The report lands on December 18. Then the real work starts

Following the closing of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism (RC) hearings, we now await its findings and recommendations. There has been concern about whether it had sufficient time to investigate all dimensions of the Bondi atrocity, as well as speculation about what will happen next. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the process, it will deliver a report on December 18. The key focus must then be on the investigations and actions undertaken by government agencies, the Government, civil society and our institutions.

We should recall the issues already identified in the RC’s interim report, such as the question of domestic counter-terrorism funding and the inadequate national information-sharing regime among agencies. One glaring weakness it detailed is the National Firearms Register (NFR), initiated in 2022 but not scheduled for completion until 2028. The report described this timetable as “unduly leisurely”. Some jurisdictions, including the ACT, still rely on paper-based records. This represents a national security failure: key data relevant to public safety has not been digitised or effectively networked. Analysts and operators should be able to rely on systems that automatically generate immediate alerts on this and other key information points.

A central question is how the father of a known ISIS sympathiser was able to purchase six high-powered firearms without attracting attention. Despite the interim report’s reference to this issue, there appears to be no sign of urgent funding or a serious effort to accelerate the NFR’s completion. This raises the question of whether expenditure on a gun buyback scheme is the best use of resources when a digital, networked firearms register, supported by stronger background checks, could deliver a more directly effective security benefit.

The technical capabilities of our agencies must also be improved to establish a more rigorous and effective vetting regime within the immigration system. One Nation’s rise has been based, in part, on conflating fears of Islamist extremism with immigration, an association reinforced by episodes such as the return of the so-called “ISIS brides”. Any perception that temporary-to-permanent visa assessments are being conducted without sufficient rigour must also be addressed. Public confidence in the immigration system must be restored.

We may never know the content of the RC’s classified recommendations or the extent to which they are implemented. It is therefore essential that the Government issue a comprehensive response to the final report. This statement should reassure the public that the lessons have been learned and explain what further analysis and investigation will follow the Commission’s work.