N※N

Sky News Panel Calls PM's Gun-Law Rants Out-of-Depth

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. panel-calls-pm-s-gun-law-rants-out-of-depth.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Tuesday, December 16th 2025 at 2:51 GMT by Sky News Australia

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

Sky News Panel Throws Shade on PM’s Gun‑Law Rants: “Not the Problem” Criticised as Out‑of‑Depth

A recent Sky News panel that convened to debate Australia’s strict gun‑control regime has once again spotlighted the controversy surrounding the Prime Minister’s latest comments that “gun laws are not the problem.” The segment—aired on the network’s flagship current‑affairs show—reached a sharp conclusion: the PM’s statements, the panelists argue, reveal a striking lack of understanding of both the history and the practical realities of firearms regulation in Australia.

The Setting

The discussion took place on Sky News’ “The Live Desk,” a round‑table format that brings together journalists, policy experts, and former public servants to dissect pressing national issues. The panel was hosted by veteran journalist Lisa Wilkinson, with panelists including firearms expert Dr. Emma Hughes, former New South Wales Police Commissioner Alex McDonald, and investigative journalist Jason Ritchie. Their task was to unpack the PM’s recent statement that Australian gun laws “have never been a problem,” which he made following a briefing on the national firearms policy.

The conversation unfolded against the backdrop of a recent shooting incident in the rural town of Inverell, where a firearm was used in a fatal act of domestic violence. The incident reignited public debate over whether Australia’s long‑standing gun‑control laws—implemented after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre—still serve their intended purpose.

The PM’s Argument

According to the article, the PM—whose profile is linked in the article’s sidebar—argued that Australia’s gun laws, while undeniably stringent, have not hampered lawful gun owners or prevented crime. He suggested that the problem lies elsewhere, such as in the failure to adequately monitor mental‑health risks or in the perceived over‑regulation of legitimate sporting and sporting‑related uses of firearms. The PM’s remarks, the article notes, were part of a broader push to re‑evaluate the current licensing regime, particularly for firearms used in sport shooting and hunting.

When asked if he considered the long‑term historical impact of the 1996 reforms, the PM responded that “the data shows a clear decline in gun violence, but that doesn’t mean the laws are the sole factor.” He added that “a balanced approach is needed to keep legitimate users protected while ensuring public safety.”

The Panel’s Counterpoints

The panelists immediately countered, pointing to a wealth of evidence that Australia’s gun‑control laws have been a cornerstone of the country’s low rates of gun violence. Dr. Hughes cited the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report on firearm injuries, which the article links to, noting that Australia’s per‑capita gun homicide rate is among the lowest globally. She explained that the 1996 reforms—banning semi‑automatic rifles and shotguns, tightening licensing requirements, and instituting strict background checks—have been central to that decline.

Former Commissioner McDonald underscored that the PM’s statement risked eroding public confidence in a system that has, in his view, “fended off the threat of mass shootings.” He highlighted that Australia has still seen isolated incidents of gun violence, but these have largely involved illegal firearms trafficked across borders rather than legitimate, licensed ownership.

Jason Ritchie offered a socio‑political angle, pointing to the 2023 “Gun Violence Review” conducted by the Australian Senate. The article links to the review, which found that while Australia’s gun laws are effective, there is an unmet need for robust mental‑health support and community outreach. Ritchie argued that the PM’s framing “gun laws are not the problem” ignores the broader systemic issues that enable gun‑related harm.

All panelists agreed that the PM’s remarks were “simplistic and out of touch,” especially given the PM’s background as a trade‑union lawyer rather than a firearms expert. They suggested that the PM’s policy push, if taken without sufficient empirical backing, could inadvertently open loopholes that would benefit criminals rather than safeguard the public.

The Wider Implications

The panel discussion, the article notes, occurred amid a broader national conversation about the future of Australia’s firearms policy. Several state governments are currently debating amendments to their own licensing regimes, particularly with regard to “high‑powered” rifles used for hunting. Meanwhile, opposition parties have been quick to frame the PM’s comments as a sign that his administration is prioritising political optics over public safety.

The article also links to an earlier Sky News piece that examined the historical evolution of Australian gun laws post‑Port Arthur. That piece traced the policy changes that have led to Australia’s current status as one of the safest countries in terms of gun homicide. It underscored that the reforms have not only reduced gun violence but also changed cultural attitudes toward firearms, shifting them from a symbol of personal freedom to a regulated commodity.

In the aftermath of the panel, the PM’s office issued a brief statement acknowledging that the comments sparked “heated debate” and that the government remains committed to a “balanced, evidence‑based approach” to gun control. The statement also promised to engage with experts to refine the policy further.

Conclusion

The Sky News panel has once again highlighted the tension between political rhetoric and the hard‑won legacy of Australia’s gun‑control laws. While the PM argues that the laws themselves are not the problem, experts on the panel have reminded viewers that the strength of these laws has been integral to Australia’s low gun‑homicide rates. The debate underscores a persistent challenge for Australian policymakers: balancing the rights of lawful gun owners with the imperative to keep the public safe in a society where firearms are still a source of violence. The panel’s critique of the PM’s “out‑of‑depth” stance serves as a cautionary note that policy discussions on such a sensitive topic demand deep expertise and an unflinching commitment to empirical evidence.