The Australian state of New South Wales is fast-tracking new gun and protest laws in response to the recent Bondi Beach terror attack, drawing criticism from civil liberties groups and pro-gun advocates who argue the measures are an overreach. Premier Chris Minns has recalled parliament to debate changes aimed at enhancing community safety, but opponents warn they could undermine democratic freedoms.
In the wake of the December 14 mass shooting at Bondi Beach, which killed 15 people during a Hanukkah celebration, the NSW government is pushing for urgent legislative reforms. The attack, allegedly carried out by Sajid Akram and his son Naveed, who were inspired by Islamic State, has prompted a reevaluation of gun control and protest regulations. Premier Minns announced the recall of state parliament to fast-track laws that address both issues, citing the need to prevent further violence and promote social cohesion in Sydney.
On gun control, the proposed laws will impose a cap of four firearms per licence holder for most individuals, with exceptions allowing farmers and sport shooters to own up to ten. This move follows revelations that one of the Bondi gunmen had six registered weapons, highlighting gaps in existing regulations. Additionally, gun licence renewals will be required every two years instead of five, and there will be a review of the types of firearms available to the public.
Protest laws are also being tightened, with plans to ban the chant “globalise the intifada” and restrict demonstrations near places of worship. Police will gain expanded powers to remove face coverings from protesters suspected of any offence and to designate areas where protests are prohibited after a terrorist incident. These measures are intended to curb hate speech and intimidation, but critics argue they infringe on freedom of assembly and expression.
Premier Minns defends the proposals, stating that antisemitism often begins with slogans and escalates to violence, and that the laws are necessary to ensure a “summer of calm” in the community. He emphasizes that while the right to protest is a core Australian value, it should not include calls for violence or hiding identities to commit offences. The government argues that these changes are proportionate responses to the security threats exposed by the Bondi attack.
However, civil liberties groups and pro-gun advocates have raised strong objections. Timothy Roberts, president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, calls the laws an “affront to democracy” that damage the right to assemble, while Mark Banasiak from the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party says gun owners are being unfairly scapegoated. Critics contend that the laws overreach by conflating peaceful protest with terrorism and targeting law-abiding citizens instead of addressing underlying societal hate.
Community reactions are divided, with Jewish groups like the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies welcoming the crackdown on hate speech as a watershed moment. In contrast, pro-Palestinian organizations such as the Palestine Action Group condemn the measures as draconian and based on unfounded links to the Bondi attack. The debate reflects broader tensions in Australian society over security, freedom, and social cohesion in the aftermath of tragedy.
The fast-tracking of these laws sets the stage for intense parliamentary debates and potential legal challenges, with implications for Australia’s democratic fabric. As the country continues to mourn the Bondi victims, the government’s approach to balancing safety with civil liberties will be closely watched, highlighting the complex reality of gun control and protest rights in a nation grappling with terrorism and division.
