Tasmanian Firearms Bill Passes Lower House

First, the changes are not yet law. The Bill passed the House of Assembly on 10 September and received its first reading in the Legislative Council on 11 September. It must still pass the Upper House and receive Royal Assent. Its provisions would then commence on a day or days proclaimed by the Government.

That means hunters do not need to act immediately, but owners of affected firearms should follow the Legislative Council debate closely.

No firearm ownership caps

One of the most consequential Lower House votes concerned Labor’s proposal to limit most recreational hunters and vermin controllers to five firearms, with a higher limit of 10 for some primary producers and sporting shooters. Exemptions could have been sought from the Police Commissioner.

The proposal was defeated 16 votes to 15.

This outcome aligns with the ADA’s longstanding position that arbitrary numerical caps are not an effective measure of individual risk. Hunters may lawfully own different firearms for different species, terrain, hunting methods and animal-welfare requirements. The number held by a fit and proper person, with every firearm registered and securely stored, does not by itself establish a public-safety risk.

The rejection of caps is therefore a significant and welcome outcome. It preserves an individualised licensing system focused on the suitability of the person, their genuine reason and their compliance with the law.

However, it is important not to treat this question as finally settled until the Bill completes the Legislative Council process.

Reclassification remains the central concern

The Bill would move straight-pull and button or lever-release centre-fire rifles and shotguns from Categories A and B into the more restrictive Category C framework.

This remains the clearest point of disagreement between the Lower House outcome and the ADA’s submission.

The ADA opposed blanket reclassification because the proposal groups together materially different operating mechanisms without a published, firearm-specific assessment showing that every affected firearm presents the same risk as firearms traditionally placed in Category C. A conventional straight-pull firearm remains manually operated, while a release-action firearm uses a different operating cycle. Treating both broad groups alike is not the technically precise approach the ADA advocated.

For ordinary recreational hunters, this is not simply a change to the letter printed on a licence. Recreational hunting and vermin control do not ordinarily provide access to a Category C licence in Tasmania. The practical consequence for many owners may therefore be that they cannot retain a firearm that was lawfully acquired, registered and used.

The Police Minister told the House that approximately 1,200 firearms would be affected by the reclassification.

Existing-owner protection was removed

The Bill introduced by the Government contained a grandfathering provision. It would have allowed an existing owner to be treated as holding the required category while they remained the registered owner, continuously held their former licence category and otherwise remained authorised under the Act. Although this was not everything the ADA sought, it offered a practical means for compliant owners to retain affected firearms.

The House of Assembly removed that protection by 17 votes to 13.

In its place, the House adopted a much narrower transition. An existing owner would remain authorised only while an application for the required new licence category was awaiting determination, provided the application was made as soon as practicable after commencement.

This does not amount to ongoing grandfathering. It protects a person during the application process, but if the application for Category C is refused, the authority ends. The Police Minister acknowledged during debate that Category C licences are highly restricted and that most owners of affected firearms would be ineligible.

Unless the Legislative Council restores a meaningful existing-owner pathway, many recreational hunters could ultimately be required to surrender, sell, transfer or lawfully modify affected firearms. The Bill itself does not set out a compensation scheme, valuation method or complete disposal process. Those arrangements must be clear, funded and public before reclassification commences.

This outcome falls well short of the ADA’s recommendation that existing owners be able to retain and use affected firearms through an endorsement or comparable authority, with review rights and without being excluded merely because recreational hunting is not ordinarily a Category C genuine reason.

A better approach to genuinely new technology

The Lower House also adopted a separate power allowing the Police Commissioner to temporarily classify a genuinely new firearm that is not otherwise covered by the existing categories. A declaration must be published in the Gazette, can operate for only one 24-month period and would give Parliament time to consider whether a permanent legislative response is justified.

This is much closer to the principles advanced by the ADA. The Association has not argued that firearm classifications should remain frozen regardless of technological change. Its position has been that new or emerging technology should be addressed through a precise, evidence-based process, while permanent changes to existing classifications should receive proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Importantly, a further proposal to allow the executive to reclassify existing firearms by order was defeated. Under the Lower House outcome, Parliament would still decide permanent reclassification.

Citizenship protections partly reflect ADA concerns

The Bill introduces citizenship and residency requirements for new licence applicants. Broadly, applicants would need to be Tasmanian residents and Australian or New Zealand citizens. Australian permanent residents would retain access for specified occupational or management reasons, including primary production, animal population control, animal welfare, business or employment. At the same time, the Commissioner would have a discretionary exemption power.

Recreational hunting is not expressly included among the permanent-resident reasons.

The House retained transitional protection for existing compliant licence holders. A person licensed before commencement would be treated as meeting the new citizenship test when renewing the same licence or applying for a licence for the same genuine reason. An attempt to remove that protection was defeated.

This partially aligns with the ADA submission. The Association recognised the direction of national reform but called for existing licence holders to be protected, New Zealand citizens and livelihood needs to be accommodated, and workable exemptions and review processes to be provided. The protection for existing holders is positive, although questions remain for future permanent-resident applicants who wish to hunt recreationally.

Interstate hunters receive clearer recognition

One practical improvement strongly reflects the ADA’s submission. The rewritten interstate-visitor provision expressly recognises recreational hunting or vermin control as a lawful purpose for which a visitor holding a corresponding Category A or B licence may possess and use a firearm in Tasmania, with the landowner’s approval and subject to the other statutory requirements.

The ADA specifically sought this change because the previous reference to an “approved purpose” created avoidable uncertainty. Expressly naming hunting gives visiting hunters, landholders and regulators greater clarity.

The position for international hunting visitors is less complete. The Bill broadens the Commissioner’s general exemption power for specified events or activities, but does not expressly establish the clear international hunting permit or exemption pathway recommended by the ADA.

Stronger focus on risk, family violence and criminal misuse

The Bill prepares Tasmania’s laws for participation in the National Firearms Register and modernises information sharing, dealer records and terminology. It also strengthens offences concerning stolen firearms and trafficking and retains presumptive minimum imprisonment provisions for specified serious firearm offences.

The Lower House added several further protections to the fit and proper person test. These include consideration of interstate family-violence history, patterns of coercion or intimidation, threats involving firearms, fraudulent attempts to obtain firearms or licences, interstate firearm prohibition orders and the risk that an unsuitable close associate may gain access to firearms.

These measures target the suitability and conduct of individuals rather than treating compliant hunters as a uniform risk. That broad approach aligns with the ADA’s support for strong licensing, effective information sharing, and action against theft, trafficking, diversion, and criminal misuse.

New obligations hunters will need to understand

If enacted, the Bill will also change some everyday compliance requirements. A person lending a firearm would need to sight and verify the borrower’s authority and, where the loan lasts more than 24 hours or involves a different storage location, ensure suitable storage is available and intended for use. A borrowed firearm could not be on-lent to another person.

Licence holders would also face notification requirements when a firearm is to be located or stored at another address for more than 24 hours. During consultation, the ADA warned that these provisions needed to distinguish a change in storage location from a hunter travelling with and retaining possession of a firearm. Clear operational guidance, offline verification options and reasonable protections for unforeseen circumstances will be important, particularly in remote Tasmania.

Suppressor reform remains unfinished

The ADA recommended a controlled licence, permit or endorsement pathway for suppressors used for legitimate hunting, primary production, animal welfare and population-management purposes. A Lower House amendment seeking to create a permit system was defeated.

Suppressor access therefore remains unresolved. The ADA’s position is not for uncontrolled availability, but for a transparent regulatory pathway that recognises legitimate use while retaining police oversight, registration, storage and eligibility controls.

What happens next

The Bill is now before the Legislative Council, where it can examine every provision and Lower House amendment again. The priority issues for hunters are clear:

The Lower House outcome demonstrates why sustained, constructive advocacy matters. Several results align with positions put forward by the ADA, particularly the rejection of caps, the protection of existing non-citizen licence holders, the recognition of interstate hunting and the focus on emerging technology rather than an unrestricted permanent reclassification power.

There is nevertheless substantial work ahead. For affected firearm owners, the removal of grandfathering is a serious development, and the final shape of the law remains uncertain. The ADA will continue to advocate for legislation that protects community safety while remaining evidence-based, proportionate and workable for Tasmania’s lawful hunting community.

This article reflects the Bill’s position as at 13 September 2026. It is general information only and should not be relied upon as legal advice.

Sources

Parliament of Tasmania — Bill status and related documents

Firearms Amendment (Strengthening Firearms Security) Bill 2026 — text as introduced

House of Assembly Hansard — 10 September 2026

ABC News — Lower House vote and amendments

Australian Deer Association submission