Australia Moves to Expand Gun Buyback in Wake of Bondi Beach Mass Shooting

Australia’s federal government has announced plans for a national gun buyback program, marking the country’s most significant firearms policy initiative since the sweeping reforms enacted after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. The proposal follows the mass shooting at Bondi Beach earlier this month that left 15 people dead and dozens injured, prompting renewed scrutiny of Australia’s gun laws and enforcement systems.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the initiative as a public safety measure aimed at reducing the number of firearms in circulation, while emphasizing continuity with Australia’s longstanding regulatory approach. The announcement comes amid a period of public mourning and heightened concern over security at large public gatherings.

The Bondi Beach shooting occurred on December 14 during a Hanukkah celebration near the waterfront, where a large crowd had gathered. Two gunmen opened fire, killing 15 people and wounding more than 40 others. One suspect was shot and killed by police at the scene. The second was taken into custody and later charged with terrorism-related offenses, as well as multiple counts of murder and attempted murder. Authorities have stated that the attack was motivated by extremist ideology and targeted the Jewish community.

In response, the federal government said the proposed buyback program would be jointly funded by Canberra and Australia’s states and territories. The plan would focus on firearms that are illegal, newly banned under proposed reforms, or deemed surplus to legitimate needs. Officials estimate that, if approved by Parliament, the program could result in the surrender and destruction of hundreds of thousands of weapons.

Australia’s current firearms framework is rooted in the National Firearms Agreement adopted in 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, where 35 people were killed. That agreement introduced uniform licensing standards, mandatory registration, and a large-scale buyback that removed more than 650,000 firearms from civilian ownership. The reforms are widely credited with sharply reducing mass shootings in the decades that followed.

Government officials have argued that the new proposal builds on that legacy while responding to contemporary realities. Although Australia continues to experience relatively low levels of gun violence compared with many countries, firearm ownership has steadily increased. Authorities estimate that more than four million firearms are now legally registered nationwide.

The Bondi case has raised particular concerns because one of the attackers was reported to have legally owned multiple firearms under existing licensing rules. That detail has fueled questions about whether current safeguards adequately assess risk or account for changes in individual circumstances over time.

Alongside the buyback, Australia’s National Cabinet — which brings together federal, state, and territory leaders — has agreed to explore additional reforms. These include accelerating the development of a national firearms register, tightening licensing criteria, and considering limits on the number of guns an individual may own. Some proposals would also restrict firearm licenses to Australian citizens, though details remain under discussion.

At the state level, New South Wales Premier Chris Minns has signaled support for more stringent measures. Proposed changes include reducing the number of firearms permitted per license, revisiting firearm classifications, and modifying the appeals process for license denials. State officials have framed these steps as part of a broader reassessment of whether existing systems are equipped to handle evolving security threats.

Public reaction has been broadly supportive, particularly among communities directly affected by the attack. Vigils and memorials have drawn large crowds, and the government has designated a national day of reflection to honor the victims. At the same time, some voices have urged caution, warning against assuming that further gun restrictions alone can prevent ideologically driven violence.

Former Prime Minister John Howard, who led the 1996 reforms, has cautioned that policy responses should not lose sight of the role of extremism, antisemitism, and intelligence failures. Other critics have argued that law enforcement coordination and early intervention may be as important as regulatory changes in preventing future attacks.

These debates reflect a familiar tension in democratic societies: balancing public safety with proportional regulation and individual rights. Australia’s experience over the past three decades suggests that strong institutions and consistent enforcement can reduce risk, but they do not eliminate it entirely.

As the proposed legislation moves toward parliamentary debate, the government has emphasized consultation and evidence-based policymaking. Whether the expanded buyback and associated reforms achieve broad political consensus will shape Australia’s response to one of its most serious acts of mass violence in recent years. The challenge ahead will be to act decisively while maintaining the stability and public trust that have long underpinned the country’s approach to gun policy.

‍