For firearm owners whose concerns were overlooked when the Government developed the original legislation, the inquiry provides a formal avenue to be heard. Written submissions and public hearings can bring individual experiences together, test the Government’s arguments and establish a parliamentary record of the consequences.
The timing also matters. Hearings, published evidence and the eventual report create further opportunities for media coverage and public discussion. That gives affected communities a platform to explain why these laws remain contentious long after their passage and helps keep the unfair treatment of responsible firearm owners in public view.
Premier Chris Minns has already made clear that he is prepared to defend his position at an election. In August, he said: “We’re ready to fight an election on it”. He also made clear that the Government was maintaining its position. The inquiry therefore enters a debate the Premier has expressly acknowledged voters will have an opportunity to judge.
However, recognising the achievement requires an honest assessment of what the inquiry might deliver. Securing scrutiny is an important step; securing a parliamentary majority for repeal remains a separate challenge.
The committee’s seven substantive members are chair Robert Borsak of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party; deputy chair Sue Higginson of the Greens; Nationals member Scott Barrett; Liberal Susan Carter; and Labor members Stephen Lawrence, Cameron Murphy and Bob Nanva. Updated terms also list Banasiak as a participating member. That participation should not be counted as an additional substantive voting position when assessing the committee’s balance.
The history of the original legislation helps explain the political challenges. Labor and the Liberals supported its passage in December 2025, while the Nationals and SFF opposed the firearms changes. Although the Greens abstained on the final vote, this reflected their opposition to the protest restrictions bundled into the bill, rather than opposition to its firearms provisions. Their position remains adverse to responsible firearm owners' interests.
That distinction was reinforced on 22 September 2026, when Greens MP Jenny Leong voted for a Lower House motion reaffirming support for the December firearms laws, endorsing the gun buyback and explicitly supporting the four- and ten-firearm limits, restrictions on firearm types, stronger licence checks, and oversight, storage and compliance measures. The motion passed 48–29. While it did not change the law, it provided a recent and clear demonstration of support for the restrictions now being challenged. Members will therefore be unsurprised that Greens support for any committee recommendation favouring repeal is not realistic.
The Liberal position has meanwhile changed since the original legislation passed. Its September policy proposes freezing the buyback pending a commission of inquiry, removing caps for primary producers and competition sporting shooters with demonstrated need, and examining a pathway for recreational hunters assisting primary producers with pest control. Those commitments represent a meaningful shift, but do not amount to an unconditional commitment to full repeal.
On that basis, a majority recommendation supporting full repeal appears difficult. If the three Labor members and Higginson agree to retain the firearms reforms, they would hold a four-to-three majority among the substantive members. Borsak’s chairmanship does not remove that numerical reality.
This assesses the political starting point, not a prediction of every finding. Members could reject full repeal while identifying problems with particular provisions, implementation or administration. Equally, members who disagree with the report could seek to record dissenting views and alternative recommendations.
The inquiry’s value consequently extends beyond its final recommendation. Evidence can expose practical problems, challenge assumptions and help establish which changes political parties are prepared to support. Even an unfavourable majority report would not erase the experiences placed before the committee.
The inquiry also provides a platform to keep the firearms debate in the public eye in the lead up to the election.
ADA members have an important role in building that evidence. A submission does not need to be lengthy or written in legal language. A clear account of what has changed, how it affects you, and what you believe should be corrected can contribute meaningfully.
For deer hunters, that might include explaining why different firearms serve different hunting purposes, how ownership limits affect participation, or the consequences of reclassification. Members can also describe financial losses, additional administrative burdens, uncertainty and any direct experience of changes to licensing or review arrangements.
Specific examples will be particularly useful. Explain the position before the changes, what has happened since and the practical consequence. Distinguish costs already incurred from those anticipated, and support figures with documentation where possible. Respectful, factual submissions give the committee material to examine and consider.
Submissions are now open and close on 1 February 2027. Hearings are scheduled for Dubbo on 24 November, Singleton on 1 December and Parliament House in Sydney on 7 December 2026. Members should check the inquiry page for current arrangements and submission guidance.
The ADA’s position remains that community safety and fair treatment of responsible firearm owners must be pursued together. This inquiry gives members an opportunity to explain where the laws fail that test and what should change.
Securing it is an achievement worth recognising. Making full use of it now requires evidence, participation and sustained advocacy through to the election and beyond.
Read about the inquiry and make a submission.
