Calls for a royal commission into the Bondi Beach terror attack are now reaching a roar — but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese hasn’t budged.
At the end of last year, families of 11 of the 15 victims penned an open letter demanding a royal commission into the rise of antisemitism in Australia, and to examine “the law enforcement, intelligence, and policy failures” that led to the attack.
The calls have been picked up by both the media establishment and — somewhat unexpectedly — Australia’s biggest sporting stars, including Ian Thorpe, Jess Fox, and Lleyton Hewitt.
Now a group of prominent Labor politicians have joined the chorus, calling for an inquiry to understand “how hate and incitement is weaponised in Australia”.
Given the scale of the tragedy, and the fact that the gunmen targeted members of Australia’s Jewish community celebrating the first day of Hanukkah, establishing a royal commission seems like common sense.
Yet Albanese has so far resisted calls, and critics say it’s not the right approach.
So why the resistance? And why is a royal commission controversial?
What is a royal commission?
A royal commission is Australia’s highest form of independent inquiry into issues of national importance. It is a temporary body appointed by the Governor-General that operates independently from the government and has wide-ranging powers.
The Royal Commissions Act 1902 grants inquiry members coercive agency in pursuing their investigation, including the power to hold public hearings, call and cross-examine witnesses, and obtain evidence.
In the case of Bondi, Albanese is being called to launch a royal commission that doubles as national inquiry into antisemitism as the origin of the tragedy.
As a wholly independent review, royal commissions can prevent potential institutional secrecy around a tragedy like Bondi to uncover failings at high levels — a factor which some claim is behind Albanese’s resistance to a royal commission
Royal commissions have also functioned as symbols for the public. Their status and moral authority as the highest form of inquiry provides confidence that the cause of a national tragedy like Bondi can be determined, and that those responsible can be held to account.
While royal commissions cannot impose findings of criminal guilt or impose criminal penalties, they do provide a detailed report with key recommendations. It is up to the government whether these recommendations are implemented.
Why are people calling for one in the wake of the Bondi attack?
The expansive powers and symbolic merit of a royal commission are behind the push to launch a federal inquiry into the Bondi attacks. Supporters of a royal commission argue it is the only avenue to dig deeper into the role of antisemitism and the climate that fosters it, since it can cast its inquiry beyond government agencies.
Those leading the calls have expressed this sentiment. In their open letter, the 100 athletes said a royal commission is the most “decisive” way to “ensure accountability”, while the Executive Council of Australian Jewry said the wide-ranging scope will provide “accountability and healing”.
Given the complexity of the broader issue of antisemitism in Australia, supporters argue the thoroughness of a royal commission is the best way to get to the bottom of — and fully confront — how radical ideologies played a role to the attack.
Why do critics say it’s a waste of resources?
One factor causing pushback against a Bondi royal commission is the time and resources needed to execute one. The nuances of investigating antisemitism have led some experts to predict that a royal commission could take anywhere between one to five years to complete.
Critics argue that the lengthy wait might insulate the Federal Government from pursuing other courses of action in the meantime.
Royal commissions can also be very expensive, collectively costing taxpayers as much as tens of millions of dollars, depending on the scope. The breadth of the Bondi case has raised concerns these funds will be wasted on delivering recommendations about the tragedy that the government has already responded to with quicker, more immediate responses.
Another criticism against a royal commission is the intense attention they draw.
This puts the issue of antisemitism at risk of being politicised. There’s also a chance that the inquiry’s recommendations may further divide the community by laying blame on a singular cause, in turn “reinforc[ing] a narrative” that might “entrench fear and division”, as expressed by Rateb Jneid of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils.
While it supports an investigation, the Jewish Council of Australia also cited these concerns in a statement to PEDESTRIAN.TV.
“The Jewish Council supports calls for an investigation into the Bondi Massacre, but is alarmed by how rapidly debate over the terms of reference have been weaponised by politicians,” the council’s executive member Ohad Kozminsky said.
“We are concerned by proposals that stoke anti-migrant sentiment, wage culture wars, and target universities, cultural institutions and protest movements. None of this will make Jewish communities or other racialised groups more safe — quite to the contrary.”
What is Albanese doing instead?
So far, Albanese has resisted mounting pressure for a royal commission, although reports say he may be considering it.
Instead, he has instead pushed for a raft of responses that prioritise “urgency” over the “delay” of a national inquiry. In the time since the attack, these swift measures have included the firearms buyback scheme, crackdowns on hate speech and stricter migration checks.
In lieu of a royal commission, Albanese also tapped former spy chief Dennis Richardson to lead a review into the Federal Government’s intelligence and security agencies and their response to the Bondi attack.
The Richardson review will investigate whether agencies — including ASIO and the AFP — could’ve prevented the attack, as well as all their prior knowledge of the alleged gunmen. Though not as wide-ranging as the powers of a royal commission, Richardson has been granted the full cooperation of the government’s top agencies for the inquiry.
“Richardson will have full access to all material he considers may be relevant to his inquiry. Departments and agencies will cooperate fully with the review and provide assistance in the form of documents, data, material and meetings,” Albanese said.
Why are people opposed to the Richardson review?
The Richardson review is limited to investigating only the role of agencies’ response to, and investigation of, the Bondi attack and the alleged gunmen. Although it is independent, critics argue the smaller scope of the Richardson review — constrained only to the government — won’t allow for a deeper investigation into antisemitism, which is the very basis of the calls for a royal commission.
Unlike a royal commission, Richardson cannot call public hearings or obtain evidence beyond internal agencies, heightening fears that the issue of radicalism underpinning the tragedy will go unchecked. As opposition leader Sussan Ley argued, the Richardson review “doesn’t cover the causes, the effects and the lead-up with respect to antisemitism”.
What next?
While a royal commission has not yet been called, an array of other responses are at play in the wake of the Bondi attack. At the federal level, Albanese has pushed gun reforms with a firearms buyback scheme, advocated for tougher migration checks aimed specifically at those with antisemitic views, and announced stricter hate speech laws targeting “those who spread hate, division and radicalisation”.
Meanwhile, on the state level, NSW Premier Chris Minns has responded to the attack with bans on public protests in the weeks after a terrorist attack is declared. He also announced a state-wide inquiry into the tragedy that will investigate the response of NSW authorities and agencies.
On Tuesday, Albanese said he was in support of Minns’ responses in conjunction with the Richardson review while softening his resistance to a royal commission. He said a federal inquiry could be part of his efforts to do “everything that is possible” for national unity, but stopping short of officially announcing a royal commission.
As it stands, a royal commission is lower on the federal government’s priority list than other more immediate responses, but with the Richardson review due in April, the pressure will only continue to mount.
As we grapple with the attack that struck Bondi and Australia’s Jewish community, the route to the bottom of the tragedy will remain increasingly complex.
Lead images: Getty Images
The post Explained: Why Hasn’t Albanese Called A Royal Commission Into The Bondi Attacks? appeared first on PEDESTRIAN.TV .
