Sure, some of those concerns should be debated, but there is another part of this story that deserves just as much attention.
Kellie Sloane voted for the legislation that created the firearm limits now being enforced through the buyback.
When MPs tried to remove, soften or further scrutinise those limits? She repeatedly voted against them.
Labor owned it. But the Liberals helped enable it.
What Sloane is saying now
On 16 August, Sloane issued a statement demanding the Minns Government address what she called “serious flaws” in the NSW gun buyback before it begins on 2 November.
Her statement accused Labor of rushing “complex legislation through Parliament without proper consultation” and said the laws were targeting law-abiding firearm owners instead of terrorists, organised criminal networks and illegal firearms.
Those are strong words, and there certainly are legitimate questions to ask about the buyback.
-
How much will it ultimately cost tax payers?
-
Are firearm owners receiving fair compensation?
-
What happens to businesses affected by the changes?
-
Will the scheme actually address illegal firearms in the hands of criminals?
Those questions should be answered, but if Sloane wants to criticise how these laws came about, there is an uncomfortable part of the parliamentary record she also needs to explain.
December 2025: Parliament was recalled
Following the deadly Bondi Beach terrorist attack, the Minns Government recalled NSW Parliament on 22 December 2025 and introduced the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.
This was no ordinary piece of legislation. The NSW Parliament's own record says standing orders were suspended so the bill could be introduced without notice and considered through all stages at that sitting. It was introduced, debated and passed through the Legislative Assembly on the same day.
The bill included sweeping changes to NSW firearm laws, including new limits on the number of firearms an individual could possess and restrictions affecting certain categories of firearms.
Today, Sloane says Labor rushed complex laws through Parliament without proper consultation.
So what happened when an MP tried to slow the process down? Sloane voted AGAINST sending the bill to committee
During debate, independent MP Philip Donato moved an amendment seeking to refer the bill to the Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety “for inquiry and report.”
In other words: subject the legislation to further scrutiny before pushing ahead.
The amendment was overwhelmingly defeated. There were six votes in favour. There were 68 votes against.
Kellie Sloane was one of the 68 who voted NO.
Then she voted AYE for the bill's second reading.
That's worth remembering when politicians complain eight months later about legislation being rushed. When Parliament had the opportunity to send that legislation away for further examination, Sloane voted against it.
But it didn't stop there.
The firearm limits were directly challenged
This wasn't simply a situation where Sloane voted for a massive bill containing hundreds of unrelated provisions and can now claim she didn't support this particular part of it.
MPs specifically moved amendments dealing with the firearm limits. The votes are recorded.
Attempt #1: Remove the maximum firearm provisions
Roy Butler moved amendments specifically titled:
“Maximum number of firearms.”
The proposal sought to remove provisions establishing those limits. The vote was 15 in favour and 60 against.
Kellie Sloane voted NO.
Attempt #2: Replace the 10-firearm limit with “no limitation”
Gurmesh Singh then moved an amendment dealing explicitly with the limitation on firearm numbers.
The amendment proposed removing the words:
“no more than 10 firearms”
and replacing them with:
“no limitation”.
There isn't much ambiguity there. The vote was taken. 15 MPs voted in favour. 60 voted against.
Kellie Sloane voted NO.
Attempt #3: Allow a greater number with Commissioner approval
Another amendment sought to allow licence holders to possess more than 10 firearms where the Police Commissioner approved the greater number in accordance with regulations.
Again, the amendment failed and again:
Kellie Sloane voted NO.
Attempt #4: Protect existing owners and sport shooters
Roy Butler later moved another group of amendments.
One sought:
“sport/target shooting - no limitation”.
Another proposed a savings provision for people who already lawfully owned more firearms than the new limit before the changes commenced. In simple terms, someone legally possessing those firearms before the new law took effect could continue to possess them.
The amendment lost 17 votes to 58.
Kellie Sloane voted NO.
These aren't interpretations of what someone thinks Sloane believed. They are recorded parliamentary divisions.
Then she voted for the final bill
After those amendments were defeated, Parliament voted on the bill itself.
Sloane voted AYE when the Assembly approved its clauses and schedules.
She then voted AYE again on the third reading.
The bill passed 59–15.
It received assent on 24 December 2025.
So when we're talking about political accountability, this matters. This wasn't a politician sitting powerless on the sidelines while Labor imposed laws she opposed.
She voted for them.
The buyback wasn't some unforeseeable surprise
The Albanese Government announced its proposed National Gun Buyback Scheme on 19 December 2025.
That was three days before Sloane cast these votes in NSW Parliament.
The Commonwealth announcement explicitly said the scheme would purchase surplus, newly banned and illegal firearms. It also said the national reforms would include:
“Limit the number of firearms to be held by any one individual.”
So by the time NSW Parliament debated firearm limits on 22 December, the concept of a national buyback connected to tighter firearm ownership restrictions was already on the table.
Fast forward eight months…On 16 August 2026, the Commonwealth and NSW Governments announced the NSW implementation of the National Gun Buyback Scheme.
The NSW Government itself directly connects the buyback to the December reforms.
Its announcement says:
“The NSW Gun Buyback is the next step in those reforms.”
It says compensation will be available for firearms above the new ownership limits and for newly reclassified firearms. The NSW Government estimates up to 274,000 registered firearms, around 24 per cent of all registered firearms in the state, and approximately 50,000 licence holders are affected by the new ownership limits and firearm reclassifications.
Only now does the NSW Opposition Leader want Australians to know she's concerned about them. Where was that concern when her vote actually mattered? Opposition means more than opposing something after it becomes unpopular.
An opposition's job is to scrutinise legislation when it is actually before Parliament.
To ask difficult questions, demand proper process, vote against bad laws and when necessary, stand up to the government.
On 22 December 2025, Kellie Sloane had those opportunities.
She could have supported sending the bill to committee for further inquiry.
She didn't.
She could have supported removing the firearm limits.
She didn't.
She could have supported allowing greater numbers with Commissioner approval.
She didn't.
She could have supported protecting existing lawful owners from the new limits.
She didn't.
And when the final bill came before the Legislative Assembly?
She voted for it.
The majority of the NSW Liberal Party voted for it. On the final and third reading of the bill, the only Liberal MP to vote against it was Wendy Tuckerman, member for Goulburn. With Matt Cross, Tanya Davies and Mark Speakman all absent from the sitting.
Politicians have become very comfortable assuming Australians won't remember what happened nine months ago.
A new media release goes out, social media reels are uploaded, politicians get angry in front of a camera and suddenly everyone is supposed to forget what happened when the legislation was actually being decided.
There's one problem. Parliament keeps receipts.
Labor needs to own what it created. But the Liberals need to own the role they played in allowing it through.
