The gun debate in Australia has been dramatically brought back into focus with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and NSW Premier Chris Minns announcing on Sunday that they were in lockstep over a new national gun buyback scheme that is set to start on November 2.
Author
- Rick Sarre
Emeritus Professor in Law and Criminal Justice, Adelaide University
Other states have so far refused to join the scheme, or declined to sign on to it. But Minns was firm in his commitment, saying, as a “willing partner” he would take the issue to the next election if he needed to.
But just how meaningful is it?
While the press conference attracted some media attention, the joint announcement was simply a next step, indeed a limited one, in the transition to remove more guns from Australian households in the wake of the December 2025 Bondi terror attack.
The steps began with the passage of the Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026 , which came into force on January 22 2026. While the Australian government has power to legislate about import controls and intelligence sharing between gun licensing agencies, the states and territories hold most of the levers when it comes to everything else about firearms. To that end they have so far signed up to enforce the National Firearms Agreement by establishing the following:
- registers of all firearms
- shooter licensing rules based on a genuine reason for owning a firearm
- the types of guns that can be owned
- club membership requirements, storage laws, and limits on the number of firearms an individual can possess.
But within days of the Bondi attack, federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland insisted the aim was for a stronger and more uniform national approach, and one that was underpinned by a new gun buyback scheme with all states and territories in harmony with the national push. However, the attorney-general’s March 31 deadline for a state and territory consensus on the buyback scheme flew past without resolution.
The next impetus was the release on April 30 of the interim report of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. In this document, Commissioner Virginia Bell urged the Commonwealth, states and territories to prioritise the foreshadowed national gun buyback scheme and speed up the roll-out of the National Firearms Register.
Now, almost four months later, and with Minns in his corner, Albanese has stepped in to urge the rest of the country to get behind this component of gun law reform.
What does that plan look like?
The New South Wales scheme presents no surprises. The government flagged its gun possession limits (four guns for most people, with primary producers and sporting shooters limited to ten) some months ago.
But now some number crunching has been done. The buyback scheme will pay firearms owners with excess guns up to $1,000 for each weapon. That figure will rise up to $10,000 for those weapons that have a market value of more than $3,000. It is estimated the new measures may take 274,000 guns out of circulation . In terms of the cost, Minns simply said it would be ” hundreds of millions of dollars “. These dollars would be split 50-50 between NSW and federal governments.
Other states have been reluctant to join the scheme or outright refused. Only two are generally on board with NSW: WA and the ACT.
Western Australia
WA is supportive of a national scheme and has already implemented its own scheme . Senior Labor Minister John Carey declared, “there’s been 83,000 guns that have been bought back, so we’re way out front”. He also supports a national approach: “Obviously guns can move between borders, so we want to see all states embracing the same scheme.”
Australian Capital Territory
The ACT is happy with the national plans, implementing a five-gun limit for standard licence holders.
South Australia
SA believes it has already done the heavy lifting on this issue.
Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas has argued the federal approach goes too far .
I can advise that the South Australian government currently has no plans to amend firearm laws […] These laws are designed to protect the broader community while recognising that the overwhelming majority of firearm owners in South Australia are responsible, law-abiding citizens who comply with their obligations.
Tasmania
Tasmania has legislated a buyback scheme offering one and a half times the market value for surrendered weapons. But it has no intention of capping the total number of guns a person can own.
Queensland and the Northern Territory
These two jurisdictions remain implacably opposed to a national scheme. This year, the Queensland parliament took some useful steps on gun regulation. It enacted legislation that bans non-citizens from obtaining new gun licences. It increased penalties for drive-by shootings and 3D-printed weapon manufacturing. But buybacks are off the agenda.
The Northern Territory remains opposed, too. Chief Minister Lia Finocciaro could come on board but that would only happen if the Commonwealth footed the entire bill , as it did in the 1996 buyback (orchestrated by the Howard government post-Port Arthur.)
Victoria
New Premier Ben Carroll has stopped short of agreeing to anything. He said he would rely on advice from police “on whether it was necessary.”
After hearing the news of the Minns and Albanese plans on Sunday, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson immediately set out her party’s opposition to any buyback scheme, saying that it would be “crucifying” legal gun owners . She added that it was not the business of government to go after “law-abiding Australians who are trying to go about their business, like farmers who need their guns.”
Given One Nation is locked in a battle for seats in the Victorian state election in November, don’t expect too much more from Carroll on this subject any time soon.
The big question: will a new buyback scheme make a difference?
There is much evidence in the criminological literature that any increase in the number of firearms in the hands of citizens increases the risk of violent harm . There is also little doubt the Howard era reforms in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre made Australians safer .
But this latest attempt to tweak the National Firearms Agreement is a largely symbolic exercise. Whether or not it will bring about tangible outcomes is dependent upon this country’s ability to take seriously a broader gun regulation agenda that goes beyond simply reducing, to a somewhat limited extent, firearm numbers.
We also need a more considered national conversation about reducing gun ownership more broadly and dispelling the myth that possessing them is in some way a crime prevention tool.
And, because an approach that goes beyond NSW would involve a potentially eye-watering outlay of public money, even gun control advocates could be excused for questioning whether cajoling all states to join the scheme is the best use of the violence-prevention dollar.
