In the wake of the recent Bondi terror attack, the Australian federal government is pushing ahead with a substantial gun buyback initiative, aiming to remove firearms from circulation at a staggering cost that could reach billions. However, significant opposition from Queensland and the Northern Territory threatens to undermine the programme’s effectiveness, as state leaders prioritise other pressing issues.
Federal Push for Gun Reform
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is set to convene a national cabinet meeting this Friday, primarily focused on health and disability funding, yet he will also seek to solidify the details of the proposed gun buyback. The initiative, which has been swiftly legislated following the Bondi incident, is projected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, with funding expected to be shared equally between the federal government and the states.
The passage of the laws last week marked a significant step in Australia’s gun reform efforts, described as the most robust since the measures implemented after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Currently, there are over four million registered firearms in the country, prompting a sense of urgency for a national response to gun violence.
State-Level Hesitation
Despite the federal government’s momentum, states are expressing hesitation. Queensland Premier David Crisafulli has outright rejected the buyback, insisting that his administration’s focus should remain on combating antisemitism and ensuring that only criminals have access to firearms. His stance reflects a broader sentiment among some leaders who argue that resources should be directed to tackle immediate social issues rather than funding a buyback.
In Tasmania, Police Minister Felix Ellis echoed similar concerns, revealing that the estimated costs could exceed $20 million for their state alone. He emphasised the need for evidence-based measures that genuinely enhance community safety, suggesting a cautious approach to the national buyback initiative.
South Australia’s Police Minister Blair Boyer stated his state supports the buyback in principle but stressed the importance of addressing costs and consulting with various stakeholders, including firearms owners and public safety advocates.
Northern Territory’s Demand for Full Funding
The Northern Territory, too, is standing firm against the proposed buyback. Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro has called for the federal government to fully fund the initiative without imposing new restrictions on the number of firearms individuals can own. Currently, there are 55,678 registered guns in the NT, and the chief minister’s resistance highlights the tensions between state and federal authority regarding gun control measures.
As the federal government aims to streamline the collection and destruction of surrendered firearms, the Australian Federal Police is expected to take the lead in the process. However, without the cooperation of key states, the programme risks becoming a hollow gesture rather than a substantive step towards reducing gun violence.
The Financial Burden of the Buyback
Concerns regarding the financial implications of the buyback are growing. Advocacy group Firearm Owners United has warned that the total cost could soar to $1.6 billion, or even $2 billion when including storage, transportation, and destruction of the firearms. They argue that if the buyback fails to offer compensation that reflects market values, it may lead to widespread dissatisfaction and mistrust among lawful gun owners.
The historical context of Australia’s previous buyback programme, initiated after the Port Arthur massacre, saw over 650,000 firearms removed at a cost of approximately $371 million—equating to around $770 million today. The scale of the current initiative suggests that the federal government is prepared for a considerable financial outlay in its bid to enhance public safety.
Why it Matters
The proposed gun buyback programme represents a critical juncture in Australia’s ongoing struggle with gun control and public safety. While the federal government is making strides towards reform, the resistance from state leaders indicates a complex landscape of priorities and concerns. As Australia grapples with the balance between individual rights and collective safety, the success of this initiative will largely depend on the collaboration between federal and state governments. The implications of these decisions will resonate deeply within communities, influencing the landscape of gun ownership and public security for years to come.
