Following the mass shooting that occurred during a Hanukkah celebration, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese unveiled a national gun buyback initiative and put forward new hate speech legislation.
Though the legislation hasn’t been written yet, it’s already sparking debate amid concerns that the laws could be used as political tools. Critics have also argued that neither the gun buyback nor the hate speech rules address the underlying causes of the terror attack.
“It’s a bit challenging for them to actually strengthen the laws. It’s unclear what exactly they’re proposing,” Dr. Reuben Kirkham, a director at the Free Speech Union of Australia, told Digital. “They’ll likely try to expand the laws to cover a range of things that aren’t necessarily related to hate speech.”
On Friday, Albanese told reporters the government was striving to “get the laws right” and recognized the issue’s complexity. He noted, “Free speech is also a factor here — we want to ensure these laws aren’t passed only to be struck down later.”
The proposed changes would create federal charges for “aggravated hate speech,” targeting preachers who incite violence and engage in “serious racial vilification,” reported. The outlet pointed out that just 10 months prior, the government had tightened federal hate speech laws to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia.
At the same time, New South Wales (NSW) — the state where the terror attack happened — is moving to ban the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which many view as an antisemitic call for violence against Jews. The ban would also cover public displays of ISIS flags and other extremist symbols.
NSW Premier Chris Minns added that, under the ban, police would get expanded authority to require protesters to remove face coverings during demonstrations, according to .
Kirkham told Digital that current anti-vilification laws have already been used to silence speech critical of the government. He thinks that strengthening these laws after the Bondi Beach shooting would turn them into political weapons instead of protections for ordinary citizens. Kirkham also described this as the government using the attack to push through laws aligned with its own agenda.
Kirkham further contends that Albanese’s proposal might actually worsen antisemitism instead of eliminating it.
“They’re essentially saying, ‘We need more censorship laws — and why? To protect Jewish people, apparently.’ So they’re telling these communities, ‘We’re censoring you to safeguard Jews.’ How do they think that will be received? Will that reduce antisemitism, or make it worse?”
While the Australian government has centered its response on hate speech and gun laws, critics like Kirkham say the Bondi Beach attack exposed intelligence shortcomings.
On Friday, Albanese stated that intelligence showed the Bondi Beach attack was actually .
“We’ve been told the Office of National Intelligence found a consistent online video feed from ISIS that confirms this was an ISIS-inspired attack. Security agencies have done more work on the attackers’ motivation, and we’ll keep meeting with them and offering any support they need during this tough period,” Albanese .
Digital contacted Albanese’s office for a comment.
Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Digital that Western governments have repeatedly failed to address the root causes of attacks driven by Islamic extremism.
“The issue is there’s this that covers everything from political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood to Hamas, Palestinian terrorist groups, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State — and since 9/11, we in the West have refused to confront it,” Roggio said. “We don’t want to acknowledge that there’s a real problem within Islam — not with Islam itself, but within certain parts of it.”
As authorities probe the shooting, a key focus has been the father-son gunmen’s trip to the Philippines shortly before the Bondi Beach attack.
The GV Hotel in Davao City reported that the men booked their room via a third party, originally set to arrive on Nov. 15 but showing up on Nov. 1 instead, . A hotel employee told Reuters the pair reserved the room for seven days but extended their stay three times and paid with cash. The worker added that the men rarely interacted with staff and had no visitors.
Philippine National Police Brig. Gen. Leon Victor Rosete, director of the Davao region’s police, told that the older gunman had an interest in firearms. He also mentioned the gunmen’s “jog walk” captured on CCTV, noting the two seemed to be doing “physical conditioning” exercises.
“The father showed interest in firearms — he went into a gun shop,” Rosete told the Guardian. He later clarified that the pair did not visit any shooting ranges in Davao.
Davao City is on the island of Mindanao, which has had a “Level 3: Reconsider Travel” advisory since May. But noted that Davao City, along with a handful of other areas, is exempt from the advisory.
Roggio told Digital that Mindanao is a “known hotbed for Islamist groups.”
“Even if they weren’t at actual training camps, they might have gotten advice on how to plan the attack, where to carry it out, and what target to choose,” Roggio told Digital. He added that the pair could have undergone further “indoctrination” while in the Philippines.
“Three weeks or more isn’t enough to become a highly skilled two-person fire team, but they definitely got enough training to pull this off,” Roggio said.
As authorities work to unravel how and why the Bondi Beach attack happened, the debate over the government’s response persists — with critics warning that a superficial fix won’t tackle the underlying issue.