Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Since coming to office in 2013, has the coalition government or any of its ministers offered or agreed to weaken Australia's gun laws in return for support in the Senate?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the honourable member to my earlier answer: not only is there no prospect or chance of any kind of my government weakening Australia's gun laws—by which I assume he means the National Firearms Agreement—but we are constantly seeking to strengthen them. We are increasing the penalties for the illegal importation of firearms. We are standing up against illegal trafficking in guns all the time. That is our commitment. So there is no prospect of any weakening of or change to the National Firearms Agreement—other than one that in fact would strengthen it.

Let us be quite clear: Senator Leyonhjelm, the libertarian senator, as he said today in his doorstop, is not proposing any weakening of John Howard's gun laws. There is no proposal to weaken John Howard's gun laws. What has been identified is—

Ms Plibersek interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.

Ms Henderson interjecting—

Mr Hill interjecting—

The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting, as will the member for Bruce. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, on direct relevance: there was an earlier question that asked whether something would happen prospectively. This question asks whether something has happened in the past, since the change of government, and the Prime Minister should be directly relevant to that.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been listening carefully. I believe the Prime Minister has been relevant to the answer.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can speak for myself: I have not been asked—

Opposition members interjecting—

No—I have not been asked, and I am not aware of any minister being asked, to weaken the National Firearms Agreement. There has been an issue, as you know, about the import ban, and the import ban, as I said and as was said at the time it was imposed originally, is designed to prevent the importation of these Adler lever-action shotguns of more than five rounds which, under the National Firearms Agreement—John Howard's gun law, if you like—are categorised as category A. So that is what is happening. We are standing up to ensure that Australians are protected and are kept safe.

I just think honourable members should be very careful in their desperate efforts to distract from the criminality and thuggery of the CFMEU and to distract from the obligation this parliament has to reinstate the rule of law in the construction sector—to try to latch on to this issue when they know full well that not only do we stand by the National Firearms Agreement; our side of politics established it. This is what we did. This is our claim to this issue. John Howard established the National Firearms Agreement, and we stand by it.

But what the Labor Party does not do is to stand by the rule of law. It does not stand by the contractors. It does not stand by the thousands of electricians and carpenters and plumbers who have to knuckle down to the thuggery of the CFMEU. It does not stand for the young couples who cannot afford to buy a house because the costs are being pushed up by union thuggery or for taxpayers who have to pay more to build every type of infrastructure. (Time expired)