Australia is facing a moment of deep moral testing. The Bondi terror attack was horrifying and heartbreaking, leaving 15 innocent people dead and an entire nation shaken. But the response from the New South Wales government has gone far beyond addressing terrorism. Instead, it has moved into a sweeping reshaping of civil liberties. New laws now tighten gun ownership, expand police power, and give authorities the ability to restrict public protests for months at a time. What should have been a moment to stand strong in defense of freedom has instead become a moment where fear is rewriting what it means to live in a free society.
Benjamin Franklin once warned that “those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Today, that warning feels painfully relevant. New South Wales appears to be trading liberty for security, and doing so with alarming speed.
What Happened at Bondi
The new laws arise from the mass shooting at Bondi, described as the worst terrorism event in the state’s history. During a Jewish Hanukah celebration, a father and son allegedly opened fire. The accused gunmen were 24-year-old Naveed Akram and his father, Sajid Akram. Naveed had previously drawn the attention of Australian security services. The result of their actions was devastating: fifteen lives lost, terror across Sydney, and a society suddenly thrust into fear and political panic.
The New South Wales government reacted by rushing broad, powerful laws into place in what critics warn is a dangerous expansion of state authority.
A Crackdown on Guns That Punishes the Law-Abiding
Gun ownership laws in New South Wales have now changed dramatically. The government passed a sweeping omnibus bill in parliament after a marathon debate. The bill restricts most firearm owners to four guns, while farmers and professional shooters can own up to ten. Licences must now be renewed every two years, appeals against police refusals will be much harder, and rapid-fire style firearms similar to those allegedly used in the attack are banned. Gun owners must also be citizens.
Critics argue that these laws unfairly punish lawful owners rather than addressing terrorism failures. Mark Banasiak from the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party said he spoke for “260,000 law-abiding firearm owners in this state.” He declared, “Licensed firearm owners did not radicalise the alleged offenders.” He accused the government of ignoring warnings before the attack and then scapegoating responsible citizens, saying those owners “are already the most regulated citizens in this state.”
Even within government there were concerns. Some Nationals warned the laws would harm farmers who rely on firearms as tools. Others said the rushed process was irresponsible. Yet the bill passed with both Labor and Liberal support.
Crushing the Right to Protest
As severe as the gun restrictions are, the assault on freedom of assembly may be even worse. Under the new laws, the police commissioner has the authority to impose protest bans for 14 days at a time and extend them for up to three months following a terrorism determination. This is not theoretical. Police commissioner Mal Lanyon has already declared a 14 day restriction across major Sydney regions and made clear it can be extended.
Premier Chris Minns made his support clear, saying, “I am grateful that he has done it, it was his decision, and I back it 100 percent.” He also claimed, “We just cannot have a situation at the moment where mass protests rip apart our social cohesion.” Minns insisted the laws are “only in place under very strict conditions,” but opponents are not convinced. The police minister must approve bans, but the commissioner holds extraordinary power. This shifts control of fundamental democratic behavior from citizens to law enforcement.
Civil liberties groups have called the laws “draconian” and warn they “infringe on the right to assembly.” Former supreme court judge Anthony Whealy warned that unity cannot be restored “through divisive actions.” He warned that even Jewish protesters angry about security failures would not be able to legally protest under these laws. That is the dangerous irony. These laws claim to protect social cohesion while denying the very freedom societies need to heal.
Even Labor members expressed fear about what has been done. Stephen Lawrence warned the laws would restrict Australia’s implied constitutional freedom of political communication. He noted that the standards used to justify these bans could “be satisfied by any large protest at any time.” Greens MP Jenny Leong stated bluntly, “A healthy democracy does not crack down on peaceful protest.”9
Who Holds Power Now
The power to silence public gatherings no longer sits with the people. It sits with the NSW police commissioner. It requires approval from the police minister, but not from the public. Premier Minns openly pushed for the powers to be used quickly. He insisted they are needed to stop hate speech and violence, saying, “Words can lead to actions.” He also argued, “We want to make sure we are in a position to keep the people of New South Wales safe.”
But others see this as a dangerous overreach. Indigenous communities fear their Invasion Day protests may fall victim to these laws. Protest groups are already preparing constitutional challenges. Even supporters of strong gun laws warned that combining gun restrictions with anti-protest powers in one omnibus bill forced legislators to accept an attack on civil liberties to achieve firearm reform.
Trading Freedom in Fear
Supporters claim safety must come first. But critics believe something precious is being destroyed. Peaceful protest is not disorder. It is a foundational civil liberty. Restricting it makes a society weaker, not stronger. It assumes citizens are threats rather than participants in democracy.
The Greens called the powers “dangerous and divisive.” Civil rights advocates warned that they will deepen distrust and fracture society further. Yet Premier Minns brushed aside concerns, insisting that objections are “overblown.” The government even warned that more legislation may be coming, including laws targeting protest chants.
No one denies that terrorism is real. No one dismisses the pain of victims. But in moments like this, leadership should defend freedom, not shrink it. Instead of strengthening unity while protecting rights, New South Wales is building a system where fear justifies the erosion of liberty and police power expands into democratic life.
Australia has long seen itself as a resilient, free society. But today it stands on a tragic edge. Franklin’s warning is not historical poetry. It is a lesson written for moments exactly like this. In the name of safety, New South Wales is giving away essential liberty. That is not courage. It is failure. And it is a failure that risks changing Australia in ways far more permanent than the terror attack that triggered it.
