It is hard to argue with that, but much of the information around how the commission’s recommendations might be implemented is too nebulous yet for any real understanding of whether we will get a system which, in the words of the Prime Minister, does its best to keep us safe.
It will be next year before a multi-agency response steering group sets out the implementation plan for the recommendations, although brief details of several initiatives have been announced.
The almost 800-page report prompted apologies from the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, the director-general of the Security Intelligence Service, Rebecca Kitteridge, and police commissioner Andrew Coster.
While these have been generally welcomed, some affected by the attack question the lack of direct accountability for any failings of agencies. Systems, after all, do not spring spontaneously into life, but are organised and run by people.
The inquiry found there was no plausible way the gunman who murdered 51 people and attempted to kill 40 others could have been detected by public agencies except by chance, but the picture it paints of the agencies is not reassuring. As had already been reported, the police’s acceptance and vetting of the gunman’s referees did not meet the required standards. Laws governing access to guns have been tightened, although the promised gun register is still some way off.
Sadly, we can never know whether a refusal to grant the gunman a licence would have stopped his evil plans.
The report showed a confused approach to national security in which security agencies were under-resourced and looking the wrong way, focusing on Islamic extremism and not paying enough attention to the rise of the extreme Right, even though the Muslim community had been raising concerns about this for years.
The commission’s proposal for a new agency responsible for strategic issues concerning intelligence and security may be greeted with some scepticism, however, given the past missteps in the behaviour of our existing intelligence agencies. Similarly, how easy will it be for another bureaucracy, a ministry for ethnic communities, to gain traction in its role to support and strengthen work on social cohesion?
This report’s 44 recommendations cover five areas — the counterterrorism effort, the firearms licensing system, the ongoing needs of those most affected by the terrorist attack, social cohesion and New Zealand’s response to its increasingly diverse population, and the recommendations’ implementation.
The commissioners emphasised the need " to confront and engage openly with hard issues", such as counterterrorism and social cohesion, issues which had been characterised by "limited political ownership and an absence of public discussion".
One of the most disappointing revelations in the report was that outlining the shabby treatment by various agencies of those affected by the shootings.
The reported lack of co-ordination between public sector agencies sounded depressingly familiar. It is hard to grasp why anyone should have had to wait for the commission to recommend the Ministry of Social Development be directed to facilitate co-ordinated access to ongoing recovery support. The commission says social cohesion is fundamental to New Zealand’s future wellbeing and security, and while this is higher than in many other countries, there are "fault lines".
While it sees maintaining and enhancing social cohesion as a vital task for government, it also says we all have a role in making New Zealand safe and inclusive.
If we ignore that role and merely wait for everyone else to "do something", this report illustrates how those fault lines might develop into fissures with catastrophic consequences.
