The report also found the gunman was treated in hospital months before the attack after accidentally shooting himself. This from Stuff.NZ: Medical staff never alerted police to his injuries. At the time, there was no mandatory legislation regarding reporting gunshot wounds, but it is understood to be a recommendation made by the royal commission of inquiry into the attack, which will release its findings on Tuesday. It is understood Dunedin doctors also treated the Australian-born shooter, who would become New Zealand’s first convicted terrorist, for issues arising from his steroid use. Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand: "Justice has not been served by the report" The Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand (IWCNZ) have said in a statement that “justice has not been done served by the report”, which they say was severely restricted by its terms of reference. There was a lack of transparency under the guise of confidentiality and national security, the IWCNZ says. “There are multiple areas of evidence that have not been investigated, and questions raised by IWCNZ have been ignored.” “We find it concerning that the Commissioners found systemic failures and an inappropriate concentration of resources towards Islamic terrorism, and yet state that these would not have made a difference to the terrorist being detected prior to the event.” In August this year, before the gunman was sentenced to life in prison, Hamimah Tuyan, the widow of the 51st and final victim of 2019’s Christchurch shooting, also addressed the gunman in court, telling him her husband’s death elevated him from hero to martyr. Zekeriya Tuyan battled for 48 days after 18 surgeries before succumbing to his injuries: In these extraordinary times, the Guardian’s editorial independence has never been more important. Because no one sets our agenda, or edits our editor, we can keep delivering quality, trustworthy, fact-checked journalism each and every day. Free from commercial or political influence, we can report fearlessly on world events and challenge those in power. Your support protects the Guardian’s independence. We believe every one of us deserves equal access to accurate news and calm explanation. No matter how unpredictable the future feels, we will remain with you, delivering high quality news so we can all make critical decisions about our lives, health and security – based on fact, not fiction. Support the Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you. Are you in or from Aotearoa? How do you feel about the report finally being released? Among the other initial measures Ardern has announced are: The establishment of a Ministry of Ethnic Communities Improvements to the police’s ability to identify and manage hate crime and deliver a service that is more responsive to victims, Improving research into extremism Creating an early intervention programme to support people showing early signs of radicalisation Summary Here is what we know about the report so far: Key findings: The report found New Zealand security agencies were “almost exclusively” focused on the threat from Islamist terrorism, and the police had failed to enforce proper checks on firearm licenses. The Royal Commission of Inquiry said despite the shortcomings, there were no failings within government agencies that would have alerted them to the imminent attack by the white supremacist. Secrecy about counter-terrorism approaches by successive governments had consequences, the report says. “One reason for this was to avoid stigmatising Muslims. But had such a strategy been shared with the public and also incorporated a ‘see something, say something policy’, it is possible that aspects of the individual’s planning may … have been reported.” Other factors included: the terrorist’s “operational security”; the laws the security agencies work with; and the limited capability and capacity of the agencies. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has apologised for “failings” by the security and intelligence agencies and within the firearms licensing system. The Royal Commission noted the attack “was driven by an extreme right-wing Islamophobic ideology. Its purpose was to promote chaos and disharmony in New Zealand”. It said “this purpose failed”: “In the days, weeks and months that followed, New Zealanders united around those affected and spoke out against racism, extremism and extremist violence,” the report read. “There was a period of national reflection about our shared values, our collective lives and what it means to live in New Zealand. Key recommendations: The report’s recommendations include a new security and intelligence agency, a new counter-terrorism minister and strategy, and funding for research into NZ-specific extremism. They also include new anti-terror laws, hate speech laws, social cohesion measures and workplace diversity for the public sector. Ardern announced on Monday that she would appoint a new minister to implement the inquiry’s recommendations, telling reporters, “The [Muslim] community will want to see accountability in terms of the implementation, they will want to know who is responsible for coordinating some of those efforts and we will be providing that.” Reactions to the report: Muslim community leaders said report shows ‘institutional prejudice and unconscious bias’ exist in government agencies. The imam of the Masjid An-Nur (Al Noor mosque), Gamal Fouda, the spokesman for the Muslim Association of Canterbury, Abdigani Ali, and general secretary of the Linwood Islamic Centre, Faisal Sayed, said in a statement:“We’ve known for a long time that the Muslim community has been targeted with hate speech and hate crimes – this report shows that we are right.” The leaders added that the report, “shows that institutional prejudice and unconscious bias exists in government agencies and that needs to change.” New Zealand’s police commissioner, Andrew Coster, has apologised for the failures the report found in the country’s gun licensing system, saying that the police “could have done more”. Ardern announced on Monday that she would appoint a new minister to implement the inquiry’s recommendations, telling reporters: The [Muslim] community will want to see accountability in terms of the implementation, they will want to know who is responsible for coordinating some of those efforts and we will be providing that” Secrecy surrounding counter-terrorism approaches had negative consequences, report finds My colleague Phil Taylor reports that the 800-page document has that the terrorist’s “operational security”; the laws the security agencies work with; and the limited capability and capacity of the agencies were also factors. The only information that should have alerted authorities to the terrorist attack was an email he sent to parliament eight minutes before beginning the attack. Secrecy about counter-terrorism approaches by successive governments had consequences, the report said: One reason for this was to avoid stigmatising Muslims. But had such a strategy been shared with the public and also incorporated a ‘see something, say something policy’, it is possible that aspects of the individual’s planning may … have been reported. With the benefit of hindsight, such reporting would have provided the best chance of disrupting the terrorist attack.” Stuff.NZ has laid out some more of the precautions taken – and suppression rulings made – by the commission: The commission had to take care its processes or report could not be used for unlawful activities or damage the public interest. It made a series of suppression rulings including suppressing the names of police staff involved in granting the Australian national a firearms licence and the two people who vouched for the terrorist. An interview with the terrorist was also permanently suppressed because of a concern it would be used by others to plan attacks and further spread the terrorist’s views. Evidence and documents provided by government agencies were kept secret for similar reasons. The commissioners also 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 Royal Commission includes swathes of information previously classified as top secret, and material gathered from hundreds of interviews - including with the terrorist, ministers past and present, public service agency heads and affected communities. Many interviews, including with Ms Ardern, are subject to 30-year suppressions. The interview with the terrorist has been permanently classified. Recommendations include new anti-terror and hate speech laws The report’s recommendations include a new security and intelligence agency, a new counter-terrorism minister and strategy, and funding for research into NZ-specific extremism, AAP reports. They also include new anti-terror laws, hate speech laws, social cohesion measures and workplace diversity for the public sector. The challenging report also gives more details on the upbringing of the Australian terrorist. The Royal Commission noted the attack “was driven by an extreme right-wing Islamophobic ideology. Its purpose was to promote chaos and disharmony in New Zealand”. It said “this purpose failed”. “In the days, weeks and months that followed, New Zealanders united around those affected and spoke out against racism, extremism and extremist violence,” the report read. “There was a period of national reflection about our shared values, our collective lives and what it means to live in New Zealand. Muslim community leaders say report shows "institutional prejudice and unconscious bias" in government agencies The imam of the Masjid An-Nur (Al Noor mosque), Gamal Fouda, the spokesman for the Muslim Association of Canterbury, Abdigani Ali, and general secretary of the Linwood Islamic Centre, Faisal Sayed, have said in a statement: “We’ve known for a long time that the Muslim community has been targeted with hate speech and hate crimes – this report shows that we are right.” The leaders added that the report, “shows that institutional prejudice and unconscious bias exists in government agencies and that needs to change.”