Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Anthony Albanese cut a lonely political figure laying a small bunch of flowers at Bondi on Monday morning, as the question confronted the nation: could more have been done by leaders, and the community, to prevent this tragedy?

Opinions will differ, and what we learn about the alleged perpetrators will affect judgements. Despite this being an act of terrorism, on the evidence so far the father and son were not formally linked to a terrorist group.

But without doubt, the massacre is the horrific culmination of the antisemitism epidemic that has spread like a wildfire in Australia.

Most of us did not recognise the fact, but this anti-Jewish sentiment must have been embedded in sections of the Australian community – the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 was the spark that lit a conflagration.

The diversity among the people who’ve died can be seen in itself a sort of dreadful parable. They range from a ten-year-old child, Matilda, to an 87-year-old Holocaust survivor.

Many Australians will be asking, how did things come to this? Not least because it is not just this one almost-unthinkable atrocity. There have been so many earlier incidents, ranging from ugly graffiti to major arson attacks, including the firebombing of the Adass Israel synagogue in Melbourne. Australia saw more than 1,650 incidents in the year to September.

The prime minister and his government are experiencing a strong backlash, at home and from Israel, for what critics see as their inadequate approach in combating the crisis that has broken out over these past two years.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unleashed on Albanese, saying of the prime minister, “you replaced weakness with weakness and appeasement with more appeasement. Your government did nothing to stop the spread of antisemitism in Australia.”

Local Jewish leaders are harking back to earlier warnings that enough was not being done to protect their community.

Albanese has spoken the right words; the federal government has strengthened laws; an antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, was appointed. Segal produced a report months ago, but the government has not yet formally responded (although Albanese on Monday listed measures taken on various issues). Some of the Segal recommendations were very contested and the government didn’t seem to know what to do about them.

Over these years the government has conspicuously juggled the conflicting pulls and concerns of a multicultural community. It’s been very aware of Islamophobia, and mindful of the Muslim voters in Western Sydney. Its critics say this meant it did not put enough emphasis on the fears of, and threats to, the Jewish community.

For all the government’s rhetoric on antisemitism, something has often seemed missing. It has appeared behind where it needed to be. Albanese’s leadership has not been regarded as decisive and compelling as that of New South Wales Premier Chris Minns. Minns has certainly received more praise than Albanese for moral leadership on antisemitism. But none of that prevented this attack at an iconic site in Minns’ state.

The Albanese government’s controversial recognition of a state of Palestine and its forthright criticisms of Israel are viewed by many as reasonable foreign policy responses to the Middle East war; others believe they have stoked antisemitism locally. The failure by Foreign Minister Penny Wong to visit the sites of the 2023 atrocities when she went to Israel early last year was much criticised in the Jewish community.

So have been the pro-Palestine marches – starting with that big ugly display outside the Sydney Opera House in October 2023 that was badly handled. The marches in themselves have raised conflicting issues – the right to demonstrate versus the fuelling of community discord. The university encampments were another matter. Their presence on campuses was intimidating for Jewish students and staff.

The Bondi attack will put serious extra pressures on our fracturing social harmony, bringing new challenges for federal and state governments and community organisations.

It will make life more difficult for the Muslim community. Minns warned there would be no tolerance for any kind of retribution.

Bondi will bring a big shake up of our gun laws. National cabinet on Monday discussed their strengthening and commissioned extensive work. The present framework dates from the Howard government, set after the Port Arthur massacre. One of the gunmen at Bondi had a gun licence and half a dozen guns.

The massacre will feed into the political debate, including that about immigration and Australian values, especially given the opposition is about to release its immigration policy. The older alleged perpetrator came to Australia in the 1990s (from Pakistan, according to some reports).

ASIO’s chief Mike Burgess has repeatedly warned about the prospect of a terror attack, and especially the threat posed by lone wolves. ASIO has thwarted many threats, and the younger man was on its radar in 2019 because of his associates. ASIO did not see him as a current threat; the organisation will come under scrutiny in the inquiries that are conducted.

Albanese says, “We will do whatever is necessary to stamp out antisemitism”. That, of course, is overblown rhetoric. This scourge is not going to be dealt with, let alone eradicated, quickly, by any single measure, or sets of measures. It will need concerted and prolonged effort from both governments and civil society to at least bring it under control. Assuming it can be.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. View from The Hill: regardless of whether massacre was preventable, Albanese has been found wanting in meeting antisemitism crisis – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-regardless-of-whether-massacre-was-preventable-albanese-has-been-found-wanting-in-meeting-antisemitism-crisis-271950

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Federal, state and territory governments have agreed to the biggest overhaul of Australia’s gun laws since the Howard government’s post-Port Arthur reforms, in a response to the Bondi massacre that has claimed the lives of 15 victims so far and one of the alleged perpetrators.

After a late Monday afternoon meeting of national cabinet, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the leaders had commissioned police ministers and attorneys-general to develop options for extensive changes. These include:

• accelerating work on standing up the National Firearms Register

• allowing for additional use of criminal intelligence to underpin firearms
  licensing that can be used in administrative licensing regimes

• limiting the number of firearms to be held by any one individual

• limiting open-ended firearms licensing and the types of guns that are legal,
  including modifications and,

• a condition of a firearm license is holding Australian citizenship.

Albanese said, in a statement after national cabinet, leaders had agreed “that strong, decisive and focused action was needed on gun law reform as an immediate action”.

This included “renegotiating the National Firearms Agreement, first established after the 1996 Port Arthur tragedy, to ensure it remains as robust as possible in today’s changing security environment”.

As an immediate priority, the federal government will prepare further customs restrictions for the import of firearms and other weapons. This will include 3D printing, novel technology and firearms equipment that can hold large amounts of ammunition.

Before the national cabinet meeting Albanese said, “People’s circumstances change, people can be radicalised over a period of time. Licences should not be in perpetuity.”

New South Wales Premier Chris Minns earlier flagged that NSW was looking to make changes to its gun laws.

“We need to make sure the firearms legislation in New South Wales is fit for purpose. That does mean restricting firearms for the general public, for the people of New South Wales,” Minns said.

The shootings were allegedly carried out by a father and son. The father, Sajid Akram, 50, was killed, while his son, Naveed Akram, 24, is in hospital. The father, who came to Australia in 1998 on a student visa, had a gun licence and six weapons.

Names and details of victims emerged during the day. They included a 87-year-old Holocaust survivor, Alexander Kleytman, and a 10-year-old girl, Matilda. Other victims were Rabbi Eli Schlanger, 41, local Jewish volunteer Marika Pogany, 82, and former NSW police officer Peter Meagher, 78. French National Dan Elkayam and one Israeli national were also killed.

Late Monday NSW Health confirmed 27 patients were receiving care in Sydney hospitals.

In a day of crisis talks, federal cabinet also met, as well as its national security committee.

Albanese declared, “We will do whatever is necessary to stamp out antisemitisim”.

But pressed on the recommendations of the government’s envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, who reported some months ago, Albanese did not commit to implementing her more radical proposals

Segal on Monday reiterated antisemitism needed to be attacked “through education, through very clear guardrails in relation to what’s acceptable in terms of our laws, through carrying through with prosecutions and penalties, through what’s happening on social media and through community speaking out.

“It means bringing that definition of antisemitism alive through the public sector. It means making sure our immigration settings are appropriate at a state level. I think we obviously need to review gun licenses.”

The Bondi attack attracted attention around the world.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly attacked Albanese.

“Your government did nothing to stop the spread of antisemitism in Australia.

“You did nothing to curb the cancer cells that were growing inside your country. You took no action. You let the disease spread and the result is the horrific attacks on Jews we saw today.”

Netanyahu made special reference to Ahmed Al Ahmed who disarmed one of the gunmen: “a brave man, turns out a Muslim […] and I salute him”.

Local Jewish leaders condemned what they regard as inadequate past action against antisemitism and called for renewed efforts to combat it.

Josh Frydenberg, former Liberal treasurer in the Morrison government and a leader in the Jewish community said: “our governments, federal and state, our leadership in our civil institutions have not done enough.

“And the questions must be asked, why didn’t they act? Why didn’t they listen to the warnings, including from those who were heading up our intelligence and security agencies like ASIO, who said the rising antisemitism was their number one concern?” Frydenberg said.

The opposition was highly critical of the Albanese government.

Opposition leader Sussan Ley said, “We’ve seen a clear failure to keep Jewish Australians safe. We’ve seen a clear lack of leadership in keeping Jewish Australians safe. We have a government that sees antisemitism as a problem to be managed, not evil that needs to be eradicated.”

Former shadow home affairs spokesman Andrew Hastie claimed the government’s attention on gun reform was “a massive deflection” by the prime minister.

Hastie said the question was why when ASIO had identified Naveed Akram in 2019, his father been allowed to keep six guns.

“Let’s be clear here, it looks like radical militant Islam, who used guns to cut down people, innocent people, during a very significant religious festival, Hanukkah.” Hastie said.

He also stressed the need for screening people’s values as well as their views in relation to antisemitism.

“I want to see people coming to this country who speak English, who support Australian values of faith, reason, inquiry and debate […] we are a Judeo-Christian country, in the sense that that’s the basis on which our democracy works,” he told Sky.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. National cabinet agrees to sweeping overhaul of Australia’s gun laws in response to Bondi massacre – https://theconversation.com/national-cabinet-agrees-to-sweeping-overhaul-of-australias-gun-laws-in-response-to-bondi-massacre-271949

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Suzanna Fay, Associate Professor in Criminology, The University of Queensland

Australians have watched on in horror as more details have come to light about the shooters in the Bondi terror attacks.

As people grapple with the tragedy, many wonder how such a thing could have happened in a country that has long prided itself on its tough gun laws.

The 50-year-old father, Sajid Akram, and 24-year-old son, Naveed Akram, had six guns. Police confirmed all of them were registered firearms. The father, who was fatally shot by police, had a recreational hunting licence and was a member of a gun club.

National Cabinet has since committed to a raft of new gun laws, including renegotiating the National Firearms Agreement, caps on the amount of firearms any one person can own and limiting open-ended licensing.

So how easy is it to get a gun in Australia currently, and how might the reforms work?

The laws of gun ownership

Gun control laws vary slightly in each state and territory, but are broadly similar. We’ll look here at the laws in New South Wales.

The first step is to apply for a firearms licence. As part of this, authorities will conduct a background check to ensure there’s no criminal history, including mental health orders or domestic violence charges.

The applicant must also pass the “fit and proper person” test. NSW Police says this test checks someone is “of good character, law abiding, honest, and shows good judgement”.

If these standards are met, a firearms licence is granted.

But in order to actually buy a firearm, people must apply for a “permit to acquire”. This is linked to the specific firearm they’d like to purchase.

If it’s their first gun, there’s a 28 day waiting period before they can have it in their possession. Subsequent guns do not need a waiting period as long as it’s in the same category they already have approval to own.

They must also pass a safety course, with both practical and theoretical components, including a written test.

Firearms, once acquired, must be stored in a specific way. Guns cannot be stored while loaded, for instance, and ammunition must be kept in a separate safe.

Finally, someone must have a “genuine reason” to buy a firearm. These include working as a primary producer, or participating in recreational hunting, among others. They need to prove a genuine reason for each and every firearm purchase. Personal protection is not a a genuine reason.

Applicants need to prove their reason is truthful. This may be proof of membership to a gun club, or a letter with express permission from the landowner on whose property they intend to hunt.

Importantly, if someone holds a firearm licence for recreational purposes, they must compete in a certain amount of competitions each year. In NSW, it’s two to four.

What works well?

Many parts of Australian gun control laws work well.

The genuine reason provisions are particularly useful. By requiring people to engage with the firearm-owning community, it stops so called “lone-wolves” from buying a gun just to have.

My research with gun clubs has also shown members can be a crucial grassroots safety check. They typically look out for each other and check in if there’s a concerning shift in someone’s attitudes or beliefs.

If things seem particularly dangerous, many report fellow members to the police so they can investigate further. The gun owning community also want our communities to be safe.

It raises the question of how engaged the shooter in this case was with his local gun community.

What could change?

While the exact circumstances for these two shooters are still emerging, we know one of the men was known to ASIO (the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation). The guns were registered to the father.

National Cabinet has agreed to a list of measures, including speeding up work on a national firearms register and limiting gun licences to Australian citizens.

They will also move to cap the number of guns a person can own. Western Australia did this earlier this year. Recreational shooters in WA can have up to five firearms, while primary producers and competition shooters can have up to ten.

It’s not uncommon for people to have more than one firearm. Licensed firearm owners in NSW have an average of about four, according to a 2025 report.

While it’s reasonable to examine the working of our current gun control measures, it’s unclear how effective such a measure would be. In the case of the Bondi attack, we need more information about the sorts of guns that were used and how many were used.

Plus, under the current laws across the country, people can’t buy more guns just because they feel like it. They have to prove a genuine reason to own another one.

Read more:
Bondi Beach shooting: how it happened

What about reviewing licences?

National Cabinet also decided to limit open-ended firearm licensing.

As it stands, licences are usually not granted for life. Renewal periods differ depending on the jurisdiction, but in NSW most licences are issued for somewhere between two and five years. We don’t yet know if any changes would make these renewal periods more frequent.

But licensing mechanisms, like recent concerns over working with children checks in the childcare sector, only capture what we know has happened. Unless people have already fallen foul of the law, authorities won’t necessarily find any concerning behaviour.

Indeed, authorities have said the Bondi shooter who owned these firearms had “no incidents” with his licence. Renewing it more regularly may have unearthed something important, or it may not have. We don’t know enough about this incident yet to say if such a law change would have been useful here.

If reviews were made much more frequent, that would require a large-scale increase in police resources.

One change that might help would be to actively involve firearms dealers in these legal changes. They have the most contact with those purchasing guns and may have valuable intelligence about how their customers are behaving and thinking.

So while changes in the letter of the law may or may not help monitor firearms owners, we have to ensure it’s implemented effectively too. This means resourcing authorities properly, working closely with communities and making sure legal changes would actually tell us what we need to know to prevent deadly gun violence.

Suzanna Fay has received funding from the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia for a research project in 2018 and the University of Queensland.

– ref. Why can someone in suburban Sydney own 6 guns legally? New laws might change that – https://theconversation.com/why-can-someone-in-suburban-sydney-own-6-guns-legally-new-laws-might-change-that-272067

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rohan Best, Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, Macquarie University

Over the weekend the federal government announced major changes to its A$2.3 billion home battery subsidy program.

The changes include nearly A$5 billion in extra funding and adjustments to the financial support provided for different-sized batteries. They follow recent reporting by The Conversation that the program is subsidising unnecessarily large home batteries and blowing out in cost.

Announcing the changes, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen said:

We want more Aussie households to have access to batteries that are good for bills and good for the grid – because it means more cheap, fast, safe solar energy is available in our homes night or day, when and where it’s needed.

However, while the changes are a step in the right direction towards ensuring the program is fairer, many significant problems still exist.

More than 155,000 batteries

The A$2.3 billion Cheaper Home Batteries Program started in July this year. It has provided discounts of around 30% for the upfront cost of home batteries. The government estimated it would lead to one million batteries installed by 2030.

More than 155,000 homes and small businesses have benefited from the program in less than six months.

This success has some benefit for others too, as battery storage can put downward pressure on grid electricity prices.

However, as The Conversation reported last week, around a third of the budget allocation for the five-year program has been used up in five months.

Much of the cost has been funding oversized batteries.

The average battery system size installed under the program has been more than 22 kilowatt-hours.

In contrast, the government suggests 4–14kWh as typical for a regular Australian household.

A boost in funding

The changes to the Cheaper Home Batteries Program will kick in from May 1 next year.

The federal government will significantly boost funding for the program to A$7.2 billion, an increase from the A$2.3 billion originally allocated. This is expected to see more than two million Australians install a battery by 2030.

In other words, the government has nearly tripled the amount of cash but only doubled the total number of batteries they were planning to fund.

The subsidy is now set to decline at a faster pace. When the scheme ends in 2030, the subsidy will be less than half compared to the original plan.

Support for larger batteries will also be wound back to some extent.

Each kilowatt-hour between 14kWh and 28kWh will receive only 60% of the current subsidy rate.

This falls to 15% for the 28–50kWh range.

A step in the right direction

These changes are a step in the right direction.

They are likely to improve the overall fairness of the program, as it tends to be more wealthy households that can afford larger systems and receive larger subsidies. This will be scaled back after next April.

But a lot of the existing problems with the program still remain.

First, the program will likely continue to bring forward battery installations that would have happened anyway, as has happened in other contexts. This means governments end up paying mostly for investments that would have happened regardless.

This is a good reason to make the subsidies smaller – or, even more importantly, more targeted.

For example, they can be targeted based on household assets to ensure those who are less likely to buy a battery in the first place because of the financial cost will benefit. Research in solar contexts can inform this targeting.

There are also ways for the government to get more new information on household willingness to pay.

The fairness of the program could be improved further. More wealthy households are more likely to get a subsidy, and more likely to get a larger subsidy, as they have more purchasing power. The new program would still mean a 25kWh battery would receive around double the subsidy for a 10kWh battery.

Fairness is one benefit of smaller subsidies for larger batteries, as the subsidy for wealthy households who can afford larger batteries would be closer to the subsidy for others. There is also an issue of wealthier households with larger batteries benefiting more from selling more electricity in the wholesale market.

Smaller subsidies for larger batteries also reduce the incentive for installers to try to sell and report the biggest possible batteries.

For example, a lower subsidy rate is possible compared to the government’s plan for each kilowatt-hour of battery systems between 14kWh and 28kWh.

Uncertainty also exists about the impact of the faster pace of subsidy decline.

Households who need to wait a few years to afford a battery might be disadvantaged relative to those who can buy sooner.

While the faster pace of subsidy decline might be suitable if battery prices fall, evidence of prior price declines is mixed. This should motivate the government to more frequently re-evaluate the scheme.

Rohan Best previously received funding for projects for the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) and the New South Wales government.

– ref. Government boosts its home battery program by $5 billion. But it still has big problems – https://theconversation.com/government-boosts-its-home-battery-program-by-5-billion-but-it-still-has-big-problems-272053

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Terry Goldsworthy, Associate Professor in Criminal Justice and Criminology, Bond University

On Sunday evening, Bondi Beach was the scene of a mass shooting that has shocked Australia.

At the time of writing 16 people have been killed, including one of the gunmen, and another 40 people have been wounded.

The attack has been declared a terrorist act.

Many questions remain, including: how common are these types of attacks, did the police get their initial response right and what action needs to be taken to prevent another attack like this?

The initial response

At about 6.40pm, emergency services were notified of an active armed offender incident at Bondi Beach, near where a Jewish festival was taking place.

General duty and specialist police would have been confronted with a chaotic scene with multiple victims and a situation that was unpredictable and rapidly developing. Even with police present at the event, there would have been difficulties in identifying the threat and then engaging with it.

Police located two men using rifles and shotguns to shoot at nearby crowds. Multiple officers exchanged fire with the offenders and two police were shot and injured.

The attack was allegedly carried out by two gunmen, a father and son.

The 50-year-old father was shot dead by police at the scene. The son, 24, identified by police as Naveed Akram, was shot by authorities and is now under police guard at hospital.

Read more:
Bondi Beach shooting: how it happened

Active armed offenders

Any active armed offender situation is fluid. Even more so when the incident occurs in a public space with large numbers of people present.

The Australia-New Zealand Counter Terrorism Committee provides guidelines for responses to incidents such as the Bondi shootings.

The committee defines an active armed offender as:

An armed offender who is actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people, and who demonstrated their intention to continue to do so while having access to additional potential victims.

In broad terms, the response to active armed offenders is to prioritise the evacuation of people from danger.

Another priority is to limit the offenders’ freedom of movement and restrict their access to potential victims.

Video of the shooting shows the offenders being restricted to a footbridge by police converging from both sides of the structure.

One of the offenders had been disarmed by a member of the public before retreating to this position.

Read more:
Intervene or run and hide: what should you do during public violence like the attacks at Bondi?

The focus of the police would have been to minimise the duration of the incident, move people away from danger and then locate, isolate and neutralise the active armed offenders.

In 2014 the NSW Police updated their active armed offender responses in line with identified best practice in collaboration with university partners. The policy moved from a contain and negotiate focus to a more proactive, rapid and decisive engagement of the offender.

Mass shootings in Australia

Mass shootings in Australia are rare. The most notable was the rampage in 1996 at Port Arthur where 36 victims were shot and killed.

Following this, Australia introduced restrictive gun ownership laws which are credited with substantially reducing mass shooting events in Australia.

Despite this, several shootings involving multiple victims have taken place in Australia in recent years including the Wieambilla shootings in 2022 when two police officers and a civilian were shot and killed.

In 2019, a shooting attack in Darwin resulted in four victims being killed.

How accessible are firearms in Australia?

The 2023-24 national homicide report noted use of firearms in homicides has decreased since 1989-90.

Back then, firearms were involved in 17% of incidents. In 2023-24, firearms were used in 12% of these incidents.

A 2025 report indicated there were about four million firearms in Australia, with nearly one million firearm licences being issued.

New South Wales has more than one million registered firearms.

In NSW, people with a license can legally own multiple weapons. Each firearm needs to be registered after establishing a genuine reason for possessing it.

Akram is stated to own six firearms.

What happens now?

The shootings will now be the focus of ongoing police investigations led by the Counter Terrorism Command and assisted by the State Crime Command.

As the incident was declared a terrorist attack, special investigative powers have been granted while there will be multiple agencies involved in the investigation in the form of a joint counter terrorism team.

These teams, established in each state and territory, comprise of the Australian Federal Police, state and territory law enforcement, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and other government agencies.

This ensures a coordinated response to terrorism within and across jurisdictions in accordance with the National Counter Terrorism Plan.

One of the key aspects of this team will be the coordination of intelligence to assess the motives of the attack and identify any potential co-offenders.

In essence the investigation will have two facets: the investigation of the homicides and then investigating the terrorism aspects. The investigations will focus on the weapons used, where the weapons came from and how the offenders came to possess them.

In practical terms there will be substantial resources required to process the primary crime scene due to the sheer number of victims and the size of the scene.

There will also be likely multiple secondary crime scenes that will need to be processed as the investigation proceeds.

NSW Premier Chris Minns has already flagged there will be a full inquiry into the events that occurred in the lead-up and the response.

Terry Goldsworthy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What police had to do during the chaos of Bondi – and what comes next – https://theconversation.com/what-police-had-to-do-during-the-chaos-of-bondi-and-what-comes-next-272032

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matteo Vergani, Associate Professor and Director of the Tackling Hate Lab, Deakin University

At least 16 people – including a ten-year-old child – are dead after two men opened fire on a crowd of people celebrating the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah on Sunday in a public park at Sydney’s Bondi Beach. Many more are injured.

I am horrified. But as a researcher who studies hate and extremist violence, I am sadly not surprised.

The Jewish community has been a top target for terrorist ideologies and groups for a long time. Many people working in this field have been expecting a serious attack on Australian soil.

Much remains unclear about the Bondi terrorist attacks and it’s too early to speculate about these gunmen specifically. The investigation is ongoing.

But what about antisemitic sentiment more broadly?

Our research – which is in the early stages and yet to be peer reviewed – has recorded a significant and worrying increase in antisemitic sentiment after October 7.

Our research

We have been training AI models to track online sentiment in social media targeting Australian communities, including Jewish people.

That means working with humans – including extremism experts and people in the Jewish community – to label content. This is to teach our model if the content it is encountering is hateful or not.

Based on definitions adopted by the Jewish community, we distinguished between two main types of antisemitism: “old” antisemitism and “new” antisemitism.

“Old” antisemitism targets Jews as Jews. It draws on entrenched myths and stereotypes that portray them as alien, dangerous, or morally corrupt.

“New” antisemitism shifts the focus from individual Jews to the state of Israel. It blames Jews collectively for Israel’s actions.

Many in the Jewish community see this as a modern continuation of historical antisemitism. Critics (both within and outside the Jewish community) contend it risks conflating legitimate opposition to Israeli policies with antisemitism.

Central to this debate is whether anti-Israel sentiment represents a continuation of age-old prejudices or a political response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In our research, we tracked both “old” and “new” antisemitism.

A sharp increase

We found that both increased sharply after October 7.

For example, we studied posts on X (formerly Twitter) geolocated in Australia before and after October 7. We wanted to understand the size of the rise in antisemitism.

We found that “old” antisemitism rose from an average of 34 tweets a month in the year before October 7 to 2,021 in the following year.

“New” antisemitism increased even more, rising from an average of 505 a month in the year before October 7 to 21,724 in the year after.

Some examples of “old” antisemitism are explicit, such as calls to “get rid of all Jews” or “kill all Jews”.

Others are more indirect, including minimising or denying the Holocaust. Examples include posts claiming that “if the Holocaust of 6 million Jews were true, Israel could not exist today” or that the Nazis had only a minimal impact on the Jewish population.

Other forms of hate rely on conspiracy theories, such as claims that “Jews are paying to destroy Australia”.

However, the vast majority of the content our models identified as antisemitic fell into the category of “new” antisemitism. This included content that blamed the Jewish community for events in Israel, such as calling all Australian Jews “baby killers” or “Zionazi fu–wits”, regardless of their personal political views and opinions about the Israeli government and its actions.

(All examples here are drawn from real content, but the wording has been slightly modified to anonymise them and prevent identification of the original authors).

In other words, we have seen an overall escalation of hostilities against Jews online.

More extreme and explicit calls for violence rarely appear on mainstream platforms. They tend to circulate on fringe social media, such as Telegram.

On X, we have seen a collision of mainstream discourse and fringe discourse, due to the lack of moderation.

But antisemitism doesn’t always involve slurs, meaning it can also happen in mainstream platforms. Especially after the election of Trump and the relaxation in moderation practises of Meta, we have also seen it on Instagram. This includes Instagram posts published after the Bondi attack.

Could more have been done?

Certainly the Jewish community, I am sure, will feel not enough was done.

Jillian Segal, Australia’s first government-appointed special envoy for combating antisemitism, released her plan for addressing the issue back in July.

As I wrote at the time, the recommendations fell into three main categories:

1. preventing violence and crime, including improved coordination between agencies, and new policies aimed at stopping dangerous individuals from entering Australia

2. strengthening protections against hate speech, by regulating all forms of hate, including antisemitism, and increasing oversight of platform policies and algorithms

3. promoting antisemitism-free media, education and cultural spaces, through journalist training, education programs, and conditions on public funding for organisations that promote or fail to address antisemitism.

The government had said it will consider the recommendations. Segal has now said government messaging combating antisemitism has “not been sufficient”.

Some might argue addressing points two and three could have helped prevent the Bondi attack. A common assumption is that a climate of widespread antisemitism can embolden violence.

The reality, however, is that this is hard to establish. People who commit terrorist acts – whether they self radicalise or are recruited by terrorist organisations – do not necessarily respond to changes in broader public sentiment.

That said, there is obvious value in prevention work aimed at reducing hostility and antisemitic attitudes, even while small networks or individuals committed to violent terrorism may still exist.

Preventing terrorist violence of this scale relies primarily on effective law enforcement. This requires adequate resourcing and a clear legislative framework.

Education and broader cultural change matter. In short term, however, they are less likely to be as effective at preventing acts of terrorism as measures such as firearm regulation, monitoring extremist networks, and disrupting plots before they turn into action.

Matteo Vergani receives funding from the Australian government (ARC, Department of Home Affairs) and the Canadian government (Public Safety Canada).

– ref. Bondi attacks come after huge increase in online antisemitism: research – https://theconversation.com/bondi-attacks-come-after-huge-increase-in-online-antisemitism-research-272045

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ashlynne McGhee, Head of Editorial Innovation, The Conversation

Two terrorists have killed 15 people at a Chanukah celebration at Bondi Beach. One of the gunmen is also dead. It is now the deadliest mass shooting in Australia since Port Arthur in 1996.

The shooting lasted less than an hour, but the volume of footage and images shared online has made it difficult to track what happened and when.

We’ve sifted through verified online videos, social media posts, broadcast media and police statements to put together these details of how the massacre unfolded.

A timeline of the events

• 5pm – Chanukah by the Sea event begins. It’s run by the Chabad of Bondi which promotes it as “the perfect family event to celebrate light, warmth, and community.”

• around 6.45pm – NSW police respond to reports of an active shooter.

• Sometime after 6.45pm – Two shooters can be seen firing from a bridge towards people at the Chanukah by the Sea event. They have a number of guns. Video footage shows cars driving past them as they shoot.

• One of the shooters, since identified as Sajid Akram, moves to the park grass.

• A bystander, since identified as Ahmed El-Ahmed, tackles gunman Sajid Akram.

• Sajid Akram runs back to bridge where video shows his son Naveed Akram is still shooting. He re-arms. Both men come under fire from police nearby.

• Sajid Akram is shot and falls to the ground.

• The second alleged gunman, Naveed Akram, is shot. A man in pale clothing walks towards the bridge then motions for police to come. Another man moves onto the bridge and raises his hands, a gunshot can be heard in the video footage.

• Police and members of the public run onto the bridge in chaotic scenes. One man can be seen kicking one of the alleged gunmen, while another two people are fighting each other.

• By 7.30, police are seen surrounding the shooters on the ground.

• Sajid Akram is confirmed to have died, while Naveed Akram is in hospital with injuries.

Where did the shooting happen?

The father-son gunmen, Sajid Akram, 50, and Naveed Akram, 24, started shooting from a small bridge over a carpark next to Archer Park. The terrorist attack took place in the immediate area around the bridge and park. An improvised explosive device was later found in their car.

– ref. Bondi Beach shooting: how it happened – https://theconversation.com/bondi-beach-shooting-how-it-happened-272051

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hamish Clarke, Senior Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

Christmas is the time when Australia’s population is on the move. Many travel to celebrate the holidays with family and friends, and enjoy a well-earned break. This means roads are busy, tourist hotspots are teeming and our focus shifts to gifts, meals and winding down.

Unfortunately, December and January are also the peak time for bushfires for much of the country. Already there have been damaging fires in the south-west and south-east of Australia at the start of December. There were 35 houses lost across New South Wales and Tasmania, and the tragic death of a fire fighter in Buladelah, NSW.

As summer heats up and vegetation dries out and becomes fuel, we can expect more fires across the southern half of the country.

Whether you are travelling or staying at home, you need to know where risks are greatest in order to prepare. The short answer is: anywhere there is vegetation – be it grass, forests or shrubland – there is a risk of fire.

The Australia and New Zealand Council for Fire and Emergency Services recently released their seasonal bushfire outlook for summer 2025, which points to a heightened risk in south-western Western Australia, central northern NSW and southern and western Victoria.

Coastal areas of NSW were not predicted to be above average risk of fires. However, a recent heat wave rapidly dried fuels, making them available to burn and resulting in fires. Risk can escalate quickly.

Why risks increase

For bushfires to occur, four key elements must align:

1. fuel – abundance of live and dead vegetation such as grasses, shrubs and trees

2. dry conditions – a lack of rain and decline in soil moisture that makes fuel susceptible to burning

3. ignition source – lightning or human sources including machinery, campfires and arson

4. fire-promoting weather – low humidity, high temperatures, high winds.

At this time of year, all four elements are present more often and more intensely across much of southern Australia. And climate change is loading the dice by increasing heat extremes, drying fuel rapidly and lengthening the fire season.

But humans also shape fire risk. Where and how we build, and how prepared we are all influence whether a fire becomes a disaster.

Gather fire info

Wherever you travel over the summer season, the best thing to do is be prepared for fire. Ideally, this builds your understanding and confidence, rather than anxiety, because we know Christmas is stressful for many people.

Knowledge is the key. Understanding the environment you are in and what fires are in the landscape is crucial. Most states have apps for mobile phones, such as VicEmergency or Hazards Near Me, and websites that alert you to dangerous weather and the occurrence of fires in the landscape.

These apps often allow you to set alerts to tell you when something is happening within a given area around your location. Having alerts saves you from having to constantly check your phone, and lets you enjoy the summer break.

ABC radio is the national emergency broadcaster. Be sure to know the frequency of the local ABC station so you can tune in and get up-to-date information.

Be prepared

Have a plan of what you might do if a fire occurs in the area. Think about where you are staying and any nearby areas of flammable vegetation. A house adjacent to the forest is likely to be at greater risk than a house in the middle of a coastal town.

There are many risk factors related to homes and gardens, including building materials and design, the presence of fuel and proximity to neighbours.

You should also consider where you would go if a fire affects the area you are staying. Most towns have a neighbourhood safer place. This is a point to congregate if a fire breaks out. Take note of where the local rural fire brigade is, which are an invaluable source of local knowledge during emergencies.

Power can be lost during bigger fires, meaning you (or the local takeaway) won’t be able to cook dinner or make coffee in the morning (a good reason to brush up on cold brew expertise). Similarly, the online systems that run ATMs and EFTPOS will go down so bring cash to buy necessities and support local businesses. And try to keep your car full of fuel, or charged. Petrol pumps rely on electricity to run, so in a blackout you can’t get the fuel needed to leave an area.

Importantly, never try to outrun a fire. Many people have died after misjudging the speed of a fire and their ability to escape from it. Good decisions are not made when you are stressed and afraid.

So make plans early and consult the local fire brigade if you are unsure. They would much rather help make a safety plan than have to deal with the consequences of a bad decision.

Hamish Clarke receives funding from the Westpac Scholars Trust (HC) and the Australian Research Council via an Industry Fellowship IM240100046. He is a member of the International Association of Wildland Fire, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the Australian Science Communicators, and a member of the Oceania Regional Committee of the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management.

Sarah McColl-Gausden has received funding from the Victorian Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action including through the Integrated Forest Ecosystem Research program. She is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia.

Tori Reynolds currently receives funding from the NSW Bushfire and Natural Hazards Research Centre through the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). She has previously received research funding from the same department. She is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia. She works closely with Australian fire and land-management agencies in an applied research capacity.

Trent Penman receives funding from Natural Hazards Research Australia, the Australian Research Council and various state fire agencies and electricity network providers.

– ref. Heading away for the holidays? Here’s how to plan for fires – https://theconversation.com/heading-away-for-the-holidays-heres-how-to-plan-for-fires-271526