Pauline Hanson has vowed to campaign against the Albanese and Minns governments’ massive gun buyback, accusing Labor of “crucifying” law-abiding firearm owners for a terrorist attack she says was fundamentally about extremist ideology rather than ordinary Australians legally possessing guns.
The One Nation leader has emerged as one of the most uncompromising political opponents of the post-Bondi firearms crackdown, arguing governments are directing their response towards licensed shooters instead of concentrating on the radicalisation that drove the attack.
“We’re actually crucifying those legal gun owners here,” Hanson told News24 on Sunday.
“It wasn’t the guns; it was the people behind the guns.”
Hanson also questioned why taxpayers should finance a buyback involving firearms that were lawfully acquired before governments changed the rules.
“Why should the taxpayer be paying for this as well?” she said.
Her intervention came as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and NSW Premier Chris Minns confirmed NSW would move ahead with the first major rollout of the new National Gun Buyback Scheme, beginning on November 2.
NSW expects about 274,000 firearms could ultimately be surrendered under the new ownership limits and classifications — roughly a quarter of the state’s registered firearms.
The scale guarantees the issue will extend far beyond gun policy.
It has become an argument about what governments believe caused the Bondi terrorist attack, which risks should receive priority and whether restricting weapons held by people who have committed no offence is an effective response to violent extremism.
Hanson’s answer is unequivocal.
“The whole issue was radical Islam,” she said.
She pointed to the alleged attackers’ extremist background and the explosives associated with the plot as evidence that focusing primarily on legally owned firearms misunderstands the threat.
That part of the argument rests on significant established facts about the attack.
The December 14, 2025 massacre at Bondi Beach was formally treated as terrorism by authorities. Investigators said early indications pointed to an attack inspired by Islamic State, while evidence subsequently released included alleged Islamic State allegiance and improvised explosive devices that failed to detonate.
The attack therefore cannot accurately be described simply as an ordinary mass shooting detached from extremist ideology.
But the presence of terrorism does not establish Hanson’s second proposition — that firearm regulation was irrelevant.
Firearms were central to how the attack was carried out.
That distinction now sits at the centre of the political fight.
Hanson argues ideology created the terrorists and that governments should therefore target radicalisation, extremists and security failures rather than licensed gun owners.
Labor argues the presence of extremist ideology does not remove the government’s responsibility to examine how attackers obtain weapons capable of inflicting mass casualties.
In other words, the two sides disagree less about whether terrorism mattered than about what governments should do because of it.
The Minns Government responded to Bondi with some of the most substantial changes to NSW firearms law in decades.
The reforms impose numerical limits on the firearms most licensed owners can possess, reclassify certain weapons, tighten licensing and acquisition requirements and shorten licence periods.
The often-described “four-gun cap” is not universal.
Recreational hunters and people licensed for vermin control are generally restricted to four firearms, while primary producers and several other categories can possess up to 10.
Sports and target shooters can generally hold up to 10, with provisions for another number to be approved by the Police Commissioner, while collectors and firearms dealers are treated differently.
Nevertheless, tens of thousands of licensed owners are expected to be affected.
About 50,000 people could be required to surrender firearms because their existing holdings exceed the new limits or include weapons affected by classification changes.
That is the group Hanson says is being unfairly punished.
The argument carries particular weight for One Nation because Hanson is herself a licensed firearm owner.
She has repeatedly presented gun ownership as a legitimate activity for farmers, sporting shooters, hunters and other Australians who comply with licensing and storage laws.
Her position is not that every Australian should have unrestricted access to firearms.
It is that governments should direct enforcement towards criminals, terrorists and dangerous individuals rather than retrospectively reducing the lawful holdings of people who have passed the existing licensing system.
That position puts One Nation well beyond the NSW Liberals in opposition to the reforms.
NSW Opposition Leader Kellie Sloane has also launched a blistering attack on the buyback, saying it is “absolute bulls**t” to suggest the program will stop another Bondi.
Sloane similarly argues that the “real enemy” is violent extremist terrorism rather than farmers and law-abiding sporting shooters.
But the NSW Liberals carry political baggage that Hanson does not.
The Liberals supported the emergency legislation passed after Bondi that introduced major elements of the tougher firearms framework, although Sloane also criticised the speed with which it was pushed through Parliament and the lack of consultation.
One Nation can therefore present itself to gun owners as the cleaner opponent of the entire crackdown.
Hanson reinforced that position over the weekend when she appeared alongside Barnaby Joyce at a firearms forum at Dubbo RSL.
She told the gathering she did not believe there should be a buyback at all.
Joyce asked why governments were buying rifles from people who had never committed a crime.
The political significance of that gathering should not be underestimated.
Regional NSW contains large numbers of people for whom firearms are not primarily associated with urban crime.
They are tools used for pest management and agriculture, equipment used in competitive shooting, or privately owned property held by people who have complied with a detailed licensing regime.
The government’s compensation schedule has made the consequences tangible.
Under Phase 1 of the NSW buyback, an eligible rimfire rifle will attract a fixed payment of $600 and a centrefire rifle $1,000.
A revolver will receive $1,000, a semi-automatic handgun $850, a double-barrel shotgun $850, a single-barrel shotgun $650 and an air rifle $450.
A second phase expected in early 2027 will establish a process for certain higher-value firearms with an indicative market value above $3,000, with compensation capped at $10,000 per firearm.
Firearms dealers will also receive assistance, including grants of up to $25,000 for eligible businesses.
That support is already facing criticism.
Dubbo dealer Marty Burke says his business has experienced a 90 per cent fall in sales over seven months and has described the maximum $25,000 assistance payment as a “slap in the face”.
His claimed sales decline relates to his individual business and should not be treated as evidence of an industry-wide 90 per cent collapse.
But the government itself recognises that the reforms are creating sufficient commercial disruption to justify a dedicated support package.
The broader cost of the buyback is another target for Hanson.
She has spoken of a price above $1 billion.
That figure should not presently be treated as the confirmed cost of the NSW program.
The final expense remains uncertain because it depends on the number and types of firearms surrendered, compensation paid, administrative expenses and participation by jurisdictions.
NSW and the Commonwealth have agreed to share costs associated with the state’s program, while several other jurisdictions have resisted joining Canberra’s scheme on the proposed terms.
The national response is therefore fragmented.
NSW is proceeding with the largest program, while other governments have either declined the Commonwealth proposal, pursued their own arrangements or remained in negotiations.
That fragmentation has strengthened the argument from Hanson and other opponents that there is no settled national consensus behind the latest buyback.
Albanese and Minns see the issue differently.
They point to the sheer number of firearms now circulating in Australia and argue that governments cannot ignore access to weapons following a mass-casualty terrorist attack involving legally held guns.
Australia has more registered firearms today than it did around the time of the 1996 Port Arthur reforms.
The federal government has also backed development of a national firearms register, intended to give authorities better information about firearms and ownership across jurisdictions.
For supporters of the buyback, the policy does not require accepting the proposition that licensed shooters caused Bondi.
The rationale is preventative.
Governments regulate dangerous objects not only because their present owners are criminals, but because authorities want to limit the possibility of weapons being accumulated, stolen, diverted or accessed by people who later become dangerous.
Hanson’s challenge to that reasoning is that Australia already has a licensing system designed to determine who can lawfully possess firearms.
If a licensed person has committed no crime, passed the required checks and stored their firearms legally, she argues the government should identify the dangerous individual rather than confiscate property from the compliant one.
Bondi makes that argument unusually difficult for both sides.
The attack combined precisely the two problems each camp wants to emphasise: extremist ideology and access to firearms.
Reducing it exclusively to either factor risks missing the other.
Investigators linked the alleged attackers to Islamic State-inspired extremism. The plot also involved improvised explosives that failed to detonate.
Those facts support Hanson’s contention that radicalisation and terrorism were fundamental to the attack.
But firearms were used to kill the victims.
That supports the government’s contention that weapons access cannot simply be excluded from the post-attack review.
The real policy dispute is therefore not whether Bondi involved terrorism or firearms.
It involved both.
The question is whether the government’s response is sufficiently targeted at the people who pose the danger.
That is where Hanson believes Labor has failed.
Her comments about “radical Islam” also fit a much broader One Nation campaign.
Hanson has spent recent months arguing for restrictions on migration from countries she associates with Islamic extremism, stronger measures against people linked to Islamic State and tougher national-security screening.
In July, she rejected accusations that her proposal to halt migration from what she calls “radical Islamic countries” amounted to a revival of the White Australia policy. ABC reported that Hanson insisted her position was based on security and ideology rather than race.
The Bondi attack has given that argument renewed political force.
For Hanson, the lesson is that Australia needs to become more aggressive about identifying extremists before they can act.
For Labor, preventing terrorism also requires reducing the tools available to turn extremist intent into mass casualties.
Those competing approaches will now be tested politically.
Minns has indicated he is prepared to fight the March 2027 NSW election over the firearms reforms.
One Nation is equally clear that it intends to campaign against them.
The Liberals are moving towards stronger opposition to the buyback while having to explain their support for much of the original post-Bondi legislation.
And firearms owners will begin experiencing the program directly when Phase 1 starts on November 2.
That timing gives the issue unusual electoral potency.
By the time NSW votes, affected owners will know how many firearms they have been required to surrender and what compensation they received.
Dealers will know whether the new business assistance has helped them survive the transition.
Taxpayers will have a clearer idea of the cost.
And the government will have to show what measurable public-safety benefit the program has delivered.
Hanson will meanwhile continue making a simpler argument.
She says licensed owners did not commit the Bondi attack and should not be made responsible for it.
The attackers, she argues, were driven by extremist ideology, and the presence of failed explosive devices demonstrates that removing guns alone cannot remove the terrorist threat.
Labor’s answer is that nobody is claiming a buyback can eliminate extremism on its own.
The government believes reducing firearms in circulation is one part of a broader security response.
That distinction matters because neither proposition automatically disproves the other.
Australia can confront violent extremism while regulating firearms more tightly. It can also scrutinise whether those regulations are sufficiently targeted, proportionate and effective.
The March election is increasingly likely to determine where NSW voters believe that balance should sit.
Hanson has already chosen her side.
She wants the focus shifted from the licensed firearm owner to the extremist behind the weapon — and she intends to campaign against a buyback that she says has those priorities exactly backwards.
