NSW’s mass gun buyback must be fair, tightly run and focused on real safety gains

NSW is preparing one of the biggest domestic gun buybacks in recent memory. Legislation passed earlier this year will begin in November and is expected to remove more than 250,000 firearms from the streets, with owners eligible for compensation of up to $10,000 per firearm. The scheme was born out of public horror after last December’s alleged terror attack at Bondi. That context makes the objective plain: to reduce immediate risks and reassure communities. But size and speed alone will not guarantee safety. A large-scale buyback involves multiple risks. Poorly designed incentives can leave the most dangerous weapons untouched while transferring public funds to legally compliant owners who pose no threat. An overly blunt program can also breed resentment among lawful gun owners, fuelling political backlash and undermining compliance — something already visible in public pushback from figures such as Pauline Hanson. The test for NSW’s program should be straightforward. First, target real risks: prioritise the types of firearms and storage failures tied to violent offending and terrorism, not a blanket removal of licensed long‑arm owners who follow the rules. Second, pair the buyback with enforcement and data improvements: better tracing, stricter storage checks, and resources for police intelligence aimed at organised or illicit supply channels. Third, make compensation transparent and proportionate. Paying up to $10,000 per firearm is reasonable for some categories, but the public must see rigorous valuation and clear rules so the program cannot be accused of rewarding hoarding. Equally important is governance. The scheme should publish clear criteria, timetables and independent audits so taxpayers can judge whether money spent translated into fewer illegal weapons and safer streets. The government should be ready to answer hard questions about cost-effectiveness and the risk of displacement — where prohibited guns are simply replaced by smuggled ones unless border and illicit-market controls are stepped up. Finally, community confidence matters. A buyback will affect not just gun owners and police but ordinary Australians who want to feel safer walking to school or shopping. That means outreach: plain-language information for rural and urban communities, a streamlined surrender process, and clear lines for concerns and complaints. A mass buyback after Bondi is politically and morally understandable. But the success of such a program will depend less on headlines about numbers surrendered and more on whether it measurably cuts harms, is run transparently, and is embedded in a broader strategy to cut illicit supply and improve policing. If those boxes are checked, NSW will have a program that does more than remove guns — it will restore a degree of public trust that recent violence has damaged.