The Albanese government is facing mounting pressure to establish a royal commission into the Bondi massacre, with critics arguing its refusal makes a mockery of its claims about decisive action. This call comes as the government finally accepted all recommendations from the antisemitism envoy's report, a document it sat on for over 150 days before public outrage forced its hand.
A Failure of Leadership and Moral Clarity
The government's reactive announcement of new laws, including an "aggravated hate speech" offence and "serious vilification" laws, has been labelled tragically overdue. Despite Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett confirming the attackers were "ISIS inspired," neither Prime Minister Anthony Albanese nor Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke directly addressed the ideology of Islamic extremism.
This evasion was highlighted by former treasurer Josh Frydenberg in a speech at Bondi, where he stated, "If you can't say the words Islamist ideology then you're not going to be able to solve it." The need for figures like Frydenberg and former PM John Howard to articulate what the public needed to hear underscores a significant leadership vacuum.
Why a Criminal Probe Isn't Enough
Minister Burke's dismissal of a royal commission, citing concerns over delays, has been called nonsensical. A criminal investigation focuses on prosecuting individuals, while a royal commission would forensically examine the systemic failures and societal factors that allowed such extremism to flourish.
Key areas a commission must investigate include:
- Intelligence and immigration failures: Why were known hate preachers only on a "radar" and not deported?
- Gun laws and security settings: How did the perpetrators access weapons?
- The climate of hatred: A deep dive into the chain of events since October 7, 2023, that created an environment where violent rhetoric was tolerated.
Burke further disturbed commentators by evading questions on whether chants like "from the river to the sea" would be captured by the new laws, offering only a glib dismissal of "hypotheticals."
The Stark Contrast in Political Courage
The government's stance presents a stark contradiction. It readily called a royal commission into the robodebt scandal for political advantage but refuses to apply the same rigorous, independent scrutiny to an act of terrorism that claimed 15 Australian lives. The Prime Minister himself conceded that "more could have been done" to prevent the tragedy.
If that admission is sincere, then accepting the mechanism to discover why action wasn't taken is the logical next step. A taskforce led by David Gonski to address antisemitism in education, while positive, lacks the powers of a royal commission to compel testimony from agencies like ASIO, the AFP, and state police.
The victims, including 10-year-old Matilda, and the dozens more carrying physical and psychological scars, deserve the unvarnished truth that only a full judicial inquiry can provide. Honouring their courage requires political bravery—a quality currently in short supply in Canberra—to confront uncomfortable findings that may not reflect well on the government's inaction. The only way to ensure this never happens again is through an independent, forensic process that leaves no stone unturned.
