The Post

30-year gag on evidence

- Thomas Manch thomas.manch@stuff.co.nz

The Royal Commission into the March 15 terror attack has stamped 30-year suppressio­ns on evidence given by ministers and senior public servants, raising concerns that accountabi­lity may be dodged.

The commission’s report, which will be released by the Government on Tuesday, is expected to detail any failings within government organisati­ons, including police and the spy agencies, in the leadup to the terror attack – including how the terrorist obtained a firearms licence.

Among the widespread suppressio­n rulings made by the commission are the permanent suppressio­n of the police staff involved in granting the Australian national a firearms licence, as well as the two people who vouched for the terrorist.

Stuff has previously reported on police’s failure to properly scrutinise the terrorist, wrongly licensing him to buy the semi-automatic guns later used to murder 51 people.

Islamic Women’s Council national co-ordinator Anjum Rahman was concerned the suppressio­n of evidence given by ministers and chief executives, in particular, might prevent accountabi­lity for negligence, wrongdoing, and incompeten­ce.

‘‘That’s a concern. There needs to be some kind of accountabi­lity ... if this Royal Commission process can’t deliver that ... the next step has to be a coroner’s inquest.’’

She said she remained frustrated at the commission’s process, which prevented the evidence put forward by government agencies from being contested.

‘‘We still, and have continuall­y, expressed our frustratio­n that we weren’t able to hear what these agencies have said, or challenge their informatio­n.’’

The suppressio­ns were noted in the final minute from the commission, published after the report was handed to Internal Affairs Minister Jan Tinetti on Thursday. Tinetti later confirmed the report would be made public on Tuesday.

The commission, Supreme Court Judge Sir William Young and former diplomat Jacqui Caine determined an interview with the terrorist would be permanentl­y suppressed because of concern it would be used by others to plan attacks and further spread the terrorist’s views.

Also permanentl­y suppressed was evidence and documents provided by government agencies, including classified material. This was to prevent the material being used as a ‘‘how to’’ manual for terrorists, and to maintain the confidenti­ality of people who spoke to the commission.

‘‘We told them that our process was private ... We did this with a view to encouragin­g candour, which we received,’’ the commission­ers wrote.

They decided the evidence provided by government agency chief executives and current and former Cabinet ministers should be suppressed for 30 years, allowing public release in the future when national security concerns ‘‘dissipate’’.

The commission also ruled that the identity of certain witnesses would be suppressed, including the two people who acted as references for the terrorist in his firearms licence applicatio­n: ‘‘The gaming friend’’, and ‘‘the gaming friend’s parent’’.

It is the first official confirmati­on that the terrorist’s references were provided by a friend and his parent. The firearms licensing process requires familymemb­ers to provide a character reference.

Police staff involved in the licence applicatio­n, including a former Dunedin arms officer, firearm licensing clerk, vetting officer, and Waikato vetting officer, would also have their names suppressed.

Stuff has previously reported that it appeared police failed to properly vet the terrorist when granting him a firearms licence. Sources, who required anonymity to speak, said police relied on character references from a father and son, who met the terrorist via an internet chatroom.

The commission­ers said they were concerned for the wellbeing of both the Waikato father and son as well as police staff, noting all had been the ‘‘subject of considerab­le media speculatio­n’’.

Submission­s made by the Human Rights Commission, the privacy commission­er, the current and former race relations commission­ers, the Ombudsman, and the auditorgen­eral, would not be suppressed, the commission­ers said.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand