Posts

National Security Must Comes First

,

I questioned security authorities on the thoroughness of the screening processes for returning individuals and older children, ensuring ASIO and joint counter-terrorism teams are actively monitoring threats to keep our citizens safe.

I asked about the total costs of managing, monitoring and integrating these returnees. Taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going, yet officials refused to disclose specific resource allocations in a public forum.

I raised concerns about how risk assessment notices are followed up with state authorities, specifically questioning NSW Police decisions regarding security during heightened-risk periods prior to recent tragedies.

I will never stop asking the tough questions to ensure our national security comes first and the government remains accountable to the Australian people. Australians deserve no less!

Transcript:

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Another group of ISIS concubines and their children arrived this week.  

Senator Shoebridge: I’m going to take a point of order: that kind of language is just pointlessly, gratuitously offensive, and I’d ask Senator Roberts to review his language and rephrase his question.  

CHAIR: Withdraw, please, Senator Roberts, and please refrain from that kind of— 

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw ‘concubines’. ISIS terrorist wives, brides, partners: what security screening has been done on them to ensure the safety of Australian citizens, as a group and also individually?  

Mr Gilmore: As I said earlier this evening, ASIO has worked over many years to understand the threat posed by those Australians who chose to travel offshore and join ISIL. We’ve provided advice on this cohort and other cohorts previously, both overseas and in Australia, to government departments and agencies, consistent with our statutory functions and requirements, for many years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; were you watching them on the way out, while they were over there and on the way back?  

Mr Gilmore: ASIO will always be watching to identify threats. When information comes to our attention that requires action, we will act.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have they been screened individually and as a group? I guess what you’re saying is yes.  

Mr Gilmore: What I’ve said is that on any cohort that travels overseas—and I think I could characterise people travelling to join ISIL as a cohort that has been of interest to ASIO for many years, along with our partners, I must say, including in the JCTTs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are older children to be screened for security risk? I understand that the eldest at the moment is 18 years of age.  

Mr Gilmore: That would be a question for the security authorities, AFP and others.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I’m sure you understand that there are limits to what ASIO is able to put in the public domain as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I understand there’s the New South Wales police, for example, or the AFP. Will ASIO have a role in ensuring national security after these and other returnees arrive and stay in Australia?  

Mr Gilmore: Absolutely. ASIO’s function is to protect Australia and Australians from threats to their security. That means that we will always be looking and, where we need to, we will act.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is all of the work relating to the return of the brides, wives, partners, costing? What are the future related costs?  

Mr Gilmore: ASIO receives a baseline allocation from government, as with any department or agency. We have a robust prioritisation and resource allocation process. The details of how those resources are allocated is not something that I could declare in this public forum.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to declare the detailed operational plans. I’m asking what the cost would be for these women that have recently come back. 

CHAIR: I think Mr Gilmore has indicated that the question you’re asking goes to the very thing that he’s just said he’s not willing to disclose in this forum.  

Senator ROBERTS: Don’t you think the taxpayers have a right to know?  

Mr Gilmore: I think the taxpayers would be expecting us to prioritise our resources against the highest threats and to be doing our job, which is what we’re doing.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have enough money to cover it?  

Mr Gilmore: We have allocations from government. We have a prioritisation process. We assess risk and we do our job.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have enough to do your job?  

Mr Gilmore: We have the resources allocated by budget. I think the director-general has been on the public record for successive years. If you want specific details that we might be able to offer this evening, we could go there, but we do.  

Senator ROBERTS: When ASIO provide heightened terrorist risk alert notices to the New South Wales police service, is there any expectation or follow-up by ASIO to check if there has been a suitable response from the New South Wales police?  

Mr Gilmore: You may be aware that we’re members of the joint counterterrorism teams around the country. They consist of ASIO, AFP and the state and territory police authorities in each state and territory. We share information through those forums. But it’s not just those forums; there are many other mechanisms. We work very closely with our partners in the states and territories.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you keep tabs on them formally or informally or both?  

Mr Gilmore: Could you just clarify ‘keep tabs on them’?  

Senator ROBERTS: Keep tabs on New South Wales police, for example—when you give them advice, you watch to make sure that they implement that advice.  

Mr Gilmore: We partner very closely. I think it would be reasonable to say we have a shared understanding through that habitual relationship that we’ve built over many, many years with our police partners.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is ASIO concerned to find that the New South Wales police service had actually wound back the police presence for Jewish festivals or events shortly before the Bondi atrocity, the murders, even though they had been warned of a heightened-risk assessment of terrorist activity?  

Mr Gilmore: I apologise, but that would go to matters being considered by the royal commission, and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment on those this evening. Needless to say, resourcing decisions for police or for other agencies and departments are decisions are made by them, and they’re questions that should be directed to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the process of your relationship—it’s a close relationship, I’m concluding—would you comment if something were less than you expected?  

Mr Gilmore: We will always work closely with our partners. Nothing is achieved alone, and there are no truer words in the security and intelligence domain. We rely on close relationships with our partners to understand and respond to threats to Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: I assume it’s in both of your interests to do that?  

Mr Gilmore: It is.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was ASIO aware of the NSW Police Force winding back when you sent out the heightened-risk notice?  

Mr Gilmore: That’s not a question that I’m able to answer this evening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Mr Gilmore: I think the question really starts to go to some of the questions that the royal commission will be exploring, and it would be inappropriate to say anything that might compromise that process.  

Senator ROBERTS: The last question was on the royal commission, so I don’t need to go there now. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, for your accommodation again. 

/0 Comments/by

The Shocking Truth About Australian Crime Rates

,
Are our streets more dangerous than the US?

Australia faces a serious crime problem. Many Australians believe our crime rate is low compared with countries like the United States, yet sadly that myth stems from misunderstanding statistics about how crime is measured.

Media coverage reinforces the myth and the real questions are why that misunderstanding persists and what can be done about it.

Consider a simple example. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that only about 19 per cent of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to police, while in the United States about 45 per cent are reported. Obviously, simply comparing reported crimes therefore dramatically understates the extent of the problem in Australia.

Both countries try to address this gap using large-scale surveys that estimate total crime, not just crimes reported to police. The Australian Bureau of Statistics runs such a survey annually. In the United States, the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the National Crime Victimisation Survey, which surveys about 240,000 people each year.

When we compare these broader estimates, Australia’s rape and sexual assault rate is roughly three times higher than that of the United States. Australia’s assault rate is about twice as high, and its burglary rate is about 2.5 times higher. Robbery is the only category where the two countries report similar rates.

Whether people report crimes depends a lot on whether people think the criminals will be caught and punished.

Although, key methodological differences still affect these comparisons. Australian data count the proportion of people or households victimised at least once during the year, while US data count the total number of crimes. If someone in Australia is robbed twice in a year, the survey records only one victimisation. In the US, the survey counts two. This difference means the figures still understate how much higher Australia’s crime rates may be.

Image: Pexels

Earlier international comparisons reinforce this pattern. The International Crime Victimisation Survey used consistent definitions and methods across countries. Even in 2000, it found Australia’s violent crime rate (including robbery, sexual incidents, assaults, and threats) was 104 per cent higher than in the United States. Robbery was 150 per cent higher, sexual assaults 167.9 per cent higher, and assaults and threats 72.3 per cent higher.

Australia is clearly safer in one area: homicide.

Latest data show Australia’s homicide rate at about 2 per 100,000 people in 2024, compared with roughly 4 per 100,000 in the United States in 2025. But homicides make up a tiny share of overall violent crime – less than 0.1 per cent in Australia and about 0.3 per cent in the United States – so they do not reflect most people’s risk of victimisation.

In the United States, murders concentrate heavily in very small geographic areas. Just 2 per cent of counties account for about 56 per cent of all murders, and within those counties, roughly two-thirds of killings occur within areas spanning about ten city blocks. Gangs drive most of these murders, and about 90 per cent of offenders already have prior violent criminal records.

In contrast, 52 per cent of counties report zero murders, and another 15 per cent report just one.

Reducing crime is straightforward: policymakers must raise the risks criminals face. Three ways that can be done are to increase arrest and conviction rates, to lengthen prison sentences and to allow victims to defend themselves.

Yet the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not collect data on arrest or conviction rates for specific crime types. This glaring omission prevents direct comparisons with the United States.

Another major difference separates the two countries. In practice, Australians cannot use guns for self-defence. In the United States, in contrast, people use guns defensively far more often – roughly five times more frequently to stop crimes than criminals use guns to commit them.

Those who benefit most from owning guns are often the most vulnerable – people who are physically weaker, such as women and the elderly, and those who face the highest risks of violent crime. In the United States, that risk falls disproportionately on poorer Black residents in high-crime urban areas.

The National Crime Victimisation Survey provides detailed breakdowns that highlight these patterns, unlike the more limited data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In most cases, a man commits the crime, and when a man attacks a woman, the strength disparity is typically greater than when a man attacks another man. A firearm can significantly offset that imbalance and increase a woman’s ability to defend herself.

Additionally, research shows that women who respond passively face much higher risks. Women who do not resist are about 2.4 times more likely to suffer serious injury than those who defend themselves with a gun.

The issue goes beyond guns. Outside of Western Australia, Australian law prohibits people from carrying pepper spray or mace for protection. It also bars individuals from carrying knives for self-defence – and in any case, knives offer limited help to women, since using one requires close contact, where a male attacker can more easily overpower them.

Australians cannot address crime effectively if they underestimate its scale or ignore how measurement differences distort comparisons. Policymakers should focus on raising the risks to criminals – through higher arrest and conviction rates – and on giving law-abiding citizens more ability to protect themselves.

Until Australia confronts these realities, it will continue to misdiagnose the problem and fall short on solutions. Australian lives will continue to be endangered more so than in the USA.

Australian and American data point to the solution needed to reduce Australian crime rates and improve Australians’ safety.

Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. is an economist and a world-recognised expert on crime. He is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center in the United States. During the Trump administration, he served as the Senior Advisor for Research and Statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and then the Office of Legal Policy in the US Department of Justice. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions, including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, UCLA, and Rice University. He was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA.

/1 Comment/by

Community Not Conflict is the Key

At a recent NAIDOC flag-raising celebration in Mackay, I learned that as a result of a successful community policing initiative involving Aboriginal and Islander community liaison officers working with at-risk children, the Mackay region does not have the same crime issues that other Queensland regions are seeing.

This is community taking care of itself in action.

Our nation was not built around Canberra, it was built around communities.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people making up our one Queensland community, in the past six weeks, I drove across Queensland listening to my constituents. At North Mackay Police Station I attended the National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee, NAIDOC, flag raising with local council and state representatives. The turn-out was excellent, despite rain and unusual cold, but that didn’t dampen the spirits of the Tchundal Malar Dance Group’s excellent performance.

I chatted with Superintendent Graeme Paine of the Mackay police district about community policing, an exciting Queensland state policy dating from the 1990s. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander liaison officers worked in and with the community to identify children who may be heading in the wrong direction, giving them a hand to ground youth and community. This might mean staying at school, playing a sport, or learning Aboriginal culture, language and dance. As a result, the Mackay region doesn’t haven’t the same crime problem evident in other Queensland regions. Funding has recently been extended. 

One Nation supports the community policing initiative and supports adopting this program across our state. Community taking care of itself reminds us that our beautiful nation was not built around Canberra; it was built around communities. We are a nation of Mackays, of Collinsvilles, of Moranbahs, with everyday Australians coming together as one community first and then as one nation. This is what Canberra should be encouraging—community, not conflict. 

There will always be an issue like COVID or Ukraine or a Voice to divide us. Before these, there were Vietnam and the ‘reds under the bed’. Australians to whom I have listened have had enough division, Prime Minister, enough shaming, enough abuse, enough lies. Division does not come from communities; it comes from Canberra.

One Nation is a party of everyday Australians who understand we have one flag, we are one community and we are one nation.  

/by