In the wake of the devastating Bondi Beach terror attack on December 14, 2025, which claimed 15 lives during a Hanukkah celebration and shocked the nation as the deadliest mass shooting since Port Arthur in 1996, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese moved swiftly to propose sweeping gun reforms. Central to his response was the announcement of the largest national gun buyback scheme in nearly three decades, aimed at removing surplus, newly banned, and illegal firearms from circulation.
The federal government pledged to split costs 50-50 with states and territories, while also pushing for caps on firearm ownership, tighter licensing rules, and restrictions on certain weapon types. Albanese emphasized that the attackers—a father and son inspired by Islamic State ideology—had legally obtained six firearms, arguing there was “no reason” for such an arsenal in suburban Sydney.
But the plan has hit fierce resistance, nowhere more forcefully than in Tasmania. Police Minister Felix Ellis has emerged as the most vocal critic, effectively throwing down the gauntlet at the Prime Minister with a clear ultimatum: “Fully fund it federally or forget it!”
Ellis’s stance crystallized after a tense national meeting of police ministers and attorneys-general in early January 2026. Speaking to media outlets including ABC Radio National and Sky News, he demanded that the Commonwealth bear the entire cost of the buyback, mirroring the fully federally funded 1996 scheme following Port Arthur. Tasmania’s government estimates the split model could cost the small state up to $20 million, excluding additional burdens like administration, enforcement, and potential compensation for affected businesses and owners.
“For small states like Tasmania, this can be really impactful in terms of the cost of delivering these programs,” Ellis told ABC. He stressed that while there is urgency to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands—prompting Tasmania’s support for a Royal Commission into the Bondi attack—reforms must be evidence-based, consultative, and fair. “We haven’t yet settled on a position on the buyback because really it’s putting the cart before the horse,” he added, calling for detailed information from Canberra and genuine input from communities.
Tasmania’s opposition is rooted in its unique demographics. The island state boasts the second-highest per capita gun ownership rate in Australia (0.27 guns per person, behind only the Northern Territory), with over 155,000–156,000 registered firearms held by a population of roughly 570,000. Many of these are owned by rural residents, farmers, and recreational hunters who rely on firearms as essential tools for pest control, livestock management, crop protection, and humane culling.
Groups like the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, including MP Carlo Di Falco, have rallied behind Ellis, arguing that rushed changes risk punishing law-abiding citizens without addressing root causes like radicalization or intelligence failures.
Farmers and rural advocates echo this sentiment. The National Farmers’ Federation and similar bodies have voiced skepticism in parliamentary inquiries, describing firearms as “essential tools” for food production and land management. In Tasmania, where agriculture and outdoor pursuits are lifelines for many communities, any cap on ownership or mandatory buyback could impose significant hardship without exemptions for legitimate users.
Ellis has insisted on “appropriate carve-outs” for farmers, sporting shooters, and other responsible owners, emphasizing consultation with affected groups. He has also highlighted Tasmania’s proactive steps, such as accelerating the national firearms register and passing laws like Reid’s Law in 2025 to enhance police powers against weapon misuse.
The pushback isn’t isolated to Tasmania. The Northern Territory outright rejected the co-funding model, with Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro pledging no territorial contribution. Queensland has refused even to discuss participation in early cabinet meetings, while multiple jurisdictions raised concerns about costs and lack of detail during national talks. This growing coalition of resistance has put Albanese’s ambitious reforms under intense pressure, as the federal government recalled parliament early in January 2026 to debate an omnibus bill combining gun measures with hate speech laws.
Critics, including the Tasmanian Greens, have slammed Ellis’s messaging as “appalling,” arguing Tasmania should lead on gun reform given its Port Arthur legacy. Yet Ellis and Attorney-General Guy Barnett maintain a “responsible and measured approach,” refusing to be “railroaded” by Canberra. The state backs some elements, like citizenship requirements for licenses, but demands evidence that broader restrictions enhance safety without undue burden.
As the debate intensifies, the stakes are high. Albanese has warned that non-participating states will answer to their constituents, framing the reforms as essential to prevent future tragedies where “terrorists had hatred in their minds but guns in their hands.” A national firearms register, ownership limits, and import controls remain on the table, with implementation targeted for mid-2026.
But with Tasmania’s defiant stand potentially inspiring others, the question looms: Could this tiny island state—where gun ownership is deeply tied to rural life—derail the federal dream of a post-Bondi gun control overhaul? Ellis’s gauntlet has been thrown, forcing a national showdown over funding, fairness, and federal-state relations.
The coming weeks will reveal whether consultation prevails or if Canberra’s urgency wins out. For now, Tasmania’s message is unmistakable: No blank check for change without real buy-in from those who live it every day.
