New South Wales Police Minister Yasmin Catley acknowledged on Friday that delays in processing firearm licence applications contributed only partially to the unusually lengthy three-year period it took to approve the gun licence of Sajid Akram, the perpetrator of last December's Bondi attack.

Akram, who was fatally shot during the December 14 massacre, applied for a firearm licence in June 2020, approximately a year after he and his son, Naveed Akram—alleged to be a co-perpetrator—were interviewed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) over suspected ties to Islamic extremist networks in Sydney. The licence was eventually granted in July 2023.

During a budget estimates hearing, Minister Catley responded to inquiries regarding the protracted processing time, citing the ongoing Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion and the pending prosecution of Naveed Akram as constraints on the level of detail she could provide. She noted that while a backlog within the Firearms Registry contributed to the delay, it did not entirely explain the three-year time frame.

Documents leaked earlier this week indicate that the average firearm licence application in 2020 was processed within 96 days, and the backlog from that year was reportedly cleared by early 2022. Furthermore, internal police communications revealed that by March 2022, only four internal review cases remained unresolved from that period. These internal reviews serve as the primary appeal mechanism for refused applications.

Minister Catley initially expressed uncertainty about whether Sajid Akram’s application had been refused and subsequently approved on appeal but later confirmed that there was no evidence suggesting he requested an internal review. Despite the backlog clearance, Catley mentioned the existence of roughly 150 applications processed over a two-year span between 2020 and 2023, indicating some ongoing delays.

Representatives from the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (NSW) raised doubts about the backlog narrative. Pete Szaak, the association’s chief executive and a former NSW police officer with 28 years’ experience, stated that such a prolonged delay would be uncommon without an internal review or escalation to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Police officials present at the hearing declined to publicly comment on details surrounding Akram’s licence approval. Opposition legal affairs spokesperson Susan Carter criticized the government’s handling of the issue, emphasizing the public’s right to understand how Akram obtained the licence and whether warning signs had been missed. She urged that any failures be transparently addressed.

Separately, the Royal Commission into Antisemitism has heard limited testimony concerning potential reforms to protest laws but did feature contributions from Labor MPs Josh Burns and Mark Dreyfus, who advocated for a criminal vilification offence. This proposal was part of Labor’s post-Bondi legal reforms introduced earlier this year but was later withdrawn during party negotiations.

The commission also received commentary from Aftab Malik, the special envoy for combating Islamophobia, who expressed concerns that certain legal changes could inadvertently stigmatize peaceful pro-Palestine protests. Malik argued that failing to enact balanced legislation risked fostering perceptions of a hierarchy of hate in society.

Rabbi Ulman, delivering the commission’s closing address, called for clear leadership differentiating free speech from hate speech and peaceful protest from intimidation. The commission’s December 18 deadline has spurred debate, with petitions seeking an extension garnering over 9,000 signatures. However, major Jewish community organizations such as the Executive Council of Australian Jewry have not supported extending the inquiry.

Coalition education spokesman Julian Leeser criticized the limited timeframe, warning that insufficient inquiry could leave the community vulnerable if further incidents occur. Meanwhile, some senior Jewish figures opposed the extension, contending that the commission’s current direction reflects deliberate choices rather than time constraints and that extending the inquiry would not necessarily alter its scope or findings.