The circumstances in which Bourke Street murderer Hassan Khalif Shire Ali was at liberty despite repeatedly failing to show up to court, and despite his passport having been cancelled, should be a matter of gravest concern. He killed one person, and only luck prevented him from killing more. It is not the first time recently that it has only been luck, not effective intelligence and policing, that has prevented terrorists from claiming more lives.
Unfortunately, the process for determining why Shire Ali was on the loose and who is responsible consists of a partisan political argument between two of Australia’s least inspiring politicians, Daniel Andrews and Matthew Guy, near the end of an election campaign.
Guy is absolutely right to raise concerns about why Shire Ali was on bail, and the pathetic reaction of Andrews — that to do so is an affront to police — shows he knows it. This absurd insistence, which both sides of politics use, that any questioning of the handling of terrorism is some sort of outrage to our brave men and women on the frontline is designed to evade scrutiny of one of the most important responsibilities of government.
That’s especially the case in Victoria: for years there have been legitimate concerns both about Labor’s commitment to keeping Victorians safe from crime and the willingness of Victorian courts to play their role in achieving that. The insouciance with which Shire Ali was able to not bother showing up to court with precisely zero response from the Victorian criminal justice system is remarkable, given ASIO had cancelled his passport.
State Attorney-General Martin Pakula says Victorian authorities were not told of the passport cancellation — the kind of information one would have assumed law enforcement officials would have no difficulty sharing. But Pakula’s assertion has been questioned and subsequent federal government statements appear inconsistent with his claim.
So who is right? Did Pakula lie in the heat of an election campaign, in which case he should resign forthwith? Was he misled by police? Or is our system of intelligence-sharing regarding possible terrorists so poor that Victorian police thought they were simply dealing with another petty criminal?
On form, the Andrews government can’t be trusted when it comes to its law and order record. Nor, for that matter, can Victorian courts, which were lightning-fast to respond when Greg Hunt, Michael Sukkar and Alan Tudge made perfectly correct and justifiable criticisms of Victorian courts’ reluctance to adequately sentence would-be terrorists, but seem unfussed that a man identified as a possible Islamic State fighter had repeatedly not bothered to show up to face court.
Who has the authority to provide answers on this? No one. The oversight of intelligence and counter-terrorism at the federal level is broken; the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security operates in secret and is appointed by the government. The Coalition and Labor have lost interest in improving parliamentary oversight of intelligence operations. And that’s before you add in the complication of federal-state interactions, in which both sides can blame the other — which is perhaps exactly how the politicians like it. It’s an accountability null space, in which people can screw up, and act with self-interest, without having to account to the people who pay their wages, let alone those they are supposed to protect.
One day a terrorist might be lucky, not unlucky. And this rotten system of non-accountability will be partly to blame.
Shire was walking the streets because someone within the Victorian criminal justice system and the Federal counter terrorism agency deemed him as a low threat. Was it Andrews or anyone else in his Government who made this judgement?…Nup. Would those who did make this judgement be making exactly the same type of judgements under a Guy Government….almost certainly.
So attacking Andrews is a nonsense, unless you are Guy and want to score some political points, as he did. As to the author, I’m seeing a pattern here where it comes to the ALP. Over the last couple of weeks every story relating to the ALP organisations in VIC and NSW have been prefaced with descriptions as amplified as “most corrupt in history”…this particular piece has the gem “the Andrews government can’t be trusted when it comes to its law and order record”.
The hang them high mentality which Mr Keane seems to display here with a desire to lock up anyone with a mindset he finds unsuitable stands in stark contrast to his stand on Assange who is deemed above the law based purely on some vague notion that he is a “journalist”
Agree with Rabid Hamster. In addition Dutton’s vast security empire, which judged Shire Ali to be a risk and cancelled his passport, needs to explain why it didn’t alert the Victoria Police.
I agree wholeheartedly as Bernard Keene wears his dislike or hatred of the Labour party in Victoria on his sleeve. This type of journalism got the Abbott government elected, ie lazy journalism that was so enamoured with the Liberal party they failed to see the danger signals.
More anti-Labor BS from Bernard. Fear not, Bernie, you’ll get that News Corpse job you’ve been hankering for soon enough.
I don’t recall you asking similar questions about Man Monis-though it’s obvious why, given that this decision was made by the likes of Brandis & the NSW Liberal Government, who you seem to think can do no wrong.
Also, why does Shire Ali gain the epithet of Terrorist, in spite of his history of mental illness & drug use, whilst the man who ploughed through-& killed-multiple pedestrians doesn’t gain a similar epithet?
“On form, the Andrews government can’t be trusted when it comes to its law and order record. Nor, for that matter, can Victorian courts, which were lightning-fast to respond when Greg Hunt, Michael Sukkar and Alan Tudge made perfectly correct and justifiable criticisms of Victorian courts’ reluctance to adequately sentence would-be terrorists, but seem unfussed that a man identified as a possible Islamic State fighter had repeatedly not bothered to show up to face court.”
What a load of complete & utter horse manure, Bernard. With this story you have well & truly “Jumped the Shark”, with your pathetic insistence to defend the Librorts Party, no matter what. Whatever faults of the Victorian government, the truth is that crime rates have fallen the last few years, after 4 years of the crime rates rising under the Bally-hoo & Naptime governments (who, you may recall, cut police numbers). Oh, & I fully believe that intelligence agencies would fail to share vital info, given the level of utter incompetence they have displayed in the past.
Bernard Keane gets his knickers in a knot about a few things such as wowserism, that’s good journalism. But sometimessometimes he makes judgements that are badly wrong, and never backs down. I can’t understand why he hates Andrews so much, he’s never said a good word about him, it’s quite irrational and irritating.
BK is a closet LNP apologist and incompetence sympathiser…thus it suits him to accuse Labor of similar poor performance to his own team.
I couldn’t agree less with your piece about the second Bourke Street killer.
Sure he was on bail – for minor traffic offences. Having a passport cancelled years ago, on suspicion that he was going to fight in Syria, is irrelevant to the proper treatment of his bail. And locking up everyone who misses a minor traffic hearing, the moment they fail to appear, is hugely expensive and hugely inappropriate.
Gargasoulas was a religious nutter, Christian variety; he stabbed his brother, then went aimlessly about before heading to Bourke Street for his killings. The next Bourke Street killer was a religious nutter, Islamic variety; his family was worried about his mental health, before he headed to Bourke Street for his killing. There was no better reason to lock him up preventatively than to lock up Gargasoulas: and probably less reason.
But I was just about to say all that 🙂
I’m quite shocked that I would find that headline in Crikey. We can’t keep people in jail for speeding or any other non violent traffic offence.
I agree with redfernhood and Di. There may be a case for a better service response that could have prevented this and other tragedies – more comprehensive mental health services.