Australia's lower house of parliament has passed tougher gun control legislation in response to last year's mass shooting in Bondi, reinforcing the country's already stringent firearms regulations and demonstrating continued political consensus on gun policy three decades after landmark reforms.
The legislation introduces additional restrictions on firearm access and strengthens background check procedures following the April 2025 attack at Bondi Junction shopping center that killed six people and injured dozens.
The bill now moves to the Senate, where passage is considered likely given bipartisan support for the measures. If enacted, the legislation would represent the most significant tightening of Australian gun laws since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre prompted sweeping reforms that fundamentally transformed the country's relationship with firearms.
The swift legislative response stands in stark contrast to gun policy debates in other nations, reflecting Australia's distinctive political consensus that emerged from the Port Arthur tragedy, when a gunman killed 35 people at a Tasmanian tourist site.
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. The 1996 reforms, implemented by conservative Prime Minister John Howard following Port Arthur, introduced a mandatory gun buyback program that removed approximately 650,000 firearms from circulation, banned semi-automatic and automatic weapons, and established a licensing system requiring legitimate reasons for firearm ownership.
Those measures effectively ended mass shootings in Australia for decades. The Bondi Junction attack, while devastating, involved a knife rather than firearms—the perpetrator used a blade to kill six people, a death toll that experts noted would likely have been significantly higher had the attacker possessed a gun.
However, the incident prompted renewed scrutiny of weapon access and mental health screening procedures. The new legislation addresses gaps identified during investigations into how the attacker, who had documented mental health issues, accessed weapons and moved freely in public spaces despite warning signs.
Specific provisions in the legislation include enhanced background checks incorporating mental health assessments, stricter storage requirements for licensed firearms, and expanded authority for police to confiscate weapons from individuals deemed to pose risks. The bill also creates additional reporting requirements for gun retailers and increases penalties for illegal firearm trafficking.
Gun rights advocates in Australia—a significantly smaller political constituency than in countries like the United States—raised concerns about privacy implications of expanded mental health screening and potential overreach in confiscation provisions. However, these objections have gained limited traction in parliament, where both major parties supported the legislation.
Public opinion polling consistently shows strong Australian support for strict gun control, with surveys indicating approximately 80% of Australians favor maintaining or strengthening current restrictions. This consensus reflects both the Port Arthur reforms' perceived success and cultural differences in attitudes toward firearm ownership compared to nations with stronger gun rights traditions.
The legislation's passage demonstrates how single catastrophic events can reshape national policy when political leadership acts decisively and public opinion supports fundamental change. The 1996 reforms created a new baseline for Australian gun policy that subsequent governments, regardless of political orientation, have maintained and incrementally strengthened.
International observers frequently cite Australia as a case study in comprehensive gun policy reform, though direct comparisons to other nations require acknowledging significant contextual differences, including Australia's island geography, lower baseline gun ownership rates, and distinctive political culture around firearms.
