With Anthony Albanese refusing calls for a commonwealth royal commission into the Bondi beach antisemitic terrorist attack, the task of uncovering any failings at the federal level will rest with a review led by the former spy chief Dennis Richardson.
The prime minister insists a closed-door, five-month investigation rather than a years-long public inquiry is the best way to get quick answers and avoid inflaming social tensions in the wake of the 14 December massacre.
But critics say the narrow scope of the Richardson review limits its effectiveness, maintaining that only a royal commission that doubles as a national inquiry into antisemitism can expose the root cause of the atrocity in which 15 people were killed and dozens more were injured.
So what will Richardson’s review be able to shed light on, and what will be off limits?
What is the Richardson review?
The Richardson review will specifically investigate the actions of the 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 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio), Australian federal police (AFP) and Australian Secret Intelligence Service (Asis) will all be examined, along with home affairs and the attorney general’s department.
One focus of the inquiry is expected to be Asio’s assessment of Naveed Akram for six months from October 2019 for alleged associations with individuals allegedly involved in an Islamic State cell, which ultimately concluded he was not an ongoing threat.
The review will also 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 AFP commissioner, Krissy Barrett, this week said early investigations indicated the alleged gunmen did not receive training or come into contact with a broader terror cell while in the south-east Asian country.
Richardson will also the assess information-sharing between federal agencies and state bodies, allowing him to examine what information New South Wales police had when they granted Sajid Akram a firearms licence in 2023.
The review will ask whether agencies could have done anything further to prevent the attack and whether the legal framework – which Richardson himself reviewed in 2019 – inhibited them.
Will it examine antisemitism?
The terms of reference do not mention antisemitism.
However, Albanese and the home affairs minister, Tony Burke, have indicated Richardson will naturally consider the context of anti-Jewish sentiment in Australia when examining the attack on the Hanukah event.
“It [the review] is specifically in the wake of Bondi, there is no way of conducting that inquiry without dealing with antisemitism,” Burke told ABC radio on Tuesday.
Guardian Australia has confirmed Richardson’s review will not investigate the broader issue of antisemitism across society, such as on university campuses – a key demand of the Coalition and others who are pushing for a royal commission.
The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, on Thursday again demanded an antisemitism royal commission with “nothing off limits” and “no institution out of scope”.
“It doesn’t cover the causes, the effects and the lead-up with respect to antisemitism in this country,” Ley said of the Richardson review’s terms of reference.
What powers does the review have?
Richardson has been guaranteed the full cooperation of federal security and intelligence agencies, and access to “all material he considers may be relevant to his inquiry”.
The terms of reference only mention government agencies, which would appear to shield ministers from scrutiny of the review.
Government sources confirmed that meant Richardson could request documents prepared for ministers, cabinet and the national security committee.
But unlike a royal commission, he will not be able to subpoena witnesses to give evidence or produce documents, severely limiting any ability to obtain information from outside government agencies.
And unlike a royal commission, which holds public hearings, Richardson’s review – including interviews with agency chiefs – will be conducted entirely behind closed doors.
The review is expected to be completed by the end of the April.
However, sources expect the public would only get to see a declassified version of Richardson’s work to protect sensitive security and intelligence material.
Will it get answers?
In a statement after the Richardson review was announced on 21 December, the Asio director general, Mike Burgess, expressed confidence that the inquiry would confirm that “Asio acts appropriately, legally and proportionately to protect Australians”.
The former home affairs secretary, Mike Pezzullo, expects a similar finding.
“I would be very surprised if there was a single factor that Dennis will come across … in his report to say ‘if this one thing had been done then 15 people would not have lost their lives’,” Pezzullo said.
“I think you will find that Asio and AFP acquitted themselves very well within their constrained resource environment.”
Pezzullo, who was sacked from his role in 2023 for breaching the government’s code of conduct, said it was therefore necessary to conduct a deeper inquiry, in the form of royal commission, to investigate the links between antisemitism in Australia in the aftermath of 7 October 2023 and the Bondi terrorist attack.
He said such an inquiry could examine questions that the Richardson review could not, including the response inside government after the terror threat level was raised from “possible” to “probable” in August 2024.
Phil Kowalick, the president of the Australian Institute of Professional Intelligence Officers, supported the Richardson review.
“If there have been institutional failings I think they will become quite evident quickly in the review,” he said.
“I’ve had a look at the terms of reference and I think it’s quite thorough. I think the questions that the prime minister has asked are key questions and it should cut to the chase quite quickly.”
Burgess instigated an internal review of Asio’s decision-making immediately after the Bondi attack and has promised to publish the findings.
