The day after the horror shooting and killing of 15 people at a Jewish festival at Bondi Beach last year, national cabinet agreed to take steps to eradicate antisemitism, hate, violence and terrorism.
In addition to the drafting of laws designed to limit hate speech, the government was determined to tighten Australia’s gun laws.
Among the measures was a national gun buyback. But months on from the tragedy, there’s been little movement on implementing it. Indeed, some states have pushed back against the idea.
Here’s what’s been achieved so far, and what’s still left to do.
Surplus to requirements
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said the scheme will target surplus and some types of newly restricted firearms.
The term “surplus” is instructive. It’s alleged the Bondi shooter, who died at the hands of police snipers, legally owned six firearms.
He and his son (now before the courts charged with 15 counts of murder) would not legally have had access to this number of firearms if these new laws had been in place prior to the attack.
The firearms bill passed both the House of Representatives and Senate at special sittings on January 20. The act commenced two days later.
Read more: Why can someone in suburban Sydney own 6 guns legally? New laws might change that
30 years of gun reform
This legislation brought in the most significant changes to Australia’s gun laws since the reforms that followed the Port Arthur massacre of April 28 1996. Today marks its 30th anniversary.
Before this tragedy, Australia’s eight states and territories had widely divergent gun laws.
Prime Minister John Howard had been elected only six weeks before the Tasmanian horror unfolded. He immediately set in train gun control measures that no previous government, conservative or progressive, would ever have thought possible.
A National Firearms Agreement was brought in.
Furthermore, a compensatory buyback scheme was implemented. Gun owners surrendered more than 650,000 firearms at a cost of around $367 million in compensation.
The National Firearms Agreement, which later included a 2002 National Handgun Agreement, was reconfirmed by all jurisdictions in 2017. In December 2023 a National Firearms Register was brought into being.
A decade after the massacre, data assembled by the National Homicide Monitoring Program, managed by the Australian Institute of Criminology, suggested the share of murders committed with firearms in Australia dropped sharply after the gun reductions.
What have the states done?
The political imperative to keep guns out of the hands of those who do not need them continues today with bipartisan support. But there are serious hiccups with the latest proposals set in train by the new legislation.
The prime minister set an April 1 deadline for state and territory leaders to agree to a plan for the reforms to take effect in July this year.
But as it stands, half of the states and territories oppose the plans. Queensland, the Northern Territory and South Australia have not signed up. While Victoria has agreed in general terms to participate in a buyback, other legislative details are yet to be settled.
Some progress has been made. New South Wales has introduced legislation to limit individuals to a maximum of four firearms, with exceptions for primary producers.
The ACT is implementing a five gun limit for standard licence holders.
Western Australia passed its own reformed firearms act in 2025, limiting the number of firearms an individual can own, and implementing a voluntary buyback scheme that concluded in January.
Tasmania is partially on board with the proposals, with its buyback scheme offering one and a half times the market value for surrendered weapons. But it has no intention of capping the total number of guns a person can own.
Last month, the Queensland parliament enacted legislation that bans non-citizens from obtaining new gun licences. It increases penalties for drive-by shootings and 3D-printed weapon manufacturing. But it stopped short of joining a buyback scheme.
Fixing the hodge-podge
So why has there been only a lukewarm uptake? There are two key reasons.
The first is funding. Buybacks are expensive (estimates for this proposed buyback range wildly from $1 billion to $15 billion). At this stage the federal government is only offering a 50-50 split with the states and territories.
NT Chief Minister Lia Finocciaro maintains the Commonwealth should foot the entire bill, as it did in 1996. Tasmania agrees.
The second is that the uncommitted jurisdictions are not satisfied that they need to extend their current rules.
South Australia’s Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas late in February responded to concerns from the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia, who had complained to him that the new laws went too far:
I can advise that the South Australian government currently has no plans to amend firearm laws. South Australia already has some of the strictest and most comprehensive firearms laws in the country.
The Victorian government has appointed former Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Ken Lay to lead a review of the state’s firearm laws. He has yet to report back, but is expected to make recommendations regarding the numbers of guns that can be owned by an individual, and how firearms are to be classified. The government will also need to settle how the buyback scheme will be funded.
So we currently have a hodgepodge of outcomes. Federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland continues to mount the case for a consensus. “The key word here is ‘national’. It does have that national context,” she asserts.
But it is now well past April 1. The attorney-general will need to employ her best bargaining skills to negotiate this imbroglio such that the nation can satisfy the requirements of the legislation. It’s not going to be easy.
Rick Sarre is a subbranch president in the SA Labor Party.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
