What NZ needs to watch as Australia reforms gun laws after the Bondi terror attack
- Written by The Conversation
The Bondi terror attack on Sunday has seen Australian federal, state and territory governments agree to the biggest overhaul of firearms regulations since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.
For New Zealanders, with memories of the horrific 2019 Christchurch terror attacks still vivid, and with domestic gun laws now being rewritten again, how Australia responds will be of intense interest.
Future terror attacks are always a possibility. The best jurisdictions can do is reduce their risk and scale, while balancing the liberties and freedoms central to liberal democracies.
As Canada did with its Mass Casualty Commission following a 2020 rampage in Nova Scotia, and New Zealand did with its 2020 Royal Commission into the Christchurch attacks, Australia may now hold a high level inquiry.
This should lead to further recommendations – particularly about security intelligence and the regulation of firearms. New Zealand will watch closely.
A gold-standard firearms regime
Aside from in the United States – where firearms are a right, not a privilege – there is a pattern to what follows a mass shooting.
Laws are reformed and, typically, the type of firearms used are either prohibited or highly regulated. This has been the case throughout the Commonwealth, in Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
The New Zealand government, to its credit, has not attempted to roll back restrictions on high-powered semi-automatic weapons in its rewrite of the Arms Act after Christchurch.
To date, Australia has been the gold-standard for firearms reform, producing many influential ideas other countries have been able to learn from.
Without the post-Port Arthur reforms, it has been estimated 16 more mass shootings may have occurred. But as Bondi has shown, the risk can never be reduced to zero.
Regulations and limits
Apart from restricting certain types of firearms used in mass shootings, jurisdictions such as New South Wales have required evidence of licence applicants having a “genuine reason” to possess firearms: specialised gun club memberships and mandatory attendance at club events.
The thinking is that greater self-regulation and identification of risk within those communities will promote an obligation to recognise and report any concerning signs of extremism. Quebec in Canada has similar requirements.
In New Zealand, however, such genuine reasons are not required to prove you are a “fit and proper” applicant. New Zealand only requires mandatory club membership for pistol shooters. There is no obligation to report concerning behaviour.
Given one of the the Bondi shooters was licensed and supposedly had to comply with the New South Wales rules, it will now be important to evaluate what happened and whether such protections are working.
While it is currently unknown what type of firearms were used in the Bondi attack, their legal status, modification and ammunition capacity will now all be examined.
All of these pieces of the puzzle now become important because the Bondi shooters apparently used multiple standard firearms to do so much damage, not semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines.
In New Zealand, a person can own up to 12 pistols, but there is no limit on how many other standard firearms a licensed person may possess, nor how much lawful ammunition they can have.
Australian regulators will probably look closely at the current limits in Western Australia, which stipulate a maximum of five firearms if someone possesses a hunting or recreational licence.
Reporting risk
Perhaps the biggest question from the Bondi tragedy is how someone could lawfully hold firearms in a household connected to an unlicensed person who had been previously examined by the spy agency ASIO.
The licencing process needs to consider risks beyond the individual applicant to those they are closely connected to (including if they have records of domestic violence, self-harm, organised crime or extremism).
Australian authorities will also be scrutinising the evidence to see if any flags were raised by medical and/or firearms licensing professionals. It is possible a review might recommend shorter relicensing periods, with greater involvement by medical and security officials.
General practitioners in Western Australia and Britain are now responsible for conducting physical and mental health assessments for anyone applying for or renewing a firearms licence.
There are limits to what risks GPs can foresee. But it is a reasonable requirement, especially for licence renewals by people possessing the highest-risk firearms.
At the moment in New Zealand, a health practitioner is only notified after a licence is issued. If they are concerned a person is unfit to use a firearm, they “may” contact the police.
This is a lower standard than for a driver’s licence, where a medical professional must report someone they consider unsafe to drive.
Ultimately, the onus is now on New Zealand to learn from the Bondi experience and any law changes Australia enacts in its aftermath. The victims of terrorism deserve no less.
