ASIO statement: Four Corners
Four Corners’ claims contain significant errors of fact.
ASIO is constrained in our ability to respond to specific questions because there is an ongoing investigation, the matter is before the courts and we now have the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.
It would not be responsible to risk prejudicing the Royal Commission, any criminal proceedings, and the ongoing investigations. In addition, many of the questions ask ASIO to disclose classified information.
Four Corners’ questions fall into three broad categories:
- Claims the Akrams embraced violent extremism in 2019
ASIO investigated Naveed Akram in 2019, using our most sensitive capabilities. We assessed he did not adhere to or intend to engage in violent extremism at that time. Having reviewed all available intelligence, we stand by our assessment at that point in time.
Four Corners’ questions about the investigation appear to be based on the uncorroborated claims of a single, unreliable and disgruntled source.
The claims Four Corners is making were investigated at the time and found to be unsubstantiated. The ABC’s source mis-identified Naveed Akram. That is, the source claimed Naveed Akram said and did things that were actually said and done by an entirely different person. To be clear, Four Corners’ source mis-identified Naveed Akram, and therefore the associated claims are untrue.
This source also has a track record of making statements that are untrue.
As another example, it is false to claim ASIO received intelligence about Sajid Akram being part of a group that discussed a plan to establish a pro-ISIS community in Türkiye. This claim is untrue.
As an additional example, Four Corners’ claim – which has also been repeated on other ABC platforms – that Naveed Akram was “a close associate” of known terrorists is false. There is a significant difference between attending a prayer centre with a large gathering of people and being a “close associate” of known terrorists. This claim is untrue.
Ultimately, the Royal Commission will make its own assessment based on all the evidence and intelligence, rather than selective claims.
- Claims about ASIO resourcing
All these claims are false. While some staff did take voluntary redundancies in 2020 as part of an Organisation-wide restructure – that is, the year after the investigation of Naveed Akram – there was practically no impact on our counter-terrorism mission. Only three counter-terrorism officers departed. The person appointed to head our counter-terrorism mission was a highly experienced and respected intelligence officer with 36 years of service.
Since that time, significant investments in AI and other capabilities have only enhanced our ability to collect, translate and analyse intelligence.
ASIO lowered the terrorism threat level in 2022 because there were fewer individuals with the intent to carry out attacks in Australia. Critically, though, we raised the terrorism threat level to PROBABLE in 2024, noting the most likely attack involves an individual or small group moving to violence quickly and using a rudimentary weapon such as a gun. The Bondi attack occurred after we raised the terrorism threat level.
The Director-General told Senate Estimates in February 2025 that antisemitism represented ASIO’s top priority in terms of threats to life.
The claim any resourcing decision increased the likelihood of the Bondi attack is false, irresponsible and demonstrates profound ignorance of ASIO’s prioritisation frameworks and enduring investment in counter terrorism.
Tragically, ASIO did not know what the perpetrators of the Bondi attack were planning – or indeed that they were planning anything.
This is a matter of grave regret. It weighs on us heavily. But that does not mean additional resourcing would have prevented the attack or there was intelligence that was not acted on or that our officers made mistakes.
Ultimately, the Royal Commission will make its own assessment of resourcing based on all the evidence, rather than selective claims.
- Claims about intelligence sharing
ASIO works closely with federal, state and territory law enforcement partners, and we routinely share intelligence through the Joint Counter Terrorism Teams.
This is one reason why there have been 28 major terrorism disruptions since September 2014.
Ultimately, the Royal Commission will make its own assessment about intelligence sharing based on all the evidence, rather than selective claims.
We will fully cooperate with the Royal Commission and hope its findings will give the public confidence in ASIO’s commitment to protecting Australia and Australians.
Given the errors in Four Corners’ questions, and noting the journalist has previously broadcast false claims about ASIO and the Akrams, we hold grave concerns about the accuracy of the proposed story. If the ABC chooses to publish claims it cannot substantiate – particularly ones it has been told are untrue – we will reserve our right to take further action.
