Some issues should be above politics. Keeping guns out of the wrong hands is one of them. After the horrific terrorist attack at Bondi Beach, this Parliament came together and passed the toughest firearms reforms in a generation. We acted because governments have a responsibility to keep the community safe. First and foremost, we must look after the people we represent. These reforms strengthen firearms licensing and oversight, put sensible limits on the number of firearms that people can own, and reduce the number of guns in our community. Most licence holders are limited to four firearms, with higher limits of 10 for primary producers and people with specified occupational or sporting requirements. There is a simple reason for that: The fewer guns there are in our community, the fewer guns can fall into the wrong hands.

This is the key point that has been overlooked by those opposite, who are trying to confuse a range of issues for their own political purposes. We need to remember that at least one firearm is reported stolen to the police every day. Between January and August this year, the State Crime Command seized 326 firearms. Those numbers should make every member of this House pause. But apparently they have not made the Opposition pause. In fact, the Coalition now wants to freeze the buyback and scrap the caps for primary producers and competition shooters with what it calls a genuine need.

What makes this so extraordinary is the breathtaking hypocrisy being displayed by those opposite. Twenty Liberal MPs voted for the reform package in December 2025. They knew what they were voting for. Those opposite could not have been clearer about why these laws matter and were needed. Let us look at what they said. The member for Ryde called reducing the number of guns available, particularly high-powered guns, a commonsense reform. He said he would not be consistent with his own conscience if he did not support the changes. Yet, when the Opposition tried to disallow these reforms on 16 September, the member for Ryde abstained. The members representing the electorates of Badgerys Creek, Dubbo and Holsworthy abstained as well. What has changed? The evidence has not changed. The Government's responsibility to keep people safe has not changed. The politics of members opposite has changed. They are the ones walking away from the reforms that its members supported.

On 2 November licensed firearms owners affected by the new laws will be able to participate in the buyback. Let us be clear: This is not an attack on responsible firearms owners. There are legitimate reasons to own firearms, and the laws recognise that, through different limits for primary producers and people with specified occupational and sporting requirements. Those matters are contained in the legislation and that is what members opposite voted for. But responsible firearm ownership and strong gun laws are not mutually exclusive. We in Australia learnt those lessons after Port Arthur. The research found that States with higher buyback rates experienced significantly larger reductions in firearm suicides and homicides. The evidence is clear: These policies work.

We support recommendations 13 and 14 of the royal commission, including support for a gun buyback. Strong gun laws are part of what we do well in this country. Members on this side of the House understand that. We stand against gun violence, be it organised crime on our streets, suicides, or horrific violence against families and communities. We stand with the victims, and the first responders who are left to pick up the pieces. After the last couple of days of violence across this State, we should be taking a good look at ourselves. We on this side of the Chamber take reasonable action to reduce risk. We learn from tragedy. We put evidence into policy. We change laws to keep people safe. Those opposite should have a good look at themselves.