Daniel James

It's Friday, May 1.

Greg, thanks for joining us again.

The interim report recognises that our counter-terrorism capability needs bolstering, making 14 recommendations about how that should be done.

Not all the recommendations in the report have been made public at this stage.

Out of the ones that we do know about, which ones resonate with you most at this point?

There are five confidential recommendations.

What do you think they're likely to cover off on?

So what would more effective counter-extremism measures look like?

You mentioned that the report recommends a full-time counterterrorism coordinator.

What does that role do and what difference could that make?

One of the recommendations is a review into counterterrorism teams and how they integrate and share information.

How important is that and what do you think the review needs to cover?

Coming up, is the Royal Commission moving too slowly in a time of war?

If we pull out a bit, Greg, we're about to go into two weeks of hearings about anti-Semitism.

Is there a chance that Islamic State could exploit this Royal Commission?

Could it actually give it more material to try and recruit Australians to its cause?

Do you think, given the current political environment, that we're mature enough to have this conversation, Greg?

Commissioner Bell says key questions, including whether there was a failure to identify an act on intelligence before the attack and whether police resources for the Hunnicare event were adequate, will be dealt with later in hearings.

Is there a risk that those issues won't be dealt with quickly enough, though, if we're waiting until the end of the year for the Royal Commission report to be handed down?

And how much more complicated is the war in Iran making things in terms of responding to potential security threats here at home?