Reproduced from the Australian newspaper today December 24 2025

Morgan D*

As a high-ranking law enforcement professional, with decades of frontline experience in Australia and overseas within the Australian Federal Police, I cannot write this under my real name.

Strict secrecy provisions in the AFP Act force officers into anonymity, under threat of harsh punishment.

This is rooted in reputation and institutional protection, not the protection of classified information.

Government leaders now speak as though the terrorist attack at Bondi Beach came without warning, as if there were no signs, no escalating threats, no atmosphere of danger – as if it emerged from nowhere. Security and law enforcement officials repeat that they have the situation under control and are considering appropriate responses, but these assurances come far too late.

The truth is unmistakeable: the alarm bells were ringing long ago.

The October 9, 2023, protest at the Sydney Opera House, the 300 per cent rise in harassment, threats and assaults against Jewish Australians; the arson and vandalism of Jewish businesses, schools and places of worship; the anti-Semitism on university campuses, the unchecked hate speech, the weekly protest marches calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, and the repeated briefings, particularly to Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, from security agencies all pointed to a growing and foreseeable threat.

There is a legal term for ignoring such warnings: wilful blindness, when someone deliberately avoids knowing the truth so they can later claim ignorance. It is about accountability for choosing not to see what is in front of them.

Can this government credibly claim it did not see this coming? That it required the largest loss of Jewish life since October 7, 2023, to acknowledge rising anti-Semitism and the threat of radical Islamist extremism? Australians are patient, but that patience is wearing thin as law-abiding citizens face consequences while the real dangers remain unaddressed.

The situation echoes the period between 2008 and 2013, when security and law enforcement agencies briefed successive govern­ments on the people-smuggling crisis. With clear evidence and analysis, officials insisted nothing more could be done to stop the boats, even with additional resources, and that only a policy change would be effective. Boats continued to sink. More than 1000 children, women and men drowned.

These deaths were preventable. A reasonable policy shift would have saved lives but inaction cost hundreds of them. Wilful blindness.

What happened at Bondi Beach should never have occurred.

Yet, once again, it appears state and federal policy is shifting the burden on to law-abiding citizens rather than addressing the actions of criminals and terrorists – individuals already known to security and law enforcement agencies.

Meanwhile, shootings continue almost nightly in major cities.

How many incidents involve licensed firearm owners using licensed firearms? The number is, by any reasonable assessment, close to zero. Where is the leadership, honest discussion and action needed to confront illegal firearms in the hands of criminal groups? The police investigation remains in its early stages and will require months of detailed work, in Australia and overseas, to establish the full sequence of events. Only once the investigation is complete will we have the evidence necessary to identify any system or policy failures. Premature decision-making, in the absence of all relevant facts, risks undermining the integrity and effectiveness of any subsequent reforms.

An inquiry into the circumstances leading to the Bondi attack is essential. It should not be a witch-hunt; if conducted independently, it can help shape evidencebased government policy and determine whether agencies are adequately resourced, whether current information-sharing protocols are effective, where operational improvements and capabilities are needed, and determine whether immigration settings are keeping pace with evolving global threat dynamics.

Key questions include: 

B● How individuals known for extremist views were allowed into Australia and the community.

● How they obtained a firearms licence despite security concerns.

● Why watch-listed individuals were permitted to purchase firearms.

● How monitored individuals were still able to carry out the attack.

● How the government can propose firearm reforms when the data held by police and firearms registries systems are inaccurate.

A serious question now arises as to whether state and federal governments have misled the Australian public by selectively shaping communications about anti- Semitism and radical Islam for political purposes.

According to reporting by Sky News, the AFP commissioner stated the Bondi Beach terrorist attack was “not motivated by religion”.

Most Australians will find that assertion difficult to reconcile with the facts, and those with experience in security or law enforcement agencies will likely be particularly surprised given the ideology underpinning such attacks is inherently religious, albeit based on a radical and distorted interpretation.

As a nation, we require a mature and candid discussion about how to address the minority of Muslims who subscribe to radical Islamist ideology, which is in stark contrast to Australia’s own values.

The AFP commissioner’s comments give rise to questions of political interference or preference, given her previous service in counter-terrorism. 

At the centre of this tragedy is the rise of radical Islamist extremism and violent anti-Semitism. Individuals who entered Australia, adopted or already held extremist ideologies and were known to national security agencies were nevertheless able to obtain a firearms licence and purchase weapons while not being citizens and while being monitored. Despite these red flags, they still were able to carry out a horrific attack on innocent Jewish Australians celebrating a religious festival. That is the core issue: the failure to recognise, confront and act decisively against escalating extremist ideology and anti-Semitism.

And the proposed response? Change the gun laws. Punish responsible, law-abiding Australians.

This defies logic. It is the policy equivalent of confiscating the knives from the local butcher because someone was stabbed in the next town.

There isn’t a licensed firearms holder in the country who would be comfortable knowing that individuals with extremist ideology were able to obtain a firearms licence and purchase weapons. Reviewing the regulations and protocols governing the issuing of licences is reasonable. What is not reasonable is the reaction driven by optics rather than evidence by governments to push through legislation without consultation with affected citizens or any stakeholder groups.

The number of licensed firearms in Australia is dubious. Data inconsistencies between police systems and firearms registries are common – a firearm still may appear on a licence in one system even though it has been disposed of and is no longer registered in another.

A single firearm may be recorded several times because of serial numbers being treated as separate entries. To support any meaningful policy or regulatory discussion, we need accurate firearm data.

This issue is not about gun control.

It is about leadership, anti- Semitism and confronting radical Islamist extremism – about successive governments and agencies avoiding hard truths, prioritising political optics over national security and failing to properly resource the systems designed to protect Australians. Any errors within these agencies should be recognised as organisational failures, not individual ones. The people working in these environments are dedicated Australians doing their best despite chronic underresourcing, underfunding and operating in a high-threat landscape where the margin for error is almost non-existent.

The consequences of these failures will fall on law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong. It is not fair. It is not democratic.

It is not Australian. It reflects governments scrambling for cover – because when you fail to act in the face of escalating anti- Semitism, radical Islamist extremism and hate speech, this is the outcome.

*This is an assumed name to protect the identity of the author

Bolding mine