Ardern JacindaROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACK ON CHRISTCHURCH MASJIDAIN ON 15 MARCH 2019ReportRt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I move That the House note Ko tō tātou kāinga tēnei: Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019. Today the Government tables the report of the royal commission of inquiry into the terrorist attack on the 15th March. Before we begin with the findings and the steps we must take let me first speak directly to the Muslim community in New Zealand. Nothing in this report nothing that had happened in the courtroom nothing that we have done in this Parliament or nothing we will do in the future of this Parliament will take back what happened that day but I hope each of those acts takes us one step closer to justice and one step closer to change. Till that day I say as-salamu alaykum—may peace be with you and may peace surround you. Ten days after March 15 we announced the royal commission. It is reserved for matters of the gravest public importance. We wanted to ensure that this independent inquiry was able to ask the questions that we all had but that most importantly the Muslim community had. Those questions included whether there was any information provided or otherwise available to relevant public sector agencies that could or should have alerted them to the attack whether there was any failure in information sharing between relevant agencies whether public sector agencies failed to anticipate or plan for the attack due to an inappropriate concentration of resources whether any relevant public sector agency failed to meet required standards or was otherwise at fault and any other matters relevant to the purpose of the inquiry. These were the questions being asked and 18 months later those are the questions that were meticulously answered in this report. Over 1000 people made submissions hundreds met with the inquirers and international experts shared their insights and the result is 800 pages' worth of findings. Now we will not be able to summarise it all in this House today but I do want to place the key findings on record and also then respond with some of the initial response from the Government. The report finds: We conclude the concentration of counter-terrorism resources on the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism before the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service's baselining project began in May 2018 was inappropriate because it: … was not based on an informed assessment of the threats of terrorism associated with other ideologies; and [it] did not result from a system-wide decision that despite the absence of such an assessment counter-terrorism resources should continue to be allocated almost exclusively to the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism. We find that: … the inappropriate concentration of resources on the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism did not contribute to the individual's planning and preparation for his terrorist attack not being detected. And for that reason the Public sector agencies involved in the counter-terrorism effort did not fail to anticipate or plan for the terrorist attack … No Public sector agency involved in the counter-terrorism effort failed to meet required standards or was otherwise at fault in respects that were material to the individual's planning and preparation for this terrorist attack not being detected." On the firearms licence the report found: "New Zealand Police failed to meet required standards in the administration of the firearms licensing system" and that "the Arms Manual the Master Vetting Guide and the Firearms Licence Vetting Guide did not provide coherent and complete guidance … New Zealand Police did not put in place arrangements to ensure that firearms licensing staff received systematic training and regular reviews of their practice; … in dealing with the individual's firearms licence application New Zealand Police did not adequately address whether gaming friend and their parent knew the individual well enough to [act] as referees." The report goes on to consider "what might have happened" had the licensing policy and process been appropriate and how this may have impacted the events of March 15. While hypothetical and speculative "if the individual's application had not been granted … We think it possible and perhaps likely that he would have been able to obtain a licence eventually". But this is a message I wish all of this House to hear particularly those who take diverse views on gun laws: "It is also possible that he may have formulated a plan to carry out the terrorist attack using different means or abandoned his planning for a terrorist attack in New Zealand" were it not for our gun regime. This is only the beginning of the report's findings. It traverses our security and intelligence arrangements counter-terrorism framing and information-sharing provisions but it's important to take a moment of pause because while the royal commission found no failures with any Government agencies that would have allowed the individual's planning and preparation to have been detected it did identify many lessons to be learnt and significant changes that are required. For many years Muslim community members have raised concerns over issues like the disproportionate scrutiny by security and intelligence agencies. This report confirms there was that inappropriate concentration of resources. It also identifies as I've said the failings within the firearm-licensing system. The commission made no findings that these would have stopped the attack but they were failings none the less and for that on behalf of the Government I apologise. This report also identifies a permissive firearms regime—for that we must all take responsibility. It demonstrates why we took those steps immediately on military-style weapons why it was so important that we made the changes we did but it also tells a story of over decades and decades a lack of action in an area where there was much-needed reform. There is much work to do. I don't want the response to this report to be political. Many recommendations of which there are 44 relate to issues that we will seek consensus over. We will work hard to achieve that but let me start by outlining some of the plan that we can announce from today. Firstly we agree in principle with the 44 recommendations. Secondly Minister Andrew Little will coordinate the cross-Government response to the recommendations. Thirdly some of our immediate responses include: in line with recommendation 30 we will establish a ministry for ethnic communities—long called for. Following recommendation 35 we will establish an ethnic communities graduate programme within our public sector. Recommendations 25 and 26 which suggested to us that we needed to continue to support victims and survivors of the attack on that day and we will do that through wraparound support—directly walking alongside those families. Recommendation 14: we will establish a national centre of excellence to prevent violent extremism and promote those preventative actions that are known to reduce radicalisation—and they do fall in the space of social cohesion. I do not call them social engineering; I call it prevention. Recommendation 42 which establishes an organisational response within the police to recording and managing hate crime. Also early intervention programmes across agency to address risk factors that we know lead to radicalisation. Recommendation 44: we will work with parties across Parliament on the gaps in hate speech legislation. I know this is a contentious area and we will work with determination to try and form that consensus if we can. In recommendation 18 we see calls to strengthen counter-terrorism legislation. That was something the Government had started work on prior to March 15 and we will now bring those amendments to the House. There is much to do but I want to leave my final words as words of thanks to the commission for its enormous work. I can do no better than summarise the path ahead than using their own words: "We accept political engagement on these issues will not be easy. But facing up to the hard issues and having open public conversations are critical. … We hope our report will encourage members of the public officials and politicians to engage in frank debate so that everyone understands their roles and responsibilities in keeping New Zealand safe secure and cohesive. There is impetus for debate around the kind of country New Zealand aspires to be." May that objective guide us in this House but may the memory of the 51 who were lost the survivors and witnesses remain with us as we embark upon this journey. Nō reira tēnā tātou katoa."