Assessing Albanese's royal commission into Bondi Beach attack

With the Albanese government at last caving in to overwhelming demands for a Commonwealth royal commission into the Bondi Beach attack and concerns about antisemitism, the issue is whether this latest version meets best practice compared to earlier commissions.

Royal commissions are temporary, ad hoc bodies, appointed only by the executive government with members from outside of government.

They have statutory coercive powers and open public processes. They investigate calamitous events like natural disasters, corruption, maladministration and complex policy problems. They are appointed when existing government agencies are deemed biased and compromised and thus are the "institution of last resort". They are our most prestigious and independent investigatory and advisory body.

The Bondi Beach attack has all these elements warranting a royal commission. It was a horrendous, unprecedented, calamitous event; there were doubts about the effectiveness of both NSW police and national security arrangements, and deeper concerns about the drivers of apparent antisemitism.

Only a royal commission would do, and not just any royal commission. Given the cross-jurisdictional and constitutional responsibilities involved, the issue clearly demanded a nationally initiated federal-state one, and sooner rather than later.

Precedents abound for such joint commissions like those into child sexual abuse, disability, and disaster arrangements, Aboriginal deaths in custody, and trade union corruption.

Unfortunately, the Albanese government, in its strenuous efforts to avoid a royal commission, undermined their value, missed opportunities to consult about its form and membership and resulted in the current confusing shemozzle we saw in the prime minister's announcement.

"Whether this royal commission should take on a 'truth-telling' role...which allows victims to express their hurt in a non-threatening environment is another missed issue."

For weeks, the Albanese government portrayed royal commissions as inflexible, dominated by quasi-legal processes that take too long, cost too much and are unsuitable for reviewing complex issues.

Yet, the majority of royal commissions have taken less than 12 months and covered complex issues ranging from national health, pensions, banking, human relationships, and veteran suicide. And long-running ones issued interim reports to progress matters quickly.

Instead of quickly appointing a federal-state royal commission, the Albanese government indulged in diversionary tactics.

First, in appointing the non-statutory Richardson inquiry into national security arrangements, to say that was enough and talking about gun laws.

Too easily, the government accepted that a NSW only royal commission was all that was needed, and even at his recent press conference announcement, the prime minister persevered with the myth that this was a "de facto Commonwealth royal commission" – surely not given limited state powers and jurisdiction.

Now with this late announcement NSW royal commission is defunct, but it is unclear whether there will be a joint NSW-federal inquiry or if other states are also to be invited.

Similarly, where does the much-vaunted Richardson review that now "will become part of the commission" fit into the new royal commission in terms of its powers, status and role?

What a mess.

Because royal commissions are bespoke instruments, the Albanese government's persistent rejection meant crucial steps in the proper formation of this commission were missed. What a contrast to the Gillard government, which had a public consultation process on the terms of reference and membership when it established the child sex commission. It got all those crucial issues right from the start, as the final report testifies.

Such consultation could have avoided flak over Virginia Bell's appointment both in terms of whether such single membership is adequate to review the four major areas under consideration, meet the government's December deadline, and to avoid any unfair criticism about the commission's impartiality.

Other royal commissions into disability, veterans' suicide, bushfires, and child abuse had multiple members, ensuring a range of expertise and the flexibility to proceed more quickly.

Whether this royal commission should take on a "truth-telling" role that occurred with the child abuse inquiry, which allowed victims to express their hurt in a non-threatening environment, is another missed issue. That process helped restore child sexual victims' faith and trust in existing institutions. This is not an irrelevant consideration concerning antisemitism and the anguish among the Jewish community.

At present, this royal commission has been welcomed even by former critics. As the government calculated, it has generated goodwill. It has given the Albanese government a reprieve, but this may be temporary.

It has a long way to go, and like all royal commissions, the Albanese government's fate will depend on how it is conducted, what it finds, its final report and what the government does with the recommendations.

Watch this space.