There was a small arsenal of guns. Troubling online posts, rendered even more sinister in hindsight. And complete isolation, in and of itself not a concern, but – in combination with the other factors – is perhaps a cloak to hide the dagger.
All this emerged in the days after six people, two of whom were police officers, were killed at 251 Wains Road, Wieambilla, on 12 December 2022.
It was hard to imagine a less likely place for a deadly act of terrorism – which police labelled Australia’s first Christian terrorist attack – than the remote Queensland property.
Gareth, Nathaniel and Stacey Train, who lived there, were found to have been primarily motivated by a “Christian violent extremist ideology” when they killed police officers Matthew Arnold and Rachel McCrow and neighbour Alan Dare. The Trains were shot dead during a gunfight with heavily armed tactical police in the hours afterwards.
Almost a year later, a question remains unanswered: could law enforcement and intelligence agencies do anything differently to stop a similar attack happening? And, if so, have authorities already changed the way they work?
The terms of reference for an inquest into the deaths are yet to be finalised, it was revealed during a pre-inquest hearing this week. But it is expected that a major focus will be what was known about the Trains before four Queensland police climbed over the locked front gate of the Wieambilla property.
The coroner will examine what police and intelligence agencies knew about the Trains, what they had missed and whether information was shared between agencies in such a way that the threat could be have been properly assessed.
The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation says it has not changed the way it assesses threats after the shooting.
“While the terrorist threat is constantly evolving, Asio’s remit has not changed, nor has how we assess threats,” a spokesperson said. “Asio protects Australians from religiously motivated and ideologically motivated violent extremism.
“Asio collects intelligence from within Australia and overseas, analyses and investigates terrorist threats, and works with partners to strengthen public safety and to disrupt attacks.”
Asio’s director general, Mike Burgess, coincidentally featured in one of the many obscure online videos uploaded by Gareth Train. Just weeks before the attack Burgess said individuals were radicalising quickly online “so the time between flash [and] bang is shorter than ever”.
He also said that the most likely attack would come from lone actors using readily available weapons, which made them “difficult to detect ahead of time and can occur with little or no warning”.
The Australian federal police, who work within joint counter-terror organisations across multiple jurisdictions, say it would be inappropriate to comment specifically on Wieambilla because of the inquest.
The force says, however, that extremists were increasingly sharing propaganda online since the start of the pandemic and it was “regularly refining” its strategies.
“The uptake of social media enables like-minded individuals to communicate and spread online messaging to an extent not previously possible prior to the introduction of social media platforms,” a spokesperson said.
“In response to these changes, the AFP is regularly refining traditional CT strategies to ensure our responses to emerging risks posed by extremist groups are fit for purpose.
“We remain alert to information or intelligence that indicates any group’s propensity for, or movement towards violence.”
Prof Michele Grossman, a terrorism studies expert at Deakin University, says the Wieambilla shooting should not be seen as an event authorities had never thought possible.
“The events that happened at Wieambilla did not represent a set of new lessons, but crystallised some things that law enforcement and intelligence agencies had been thinking about for some time,” she says.
‘Who gets monitored?’
There was information on the Trains stretching back at least a year before the shooting that could have indicated the risk they posed.
Nathaniel and Stacey both left jobs as teachers amid their vehement opposition to Covid-19 vaccination mandates.
Gareth had an online presence that railed against authority and governments, embraced fringe and conspiratorial beliefs and he had been in contact with likeminded people overseas.
Nathaniel had a gun licence, and was found to have dumped several firearms while illegally crossing the border from New South Wales into Queensland. There was a warrant out regarding this at the time of the attack.
All of them had become increasingly isolated from broader social and family circles and appeared to be almost solely reliant on each other and on their remote property.
Grossman says it is unlikely that these factors individually, with the possible exception of Nathaniel’s links to guns, would have sparked the interest of authorities.
“Each of those threads in and of themselves isn’t likely to trigger a sense of concern or interest,” she says. “Maybe the guns. Maybe.
“But going down rabbit holes, leaving jobs, only when you put those things together, and as can only happen in hindsight, that’s when you can understand the risk.”
Grossman says that it is clear the trio embraced “a dizzying intersection of narratives, ideologies and conspiracies” that probably did not justify closer attention from authorities.
“A question we need to ask is about who gets monitored and how they get monitored,” she says. “Law enforcement can’t be everywhere, all the time, and nor would we want to live in a society where there was constant surveillance of the population.”
The key to detecting similar risks in future, Grossman says, could be having “social intimates” who see various threads fraying in relation to a friend or family member reporting their concerns to law enforcement.
“Police and intelligence agencies prioritise cases based on the possibility of risk and really serious harm being done to people,” she said.
“Where you have more obscured pathways it falls back on communities and those around others to come forward, but also for law enforcement to be responsive to those who come forward with those concerns, and follow up where they think it’s warranted.”
Aside from the inquest into the deaths, there is another pending inquiry that may provide some answers about how law enforcement and intelligence agencies are monitoring emerging extremist threats.
In September 2022 the Albanese government committed to referring an inquiry into extremist movements to the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security.
More than a year later, that has still not happened.
A Department of Home Affairs spokesperson confirmed that the government intended to honour that commitment but gave no indication when it would or whether its terms of reference would reflect concerns raised by the Wieambilla shooting.
“The PJCIS inquiry is important to the national security of Australia as the threats from extremist movements and radicalisation continue to evolve,” the home affairs spokesperson said.
In the meantime, the department says, it’s business as usual.
“We continue to work with states and territories to counter all forms of violent extremism.”
Another pre-inquest hearing in the Wieambilla case is expected to be held in May, with the inquest itself scheduled to start in July.
– with Andrew Messenger
