Politicians Consider Royal Commission for Bondi Attack: What Could It Achieve?

Share and Follow

The Coalition has ramped up its call for a royal commission following the Bondi Beach terror attack, and the prime minister has once again poured cold water on the idea. But what powers does a royal commission have compared to other forms of investigation?

On Monday, Opposition leader Sussan Ley released the Coalition’s draft terms of reference for a royal commission and invited the prime minister to meet to “refine and finalise these terms of reference, so we can establish a Commonwealth royal commission before Christmas”.

Albanese again responded that he wanted inquiries to be urgent and fast and said a royal commission would not be able to be completed in the current term of parliament.

The terms of reference set out the key areas of investigation of a royal commission as well as the timeline for its completion.

The Coalition’s proposed terms of reference include an investigation into the “nature, prevalence and drivers of antisemitism in Australia leading up to the Bondi Beach attack”, including the actions of governments, law enforcement and national intelligence agencies, as well as broader society including media, education and arts and cultural sectors.

The scope for a new investigation has been broadened to include examinations of Islamic extremism and neo-Nazi ideologies. Additionally, it will provide recommendations to enhance Australia’s counter-terrorism strategies.

The Coalition has asked for an interim report or interim recommendation to be handed down by 23 June 2026.

Ley said a federal royal commission would deliver “real accountability” as compared to a state inquiry and would “shine a light into every dark corner where antisemitism has been allowed to fester and grow”.

In response to whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should testify at a New South Wales or federal royal commission, Ley emphasized that as the nation’s leader, Albanese “should and must take ultimate responsibility for where we are and for where we need to go.”

“The most fatal terrorist attack in Australia’s history has taken place under your leadership,” Ley asserted. “There are no excuses, and a royal commission must be convened immediately.”

Community and political figures have joined the call for a federal royal commission since the Bondi Beach terror attack on a Hanukkah festival on Sunday 14 December that killed 15 people.

Former Liberal MP Josh Frydenberg made a passionate call for a royal commission last week into the attack and the rise of antisemitism in Australia.

“Prime minister, you have supported a royal commission into our banks, you have supported a royal commission into our welfare system, you have supported a royal commission into aged care,” he said.

While Albanese has not pledged to initiate a federal inquiry, he has expressed support for any actions the New South Wales government decides to undertake.

Daniel Aghion, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, has also called for the federal inquiry.

“Every level of government from the federal government down, and every sector of society, must take the necessary steps to make us all safe,” he said.

“Antisemitism makes us all unsafe.”

While NSW Premier Chris Minns has also supported the idea, it is unclear whether he is pressing for a state or federal royal commission.

Minns said that while the criminal investigation has revealed some details: “We need a comprehensive look at this horrible terrorism event.”

In a proactive measure, the prime minister has announced a review of Australia’s federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This review will be led by Dennis Richardson, the former chief of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).

Asked about the growing call for a royal commission on Monday, Albanese said royal commissions can take “years and years” and said his government wants “urgency and unity, not division and delay”.

The prime minister has announced a review into Australia’s federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies led by former chief of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) Dennis Richardson.

What can a royal commission do?

A royal commission is the highest form of inquiry on matters of public importance in Australia.

Deirdre O’Neill, an associate professor in public policy at Monash University, told SBS News they are “very rigorous, transparent and have significant powers which other forms of inquiry can’t use”.

Royal commissions are established under specific legislation that gives them wide-ranging powers, including summoning and cross-examining witnesses and other means of obtaining evidence, such as requesting documents or other specified pieces of evidence.

It is an offence to not comply with notices issued by a royal commission without a reasonable excuse and those who fail to attend after receiving a summons can face up to two years’ imprisonment.

However, witnesses are also provided special protections and any information provided to a royal commission can not be used in any civil or criminal proceedings, meaning witnesses and inquiry members are protected from legal action such as defamation.

Dr Scott Prasser, editor of the book Royal Commission and Public Inquiries, told SBS News this means royal commissions can receive “no holds barred” statements.

“It’s not government behind closed doors, it’s government with the doors blown open,” he said.

As for the length of royal commissions, O’Neill said there is no “hard and fast rule” and while some may take months, others can stretch out over years. For example, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was announced in 2012 and the final report was delivered in 2017.

While the terms of reference at the establishment of a royal commission are critical, O’Neill said it is equally important to consider who will conduct it.

“The sort of people who have been appointed to head up royal commissions are often highly, highly regarded in their professions,” she said.

“Sometimes royal commissions can have a range of people working on them who are often doing different things at different times and sort of divvy up what they’re doing and that’s how they deal with a really broad task.”

The Coalition’s proposed terms of reference include three commissioners at minimum, including a representative from the Jewish community, an expert in counter terrorism and a current or former superior court judge.

What is the Coalition proposing?

Prasser said the Coalition is looking to make a wide-ranging inquiry with its proposed terms of reference.

“This issue is not just about the shooting, which is terrible, and the police and what the police did or did not do, this is possibly the result of other factors,” he said.

“Normally, when there’s a crisis like this, like a bushfire or a bridge collapse or something, we appoint royal commissions to do two things. One is to clarify the facts: what happened, who’s responsible and secondly, what can we do to stop this thing from happening in the future? And that’s when you get into the wider issues.”

Prasser said the precedent for investigating broad societal attitudes such as antisemitism have been established by previous royal commissions into subjects such as disability and aged care.

While calls have focused on a federal royal commission, Prasser believes the royal commission should be a joint effort between the NSW and federal governments.

“The Commonwealth can’t investigate a state matter that’s outside the Commonwealth’s constitutional responsibility, so they’ve got to get the state government on board,” he said.

How do you measure the success of a royal commission?

Prasser said the success of a royal commission can be measured by how it was conducted, including fairness, transparency, research and whether the recommendations reflect the information collected.

Their success can also be measured by the level of acceptance and implementation of their recommendations.

He said that while some royal commissions’ findings may be initially ignored, there have also been inquiries that have had long-term impacts and “gradually get their views adopted, which means that they’re having a real impact”.

However, despite the esteem and historical impact of royal commissions, O’Neill said there are some criticisms of the process, including accusations that governments can pursue them to seek to subdue political pressure.

“Sometimes they’re a way that governments can put something on the back burner, as it were, or take something off the direct heat.”