We may actually agree with Albo on this — IF the government already has the answers

The start of a new year is an opportunity to pause, reflect, and recommit to better decision-making — particularly when responding to tragedy.

Field & Game Australia’s position following the Bondi attack has been consistent and measured:
We do NOT believe the failures that led to this tragedy were not failures of firearm law.

They were failures of:

• intelligence assessment and information-sharing
• follow-through and enforcement
• resourcing and coordination (both in intelligence agencies and police)
• and acting on warning signs under existing laws

On that basis, FGA does not argue that a Royal Commission is automatically required to identify the problem.

If the answers are already known, the response should reflect that

When the Prime Minister states that an “intelligence review” is sufficient, it carries an important implication:
that government already understands where the failure occurred.

If that is the case, then sound governance demands a response focused on:

• fixing identified intelligence and policing shortfalls
• strengthening systems that failed
• resourcing the agencies responsible
• and enforcing existing laws effectively

Instead, the initial response has centred on:

• new restrictions on licensed firearm owners, and
• proposals for expensive, complex buy-back schemes that remain unscoped and uncosted

This is where the disconnect lies.

Why the Royal Commission question keeps coming up

Calls for a Royal Commission tend to arise when governments appear unwilling to confront uncomfortable truths.

If the government genuinely believes the problem is already known, then it should:

• address the failures directly
• resource solutions appropriately
• and abandon measures that do not address the cause

Refusing a Royal Commission while simultaneously pursuing unrelated restrictions creates the opposite impression — that accountability is being avoided and attention redirected.

A measured, evidence-based position

Field & Game Australia is concerned by responses that prioritise speed over substance.
At the same time, we commend those jurisdictions that have taken a more careful, considered approach — pausing to assess evidence, consider causation, and design proportionate responses.

This is not about ideology.
It is about ensuring that policy actually improves public safety.

Conclusion

The New Year should be about learning from the past and doing better — not repeating mistakes or redirecting blame.

If the government already has the answers, then policy should follow those answers.
If it does not, then further investigation is warranted.

What cannot be justified is targeting law-abiding people to compensate for institutional failure.

Australians deserve governance that is calm, evidence-based, and accountable.