Key Takeaways
- The Australian government has refused calls for a royal commission into the Bondi beach antisemitic terrorist attack, instead opting for a review led by former spy chief Dennis Richardson.
- The Richardson review will investigate the actions of federal security and intelligence agencies before the attack, including what was known about the alleged gunmen.
- The review will not examine the broader issue of antisemitism across society, which has been a key demand of the Coalition and others.
- The review has limited powers, with no ability to subpoena witnesses or hold public hearings, and will be conducted entirely behind closed doors.
- The review is expected to be completed by the end of April, but the public will only see a declassified version of the findings.
Introduction to the Richardson Review
The Australian government’s decision to refuse a royal commission into the Bondi beach antisemitic terrorist attack has been met with criticism from opponents, who argue that a more comprehensive investigation is needed to uncover the root causes of the atrocity. Instead, the government has opted for a review led by former spy chief Dennis Richardson, which will investigate the actions of federal security and intelligence agencies before the attack. The review will examine the actions of agencies such as the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio), Australian federal police (AFP), and Australian Secret Intelligence Service (Asis), as well as the attorney general’s department and home affairs.
Scope of the Richardson Review
The Richardson review will specifically investigate the actions of federal security and intelligence agencies before the Bondi attack, including what was known about the alleged gunmen, father and son Sajid and Naveed Akram. The review will examine the agencies’ prior knowledge of events that have surfaced since the shooting, which could include the alleged perpetrators’ trip to the Philippines in November and alleged training exercises in Australia ahead of the attack. The review will also assess information-sharing between federal agencies and state bodies, allowing Richardson to examine what information New South Wales police had when they granted Sajid Akram a firearms licence in 2023.
Investigation of Antisemitism
The terms of reference for the Richardson review do not mention antisemitism, which has been a key concern for critics of the government’s approach. However, the home affairs minister, Tony Burke, has indicated that Richardson will naturally consider the context of anti-Jewish sentiment in Australia when examining the attack on the Hanukah event. Despite this, the review will not investigate the broader issue of antisemitism across society, such as on university campuses, which has been a key demand of the Coalition and others. The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, has again demanded an antisemitism royal commission with "nothing off limits" and "no institution out of scope".
Powers of the Review
The Richardson review has limited powers, with no ability to subpoena witnesses or hold public hearings. The review will be conducted entirely behind closed doors, and Richardson will only have access to documents and information provided by government agencies. While Richardson has been guaranteed the full cooperation of federal security and intelligence agencies, the lack of powers and transparency has raised concerns about the effectiveness of the review. Unlike a royal commission, which can hold public hearings and subpoena witnesses, the Richardson review will be limited in its ability to gather information and hold agencies to account.
Expected Outcome of the Review
The review is expected to be completed by the end of April, but the public will only see a declassified version of the findings. The Asio director general, Mike Burgess, has expressed confidence that the inquiry will confirm that Asio acts appropriately, legally, and proportionately to protect Australians. Former home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo expects a similar finding, but argues that a deeper inquiry, in the form of a royal commission, is needed to investigate the links between antisemitism in Australia and the Bondi terrorist attack. Phil Kowalick, the president of the Australian Institute of Professional Intelligence Officers, supports the Richardson review, arguing that it will be thorough and effective in identifying any institutional failings.
Conclusion
The Richardson review has been met with criticism from opponents, who argue that a more comprehensive investigation is needed to uncover the root causes of the Bondi beach antisemitic terrorist attack. While the review will examine the actions of federal security and intelligence agencies before the attack, its limited powers and scope have raised concerns about its effectiveness. The review is expected to be completed by the end of April, but the public will only see a declassified version of the findings. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the review will depend on its ability to identify any institutional failings and provide recommendations for improvement, but its limitations have raised doubts about its ability to provide a comprehensive understanding of the attack.
