our society and it is not addressed in the bill. I have been warning this Government for 20 months about the rising threat posed by the scourge of radical Islamic hate preachers.

In late March 2024, the Bankstown-based cleric Abu Ousayd—also known as Wissam Haddad—called on his listeners to be "worshippers by night and warriors by day". In other sermons he referred to Jews as "descendants of pigs and monkeys" and urged people to spit on Israel so that "Jews would drown". A police spokesperson confirmed that the rhetoric was not a criminal offence. I have a copy of an article in The Australian dated 3 April 2024, which quotes me and says in part:

NSW Upper House Deputy President Rod Roberts said he felt the "frustration" of the Jewish community and that the "system was letting them down"… "It's obvious—he (Mr Ousayd) knows he can exploit the weak legislation."

I said that 20 months ago, on 3 April 2024. Let me continue. Another article in The Australian dated 26 May 2024 reported that Jewish leaders had called for "rapid reform" to hate-speech protections and had asked the Premier to criminalise religious-based vilification and hate speech with new penalties. The article goes on to quote me. It says:

… Rod Roberts echoed the concern, saying the state government appeared to be "dragging its heels"…

On 9 June 2024 the paper quoted me encouraging the DPP to prosecute more people charged under the old section 93Z offences so that the strength of the existing law can be tested and bolstered if necessary. On 28 October 2024The Australian reported the following:

the Executive Council of Australian Jewry instigated proceedings in the Federal Court against extremist Islamic preacher Wisam Haddad … and his Bankstown-based Al-Madinah Dawah Centre.

After a series of sermons calling the Jewish community "vile and treacherous people", the Executive Council of Australian Jewry separately lodged a vilification complaint with the Human Rights Commission against Sheik Ahmed Zoud, who said Jewish people "ran like rats" from Hamas in the 7 October 2023 attacks. Back in October 2024The Australian quoted me—Rod Roberts, yet again. It says:

… no religious or ethnic community should have to do "their own policing"… (and) that Haddad's "inflammatory" comments harmed society as a whole.

That was Rod Roberts back in 2024. Anyone who says that they were surprised by the Bondi terrorist attack is either being disingenuous or is simply a fool. Jihadi preacher Haddad has recently said that their God wants his followers not to sit idle but instead to perform acts of jihad, which, he added, will sometimes take the form of violence. How is this acceptable speech?

A ferocious bushfire is started with a single spark. These hate preachers have been breathing fire for years with impunity. Why did it take a busted-arse, Independent crossbencher like me to call this out on no less than four occasions while the Premier and his Government were asleep at the wheel for 20 months? In the past couple of days I have seen a raft of members from the other side of the Chamber hand-wringing and apologetic, saying, "We need to change. We didn't know. We've got to do better." I am not wise after the event. As usual, I am in front of the curve. I have been telling people forever. I am not wise after the event and trying to steal a headline in the past two days to say, "Look at me. What a tough guy I am protecting the Jewish community." I have been calling it out for a long time. What has the Minns Government done about it? Nothing.

They cannot say they did not know because the journalist who wrote those articles happens to be Alexi Demetriadi. Do members know where Alexi works now? He is the press secretary for—guess who—the Minister for Multiculturalism, Steve Kamper. Members of this Government say, "We didn't know. Nobody told us. We weren't aware. If we'd known, we would have done something." I call that out as straight BS because I, along with others, have been saying this for ages. We are not wise after the event. Unlike the Government, we have not turned up in the past couple of days saying, "We're so sorry. We didn't know. We should have done something about it. We're really going to do something about it now." Bullshit.

I note that news broke at lunchtime today that the Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown has been issued with a cease use order by Canterbury Bankstown council following media reports of links between the Akrams and the evil preacher Haddad. It has been 20 months. The Premier—we all saw him—proudly announced that he has been in discussion with the council general manager for several days now. Several days? I raised the issue 20 months ago.

Haddad's abuse of the Jewish people was known publicly, and it was publicised widely at the time. Yet Minns spoke to The Sydney Morning Herald, puffing his chest out and beating it, and strutting around like the cock of the walk, as though he is a strongman who can move rapidly to protect the community. I say to the Premier, "Listen, champ, you're late to this party. You ignored the warnings of myself and the Jewish community about the hatred that flowed like putrid sewage from that centre. Where were you when Haddad's vitriol was reported by the media numerous times, Mr Minns? Where was your concern for community cohesion and safety then?" It was nowhere. There was nothing to be seen or heard. It is easy to turn up at the reading of the end of the book and know the butler did it. Real leadership addresses problems when they first emerge, and Minns has failed miserably.

As I have already stated, changes to the firearms legislation—even restricting a licensed shooter to four firearms—would not have prevented the Bondi attack. Indeed, it still does not prevent a household from building a residential arsenal. The bill limits the number of firearms per licensee. Perhaps—it is not up to me; it is up to the Government, which has all the levers and all the agencies—a better policy would be to limit the number of guns per residential storage address. As it stands, any person can encourage other members of their household to obtain a firearms licence and then purchase a maximum legislated number of firearms per person. That is not a fanciful example. A Sydney‑based firearms safety and training organisation sent out an email to its members last week. It stated:

Given public discussion around potential limits on the number of firearms per person, members may wish to consider whether appropriate family members should obtain firearms licences, so firearms can be lawfully managed within a family if required.

I note that the author of that document, whom I have chosen not to name—although other members may have received the same email—has done nothing illegal by giving that advice. They simply identified a loophole in the proposed legislation. Where do loopholes come from? They come from rushed legislation that is not properly thought through. I will be interested to hear what the Leader of the Government says in her speech in reply in response to my concerns. What about those who have evil thoughts—not legitimate licensed firearms users but those who want to exploit family members to gather an arsenal within their home? That was not addressed, not thought of and not considered. How can that be? I have just explained that a loophole exists where a household can accumulate more than four firearms.

The terrorist Sajid Akram was issued a firearms licence and owned six firearms. He took four of them with him on that terrible day—there is the number four again. How will limiting guns to four stop anything? However, imagine for a moment that the Akrams were not able to possess or obtain a firearm. Could an Islamic State inspired attack still have gone ahead? Let us take a look at recent history in Western countries. I note the Westminster attack, which was on 22 March 2017. It was inspired by ISIS. Five people were killed and 50 were injured. A car was used to drive into pedestrians before the attacker stabbed an unarmed police officer. ISIS claimed responsibility for the Manchester Arena bombing on 22 May 2017, where 22 people were killed and 119 were injured. A suicide bomber detonated a homemade bomb at the Ariana Grande concert.

ISIS also claimed responsibility for the London Bridge attack on 3 June 2017. Eight people were killed and 48 were injured. Three men drove a hired white Renault van into pedestrians on London Bridge, mounting the pavement and killing three people. Armed with 30‑centimetre kitchen knives tied to their wrists with leather straps, the attackers then fled the van and ran to a nearby market, where they stabbed four people. The Barcelona attack was inspired by ISIS. On the afternoon of 17 August 2017, a van ploughed into pedestrians, killing 13 people and injuring a further 130. The attacker then fled on foot and hijacked a car, stabbing and killing his fourteenth victim.

The London Bridge attack on 29 November 2019 was al‑Qaeda inspired. A man stabbed two people to death and wounded three others in a rampage on the London Bridge. Much closer to home was the Wakeley church stabbing on 15 April 2024. That is out near Fairfield. A 16‑year‑old boy radicalised by Islamic extremism carried out a brazen stabbing attack on Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel during a live streamed sermon at the Christ the Good Shepherd Church in Sydney. It is clear that a firearms seizure alone would not have stopped the Bondi attack.

History shows us clearly that a radicalised and committed Islamic terrorist will simply use the tools available to them. Fanatics do not need guns. Are we going to ban hire trucks or kitchen knives? The Akrams threw improvised explosive devices, made from lawfully available components, into the Bondi crowd and had one in their vehicle. Thankfully, they did not detonate. Are we now going to legislate to investigate everyone with a beard and a Bunnings voucher who turns up at a hardware store to buy lawful components that could be used in the provision of an explosive? Imagine that the official response following 9/11 was to ban aeroplanes. It is absolutely ridiculous.

The Premier and his Government had an opportunity to send a signal to hate preachers and nip this evil ideology in the bud. Instead, we have a kneejerk bill that punishes the 99.9 per cent of law-abiding firearms owners. They are being punished for the failures of the Minns Government to combat Islamic extremism despite constant warnings. Criminals and terrorists do not respect or follow the law. The root cause of the extremism is antisemitism and radicalism. Changes to firearms legislation will do nothing to combat that. Even restrictions on magazine size will do nothing. I remind members of the Lindt Cafe siege, which was carried out with a sawn‑off, two-shot, double-barrelled shotgun and a backpack with a fake bomb. It was one gun with only two shots. Islamic extremism should have been addressed back then in 2014, but it was not.

People may push back against my comments by saying that the men do not represent the majority of Muslims. They would be right; they do not. But they also do not represent the majority of gun owners. Take note of who is now pushing for the reforms. It is the Premier, who, when talking about hunting in budget estimates hearings, declared:

I don't profess to be an expert on it. I have never gone hunting and I don't think I've ever held a gun before.

That may well explain why the Premier proudly stated that his Government is going to ban "belt-fed shotguns", something that does not even exist. They have never been seen before. A man who has never held a gun, who knows nothing about them and their lawful uses, will now take guns from the hands of lawful shooters. Make it make sense. I return to my original question: How would these changes have prevented the events of Sunday 14 December? They would not have. That is why I cannot and will not support changes to the firearms legislation.

I turn to the other provisions of the bill. Schedules 1, 4, 5 and 6 to the bill deal with displaying prohibited terrorist symbols and managing protests. I indicate that I am broadly sympathetic to those measures. My main criticism is that they do not go far enough. It is a case of too little too late. Regarding the offence of displaying a prohibited terrorist symbol in schedule 1, the legislation should also make it an offence to possess the symbol in a public place, regardless of whether a person is waving it around or not. No person has a genuine reason for walking around with an ISIS or Hamas flag in their backpack or a swastika armband in their jeans pocket.

Speaking to schedule 4, I am of the considered view that simply attempting to evade identification at a protest by the use of a face covering should be an offence in and of itself. If someone wants their voice heard on a particular issue, they should put their face to it as well. Quite often, for operational reasons, police are unable to make an immediate arrest of offenders. They rely on CCTV and witnesses to identify perpetrators. Those wearing face coverings are able to evade arrest and hinder the police in their investigation and pursuit of justice. New South Wales police were faced with that difficulty following the storming of the Opera House forecourt on 9 October 2023. How often do members in this place criticise anonymous online trolls who hide behind fake profiles to evade identification and the consequences of their words? Wearing a face covering at a public protest is no different. Police should have the power to require an individual to remove a face covering, whether or not it is suspected they have committed or are likely to commit a further offence.

Finally, I turn to schedules 5 and 6, which address the restrictions on public assemblies and protests. The residents of this city have been held to ransom for two years by the rabid so-called pro-Palestinian protesters. This has cost the taxpayers more than $10 million for the required extra policing and has had negative impacts on tourism and business. It is important to note that these protests have also had zero effect on Israel's foreign policy. The New South Wales police should not have to wait for a terrorism declaration to deny radical protesters airtime and free range on our streets and bridges. It sets the bar far too high.

A better drafted bill would leave the discretion open to the commissioner to deny a protest simply on the grounds that the protest is organised or will be attended by an individual or a group who is a known entity to the counterterrorism unit of the NSW Police Force and would likely cause a reasonable person to fear harassment, intimidation or violence, or be a risk to the person's safety or to community safety and cohesion. That is not the bill before us today. This is not the bill the hardworking people of our State deserve. I close by restating that I cannot support this bill. It does not address the root causes of the Bondi tragedy. It punishes law-abiding firearms owners for the sins of others and it still gives power to those who wish to sow hate and division on a weekly basis.

The Hon. JACQUI MUNRO (16:31): I speak in debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. There should be absolutely no doubt that extremists are legitimising their place in Australia under the guise of compassionate and free speech. Extremists are exploiting our liberal society. Extremists are exploiting our dearly held cultural institutions of tolerance, respect, freedom and democracy for their own evil ends. Our values are dearly held by the vast majority of Australians. These ideas, made real, are the reason that so many migrate here to our wonderful country. Earlier today I heard Ms Sue Higginson talk about last Sunday's antisemitic attack as senseless violence. I have heard people talk about the unimaginable horror. However, this violence was not unimagined by the Jewish community.

Yesterday the Premier acknowledged the previous "summer of hate", where firebombings became an almost regular occurrence and ongoing vandalism and antisemitic acts became so regular that it seemed they were a part of normal life. This has happened under the New South Wales Premier's watch, and up until this day he has done nothing to deal with it. He did nothing to support the bills the Opposition introduced to Parliament earlier this year. Much of the bill before the House today emulates, though significantly waters down, those Opposition bills. My colleague the Hon. Damien Tudehope explained this clearly in his contribution.

Ms Higginson referred to the violent attack as senseless violence. However, it actually does make sense to people who would risk their own life and even celebrate and honour that loss of life in the pursuit of killing Jews. That makes sense to certain people in our country. The Hon. Rod Roberts spoke about that incredibly eloquently, and I endorse his comments. Indeed, if one holds those antisemitic views—like Hitler and the Nazis, like countless suicide bombers around the world and like extremist Islamic jihadists—Sunday's attack was actually sensible violence. Knowing that, I again want to be clear that Islamic extremists are legitimising their place in Australia—in our suburbs and in our communities—under the guise of compassionate and free speech.

The fundamental irony and true revelation about what underlies the so-called pro-Palestinian movement is that it started on 9 October in the Opera House forecourt, less than 48 hours after Hamas terrorists from Gaza killed over 1,200 innocent civilians and long before the ravages of war had been felt by Gazans. In fact, the protest at the Opera House was never about civilians. If there was compassion for innocents, why was it not directed to the Israeli innocents murdered while dancing at a music festival—the innocents living in border towns who considered themselves friends and neighbours with Arabs, Muslims, Jews and Israelis alike?

No. This "movement" has, from the beginning, been a vehicle for the expression of deep antisemitism, extremism, a hatred for Jews and their national sanctuary. The desire is to intimidate and threaten Jews. I have seen merchandise selling online with printed slogans like "Bash Zionists", "Support Armed Resistance" and "May God crush them". Do not forget the armadas of vehicles that drove to the eastern suburbs, waving terrorist flags and clogging streets, and the daily antisemitic comments directed at Jews on our streets, on their way to school and online. Remember that Hitler legitimised his views on Jews amongst an entire population under the guise of compassion for his maligned Aryan German fellows who were bruised after World War I and the implications of the Treaty of Versailles.

Remember that extremist violence and activity is never perpetrated without context; it is legitimised in an environment that treats the target as the "other" and that demonises and makes the other responsible for the ills of the world and of the individual. There are people in our country today who believe the Bondi massacre was legitimate. There are also people who deny or seek to minimise its impact. Today I received an email stating that the Bondi attack has "Mossad written all over it. Israhell is the only one benefiting from this shooting." Others question that it was an attack directed at our Jewish community at all. "Are you kidding me?", one person wrote to me. Another said that I am "making up" that there was any hate at weekly protests. This should frighten us all. I have heard that someone in Sydney has reimagined Pastor Martin Niemöller's famous post-World War II confessional proseFirst They Came—orHabe ich geschwiegen—for the present time. I am sorry that I do not know the author's name, but I heard her poem quoted:

I ask again, as I did yesterday, will the Minister for the Arts and the Labor Government commit to pulling funding for the Biennale of Sydney if it contains the deeply antisemitic works we have come to expect from the artists involved, including works that depict Jews in the most disgusting, hook-nosed form wrapped in an Israeli flag? What will the Minister do to re-engage the Jewish community after the resignation of Kathy Shand? The motion also stated that the House rejects antisemitism unequivocally and hatred and intolerance in all its forms, and recognises they have no place whatsoever in our modern, multicultural community. Will the Minister inquire into why Clementine Ford was allowed to co-curate the All About Women event at the taxpayer-funded Sydney Opera House, given her deeply antisemitic rhetoric and threats to the Jewish community?

All those things have happened well after October 7, after antisemitism was on the rise and after Jewish people had expressed their ongoing fears literally for their safety and for their lives following firebombs, arson attacks, graffiti and online threats. The Hon. Anthony D'Adam quoted me earlier and questioned my approach to the idea of a permissive culture. When I referred to a permissive culture yesterday, I was speaking about the exact kind of culture, rhetoric and behaviour that fails to acknowledge, call out and stamp out antisemitism. That is the kind of behaviour that we have allowed to flourish because of the permissive culture around extremist beliefs, such as Islamic jihadism, neo‑Nazism and what I call anarcho-Marxism in this State. That is the permissive culture which allows the kind of antisemitic hate that we have seen rise and rise since 7 October 2023, and the Government has failed to do anything meaningful about it.

The Government repeatedly failed to support the Opposition's bills, and it has been galling to hear the words of mollification from Labor and The Greens members over the past week because it is hard to believe, particularly following over a year of Government collusion with the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. The Government was engaged to enshrine a pro‑hunting lobby to ensure that we had some of the most relaxed gun laws in Australia, without even commenting on the merits or otherwise of gun legislation. The Premier going to Cabinet with that and now, today, coming to us and suggesting that the Government is going to have "the tightest gun laws in the country" is rank hypocrisy that is utterly political. The Government has been completely inadequate in its approach to stopping the root cause of the permissive culture that allows antisemitic hate to flourish.

The bill has been rushed. It has failed to meet any definition of bipartisanship in its drafting. It demonstrates the Premier's shameless hypocrisy. It is designed to divide parliamentarians and politicise unrelated issues. It is a despicable act of political bastardry designed to make the Premier look good without stakeholder engagement or meaningful reform. Regarding the bill's timing, the Government is introducing laws that will have limited effect until months into 2026 and, regarding protests, will have limited effect at all. The Coalition amendments seek to address these issues.

The Government has also not considered the role of technology in addressing the root causes of what happened on Sunday and the permissive culture that has been allowed to exist. For example, a better database that works nationally with authorities like ASIO, the Australian Federal Police, the NSW Police Force and any sort of gun ownership database. Very relevantly, last week I met with an organisation, iOmniscient. It runs surveillance technology which is used in countries around the world to ensure safety. It can be used for many different things, but in this context, it allows authorities to monitor protests effectively. New technology can reduce the manpower that is required on the ground and significantly increase the accuracy of predicting events that may happen and responding to them once they do. Better data capture, management, sharing and analysis is critical.

It is totally ridiculous that the Government thinks that the matter of terrorism symbols needs to be sent to a committee because for some reason it is unclear, or that the display of terrorist symbols should be allowed to continue without the kind of urgency that is being put upon us by being here two days before Christmas. Regarding firearms, I acknowledge that there has been little to no consultation. I have had feedback that suggests that existing firearm laws were sufficient to stop the terrorist attack had they been diligently and efficiently enforced. The NSW Police Force already has broad powers to cancel a firearms licence and confiscate firearms if the person is not deemed a fit and proper person. Someone living in the same residence as a known extremist with close ties to terrorist ideology surely must fall into that category. That is an abject failure by this Government to have not picked that up and to have not worked with other State and national authorities. The Premier 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.

What a turnaround this bill has been. I note the comments of Rabbi Benjamin Elton this morning. He spoke about the importance of protest in our liberal democracy. He acknowledged absolutely that peaceful assembly is part of our freedom of expression and something that we cherish. He acknowledged that since October 7 the Jewish community has been trying to work with the Government to ensure that peaceful protest does not fall or slip into the type of hateful demonstrations we have seen. The problem is that leaders in the communities in which these protests are occurring are not effectively stamping out or defining or delineating the differences between legitimate protest and hate‑filled antisemitic speech, and the kinds of people who are encouraged to get involved in protests for entirely the wrong reasons.

We need to ensure that peaceful protest is protected, if it is responsible. Rights are not absolute in this country. We have proportionality. We have laws. We have this Parliament. We have a democratic system that allows us to engage in these matters because it is critical that we allow discussion. It is critical that we allow the right laws for the right time. I support the Coalition's amendments to this bill that will be moved by my colleagues. They are in line with the bills that the Coalition introduced before today and at the beginning of this year. The Government had to come to this place because it failed to do what it should have done more than two years ago.

The Hon. JOHN RUDDICK (16:51): The Libertarian Party emphatically opposes this big, bad bill. We oppose every line in the strongest possible terms. It strikes at the very heart of liberty, undermining the fundamental rights that define a free society. The Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 is a fig leaf to cover up a litany of government failure, and at the top of that pile of failure is ASIO boss Mike Burgess. How did we get here? Nine days ago, there was a shocking terrorist incident in Bondi targeting our Jewish community. The Government needs to respond and the Government's first priority should be to look at its own failings rather than inventing more useless laws.

The younger terrorist, Naveed Akram, posted social media images in 2019 with an ISIS flag and boasting of his attendance at a radical mosque. Several of Naveed Akram's associates from that radical mosque were arrested on Islamic State related charges. Media reports have said that Naveed was placed on an ASIO watchlist. Naveed's father, Sajid Akram, a permanent resident, had been granted a firearms licence in 2015. But, after his son was questioned by ASIO, his licence was not renewed. That is what is known as a no-brainer. But, astoundingly, two years ago his firearms licence was restored and on the very same day he bought three firearms. On the day of the attack, he had six firearms.

The Akrams were not farmers. They lived in suburban Sydney. Surely our amazing ASIO had alerts going off at this point—obviously not. Just a few weeks ago the terrorists travelled to the southern Philippines, which is well known as a jihadi training spot. Had they not been on an ASIO watchlist? They even travelled on foreign passports as if they were covering up something. Raging red flags were absolutely everywhere, and where the hell was ASIO? Let us cut to the chase. If we are going to have an extremely powerful and extremely well‑funded spy agency, the minimum we can expect is for ASIO to notice and track this litany of red flags around terrorist threats. If ASIO had been doing its job, I very much doubt that the terrorism in Bondi would have happened.

I call on Mike Burgess, the director‑general of ASIO, to resign—and to resign today. President Truman famously said, "The buck stops here." Truman's point was that the top dog takes responsibility for failure. Mike Burgess, the spy who cannot resist a public microphone, has overseen extreme failure. It was his job to track these red flags, and he did not. Maybe there is an excuse if there was only one or perhaps two red flags but, in the light of so many, there is no excuse. His resignation will send a message to the rest of ASIO to get their priorities right. If he does not resign, he should be sacked by the Prime Minister. One place where ASIO and the Government should be looking is at their woeful and politicised priorities. ASIO, the Prime Minister, the Premier and others go on and on about the threat from the so-called "hard right". I am not saying that there is zero threat on the extreme right, but it is minuscule compared to the threat of jihadis or antifa. Regardless, the Government and ASIO are trying to whip up fear about this low‑level threat and are mobilising police against it.

Two weeks ago, the Minns Government decided to use the Sydney Harbour Bridge pylons as a backdrop to broadcast propaganda in favour of Mr Albanese's internet censorship laws. It was Orwellian. He used a beloved international landmark to massively promote censorship. That was bad, but it gets worse. Former Federal MP and free speech activist Craig Kelly put out a social media post saying that in a couple of hours he would be under the pylon to make a quick video criticising internet censorship. It was all very wholesome and harmless. I turned up to find Craig with four or five others who had also seen his social media post. The six of us had 10 cops to look after us. What a complete waste of police time. It was an effort to intimidate political dissenters. I do not blame the individual police officers; I blame their politicised bosses, who have the wrong priorities.

Anyone on the right side of Australian politics who has attended public events can testify that police often turn up, despite those events routinely being peaceful. Nigel Farage, who is likely to be the next British Prime Minister, did a speaking tour of Australia a couple of years ago. Nice, conservative, middle-class, peaceful people turned up to hear Mr Farage tell a few jokes and anecdotes while sharing some centre-right political ideas. The NSW Police Force sent a large number of officers and threatened to close down the meeting unless the police were paid to be there. Organisers were told it was a fee for security, despite there being zero counter-protesters.

It was State-sponsored intimidation against political views that the then police Minister, David Elliott, did not like. It was all entirely unnecessary, and all the while jihadis were out there planning incidents like Bondi. Rather than rushing through bad new laws, the Government should examine its own failures and misguided priorities under existing laws. It sounds like we will have a royal commission. We should not consider changing laws until the royal commission has released its findings. I expect that it will find that terrorism did not happen in Bondi because of a lack of laws but because of government failures, particularly from ASIO.

I turn now to the details of the bill. I have seen many bad laws during my time in this place, but this bill is the worst. It is a cynical power grab dressed up as a response to tragedy. Today we will hear the usual suspects in this Chamber blame guns, symbols, hate speech or protests. In its wisdom, the Government has bundled up all those excuses into one omnibus attack on civil liberties. Let us call it what it is: a weaponisation of the Bondi tragedy to expand State control. It is not like members woke up last week with all of these new policy ideas. They are simply trotting out their pre-existing agendas and using grief as a shield to justify more government intrusion. Instead of pausing for sober reflection after such a horrific event, we are moving into kneejerk, emotional lawmaking. Recalling Parliament two months early is panic politics, designed to ram through restrictions while passions run high.

History teaches us that the worst laws are born in such moments. Rushed laws in the wake of acute tragedy have a woeful record. Within two days of 9/11, President Bush fatefully decided to engage in regime-change wars across the Middle East. We have nothing to show for it but worse regimes, rivers of blood, a tonne of debt and international disgrace. The same thing can be said about the subprime crisis, which we know as the global financial crisis in Australia. President Bush and incoming President Obama massively overreacted, and the western world has had stagnant economies ever since. The same thing can be said about a slightly worse than usual seasonal flu known as COVID. The judgement of history is clear: Rushed laws are bad laws. Rushed laws do not allow lawmakers to carefully consider the flow‑on effects and consequences.

This rushed bill is riddled with flaws. I do not have time to go through all of them, so I will start with some low-hanging fruit. Firstly, we should dispense with the myth that any of these changes would have prevented the attack at Bondi or would prevent any future attack. Banning symbols and mandating the removal of face coverings has nothing to do with the incident. It is likely an excuse to publicly shame dissidents. Forcing digital IDs for gun licences is a blatant step towards mass surveillance. It is exploitation, pure and simple, using tragedy to advance an authoritarian agenda that does nothing to address the real causes.

The bill uses arbitrary possession limits to scapegoat law-abiding firearm owners and collectors. That is not about safety; it is about disarmament. Members need to understand that 3D-printed guns are coming. They may not like guns and they may not like that reality, but it is the reality. It may take a decade or two, but before too long people will be able to build their own guns in their back shed. They will not need to tell the Government about it. Now, who is going to do that? Criminals, obviously. We are going to have guns in the hands of the Government and the criminals—but I repeat myself—while normal citizens are going to be defenceless. These firearm restrictions are going to be redundant with time. We need to face that reality.

In an era of rising crime, carjackings, home invasions and attacks like the one at Bondi, the Government wants to strip citizens of their means to protect themselves. Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has urged Australians to arm up, recognising that disarmed populations are easy targets. I agree entirely. As I argued when introducing my firearms constitutional amendment bill, the right to bear arms is not a privilege doled out by bureaucrats; it is an inherent right essential for personal security and as a check against tyranny. Drawing from the English Bill of Rights 1689, an armed populace resists overreach and invasion. It fosters self-reliance and enhanced safety. At Bondi, unarmed heroes risked their lives. Imagine how many more could have been saved if citizens were not forced to wait for police or hide in the bushes recording on their phones. I wish they had pistols in their pockets. In times of social unrest, this right becomes even more vital, not less.

New Hampshire has the most relaxed firearm laws in the United States and has never had a mass shooting. It has a lower homicide rate than New South Wales. Crazy gunmen are not crazy enough to open fire in New Hampshire because they are well aware they will get taken out very quickly. The removal of a large swathe of firearms from New South Wales will see an inevitable explosion in the number of feral animals, with all the economic and others harms they cause. Firearm owners in New South Wales are the most upright citizens in New South Wales—they have to be, given the endless regulatory maze required to be navigated to get firearms. There are over a quarter of a million law-abiding firearm owners in New South Wales. Two turned out to be terrorists, and clearly that was an appalling administrative error, whereby someone with an adult son on an ASIO watchlist for potential terrorism can legally acquire multiple weapons. That is the critical failure. But now, a quarter of a million of our best citizens will suffer.

The symbols ban creates a new offence for displaying terrorist organisation symbols with up to two years jail or massive fines. This is censorship at its core. It starts with nazis, then ISIS and Hamas, but it ends with broader attacks on political expression, much like section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. As I said when introducing my free speech constitutional amendment bill, we need a US-style first amendment enshrined in our Constitution to protect free speech. The so-called reasonable excuse for academic or artistic purposes in this bill is a joke. It will be wielded selectively to silence dissent while ignoring actual threats.

The police power expansions to demand removal of face coverings at protests if they suspect a crime are completely unrelated to Bondi, but perfect for harassing peaceful demonstrators. This is just a thinly veiled step towards more surveillance. The Government and others want to dox those who attend protests. Let's not forget the protest restrictions empowering the commissioner to declare zones where protests are banned for up to 90 days, shredding the right to assemble. This Government thinks heavily regulated multicultural social democracy is the end of history, with any public dissent a threat to the fabric of society. In reality, it is just a threat to their power.

This bill exploits the Bondi horror to erode free speech, disarm the populace, stop dissent and inflate police powers. I urge every member to vote this down. New South Wales deserves a government that trusts its people with freedom, not one that infantilises us or treats us as potential criminals. I put the Chamber on notice that I will move an amendment to refer the entire bill to an inquiry. If this bill does pass, the repeal campaign starts tomorrow. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting "this bill be now read a second time" and inserting instead "this bill be referred to Portfolio Committee No. 5 - Justice and Communities for inquiry and report by 27 March 2026".

As I said earlier in my contribution, rushed laws are bad laws. This is the textbook example of a rushed law. Even if it passes, the law does not come into effect for several months. We need to think about it soberly. We need to cool down, and we need to think through the consequences. I have great faith in Portfolio Committee No. 5 holding an inquiry, receiving public submissions and hearing from people like farmers as well as from supporters of the bill. Let us hear from everybody. There is no harm in that whatsoever.

The Hon. NICHOLE OVERALL (17:04): I make a contribution to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I begin by again expressing my deepest sympathies and condolences to our Jewish community, following the unspeakable events of 14 December. That remains separate from today's debate, which, while purporting to be about what happened at Bondi, has been a conflation of too many unrelated elements. Today it is not about merely critiquing a bill; it is about exposing it as an illusion. Labor is working overtime to dress up an immature and ill-conceived attempt at policy by claiming that it is designed to deal with public safety.

If we look closely at the bill—in literally the five minutes that we had to do so—what do we see? There is nothing of genuine substance. This bill—and the Premier, for that matter—akin to the emperor with no clothes, is a spectacle engineered to impress but devoid of anything truly meaningful. Of course, the horror of 14 December at Bondi demands a serious response. That response should be crafted, scrutinised and debated in a rigorous and effective way. That is not what is happening with this bill. What is required is legislation capable of addressing the actual risk that has been exposed, not something playing at looking decisive but avoiding the underlying crux of the matter. Rather than focusing on the real and, quite frankly, terrifying issue of antisemitism—a hatred of Jews that is not just about faith but Jews as a people, exacerbated particularly since the atrocities of 7 October 2023, as well as homegrown terrorism—Labor has instead created a Frankenstein monster of a bill.

It has even been described as omnibus, which is Labor admitting that it is about jamming as many things in as possible and inevitably diluting the effectiveness and ramping up the potential risks and unintended consequences. Lumping together measures with no practical corresponding connection is nonsensical, from dealing with protest to terrorism symbols and firearms regulations thrown in as well. Those three distinct policy areas engage different legal principles, operational realities and affected communities. Each component demands separate scrutiny. Each raises different questions of proportionality, necessity and effectiveness. By enmeshing them, the Government is only compressing the debate, blurring purpose and making it harder for us to assess—let alone make reasoned decisions. Those complex and multifaceted matters deserve more than just kneejerk, media‑seeking responses.

The other aspect about this being an omnibus bill is the now-apparent need, after the horse has well and truly bolted, for it all to be addressed quickly. Given what is being proposed and why, it most certainly should not be about saving time. We should be making sure time is used to maximum advantage to deliver the best possible policy and outcomes, not lame duck legislation that fails to properly launch and definitely fails to land. Labor claims again today—as it did in its equally lame attempt at justification of the hard adjournment disappearing as definitively as this Government's ability to deliver on its election commitments—that this matter is apparently urgent. Yet the police Minister has admitted that there is not even a proposed timeline for implementation.

The only thing urgent is the way in which the legislation has been developed, introduced within days of the Bondi attack, with mere hours for consideration and scrutiny by the Opposition and no meaningful consultation with those most directly affected. As we have heard, stakeholder organisations representing firearms users, including NSW Farmers, have stated publicly that they sought and offered engagement but were essentially ignored. Lower House MPs from regional and rural electorates have echoed the same concern. Why would Labor not want this looked at fully, with proper engagement and scrutiny to ensure we get it right? There might be a few probable reasons. Perhaps it is to avoid any embarrassment as to the failings that have occurred on the Government's watch, from protests across the line to the unfettered rise of antisemitism that too many have tried to sideline and dismiss.

Or perhaps it is an inability by Labor to fully understand the complex matters that we are being presented with. Might it perhaps even be what seems to be the irresistible urge of the Premier to get on another front page. Perhaps the incredibly poor way this has been handled has aspects of all of those reasons and shows that the Government is not serious about the things that it claims it was elected on—consultation, transparency and oversight. Instead, it seems like the motive is whatever gets the Premier a headline. Given the circumstances, that is unconscionable. Good public safety legislation is informed by evidence, operational advice and stakeholder input. That process has not occurred with the bill and the defects in the firearms provisions bear that out most conspicuously.

As drafted, and as pointed out by many others, nothing in these provisions would have altered the events of 14 December. Whether those perpetrators had access to six guns or four, as is being put forward, the tragic outcome would have been the same. And what of the other methods they could have employed to create chaos and carnage, the bombs that were prepared? What is being done about bomb prevention and regulation—let alone the crickets we hear when it comes to the illegal market and even 3D printed weapons? What might have changed the situation—and even then, it is a big might—was if the existing rules that are already in place had been employed in the way they should have. The number of firearms held by licensed, law‑abiding citizens was not a causal factor. The issue was a failure to identify and respond to escalating ideological risk.

If the existing firearms framework is already not being effectively enforced, layering additional caps and requirements on top of it does not fix the problem. It simply adds administrative burden while diverting attention from the real failures. That concern has been raised repeatedly by NSW Farmers and others who rely on firearms for occupational purposes. Yet it has all been conveniently ignored. When it comes to the firearms caps proposed, they appeared to have been plucked out of thin air, selected with no transparent justification. No evidence has been provided to explain why these numerical thresholds were chosen or how they correlate to risk. We know that they were not informed by consultation with those who actually do know about such things.

It seems that they have all been based on the Premier "out Rogering Roger", to quote the Hon. Robert Borsak—that is, Roger Cook in Western Australia. The New South Wales Premier boasts about what is being proposed as the toughest laws in the country, never mind we have some of the strictest laws in the world already. His whole argument underpinning that claim is that New South Wales would allow one gun less than what is allowed in Western Australia—yes, that will certainly fix the real problem. Then there were the made‑up or ill‑defined concepts as well—raised by the Hon. Rod Roberts earlier—references to some mysterious things described as "belt‑fed magazines", an unidentifiable object that left almost everyone with actual knowledge asking if the Government has any clue what it is talking about, let alone trying to regulate.

Equally troubling is the treatment of personal information relating to firearms. There are already serious concerns about the security and confidentiality of firearms owners' data. It seems sensitive, confidential information has been made public. Public safety is not helped by broadcasting who owns what and where. Along with being illegal, that is plain reckless. And what of any detail on how this will work when it comes to operational capacity and what will inevitably require additional resourcing and funding? If enforcement challenges already stem from staffing, deployment and intelligence capability constraints, then expanding statutory powers without addressing those issues will make the situation even worse.

As one example, no clear answers were provided during budget estimate hearings in September as to whether counterterrorism and public order policing units are adequately staffed or funded, particularly in light of sustained protest activity and escalating demands on police resources. Ultimately, as Jewish community leader Alex Ryvchin has publicly stated, this was not a gun crime; this was an antisemitic hate crime, one driven by extremist Islamic ideology. Addressing that threat requires early intervention, enhanced intelligence capability, better protection of targeted communities and, most importantly, a clear legal framework for confronting extremist ideology. The bill does not comprehensively address any of those issues.

A measured response requires legislation that addresses causes, not just symptoms; that deals with the weaponiser, not the weapon. A saying that people in regional areas know very well is this: It is a pretty useless handyman that blames the tools. An adequate, measured response requires Parliament to be given sufficient time and adequate information to do its job properly. Our role is to legislate with clarity, not clouded by illusion. Given the incredible gravity of what we are attempting to deal with, we should be doing all possible to make sure that it is as right as it can be. At this time of statewide and national grief we must be responsible legislators. We should not become the weaponisers. We should not allow fear and tragedy to be used for political advantage. We must also not allow law-abiding citizens—in this instance, those who own firearms—to be made the scapegoats.

Sadly, disappointingly, what we are seeing here does seem to be little more than political posturing, pandering populism and poor governance. It needs to be called out. All of this is for Labor to answer to and for. There was no proper engagement or consultation. After all the talk of bipartisanship, the Opposition received the poorly drafted bill literally five minutes before midnight. Labor is not willing to listen to real concerns or how the bill might be improved and made more effective. Instead, the choice the Government offers is essentially binary: Support everything or nothing. It is preposterous. For the sake of everyone, it should be about doing the right thing and doing this right. Instead, the Government is using the terrible situation we have been confronted with for political manoeuvring that, at its core, seems more concerned with deflection, distraction and trying to wedge law-abiding citizens to make it look as though they do not care. It is peak Labor—all politics, no governance. Let this House then let the people, our communities, see the Premier and this Government clearly for what they truly are: an illusion, the old wizard revealed behind the curtain as the one pulling the strings to mislead and misguide, or perhaps—to use an even more accurate metaphor—the emperor bare, without a shred of substance.

To conclude, I reference two points. The first was that made by the Hon. Rod Roberts earlier this afternoon. Just as those two monsters do not represent or reflect all people of the Muslim faith, nor do they represent or reflect hundreds of thousands of respectful, responsible firearms owners. I quote the words of the President of NSW Farmers, Mr Xavier Martin, when asked by the ABC about this situation compared with the response to Port Arthur:

It's unbelievably unprofessional this time. Just extraordinary. When I look back on when John Howard and Tim Fischer engaged, I'd have to give them 9.8, 9.9 out of 10. And unfortunately, Minns and Albanese wouldn't even rank 2 out of 10. It's just pathetic.

Point made, loud and clear. The bill—apparently, according to Labor, what is going to save us all—is not the solution. I am incredibly concerned for New South Wales if the Government thinks it is.

The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (17:19):

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their most essential command.

This quote is from1984 by George Orwell. I miss the days when Orwell's words were an odd, fictional warning of what the future may hold and not—as it seems today—an explanatory work of what is happening in real time in front of us. Since the murders of 14 December and up until right now, the Prime Minister, the Federal Minister for Home Affairs and—to a lesser extent—the Premier have sought to pin the blame on just about everything but the real driver of those murders and attempted murders. They have sought to reject the evidence of their eyes and ears—as Orwell said—and see the ISIS flag draped across that hatchback.

In this corner of the House, we get it. Other speakers here today get it and I can tell you, well and truly, that ordinary Australians certainly get it as well. This was the result of untempered, unpoliced, unleashed, radical Islamic State inspired hatred of our way of life, our society, and people in our society—namely the Jewish community. They are a part of our community, the Australian community, so despite media coverage slathered with Israeli flags, this was an attack on Australians in Australia.

Labor has responded by further attacking Australians: farming communities, sports shooters, the people who keep a lid on feral animals and, sadly, those who need firearms to defend their families and livelihoods from feral animals in rural New South Wales. Why would Labor do this? Because the answer is a political anathema to them. Like Voldemort, it cannot be named, so they attack the farmers who actually keep their firearms safe and locked up and registered. They attack the sports shooters, so we can wave goodbye to future Australian Olympians, who will not be able to effectively train at the level that their competitors will. Labor has also been absolutely falling over itself to blame a gang of neo-Nazis and square them up as public enemy number one. Mainly from Melbourne, the neo-Nazis use too many bad words—obscene language, obscene ideology. Their leaders have been locked up without bail and are desperately trying to rustle up enough members to start a political party, which will almost definitely go the way of all other neo-Nazi parties formed in decades past. They will get minuscule results at the ballot box and then disappear as not even a footnote in history.

While all of this happens, there is no action on the hate factories out in the western suburbs, as covered earlier by the Hon. Rod Roberts, the Deputy President, who has been calling this out for over 10 months. Many of those hate preachers are in areas represented by Federal Labor Ministers, so no‑one is surprised to see the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs try desperately to somehow blame white people when radical Islamists incite the importation of a Middle Eastern war—which is thousands of years old—here to our peaceful shores, namely Bondi. Pretty soon, probably, the words that I have just spoken will be illegal here in Australia, as is the unfortunate situation in the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister has announced a gun buyback which, we all know, will cost an absolute fortune, possibly billions, at a time when we cannot afford it. It will not stop murderers getting their hands on one or two guns, especially since Border Force's recent announcement that they are stopping thousands of guns at our borders and successfully intercepting imported, illegal, unregistered guns. It will not stop improvised explosive devices being used as substitute weapons, along with cars, trucks or knives.

Guns are not the problem here. Hatred, ideology, idiocy and a perversion of religious beliefs are the problem. We do not need more buybacks. We need "fly‑backs", starting with the "hate sheikhs" out in the western suburbs. Those hate preachers do not belong here. They have no tolerance for our society, so our society should not tolerate them. Before anyone wishes to call me a racist and easily label the white bloke from the Central Coast a racist—which is all too easy to do in this day and age—have a look at the Middle East. Ask our friends and allies in the Middle East, in the Islamic world, how they handle this specific problem. That is exactly what the Prime Minister should do. I know he is not asking for advice—his head is clearly in the sand. In any case, this is my advice to the Prime Minister over the break: Do not come up to Copacabana. I can tell him that if he thought Bondi gave him an icy reception, he will not get any better up the coast if he cannot even acknowledge the threat that Australia faces.

However, I digress. I would say to the Prime Minister to get on the phone to our allies in the Islamic world over the Christmas break and ask them how they keep a lid on radical Islamic insurgencies in their own countries. Why do they have to do what they do with regard to radical Islam in a Muslim-majority country? That is not a racist approach. In any case, Islam is a religion, not a race. Religions are ideas, and all ideas should be able to be challenged. Surely Federal Government Ministers will not have issues with that, despite the demographics in their electorates. In a nutshell, many of our allies in the Islamic world have to approve a version of Islam and then effectively license and closely monitor clerics and preachers. As followers of Islam themselves, they know that if they do not keep a close watch and stamp out radicalism then it quickly becomes a threat that cannot be contained.

In Egypt, mosques are controlled and sermons are overseen by the government, with approval required. Views that align with Salafi jihadism and ISIS‑like groups are restricted. We should ask the United Arab Emirates how they keep a lid on extremism, with authorities monitoring political or extremist interpretations of Islam. Similar methods are used in Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia and many other countries. Freedom of religion and the separation of church and state is an important and precious tenet of western values, especially in the Anglosphere. However, the sanctity of life and the lives of innocent children are surely as important, if not more important, and are dearly valued. We may well be reaching a point of reckoning, I am sorry to say. Do we suspend the separation of church and state temporarily in order to police radical Islam—those who do not follow our laws, because they see our laws as an affront to their perverted interpretation?

While we are all here today, nine days after the murders at Bondi, which level of government has done the most to respond to the drivers of the murderers? It is definitely not the Federal Labor Government, which seems to want to irrationally blame Melbourne neo-Nazis for starting a political party. It is definitely not the Minns Government, which has brought us back here this week to take firearms from farmers and sports shooters—oh, and also to take away the right to protest against foreign governments committing war crimes. Nobody is buying this. What the Government is selling is not being bought by people on the street.

In fact, the level of government that has done the most, as has been reported today, is local government. Blacktown City Council may have been the most effective government in taking real action against the well‑known hate factory that the younger of the two murderers was known to frequent. Bankstown City Council has apparently used the development application process to investigate the Islamic centre where that hatred—that real form of violent antisemitism—is being pushed onto young minds, and to rightfully shut it down. They got Al Capone on taxes, and they got the Sydney jihadis on their development applications. How Sydney is that?

The omnibus bill before us should not be an omnibus bill. We should separate it and it should be addressed in its separate parts, in order. But Labor has combined it in order to wedge all other members to either take it or leave it. The leadership of the Liberal Party said that they will take it. Labor then used tactics to play base politics, knowing that the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and The Nationals cannot do this to our rural and regional communities—to our farmers—and that The Greens cannot support protest restrictions. That will deliver a political win for the Premier. The Libs are basically forced to back it in or be blamed themselves for playing politics or opposing action in the aftermath of the murders.

As the Attorney General said, the bill was cobbled together. The Government should consult and come back with solutions that address the real drivers. Unfortunately, the only people willing to have that conversation are those outside of the corridors of power. We will have to wait until even more damage is done to our society before the Labor Party will wake up to what is happening. Passing this cobbled together, kneejerk bill just gives politicians an answer when they are asked at media conferences in the coming months about what they have done. They can say that they have the toughest gun laws and that they restricted anti-Israel, anti-Netanyahu protests. But they cannot protect Australians, because they cannot even diagnose the real problem. That is a shame on our system and an affront to the victims and survivors of radical Islamic State-inspired murderers, who have no place in our society. We should do better.

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (17:30): I contribute to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I begin by again expressing my deep sorrow and my solidarity with the Australian Jewish community, the Bondi community and every Australian grieving the horrific Bondi terrorist attack. It should never have happened. I will not focus on the technical details of the bill. The shadow Attorney General in the other place and the shadow Assistant Minister for Attorney General have covered that in depth. I support the matters raised and endorse the Opposition's proposed amendments to the Government's bill.

Acts of terrorism, violent extremism, antisemitism and hatred strike at the core of our society and shake the foundations of our national security. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to respond decisively and ensure that our laws give police and security agencies every tool they need to protect Australians from harm. The Liberals and The Nationals understand the gravity of terrorism, extremism and threats to community safety. We have never hesitated to introduce legislation or back firm and necessary action when required. We brought forward laws to combat rising racism and antisemitism, only for the Minns Labor Government to oppose every reform.

The horrific terrorist attack on 14 December 2025 did not come without warning. For years, the Jewish community warned that antisemitism was surging and that intimidation and harassment were being normalised amid regular protests across Sydney and car convoys waving Palestinian flags through the eastern suburbs. We all saw the scenes at the Sydney Opera House on 9 October and the marches that followed, including the one across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. We saw the repeated demonstrations, the threats, the arson, the vandalism, the violence and the fear. Those warnings were ignored. Tragic and disgraceful events were allowed to continue under the Minns Labor Government and set in motion all that was to follow. In fact, the Government's response was slow, hesitant and failed to address the root cause of the problem: the deep-seated antisemitism that exists. On every occasion, Labor blocked or voted against sensible reforms proposed by the Opposition.

On 13 February this year the Opposition introduced two private members' bills to ban the public display of terrorist symbols—the same symbols found in the murderers' car just eight days ago—and to strengthen the laws governing public assemblies. Instead of supporting our reforms or working with us, the Government later brought forward limited legislation on assemblies outside places of public worship. We sought to amend that bill to include our provisions addressing terrorist symbols and protest regulation, but those amendments were rejected outright. When the Opposition moved to strengthen the Government's Crimes Legislation Amendment (Racial and Religious Hatred) Bill 2025 to outlaw terrorist symbols, closing dangerous loopholes to ban imitations of terrorist and Nazi imagery and increasing penalties, the Minns Labor Government voted against those reforms.

The Opposition also attempted to introduce vital protest law changes through amendments to the Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill 2025, which were again blocked and opposed by Labor. On 5 August 2025, in the days leading up to the Harbour Bridge protest where ISIS flags were flown, and again on 12 November 2025, when Nazis gathered outside this very Parliament, the Opposition sought urgent debate in the other place on its proposed protest law reforms. On both occasions, Labor blocked any discussion. It refused to even allow this Parliament to consider whether existing laws were strong enough.

Now, due to political pressure, the Government, in the final days before Christmas, demands we rubberstamp a vast bill to amend multiple Acts. It is a large, complex and far-reaching bill covering terrorism offences, firearms regulation, protest and public assembly powers and summary offences. It has been hastily drafted without adequate consultation and is being pushed through Parliament under urgency, leaving no opportunity for proper scrutiny or reflection.

As the shadow Attorney General raised in the other place, the Opposition received a first consultation draft at about 1.00 p.m. on Sunday, and the final copy was supplied only hours before the bill was debated. That is not how laws are made. We do not oppose genuine counterterrorism measures or measures that will protect the community. However, as I have said before, this bill is very broad. The Government has deliberately bundled multiple significant changes into one take-it-or-leave-it package. The Government is preventing each element of the bill being scrutinised in detail to examine unintended consequences. The lack of consultation and debate in this House means the community has been denied the opportunity to consider and engage properly on the bill. That is essential when aspects of the legislation affect the livelihood and businesses of law-abiding firearms licence holders. Labor has failed to follow proper process, which will risk poor outcomes. The Minns Government has failed on leadership. It has failed to address the rise of antisemitism and extremism in this State. It has failed to protect our State. The people of New South Wales deserve better.

The Hon. SCOTT BARRETT (17:52): We are back in this place today to debate and, apparently, hurriedly approve the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025—legislation that, according to press releases from the Government, has been introduced following the devastating terrorist attack at Bondi Beach. Far be it for me to start a speech with a quote from a Liberal leader, but I feel it is a good opening to the debate, given that he has experience in this space and showed real leadership in the face of tragedy. Of course, I am referring to former Prime Minister John Howard, who recently said in the wake of the attack:

I don't want that once more, let me say, to be degraded into a debate about changes to gun laws. That is a diversion. The issue here is antisemitism.

Yet here we are, two days before Christmas, in a debate about changes to gun laws that will have a minimal impact on the risk of future terrorist events but a significant impact on farmers and hunters in regional New South Wales. It is also extremely concerning that these laws put forward a narrative that legal gun owners are somehow part of the problem that led to the horrific events at Bondi Beach. The bill is purely about optics and lumps together a series of very different and separate issues into one. This politically motivated, performative response will make little to no difference to the stated outcomes. It is hard to see it as anything other than a political ploy aimed at wedging parties on this matter. Parts of the bill should be supported—changes that would be welcomed—but to bundle or cobble them together is a cynical, deceptive and cheap political tactic that people will hopefully see through.

Members were presented with the bill just days before voting on the biggest reforms to gun laws in 30 years, having had no opportunity to consult with stakeholders and no opportunity to consider unintended consequences, of which there will be many. The bill clearly has not had any level of decent consultation with key stakeholders, such as the firearms industry more broadly. If members want to see how serious this legislation is to stakeholders, they should look no further than the gallery, where the president of NSW Farmers has sat through the entire debate in the lower House and this House. He has probably seen more of the Labor Party Ministers in that time than in the rest of in his term as president of that organisation. The bill clearly has not had the level of consultation that is needed—so what could go wrong? From a government that has spoken a lot about transparency, this is possibly the most transparent thing it has done. It is transparently diversionary theatre, designed to do nothing while being seen to do something—anything—in the wake of months and years of inaction on the issues that led to the attack.

A sentiment I have heard from several within the Jewish community is that, as shocking as the event was, it was not unexpected that something like it would occur. They have almost been waiting for it, living in fear. That feeling has not been born from fears that the gun licensing system is flawed but from fear of the hate, intolerance and antisemitism that has been allowed to fester and grow—condoned, if not encouraged, by a lack of action from this Government. Well after the horse has bolted, here we are trying to shut the gate. Worse than that, we are trying to shut the wrong gate. We have had a performative response to try to deflect from the inaction thus far. Members have been rushed back to Parliament to look at the gun licensing system, changes to which will have little to no impact on those who are spewing hate but a significant impact on thousands of law‑abiding citizens who are distinctly removed from that disgusting behaviour.

Why are we rushing the bill through now? Do we need to pass it so people will be safer in January? Is there a certain deadline by which we need to have the legislation in place? No. There is not even a commencement date for the legislation, and there has been zero explanation for why we are debating it in such a rush. The only logical explanation is so that the Government is seen to be doing something. The bill is a tool being used by the Premier to deflect the heat to Canberra and to show that he is doing something while barbs are being levelled at his mate in The Lodge. This rush will have consequences. Key stakeholders have not been adequately consulted on the bill. The likes of NSW Farmers and the Country Mayors Association have had nothing but tokenistic contact. The first Opposition briefings were given late last Friday afternoon, after genuine offers for a bipartisan path forward. That gave us no time to properly consider or consult on the bill, or to properly investigate the unintended consequences.

There is so much data out there that we do not have but need in order to be able to make a decision on this legislation—data around gun ownership and licences as well as information about the two offenders and what happened on that horrible Sunday, which is the reason for the bill. If it is about preventing an attack from happening again, how about we wait and find out what actually happened, and how it happened, before we try to solve problems we do not know exist? A number of investigations are underway. Both the Premier and the commissioner have referred to such investigations as reasons not to comment in response to questions on what should happen next—and rightly so. Yet we are being asked to legislate on the same matters before the outcomes of the investigations are known. Those outcomes might change how we view the bill in front of us, and yet here we are.

If we pass this bill today or tomorrow, as we have been urgently brought back to Parliament to do, when will we see the outcome of increased safety? Do we think a suite of would-be terrorists will walk into the Waverley Police Station and hand their guns in on Christmas Eve? Is the urgency driven by intelligence that suggests a small army of farmers out there is ready to enact some sort of widescale violence with their grandads' .22? This ill‑thought-out action is designed to do nothing except divert from the many real issues that led to this event and to bury guilt and grief with output and activity rather than any real safety outcomes. If we are serious about looking at gun reforms and implementing things that will make a genuine difference, then we would be taking the time to properly consider what we are looking at.

I support some measures in this bill, like limiting gun licences to Australian citizens and the exemptions for genuine reasons such as primary production, animal welfare and vertebrate pest control. There might be other practical things we can do as well, so why not take the time to see what we have at our disposal? I am not opposed to every aspect of this bill. The provisions around protest laws and showing terrorist flags have merit, for instance, but I cannot support them because this should have been done as cognate bills. The Government knows that, which is why it has packaged the bill up this way. It is playing politics with these very serious matters. A couple of parts of the bill are simply too much for the people of regional New South Wales to bear, especially when put against the minimal impact these laws will have on future terrorism events, if they have any impact at all.

I turn to the main sticking point of the bill for many regional and metropolitan residents: the limit on the number of guns a single licence holder can have. Members may think that 10 guns per person seems like an inordinate amount. I can see how members would come to that conclusion. As uncomfortable or politicly inconvenient as it may be to some members, guns are necessary tools in regional New South Wales. They are predominately used for pest control and animal welfare. I have personal experience euthanising livestock using firearms and other methods, and a firearm is by far the preferred option. I have also seen livestock euthanised with the wrong calibre firearm. I assure members that using an underpowered rifle for that task creates more stress for the animal.

I understand that needing more than 10 firearms seems excessive to some members. It is easy to creep up towards 10 guns, and even above, given that the right calibre rifle is needed for animal welfare purposes and for controlling various pests, including pigs, rabbits, foxes, deer and some invasive birds. There are also sentimental pieces and heirlooms like grandad's old shotgun, the first gun a dad bought his kid or a deceased mate's rifle gifted by his parents. The sentimental value of these firearms cannot be discounted. Competition shooters have even more firearms on top of that if they have a couple of competition guns and practice guns across several different disciplines. NSW Farmers has raised the issue of farmers who have multiple properties spread out across New South Wales. If farmers do not have different guns at different properties, then the movement of guns across the State will increase. If kids are also learning to shoot safely and responsibly, as most kids on farms are, then a farmer will now easily have more than 10 firearms.

What is the actual risk here? What is the connection between what happened in Bondi and a farmer with dozens of guns near Lake Cargelligo? Many members have said there is no link between the pro-Palestine protests and terrorism and no link between protest disruption on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and what happened at Bondi. There is also no link between guns owned by farmers in western New South Wales and what happened at Bondi, nor with any terrorism whatsoever. I do not deny that there are people who have a lot of guns, but that connection has not been adequately demonstrated. If a champion clay target shooter from Orange gives up his $30,000 shotgun, will there be fewer shootings in Sydney? Will there be fewer gangland wars? Will there be a reduced terror threat? This Bondi terrorist attack did not happen because farmers have too many guns; it happened because the wrong people were allowed to have guns, and that is not the fault of farmers.

While the Government wants to push through extensive gun reform, it is worth looking at the existing powers that were not used in this instance. The Firearms Act states that a licence may be revoked for any reason for which it could have been originally refused. Reasons for refusing the licence include:

… if the Commissioner is of the opinion, having regard to any criminal intelligence report or other criminal information held in relation to the person, that—

(a)the person is a risk to public safety, and

(b)the issuing of the licence would be contrary to the public interest.

A licence can be revoked for those reasons. It can also be revoked if the commissioner is of the opinion that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence. No reason is required to be given by the commissioner as to why the licence is being revoked. We were told by the Premier at a press conference on 17 December:

At the moment, NSW police routinely yank licences from gun holders and licence holders they suspect, or fear, are a threat to the community.

That correlates with stories I am hearing from across regional New South Wales of people losing their licence for what are now comparatively trivial reasons, like a blue in a pub or an argument over a car space. We have heard others throughout this debate. The Firearms Registry fact sheet regarding the fit and proper person test states that if a person has traffic offences and some minor non-prescribed offences, it might suggest:

… a wilful disregard for the law. This may be taken into consideration in deciding whether the person is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

The bill makes it a crime to show certain terrorist symbols. I hope I am wrong here, but I have not seen anything to suggest that being convicted of that crime would exclude people from a firearms licence. Yet back in 2023, a licence was issued to a man who was not a citizen of this country and whose son, with whom he lived, had already been on the radar of ASIO due to links with radical Islamic groups in Sydney. More recently, that man and his son, already in the sights of ASIO, visited the Philippines and are suspected to have spent time in an ISIS training camp.

How these powers were not already enacted when the son of a licence holder had been on the ASIO watchlist and both of those people had spent time in an ISIS training hotspot needs thorough investigation before we rush these laws through. In response to a terrorist attack, in an environment where someone can lose their licence because of a traffic offence but not because of attending an ISIS training camp, the bill seeks to further punish law-abiding licensed firearm owners, while the powers that be have already failed to use the powers they have at their disposal. We do not have a failure of the licensing system here, but of the enforcement and management of that system.

The removal of section 6B seems unnecessary. That part of the Firearms Act allows people who are not licensed to use a firearm under strict one-on-one supervision on approved ranges and to partake in firearms safety courses. That would include "come and try" events and group events such as corporate days and charity days. My question is what is the risk. How is that captured in terrorism legislation? How did those events contribute to what happened on Sunday 14 November in Bondi, which is the reason we are here? There is no justification for that other than the optics of being seen to do something.

The bill forces people to become members of a hunters club. Noting that the bill is about stopping another terrorist attack, it is worth remembering that one of the shooters was, in fact, believed to have been a member of a hunting club. That aside, it is worth noting how ridiculous that clause is. Farmers near Ivanhoe, who could live upwards of 400 kilometres from the nearest gun club and who have used a firearm for their entire life, would have to travel to that gun club, possibly four times a year, for a shoot—a full weekend away every couple of months to learn how to shoot safely and learn that they should not commit mass murder, like we saw in Bondi. We will obviously spend more time on some of the other specifics as we work through the Committee stage, so I will save further remarks for then.

One of my biggest objections to the bill is the narrative that it feeds. After this horrific event, needing to do something, this Government has chosen to go after farmers and other firearm owners. We must remember that we are responding to the heinous actions of two evil people, motivated by misguided beliefs and ideology and driven by hate. Now, as a diversion away from how that hate was allowed to fester unchecked, the target of the Government's reaction is our law-abiding firearms owners, with no evidence to suggest that they are at all part of the problem—and no time to look for any, either—due to a faux urgency to be seen to be doing something. The Government is lumping a farmer in Lyndhurst, who shoots pigs and foxes to protect his income and help feed the nation, with Islamic extremists who have honed their murdering skills in ISIS training camps. The event at Bondi did not happen because a farmer in Trangie had too many guns. It happened because the wrong people were allowed to have guns, despite glaring red flags. Yet this Government is happy to point the finger at law-abiding citizens and somehow imply they are part of the problem.

In addition, if these laws had been in place before the Bondi event, none of them would have influenced the attack. They would not have made a difference. The assailants did not have 10 guns; they had four. They also had three pipe bombs, a tennis ball bomb, a large improvised explosive device and two Islamic State flags. The shooters would still have had four firearms on that bridge. The IEDs, pipe bombs, and tennis ball bombs would still have been there. Yet family-owned businesses would have gone broke in regional New South Wales, and family heirlooms would have been surrendered for no reason at all. Pigs and other pest animals would be more out of control than they have been allowed to become under this Government, and farmers would be euthanising old cows with butcher's knives. I ask honourable members to not rush this bill through. Do not punish our farmers for the actions of evil people and as a diversion from the inaction of this Government.

The PRESIDENT: I am conscious that there is a speaking list. Before I call Ms Abigail Boyd, I will call the Hon. Mark Banasiak. He is about to move an amendment, and I want members to have the time to consider it before we get to the end of the second reading debate. My understanding is that he will be brief. The Hon. Mark Banasiak has the call.

The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (18:11): I foreshadow that I will move an amendment to the Hon. John Ruddick's amendment to the question on the second reading of the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 to refer the bill to a committee. I have outlined some very serious questions that need to be asked about how the terrorists got hold of or were given firearms licences. Other members have also posed those questions. The Greens obviously have concerns around the anti-protest aspect of this terrorism bill. About an hour after I called for a royal commission, the Albanese Government made it clear that it does not support a Federal royal commission. About 12 hours after I called for a royal commission, the Premier came out with his support for a State-based royal commission. The Premier clearly understands there are unanswered questions that need to be answered, so why are we rushing the bill through when we do not have those answers? We need to look at this in detail.

I respect that many would have an aversion to the bill going to the committee chaired by my colleague—even though that is the most appropriate place in terms of portfolio responsibilities—which is why I flag this as a potential alternative that might be more amenable to other members. After I raised questions in Parliament this morning, the commissioner tried to muddy the waters again in the media by saying the reason the licence application took three years is because the registry has been "a shambles" and that applications have been paper‑based for a long time. The reality is that it was paper-based years before any of these events occurred, and never in those years did it take three years to approve a licence. When the assistant commissioner, in my office, referred to the database, he called it "a big black bucket". He told us, "Mark and Rob, everything that goes in that big black bucket does not necessarily come out in the order that it started in." Even back then, when he referred to it as a big black bucket, it never—

Ms Abigail Boyd: Point of order: I hate to do this, but this is the second speech that the Hon. Mark Banasiak has given in this debate and he has not sought leave. I thought this was just to move a technical amendment.

The PRESIDENT: This is indeed a speech about the amendment. Therefore, it needs to stay narrowly confined to the amendment.

The Hon. MARK BANASIAK: To the point of order: I am trying to explain the need for an inquiry, which is going to the unanswered questions.

The PRESIDENT: I understand.

The Hon. MARK BANASIAK: The commissioner has once again muddied the waters. That is why we need an inquiry. We need answers. The commissioner and the Premier dribbling out answers—or so-called answers—is not the right way to go about it.

The Hon. John Graham: Point of order: The Hon. Mark Banasiak foreshadowed the motion. I seek guidance as to whether he should move it at this point, rather than simply foreshadowing.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, he should have moved it. If he has not, I ask him to do so now.

The Hon. MARK BANASIAK: I move:

That the question be amended by omitting "this bill be referred to PC5 and report by 27 March 2025" and inserting instead:

"this bill be referred to a select committee for inquiry and report.

(2)That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders, the committee consist of nine members comprising:

(a)three Government members;

(b)three Opposition members; and

(c)three crossbench members.

(3)That the committee elect a Chair and Deputy Chair at its first meeting.

(4)That, unless the committee decides otherwise:

(a)all inquiries are to be advertised via social media, stakeholder emails and a media release distributed to all media outlets in New South Wales;

(b)submissions to inquiries are to be published, subject to the Committee Clerk checking for confidentiality and adverse mention and, where those issues arise, bringing them to the attention of the committee for consideration;

(c)attachments to submissions are to remain confidential;

(d)the Chair's proposed witness list is to be circulated to provide members with an opportunity to amend the list, with the witness list agreed to by email, unless a member requests the Chair to convene a meeting to resolve any disagreement;

(e)the sequence of questions to be asked at hearings alternate between opposition, crossbench and government members, in that order, with equal time allocated to each;

(f)transcripts of evidence taken at public hearings are to be published;

(g)supplementary questions are to be lodged with the Committee Clerk within two business days following the receipt of the hearing transcript, with witnesses requested to return answers to questions on notice and supplementary questions within 21 calendar days of the date on which questions are forwarded to the witness;

(h)answers to questions on notice and supplementary questions are to be published, subject to the Committee Clerk checking for confidentiality and adverse mention and, where those issues arise, bringing them to the attention of the committee for consideration; and

(i)media statements on behalf of the committee are to be made only by the Chair.".

The PRESIDENT: I apologise to Ms Abigail Boyd. I make clear that I wanted the House to have as much time as possible to consider that extra amendment, which is why I called on the Hon. Mark Banasiak.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (18:17): As I reflect since the day of this horrific attack, I keep coming back to what the role of politicians should be in this moment and what real leadership looks like. Jacinda Ardern's response to the Christchurch massacre is considered by many to be the defining moment of her time as New Zealand Prime Minister. After 51 Muslims were killed by an Australian man, Ardern's response was unifying. She said of the victims, "They are us. The person who perpetrated this violence against us is not." One of the survivors of the Christchurch shootings, Temel Ataçocuğu, said afterwards, "She did not talk like we were from different faiths or different nationalities. It felt like we were part of New Zealand." It was Ardern's empathy and compassion, her rejection of violent rhetoric and her calm inclusivity in a time of national crisis that characterised her response and set the tone for a whole nation to express kindness, acceptance and connectedness and to work towards making all people feel safe no matter their religion, nationality or other background.

In the wake of the Bondi massacre, the responses from Australia's political leaders have been varied. Much has been made of the way in which the bipartisanship that existed in response to the Port Arthur massacre has been lacking following this latest atrocity. But I am less interested in this so-called bipartisanship of response and more interested in the sentiments that people are conveying publicly and their impacts on broader society at this incredibly sensitive moment in our history. On that front, there has been a distinct lack of leadership from our so‑called leaders.

It took less than a day for Australian politics to descend into an ugly mudslinging match and for blame, hatred and ignorance to be given free rein. Far from seeking to unify the community, those responses only serve to further divide: Blame immigration and migrants, blame pro-peace protesters, blame each other. Lean into racism by wilfully misinterpreting the Arabic language, pit one group of people against another, act as though kindness is some zero-sum game. The political opportunism has been sickening. How can it be anything other than bare political opportunism for Sussan Ley to attend Bondi the day after the attacks and talk about what she would do if she were Prime Minister? Could it get any more desperate than to attack other members of Parliament for not publicly crying, for not showing sufficient compassion, while you yourself are seeking to hurt and offend another person while angrily smacking the lectern you are standing at?

In New South Wales the lack of real leadership shown by Premier Chris Minns has been predictable, given his track record. Ever the right-wing media's weathervane without seemingly any real political or ethical principles to guide him, the Premier will do whatever he thinks will be popular in the moment. Over the last two years we have been calling on the Premier and his Government to show real leadership on the war in Gaza and its impact here in Australia. The whole of civil society, the union movement—we have all been asking for an end to simplistic, populist right-wing responses that seek to silence and that serve to bolster misinformation and ignorance, instead calling for governments to open up space for honest, fact-based discussion on the complexities around war in the Middle East, how it impacts our diverse communities here and what Australia's role in the conflict is.

By conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, to conflate peaceful protest with acts of hatred, to deny space for the real compassion and kindness of the vast majority of people in our State to be expressed, the Minns Labor Government has made matters worse, not better. But rather than the self-reflection needed at this moment to acknowledge that the countless heinous anti-protest and other anti-democratic kneejerk legislative responses continuously rushed through by this Government have, predictably, not kept people safer, the Minns Government is doubling down on its mistakes at a time when we need, more than ever, real leadership of our State. Why would you take a moment of self-reflection to consider if there is something that could have been done better within the existing frameworks, when that would only indicate that the Government and agencies had fallen short in their duties? Much better, in the eyes of this Government, to claim that they are being hamstrung by insufficiently draconian legislation.

That does not mean leadership has been entirely lacking at this time. I have seen so many examples of real leadership that have inspired and comforted a grieving State: the leadership of the First Nations groups who brought people together for a peaceful vigil in Hyde Park the day after the massacre; the moment Rabbi Jeffrey Kamins and Australian National Imams Council special advisor Bilal Rauf shared an embrace during the vigil, a shining symbol to all that you are not alone; all of those who put their own lives at risk to help others on the night of the shooting, shielding each other from bullets, rushing to put their hands over wounds to stop victims bleeding out, seeking to disarm gunmen despite being shot multiple times themselves; those who opened their doors to shelter others running from the attack; and those who have come together to support all those grieving and offer kindness to strangers. It is in those acts that we see real leadership.

I have seen incredible leadership from those in the Jewish community—despite so many of them experiencing pressure to be silent, both outside and within their own community—standing unwaveringly in support of people in Gaza, still dying every day, and patiently explaining to all who will listen that standing against genocide and criticising the actions of Israel is not and cannot ever be antisemitic but, rather, equating the actions of the nation state of Israel with collective responsibility of all Jewish people is itself antisemitic.

I have seen incredible leadership from my colleagues. Dr Amanda Cohn in particular has responded to this event with such grace and compassion, despite the way it has impacted her personally. The clarity and patience with which she has expressed herself have been inspirational. It must be particularly excruciating for her, as a member of the Jewish community, to have to listen to the hatred and offensive remarks being expressed by some of our right-wing colleagues in this place at this time. As Dr Cohn pointed out after neo-Nazis rallied outside our Parliament, our response to extremism needs to be considered and evidence based.

Extremism does not happen in a single moment; it happens over many years, across generations, as a result of numerous intersecting factors. An effective response to reduce the threat of extremism means supporting those at risk and doing all we can to avoid them going down that path. It means well-resourced community and mental health services. It means ensuring that people have the basics they need to survive, like housing, food and shelter. It means measures taken to knit connections between individuals and broader society. It means so much complex social work that needs to be led by governments at all levels and embraced by all of us as essential.

Instead, we are here debating this rushed kneejerk reaction of a bill in which the Minns Labor Government has shamefully combined the one piece of sensible reform in response to the Bondi attack—a clampdown on the ease with which people can accumulate murderous guns—with measures that have no sensible connection with the horrific Bondi terrorist attack. Fear-driven legislating substitutes symbolic reassurance for genuine risk reduction. The literature is very clear on this point. Policies enacted after terrorist attacks frequently serve an aesthetic and a political function—like projecting strength, demonstrating resolve or shielding leaders from blame—rather than producing measurable improvements in safety.

Once a dramatic event captures attention, we see media coverage, political rhetoric and public anxiety feeding off one another in a self-perpetuating cycle. In those environments, dissenting voices who urge caution, proportionality or delay are mischaracterised as indifferent to the suffering of the victims, insufficiently committed to public safety or somehow naive or irresponsible. This is a misapprehension. Deliberation is not paralysis; it is a safeguard against irreversible mistakes made under emotional pressure. When fear makes rational governance politically costly, our democratic societies are most at risk. Fear-based legislating invariably imposes disproportionate burdens on specific groups, particularly minority groups, migrants and the politically outspoken. In the moment of fear and reaction, moral focus is narrowed and groups lacking political power find their rights under greatest threat. This is a structural feature of reactionary lawmaking, and these are reactionary laws.

In these moments of immense pain and suffering, politicians all too often fall victim to the siren song of harm and division. It is incumbent on us all to open ourselves up, not shut things down. To open our hearts, to sit and hold one another in mourning and together raise one another up. Instead, what we are seeing is not elevation, but a shameful race to the bottom, with parties across the spectrum rolling in the mud. What is needed most in the aftermath of a public tragedy such as this—a brutal act of targeted violence by two individuals against members of the Jewish community—is to build bridges of connection and community. Common bonds of community and understanding need to be nurtured in order to grow, but how can anything grow in the long shadow of State overreach? How can we open ourselves up to connection when legislators are doing everything in their power to close things down?

The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. The ideology that motivated these two men—who appear to have demonstrated their support for the terror group Islamic State—is a repellent and hateful ideology. It is the same ISIS ideology that inspired the Lindt Cafe attack in 2014, long before the anti-genocide protests began. It is not a Palestinian organisation. On the contrary, it violently opposes all the major Palestinian factions, including Hamas. Any reasonable person would immediately instinctively know that the hateful ideology of Islamic State has nothing to do with anti-genocide protests in Melbourne or Sydney. These protests have, over more than two years, demonstrated the longest sustained street mobilisation in Australian history. The longevity and continued broad support is a testament to the urgency of their calls for an end to the relentless campaign of devastation being inflicted upon the Palestinian civilian population.

A tragedy such as this demands justice. But the public will be denied true justice as long as there is no transparency, no accountability and no reflection. True justice cannot be achieved without a culture of truth: truth about what happened, about the events that led up to this tragedy, and about the social conditions and the ideologies that motivated this act of destructive hatred. These laws that curtail speech and protest have no grounding in truth. What evidence has been presented other than the personal opinion of the Premier that there is any link between the protest movement against the ongoing genocide being inflicted on the Palestinian people? What evidence has been presented that the gunmen ever participated in a protest march or were engaged with any of the organising groups?

It is galling to see the Premier single out the peace and Palestinian justice movement as particular targets of his so-called response. I echo the words of Arthur Rorris, Secretary of the South Coast Labor Council, in the council's letter to all members in anticipation of this legislation. He wrote, "The suspension of democratic rights of the people to demonstrate against their government or, for example, against massacres here and abroad does not sit well with the Australia that we all know and love. There are only two winners by suspending democratic rights like these: political leaders who want to shield themselves from the voices of the people and the terrorists who want to attack our freedoms." The tragic act of violent hatred that was inflicted on the community in Bondi on 14 December this year has unleashed the worst of politics. The response has been characterised by political opportunism, scapegoating of innocent publics and a turn towards authoritarian reaction. Cass Sunstein wrote of the possibility of authoritarian backsliding in liberal democratic societies that:

… it can be masked with a veneer of legality, it can be cloaked with plausible deniability. It is always possible to justify each incremental step.

Nevertheless, those steps retain their authoritarian character. There are real and pernicious forces of antisemitism and extremist and violent ideologies in our society that need to be faced head‑on. Those ideologies are cultivated and grown in darkness, and we need to bring them into the light. My real and sincere concern is that by misapportioning blame—by cracking down on movements for peace that repeatedly denounce antisemitism at every public opportunity—we leave the real dangers of genuine antisemitism and violent extremism unaddressed. That does nothing to keep the Jewish community safe. The Premier himself has acknowledged exactly that point in expressing his support for a royal commission:

"I think we need a royal commission right now," he 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.

The Government has explicitly acknowledged that its suite of legislation has been advanced in the absence of a full and accurate picture of exactly how this happened, and without a plan to ensure it does not happen again. The legislation is not a plan for safety; it is a projection of intimidatory strength. However, an appearance of strength is not the same as genuine community resilience.

Tragically, one of the few things of which we are certain and confident is that those terrible actions were carried out with the use of multiple high‑powered firearms lawfully possessed by people living in a suburban home. We know that the firearms were lawfully allowed to be held in the home of a family whose son had been investigated by intelligence services for the risk of violent, ISIS‑inspired ideology. An evidence-based response to this tragedy includes a restriction on the ownership and use of firearms. I am in full support of that. The Greens have advocated for decades for a significant restriction on the number and types of firearms that can be legally possessed in this State and country. There are now more firearms per person in our community than before the Port Arthur massacre—another tragedy that shocked our community. It is a shame on us as legislators that we have allowed that to occur.

Thomas Birkland's foundational work After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events speaks of such moments, and he particularly identifies terror attacks as focusing events. Focusing events are rare, dramatic shocks that concentrate public and political attention. In their best form, they bring things that were previously unclear and hazy into focus. The public response to the proposal to tighten gun ownership laws, with three‑quarters of Australians believing the laws must be tightened, proves that the underlying public anxiety over gun violence has been brought into sharp relief. There is evidence and a mandate for tightening gun laws. However, it is unclear how much of that evidence is borne out in the version proposed by the Government.

Despite that, The Greens recognise that imposing limits on firearms is a measure that will materially make us safer, and we support those limits. I acknowledge that there are members who have an entirely inverse view of this legislation to that of The Greens—members who oppose the firearms legislation but who support the restrictions on speech and protest. I think they are entirely wrong, but I recognise that they have perceived constituencies who elected them to represent their interests. Those members, like The Greens, have been put in the untenable position of having to balance one set of major responses to this tragedy against another because of the Government's decision to progress the response in one omnibus legislation. That decision is exclusively about politics. It is grubby politics, trying to wedge political parties at a time when we are being implored by the community to work together.

Words cannot contain the enormity of the grief and sadness we feel in the face of the evil act of antisemitic violence that occurred in Bondi on 14 December. The fear and anxiety experienced by Jewish people in Sydney and across the country is real and heartbreaking. Those actions were designed to inflict fear and to sow disharmony through our beautiful and culturally diverse community. The very worst thing we can do now, in these days and weeks after that senseless attack, is to lean into that division. Antisemitic hatred and violence are abhorrent and an assault on our shared values of inclusion, justice and equity. They hold no place in the diverse, inclusive and accepting Australia that I know, and do not reflect the values the overwhelming majority of our population hold dear.

In the wake of this act of mass violence, we must sit and share in the grief of so many who have felt that act of violence as a bolt right into the hearts of their lives and communities. As we recommit ourselves to forcing out antisemitism and all forms of racist discrimination and hatred, we cannot allow ourselves to be pulled into hasty actions driven by anguish or by opportunists that will only serve to deepen, not bridge, fractures in our community. Amy Remeikis wrote it simply and perfectly:

The assumption that you cannot care about the loss of Jewish life if you care about the loss of Palestinian life is like saying you must choose between air and water. It assumes that people see life in binary terms, rather than feeling compassion and justice for all. It assumes most people hate. Pushing back against that assumption will take all of us.

Compassion, love and care is not zero sum. To claim that humanitarian universalism is impossible diminishes us all. Real leadership is in the empathy, compassion and kindness being shown by so many in the midst of intense pressure to do otherwise. It is in every embrace, in every reaching out and in every moment that we listen, question and think before speaking. As Audre Lorde writes:

The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.

The bill is not leadership. It is political opportunism at its worst and a shameful attack on our democracy at a time when our democratic norms matter more than ever. Leadership is within those who, in the face of hate, violence and division, instead choose love, peace, connection and solidarity.

[Business interrupted.]