Sydney: Australia’s much-heralded firearms control system, once held up as among the world’s strictest, has come under intense scrutiny following the deadly mass shooting at a Hanukkah celebration on Bondi Beach. The tragedy, which left at least 15 people dead, has prompted lawmakers, safety advocates and policy experts to question whether long-standing gaps and workarounds in gun legislation may have contributed to the ease with which the alleged attackers acquired weapons.
Gun policy specialists say that although the 1996 National Firearms Agreement introduced sweeping restrictions in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre including mandatory licensing, background checks and firearm registration decades of incremental changes and uneven implementation across states have weakened these protections.
Unlike many nations with centralized gun laws, Australia’s firearm regulations remain a patchwork of state-level rules negotiated under the National Firearms Agreement. While the core framework is designed to limit gun violence, critics argue that some states have relaxed critical safeguards. For example, New South Wales and other jurisdictions have abandoned the 28-day cooling-off period for subsequent firearm purchases a provision originally intended to allow for heightened scrutiny when license holders seek to add more guns.
Experts also point to what they describe as superficial background checks for many applicants. In several regions, individuals can qualify for a firearm licence by demonstrating membership in shooting clubs, even if they rarely engage in actual shooting or hunting activities. Gun control advocates say this creates an avenue to bypass thorough vetting.
The Bondi Beach attack further exposed another contentious issue: non-citizens can obtain Australian gun licences. One of the alleged gunmen, identified as legally owning six firearms despite being a non-citizen resident, has reignited calls for citizenship requirements for licence eligibility.
There is also growing support for imposing limits on the number of firearms a single individual can own. Currently, no national cap exists, and activists argue that such a rule would reduce the accumulation of weapons that can potentially fall into the wrong hands.
In response to the public outcry, Australia’s federal and state leaders have agreed to accelerate reforms to the existing firearms regime. Among the measures being considered are faster implementation of a national firearms register, enhanced use of criminal intelligence in licensing decisions, restrictions on high-capacity weapons and ammunition-holding equipment, and conditions requiring licence holders to be Australian citizens.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and other officials have described these proposals as necessary steps to close what they see as dangerous blind spots in the current system. However, some lawmakers and advocacy groups caution that reforms must balance public safety with the rights of lawful firearm owners, such as recreational shooters and farmers.
The debate over gun law reform in Australia now mirrors broader global discussions about how best to prevent extremist violence while respecting individual rights. Supporters of tough legislation argue that stronger, more consistent controls could prevent future tragedies and restore public confidence particularly among communities disproportionately affected by violence. Critics, however, warn against measures that could unfairly burden responsible gun owners without demonstrably improving safety outcomes.
As the nation mourns and policymakers prepare to reshape one of its defining public safety frameworks, Australia finds itself at a critical juncture: reassessing a system once viewed as nearly impervious, and determining how best to strengthen it in an evolving security landscape.