---

Australia’s push for tighter gun laws after the Bondi attack exposes deep political divides, testing long-standing consensus forged after the Port Arthur massacre.

---

A Nation Confronts a Changed Political Reality

Nearly 30 years ago, a single act of mass violence reshaped Australia’s relationship with guns. After 35 people were murdered in Tasmania in 1996, political leaders moved swiftly and together, delivering some of the toughest firearm laws in the Western world. That moment of unity now feels distant.

Following the killing of 15 people at a Jewish festival near Bondi Beach, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has called for another tightening of gun laws. This time, however, the response has been fractured, exposing a more polarized Australia, one where populist politics, debates over antisemitism, and questions of national security collide.

From Port Arthur to Bondi

Australia’s modern gun control framework was forged in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, when then–Prime Minister John Howard led bipartisan reforms that included mandatory licensing, bans on certain weapons, and a nationwide gun buyback. The changes dramatically reduced mass shootings and became an international reference point for firearm regulation.

The Bondi attack, which authorities say was inspired by Islamic State ideology, has reopened the gun control debate under very different political conditions. The victims were attending a Hanukkah celebration, adding an antisemitic dimension absent from the 1996 tragedy and complicating the national conversation.

Political scientist Simon Jackman of the University of Sydney notes that Albanese is not benefiting from the kind of unity seen in the past. Instead of a collective response, he says the prime minister is facing widespread frustration and distrust, reflecting a broader shift in Australia’s political culture.

Albanese Pushes for Sweeping Reforms

In the days following the attack, Albanese outlined a package of proposed firearm reforms aimed at closing what the government sees as dangerous loopholes in the current system. Among the measures under consideration are limits on the number and type of guns an individual can own, the creation of a national firearms register, and tougher background checks that incorporate intelligence data.

The government also wants firearm licenses to be reviewed periodically rather than treated as near-permanent approvals. Another proposal would restrict gun ownership to Australian citizens, tightening eligibility criteria nationwide.

Perhaps most significantly, Albanese confirmed plans for a government buyback of surplus and newly prohibited weapons, an initiative he believes could remove hundreds of thousands of firearms from circulation.

The proposals were prompted in part by revelations about the attacker, Sajid Akram, who was shot dead by police. Officials say Akram legally owned six firearms and had obtained a gun license in 2023. This occurred despite intelligence scrutiny of his son, Naveed Akram, several years earlier over alleged links to individuals convicted of terrorism-related offences.

The case has highlighted weaknesses in how agencies share information during licensing assessments, gaps the government now wants to eliminate.

A Divided Response

While Australia has never enshrined gun ownership as a constitutional right, resistance to reform has grown louder. Jackman points out that Australians have historically accepted the state’s authority to regulate firearms. What’s new, he says, is the adoption of arguments more commonly heard in U.S. gun debates, including claims that “guns aren’t the problem people are.”

Those lines are now being amplified by right-wing populist parties, particularly One Nation. Party founder Pauline Hanson has flatly rejected further restrictions, arguing that the focus should be on individuals rather than weapons. One Nation, which holds four seats in the Senate, has surged in recent opinion polls, largely drawing support from voters disillusioned with the mainstream conservative coalition.

Hanson recently visited Bondi alongside Barnaby Joyce, a former National Party figure who has defected to One Nation, signaling the party’s intent to make gun laws a defining political battleground.

Within the Liberal-National opposition, the response has been uneven. Liberal leader Sussan Ley has said tighter gun laws should at least be considered, though she has stopped short of endorsing specific reforms. Instead, she has emphasized the need to confront antisemitism more forcefully.

National Party figures, however, have shown little appetite for change. Senate leader Bridget McKenzie has argued that the attack should be treated as a terrorism issue, not a justification for punishing lawful gun owners. Other conservative lawmakers have echoed concerns that farmers and sporting shooters could be unfairly targeted.

Rural Anxiety Over Gun Access

The debate has struck a nerve in regional Australia, where firearms are commonly used for pest control and farm management. On ABC Radio’s Country Hour, callers have expressed anxiety about how far the reforms might go.

Grant Roberts, who manages a vast cattle property in outback New South Wales, says guns are a practical necessity, not a political statement. He keeps three firearms securely stored to deal with feral animals that threaten livestock.

His question reflects a broader concern in rural communities: whether urban-driven reforms will adequately account for life beyond the cities.

Politics, Polls, and the Road Ahead

The fallout from Bondi extends beyond firearms policy. Since the attack, Albanese has faced criticism from some Jewish leaders and conservative commentators who argue his government has not moved decisively enough against rising antisemitism. The prime minister has defended his record while announcing new measures to address hate speech, insisting that gun control and confronting extremist ideology are not mutually exclusive goals.

Former Prime Minister John Howard has urged caution, warning against allowing firearms policy to distract from tackling antisemitism. Albanese, however, has made clear that his government intends to address both the motive behind the attack and the means used to carry it out.

Public opinion appears to be on the government’s side. A January poll by the Australia Institute found nearly two-thirds of Australians support tougher gun laws, with opposition strongest among One Nation voters.

Internationally, the debate is being watched closely. In the United States, where Australia’s gun laws are often cited by reform advocates, political reactions have split along familiar lines. While some U.S. leaders framed the Bondi attack as part of a global struggle against terrorism, others argued it showed gun restrictions are ineffective.

A Test of Leadership in a Polarized Era

Australia’s response to the Bondi attack marks a turning point. The instinctive unity that followed Port Arthur has been replaced by a contested, highly charged political environment shaped by populism, identity politics, and global ideological currents.

For Albanese, the challenge is twofold: to restore public confidence in the integrity of gun licensing systems while navigating a fragmented parliament and an emboldened populist right. Whether his proposals succeed or stall, the debate itself underscores a deeper shift, one in which long-settled policy questions are no longer immune to polarization.

As Australia grapples with grief, security, and social cohesion, the outcome of this fight may shape not only gun laws, but the country’s political landscape for years to come.

 

(Disclaimer:  This article is intended for informational purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and reliability, readers are advised to consult official statements, primary sources, and authoritative reporting for confirmation and updates. The views and perspectives attributed to individuals or organizations reflect publicly available information at the time of publication.)

 

ALSO READ:  The Signal That Repeats Every Century With Alarming Precision