Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Senator Leyonhjelm's motion to disallow the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment (Shotguns and Shotgun Magazines) Regulation 2016. Whilst the opposition acknowledges the rationale behind Senator Leyonhjelm's desire to disallow this regulation, and his consistency in terms of his views in this area, as has been articulated we will be opposing the motion to disallow. However, I want to briefly address the context in which this regulation has been made. We know that the regulation amends the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956. The effect of the amending regulation, the regulation that Senator Leyonhjelm has moved to disallow, is to prohibit the importation into Australia of lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than five rounds. In addition, it prohibits the importation of firearm magazines with a capacity of more than five rounds for lever-action shotguns whether attached to a firearm or not.

Significantly, this regulation has the effect of maintaining the relevant prohibition as introduced and implemented by the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment (Firearms and Firearm Magazines) Regulation 2015 whilst a review of the National Firearms Agreement continues. A previous regulation already provided for the relevant provisions in the prohibited imports regulation. However, the sun set on that regulation on 7 August 2016 and so it was necessary to make a new regulation to continue the ban.

Labor's position on the Adler A110 lever-action shotgun has always been clear: we do not support lifting the ban on the Adler. Tonight we will be sticking with our position and voting against the disallowance motion. This is because we say what we mean and we mean what we say. This cannot be said of those opposite. It is regrettable that this government has used this issue as a political tool for more than a year. It has gone through all of the dodgy processes possible: secret deals, broken promises, botched cover-ups and incoherent attempts at further deals. The government has ended up failing completely. In doing so, this government has risked the watering down of Australia's world-leading gun laws for political expediency. Labor has made it clear that we support the ban on the Adler. Labor has made it clear that we believe in strong gun laws because they save lives. We are worried about the risk to public safety if thousands of these shotguns are let into Australia, which is why we will be voting against the disallowance motion.

On 6 August 2015, Labor supported the government's decision to impose a ban on these shotguns from entering Australia whilst a review of the National Firearms Agreement was underway. There was significant concern in the community about the Adler lever-action shotgun, and Labor's position has always been that there should be a ban on the importation of these weapons whilst the review that I referred to was being undertaken. As I said, we support this ban because we support Australia's world-leading gun laws, because we are concerned about public safety. And we had hoped that the government was of the same mind. But from its actions it appears that the government does not care about gun control. When the government was short of votes in the Senate, it quickly turned to Senator Leyonhjelm and struck a deal to water down these gun laws. This is the deal they cut. The Minister for Justice and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection agreed that the government would amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 to put in a sunset clause so that the Adler ban was automatically lifted in 12 months. As we know, this sunset clause was implemented.

In return, Senator Leyonhjelm was to vote against Labor's amendments to the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015. Not only did the government do this deal, but they put it in writing on 12 August 2015. Whilst I disagree with Senator Leyonhjelm's position on this, he is a man of his word, and he agrees to this deal. In his email to the Minister for Justice's staff, he even states, 'I am assuming good faith here.' It is obvious from what occurred subsequently that there was no such good faith. Fast-forward to 2 July 2016, and the government realises that they were facing the consequences of their deal with Senator Leyonhjelm. They realise that their desperate attempt to get votes is about to put thousands of these weapons into our communities. Public pressure mounts, and the government buckles and they put in place a regulation extending the ban—a regulation which Senator Leyonhjelm is now seeking to disallow.

Whilst we support the reinstatement of the ban, let me make it clear that the opposition does not endorse the government's behaviour—not their slippery position on the regulation, trading guns for votes, and not their treatment of Senator Leyonhjelm. When the government backflipped on the sunset clause, Senator Leyonhjelm was played. He was, in his own words, 'dudded'. He is right. The government welshed on their deal with him and betrayed him. He reacted, if I may say so, with honesty. He was up-front with the government about his position and patiently waited two months to get a straight answer from them on this issue. It was only when the government needed the senator's support on other legislation that they bothered to try to fix the mess that they had created.

Even after all of this backflipping and these tricks, the government have still not ruled out watering down our gun laws. This whole issue has been such a disaster, and yet none of those opposite are willing to take responsibility. Certainly there has been no responsibility taken by the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull. In fact, he has been at pains to ensure he has distanced himself from the deal. On 18 October 2016, Malcolm Farr reported that Mr Turnbull had refused to rule out doing a deal on the shotgun regulation in return for the passage of antiworker industrial relations bills. The extent to which Mr Turnbull failed the test of leadership became obvious when we saw Mr Abbott, the member for Warringah and the former Prime Minister, also desperately trying to distance himself from this failed deal. On the same day as the Malcolm Farr story appeared, Mr Abbott tweeted:

Disturbing to see reports of horse-trading on gun laws. ABCC should be supported on its merits.

Obviously, Labor's position is that the ABCC bill should fail on its merits. Notwithstanding this, Mr Abbott was fundamentally right when he condemned horsetrading with gun laws for a vote on industrial legislation. Mr Turnbull's weakness of leadership became further apparent the next day when members of the coalition came out in support of Senator Leyonhjelm's position. It is not a bad effort from the Prime Minister to foster a split in his own party room and trash the Howard legacy all in the space of a day. Then Mr Abbott said:

No deals from me. No deals from my office. No deal.

That was interesting because it led Mr Turnbull to contradict his predecessor by claiming:

… the Minister for Justice acted in the full knowledge of the Prime Minister's Office at that time.

Just picture this on the floor of the House of Representatives: the duelling versions of the truth from the current coalition Prime Minister and the former coalition Prime Minister. The former Prime Minister says: 'No deals from me. No deals from my office. No deal.' Mr Turnbull contradicts his predecessor and says, 'the Minister for Justice acted in the full knowledge of the Prime Minister's office at that time.' All the divisions in the government were opened up for all to see on the floor of the House of Representatives as the Prime Minister openly contradicted the former Prime Minister, who was then forced to make a personal explanation in the House of Representatives. What an extraordinary spectacle! I cannot recall a time when we have seen that sort of open warfare, an open contesting of the truth, from one Prime Minister to a former Prime Minister on the floor of the House. I think the only thing that is certain in all of this, with all the claims and counterclaims—'It wasn't me, it was him'; 'No, it wasn't, it was him'—and all of the obfuscation, ducking and weaving that we have seen, is that the government made a deal with Senator Leyonhjelm to get his vote, and then they broke it when it suited them. I think that is absolutely clear.

This is a government that often likes to talk about the unworkable Senate. It is unsurprising they have a bit of a tough time at times in this chamber, given their poorly concealed disdain for those who disagree with them, particularly some members of the crossbench. We in the Labor Party often do not have the same policy position as senators on the crossbench, but I think we are pretty clear with them about that. We tell them what we can support and what we cannot. We try to have integrity in our dealings with them. You cannot say the same of the government, which is prepared to do a deal and then walk away from it when the political circumstances demand otherwise. Let us all remember what the Prime Minister said when the crossbench was elected to the Senate. He described their election to the Senate in 2013 as a disgrace.

We also all remember the 44th Parliament—perhaps some of us do not because some senators were not here—in which the government sought to get around the crossbenchers as much as possible. First it was by dealing exclusively with the Palmer United Party, and then they tried to do over the crossbench on the future of financial advice regulation—another disallowance where the government did not succeed. On other occasions, the government have cuddled up with the crossbench when it suited only to turn their back on them once they had secured the outcome they wanted. Some might say that, for the government, it has never been about the quality of the ongoing relationship, only the shotgun wedding!

Perhaps Mr Turnbull's crowning achievement was when he actively went about trying to get rid of the crossbenchers, passing legislation intended to dilute their chances of election. That is what the Senate voting changes were about. They were trying to dilute the chances of crossbenchers being elected. Prime Minister Turnbull thought it would clear them out, but, combined with a double dissolution election, his plan clearly did not work. In fact, the Australian people returned many crossbenchers to the Senate, plus added a few more—so much for Mr Turnbull's grand plan. Now we see the government trying to duel with Senator Xenophon and his South Australian colleagues, with the Acting Prime Minister, Senator Joyce, signalling his intent over the weekend to dishonour the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I will talk about that more on another occasion. I just say yet again: how is it that Mr Turnbull, who once argued so strongly for this plan, can be in a position where his deputy simply up-ends it?

The most disappointing thing about this whole fiasco is that the dodgy deals that have been the focus of much of the debate could have ended up allowing dangerous weapons onto our streets. This government was prepared to contemplate watering down our gun laws in order to get totally unrelated legislation through the Senate. That is right: the coalition was prepared to contemplate watering down our gun laws in order to get totally unrelated legislation through the Senate. They have subsequently tried to cover that up, backflip and then blame each other. I think the lesson from this is clear: the government cannot be trusted to stick to its word when it comes to Australia's gun laws. Labor has made its position clear: we believe in strong gun laws because they save lives. We are worried about the effect of the Adler entering into Australia and the effect that it will have on public safety. Labor has a clear position which is clear to the Australian people. We will not do politically expedient deals to sell out their safety. It is shameful that the other party of government cannot make the same commitment. For this reason, the opposition will not be supporting this disallowance.