We know that no new laws would’ve stopped the Bondi atrocity. The real issue is why ASIO, the AFP and NSW Police didn’t act on the warnings they already had.
I asked the Official Secretary, Ms Anne Sheehan, of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion how a terrorist on an ASIO watchlist was still able to get a firearms licence, what surveillance was actually happening, and why critical intelligence wasn’t shared.
The commission confirmed these failures will be scrutinized – including whether agencies simply didn’t do their job.
Australians deserve a Royal Commission that delivers real answers and a safer future for everyone.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: The commission found that no further legislative measures would have prevented the Bondi atrocity, but what could have been done by either ASIO, AFP or New South Wales police that could have prevented this atrocity?
Ms Sheehan: In relation to the interim report, I’d note that we commenced our second hearing block today, which is expected to run for up to three weeks. The interim report identified that there are a number of issues that needed to be further examined during this next hearing block, and that’s what we’re doing at the moment. Other than what recommendations that the commission has made that are in the interim report itself, we need to wait and see what comes out of this hearing block.
Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that. When will we find out? Is it in the next interim report?
Ms Sheehan: If the commissioner determines that another report is required before the final report—there’s a final report that’s due by 14 December—it’s open to the commissioner to issue other recommendations or another report along the way if she considers it appropriate to do so. It’s too early to say whether it would be needed to do that, but it’s something that can be done.
Senator ROBERTS: I can understand your sensitivity about this, and I can understand that a lot of people will be anxious to find out why ASIO, the AFP and the New South Wales police didn’t take action. Will the commission consider how one of the terrorists got a clearance to purchase a firearm when the person had been on a watchlist with ASIO?
Ms Sheehan: In this hearing block, the commission is considering term of reference C, which goes to the circumstances in the lead-up to the Bondi attack. There will be a range of issues considered in that hearing block, some of which will be in public, and some will have to be held in closed session, either to avoid prejudicing the criminal trial or because it’s dealing with classified information.
Senator ROBERTS: This may be another sensitive question. Were ASIO or the AFP aware that a firearms licence had been issued to one of the terrorists by the New South Wales weapons licensing branch?
Ms Sheehan: That really goes to the substance of matters that the commission might be looking at. I couldn’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the commission consider what level of surveillance was directed to the murdering terrorists when they were already on ASIO’s radar?
Ms Sheehan: Broadly, the factors that the commission is considering during this hearing block go to the terrorism threat level, the security environment in the lead-up to the attack, and the conduct of security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies relevant to the attack. I think that goes to the issue that you’ve just raised. It will also look at the security arrangements for the Chanukah by the Sea event, and how intelligence about individuals known to authorities is utilised and shared between agencies to then inform decisions made by security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including, for example, how individuals are monitored and how decisions in respect of firearms licence applications are made. Yes, those things will be looked at.
Senator ROBERTS: The commission will consider if any agency did not perform their duties to protect Australians. That’s clear.
Ms Sheehan: The commission will be looking at the conduct of intelligence and law enforcement agencies in relation to those issues I’ve outlined.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you familiar with the letter from the royal commission to Gab, in the United States?
Ms Sheehan: I don’t think so, no.
Senator ROBERTS: The commission sent the social media company Gab, in the United States, a letter. From what the owner of Gab posted on social media, it’s not possible to get a clear idea of what your intent was. Can you please explain what that letter was all about? Do you want me to read the letter?
Ms Sheehan: I don’t have that letter, so I think I would have to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your letter included a statement that failure to comply with the notice carried a criminal penalty of 12 months in prison. Is it accurate to threaten a US citizen in the United States with a criminal prosecution under Australian law?
Ms Sheehan: I don’t have that correspondence. I think it’s best if I take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Gab have used the United States first amendment as a defence to such actions in the past, including from our eSafety Commissioner. Could you tell me, on notice, why you’d take the action when you know the US constitution precludes you from taking that action.
Ms Sheehan: I’ll take that on notice as well—once I’ve seen the correspondence.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for your efficiency in asking those questions.
