A national gun buyback is a commonsense response — but the policy must be fair and effective

Australia’s capital has signed up to the federal firearms buyback scheme, joining New South Wales in taking part after last year’s Bondi mass shooting. The decision is predictable in its politics: when a community reels from mass violence, governments respond with visible measures designed to reduce risk and reassure the public. That is understandable. Public safety is a basic expectation of government. But a buyback is not merely symbolic. It is a policy choice that will touch many ordinary people — licensed owners, renters worried about violent crime in their streets, and the families of victims seeking a safer future. For the measure to deserve public trust it must be carried out fairly, transparently and with an eye to real outcomes rather than optics. There are three core principles policy-makers should observe. First, fairness: the scheme must treat lawful gun owners equitably. Compensation arrangements need to be clear and reasonable so that people do not feel unfairly penalised for complying. Second, reach: a buyback will only reduce harms if it removes weapons likely to be used in serious crime. That requires careful design about which categories of firearms are included and practical enforcement to ensure surrendered weapons are permanently taken out of circulation. Third, evaluation: governments must commit up front to measuring whether the program reduces violent incidents and to publishing the results. A national approach matters because criminals and dangerous weapons do not respect jurisdictional borders. States and territories acting in isolation risk creating loopholes. That explains why seeing the capital join NSW is consequential: a coordinated response is more likely to increase the policy’s effectiveness. But coordination must also cover support services — policing resources to follow up on illegal markets, community outreach to encourage compliance, and mental-health and violence-prevention programs that address root causes. Public reaction to gun-control measures is often polarized, and governments will face criticism from those who see such steps as an attack on lawful ownership. That is why transparency — about costs, expected outcomes and the administration of the scheme — is essential. Ordinary Australians are more likely to back bold measures when they understand how the policy will improve safety and when they see safeguards for legitimate owners. Finally, a buyback should be one strand in a broader violence-prevention strategy. Removing firearms can save lives, but it will not solve entrenched problems like domestic violence, organised crime or mental-health crises on its own. Investment in prevention, victim support and targeted policing must accompany any national buyback if the aim is lasting reduction in harm. The decision to join the federal buyback sends a clear message: the government is prepared to act after a horrific attack. The task now is to make sure action is sensible, fair and capable of delivering the safer communities people expect.