Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) party has released a new Firearms Policy, declaring it “stands with every licensed, law-abiding firearm owner in Australia”.
The party has long been openly pro-gun, but the national policy makes its support for gun owners explicitly clear, declaring it is “a proud champion of Australia’s responsible firearm owners and industry” and pledges to “defend the rights of law-abiding Australians to own, use and safely enjoy firearms as part of our nation’s way of life”.
Just to make its stance unequivocally clear, the One Nation states, in no uncertain terms, that it “opposes firearm reclassification, ownership caps, and government funded buyback schemes imposed by federal and state governments”.
The party also reaffirms its stance that licensed firearm users – including hunters, target shooters, primary producers and firearms businesses – deserve fair, practical laws and to be treated with respect by the government. PHON is not the only political party in Australia with an explicit pro-gun stance – the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, Katter’s Australian Party and the Libertarians are all openly pro-gun as well, and the Nationals have a track record of fighting for shooters, particularly in rural Australia.
PHON’s political messaging generally has been resonating with a wide cohort of Australians, not just firearms owners. The party won four Legislative Assembly seats in the recent South Australian election, with a further three expected in the Legislative Council when the results are officially declared on 4 May.
Pauline Hanson
Royce reflects a position that is often underrepresented in public discussion. Licensed firearm owners operate within a regulated system and, the vast majority, do so responsibly and with a strong emphasis on safety. Where policy settings or administrative processes become inconsistent or difficult to navigate, confidence in the system can be affected. The issue is not whether regulation exists, but how it is applied. Clear, practical, and consistently administered rules support both public safety and lawful participation. Maintaining that balance requires attention to competence in administration as much as to the framework itself.
Firearms policy is frequently debated in terms of restriction or expansion, but less attention is given to how systems function in practice. Licensing, compliance, and enforcement all depend on consistent processes and clear communication. Where those elements are lacking, both safety outcomes and public confidence can be undermined. Responsible ownership is supported not only by rules, but by systems that are predictable and workable. This places emphasis on administration as well as policy. The discussion benefits from recognising that effective regulation relies on both structure and execution.
There is also a broader point around respect and participation. Licensed firearm users include a wide range of people engaged in legitimate activities such as hunting, sport shooting, and land management. Their experience of the regulatory system influences how policy is received and followed. Where systems are seen as fair and proportionate, compliance is strengthened. Where they are not, tension can develop between intent and outcome. The issue is not simply one of rights or restrictions, but how policy settings align with practical use and responsible behaviour in the field.
Discussion around firearms policy often focuses on legislative settings, but the performance of the system in practice is equally important. Licensing delays, inconsistent interpretation of rules, and administrative variability can undermine confidence among lawful firearm owners. Regulation that is unclear or unevenly applied does not strengthen safety; it introduces uncertainty. Responsible ownership depends on a framework that is both robust and competently administered. Where that competence is lacking, the burden falls on those operating within the law. Effective policy is not only about setting rules, but ensuring those rules are applied consistently, transparently, and with practical understanding of real-world use.
Regulation alone does not determine outcomes. Consistent, competent administration is just as important. Where systems are unclear or unevenly applied, confidence is affected. Responsible firearm ownership relies on rules that are both practical and predictable in how they are implemented.
The Christchurch mosque shootings occurred on 15 March 2019.
The findings of the Royal Commission highlighted multiple failures in the firearms licensing process at the time. Referee checks were not properly carried out, including inadequate verification of suitability and failure to follow required procedures. The applicant interview was conducted, but not to a standard that would have identified risk. More broadly, the system relied heavily on trust and consistent application of process, which was not achieved in this case. There was no prior intelligence warning from domestic or international agencies. The issue was not the absence of a framework, but the failure to apply it rigorously and consistently in practice.
The licensing process in this case did not fail at a single point - it failed at multiple levels:
1. Referees were accepted who did not properly meet the intent of the system
2. A close family member was not interviewed in accordance with requirements
3. Referee verification was inadequate and not sufficiently tested
4. The applicant interview was conducted but lacked depth and critical assessment
5. Police relied heavily on self-presentation rather than independent verification
6. Vetting standards were applied inconsistently
7. Supervisory oversight of the licensing decision was insufficient
8. The system operated on a trust-based model that was not matched by robust checks
9. Relevant information that could have informed the decision was not identified or pursued
10. The applicant was ultimately granted a licence when, on proper application of the process, he should not have been
But contrary to some reports, there was no prior warning from Australian or other international authorities. The issue was not the absence of a system, but the failure to apply it properly.
When a system fails at every checkpoint, the problem is not the rules - it is the competence with which they are applied.
When will politicians realise legal firearm ownership by law abiding people has nothing to do with gun crimes.
The only reason nz had a gun buy back is because most NZ men have no balls. We all stand individually and murmur what we would do. When will and what will it take for nzers to realize as a collective we are stronger than 150 pollies worried about their polls.
Stand together, don’t break ranks and the voice of the people will be heard
How did Christchurch Mosque terrorist Australian Brenton Tarrant get a NZ fire arm licence when he was on Australia’s Watch List, had no proper referees and had clear inadequacies in his application?
Tarrant’s crime had nothing to do with the lawful, law obeying firearm owning public.
PM Ardern obviously thought it was related. How stupid.