Here's what I'd do with people who come here and start spewing hate

In the middle of 2025 we had to take our beloved Weimaraner to his end-of-life veterinary appointment.

I'm still ashamed that we couldn't face it sooner. Thus he had a bit longer in discomfort than necessary because we were weak. Inevitable has a meaning and you just can't escape it.

So it is with a royal commission into the Bondi shootings. John Donne's poem "No man is an island" comes to mind. It's worth a read. "Any man's death diminishes me, Because I am involved in mankind,".

The horror at Bondi was targeted at Jews, but they're us. There's a warning at the end. "Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee."

A government's first job is the safety of the people. Yes, we all and some in particular are entitled to answers. The real point however is this. Whilst we are entitled to answers, the government is obligated to find them. Without learning what we can do better the government just cannot fulfil its primary task of protecting Australians.

Much was made of Morrison's frankly truthful, but as he admits stupid, remark during the 2019 bushfires. He said "I don't hold a hose". It was a bad look staying on leave when some of the worst bushfires we've seen were raging. As the nation's leader he could have and in my view should have, been there to offer support and comfort. Morrison was right however in that politicians don't do the firefighting.

In the case of keeping Australians safe, the hose is very much in the hands of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. They have direct responsibility for dealing with anti-Semitism, Islamic radicalism and protecting Australia from terrorism. They have been "holding that hose" since early 2022. They just haven't turned it on. We've already paid a heavy and heartbreaking price for government inaction. Its time they put out the fire.

There are two, somewhat separate, but related questions. The rise of anti-Semitism and Islamic radicalism and what we do about these is one aspect. The other is the Bondi shootings in particular. What did we know, should we have known and where can we do better. A royal commission doesn't need to be one big long-term affair. It can be structured flexibly in terms of reporting times and expertise. The sooner we get on with it the better.

My own view is the alarm bells were already ringing well before 2023. But as soon as people put Star of David stickers on Jewish businesses the volume on the alarm bells could be heard by the hardest of hearing. But not our government. We saw what happened in Europe when tagging people, their homes and businesses because of their religion became commonplace. There's been warning bell after warning bell since then. If we neatly collated all the incidents that raised alarm just how clear would that picture be?

The inaction is inexplicable. It begs the question of what if any commitments have been given to Islamic representatives in the community and by whom. A clear list of all communications with senators, members, ministers and their staff would be very interesting.

As is often the case some early commentators rush to judgement. A calm, considered royal commission wouldn't make that mistake. Take the intelligence services. Imagine watching a moving feast of data about hundreds, maybe thousands of people.

You have a constant inflow of new information: communications, travel details, meetings, facts, probabilities and coincidences. Then something terrible happens and you sift out of this ocean of rawish data what you have about the suspected bad guys.

Of course when you clear away all the irrelevant data about everyone and everything else, things about the suspected person look clearer, perhaps more dangerous. The question isn't "can you see it clearly now?"

It is "should this have jumped out of the ocean of data?"

How stupid do you have to be to not understand that looking at cleaned up information is quite different from looking at a moving ocean of often very disconnected data? Intelligence services may or may not have fallen short.

There is however no doubt that the government has been weak in dealing with radical Islamists. It can't be allowed to continue. The safety risks are obvious. There's an additional and cruel consequence for all the decent Islamic people who came here to get away from that hatred. They get so unfairly tarnished by all this. We forget that Muslims fought alongside us at Gallipoli and one of the most famous spies for the allies in WWII was a Muslim woman named Noor Inayat Khan.

The radical Islamists preach hate. But remember, those who encourage a blanket anti-Muslim attitude are just the same. They offer no peaceful way forward. They spew hatred themselves. They feed our paranoia to push their own popularity.

Our focus should not be on decent Muslims but the radical Islamists. It's easy to say don't let these people in but it isn't easy to spot the bad guys. Surprise, surprise they often lie. Still, we can aim for better vetting. Then we can try harder to get rid of people who have come here and been caught out misbehaving. Anyone whose had the immigration job knows how hard that is.

There's a third option that may not yet have been considered. If you choose to spread violence, division and hatred in the country that prides itself on peace and harmony then why should you enjoy all the privileges that country offers?

We've never been much in favour of guest workers as some other countries are. The idea that you come here with very limited rights and no opportunity to stay irks at our sense of equality. However, we could have a second-class category of visa/citizenship into which you effectively choose to put yourself. If you thumb your nose at the country which has given you so much I think it's fair enough for that country to give you less.

Make my day and put me in charge of creating the second-class category into which you choose to put yourself because of your own misbehaviour.

We would simply say: "If you choose to do these things, you lose these opportunities." I'd cast the net for the things that trigger the loss as widely as possible and do the same for what you could lose.

READ MORE VANSTONE:

There'd be some easy first calls. You'd be denied the opportunity to sponsor family reunion or any other visa. Oh, and if you went back to the country you fled, for your cousin's wedding or whatever, you wouldn't get back into Australia.

But that's just day one. We would get the states to join in. Then we'd get a bevy of talented bureaucrats to pore over just about every regulation and see where governments could limit your opportunities without even passing legislation.

Regulations can be wonderful things. Get a nice big list of what can be denied and what can be charged at a higher price, and do it. Without fear or favour. If you choose to behave in a way that puts you in this category, that's your problem.

What might come under the purview of this list? Anything except the most basic welfare. Standing for local government or any Parliament, depending on implementation costs higher fees for any licences or permits, full fees for any education. The longer the list the better. I wouldn't care how big or small the thing was. If you have to pay more or get less great.

Here's the job description for the minister in charge of creating the second-class citizen/resident/visa holder category. Create a system where every day, everywhere a bad guy turns he will be reminded of how he chose to stick it up the citizens who gave him a great chance. Now those citizens are fighting back. And he brought it all on himself. Tough. I'm not weeping for him.