Australia inquiry hears ASIO review did not revisit Bondi gunmen
Australia's royal commission into antisemitism and social cohesion has heard that ASIO's 2024 review of past terrorism cases did not extend back to the men later linked to the Bondi attack. ASIO director-general Mike Burgess told the inquiry the agency limited the review to the previous 12 months after the terrorism threat level was raised in August 2024. The hearings are now moving into three weeks of evidence focused on intelligence and police decisions before the attack, much of it expected to be held in private.
Sponsored
Burgess was the first witness in the latest phase of the commission's work and said the decision not to revisit older cases was driven by resourcing. He said the review followed a deteriorating security environment after the 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel, which prompted the higher threat assessment. According to the evidence, the narrower review meant ASIO did not re-examine Naveed and Sajid Akram, who had been investigated in 2019.
That earlier investigation had examined the Akrams' links to an Islamic State cell and concluded they did not pose a terrorism threat or support the group. The commission has already heard that this assessment has been questioned by its former special adviser, former ASIO chief Dennis Richardson. The latest evidence also raises the possibility that a broader review might have identified later developments, including travel by the Akrams around 2022 to Uzbekistan and Sajid Akram's firearms licence from NSW Police.
The inquiry is significant because it is examining not only what intelligence agencies knew, but how they used that information and whether warning signs were missed. The Bondi attack has become a test case for the way Australian agencies assess terrorism risk, share information and decide when to reopen older files. It also comes at a time when the commission is looking more broadly at antisemitism and social cohesion, giving the hearings wider political and public importance.
Sponsored
ASIO's funding priorities were also placed under scrutiny, with Burgess defending a significant decline in the share of funding devoted to counterterrorism. That point matters because the commission is examining whether resource constraints affected the scope of the 2024 review. In practical terms, the evidence suggests the agency chose to concentrate on recent cases rather than revisit older investigations that might have been relevant to the Bondi gunmen.
The commission's remit links the attack to broader questions about domestic security and the handling of extremist threats in Australia. The hearings are taking place against the backdrop of heightened concern about antisemitism and the security environment that followed the Israel-Gaza war after the 7 October attacks. The inquiry is therefore not only looking at one incident, but at the systems that were meant to detect and prevent it.
The Bondi case also highlights the relationship between federal intelligence work and state policing. The evidence indicates that Sajid Akram had obtained a firearms licence from NSW Police and was legally acquiring guns, a detail that could have been relevant if the earlier ASIO review had been wider. That overlap between intelligence assessments and firearms regulation is likely to remain central to the commission's examination of what happened before the attack.
What remains unclear is whether a broader review would have changed any operational decisions, or whether the same conclusions would have been reached even with more information. The commission is expected to continue hearing evidence over the next three weeks, with most sessions closed to the public. The key issue now is whether the inquiry finds that intelligence, police or resourcing decisions created avoidable gaps before the Bondi attack.
Sponsored
Sponsored
