Albanese must call a royal commission into Bondi terror and antisemitism

Following the massacre of Jewish people and others on Bondi Beach, there have been calls for the Albanese government to appoint a royal commission into not just the Bondi attack, but also antisemitism and failures in national policy that may have contributed to this horrendous event.

Following calamitous events such as bushfires, floods, and major accidents, it is common for governments to appoint a royal commission to investigate the facts about what happened and why, and to allocate responsibility for who did or did not take action. Such inquiries are also expected to make recommendations to prevent such issues from occurring again.

A NSW inquiry might be what the Albanese government would like, but that does not mean that it is the correct option.

So far, the Albanese government has rejected calls for a royal commission. In so doing, it has sidestepped the underlying causes of the massacre and refused to put its own possible misplaced policy actions that many believe have contributed to the present crisis under open public review.

While the Minns NSW government could appoint its own royal commission into the massacre, that would only cover matters under its jurisdiction and be primarily about the role and effectiveness of its police services – and less about the wider national policy issues of immigration intakes and checking, anti-radicalisation programs, and national security measures.

It may be what the Albanese government would like to take attention off itself, but it is not what is needed.

Royal commissions are a very special form of public inquiry that governments turn to when the existing institutions are not trusted – it is the institution of last resort.

Their statutory-based coercive powers of investigation allow them to forcibly procure information, require witnesses to attend, and, not being courts, make witnesses answer questions even if self-incriminatory. They provide legal protection to those giving evidence, thus encouraging those who might know something to come forward. This is essential in this case.

Moreover, royal commissions conduct their inquiries in public and are often chaired by eminent ex-judges. They are seen as more open and independent than other institutions of government. One issue, though, royal commissions only make non-binding recommendations. It is up to the government of the day to implement all, some or none of their proposals.

Calls for a royal commission to also investigate antisemitism are understandable, as the massacre was far more than a problem with gun control and involved wider factors. But the issue is, what topics could a royal commission consider?

Any royal commission would need to identify the sources of antisemitism in particular parts of Australian society. Its purview might encompass aspects of Australia’s immigration policy. It would need to review the effectiveness of Australia’s anti-radicalisation policies and propose new programs.

These are sensitive topics, and if mishandled, could quickly descend into a “witch-hunt” of particular groups who are innocent of any wrongdoing.