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.