The latest piece in the Sydney Morning Herald (paywalled) has described the Prime Minister as having 'shrunk' and quotes a former adviser as saying:
I think he's probably distraught [at the animosity towards him] and not thinking straight. And he is genuinely so stubborn I think he is just trying to ride it out.
I was very briefly an adviser to Albanese after the Rudd coup against Gillard in 2013, but I didn't work for him long enough to know whether this is an apt description. I can report on what I have seen of him on our TV screens since the attack and note that he has found he attack devastating. As difficult as it might seem, I think he has made the right decision to limit his appearances at commemorative events, notably funerals. The sense that the Federal Government should have been doing more about antisemitism is visceral in the Jewish community, even if there are few suggestions about exactly what the Government should be doing.
A confusing part about the calls for a Federal Royal Commission is exactly what the terms of reference for such a Commission might be. Josh Frydenberg on X said that people are asking for:
A comprehensive, transparent, independent and powerful inquiry, into how Australia’s deadliest terrorist attack could occur despite all the warning signs against the backdrop of an unprecedented escalation of antisemitism and radicalisation in our country.
Framed like this, the focus of a Federal Royal Commission would be limited to the intelligence failure that saw the perpetrators plans go undiscovered and the question of whether adequate police protection was provided for the Bondi event on 14 December. The latter of these is clearly a question that is relevant only to New South Wales because only that Government and Police Force could decide the level of presence required.
The intelligence failure is another matter. We can conclude that there was an intelligence failure because the attack occurred. It is a separate question of what resourcing and surveillance powers may have been necessary to identify the plot before it occurred. A related question has been raised in the The Australian today under the heading 'Intel fail: police forces split' (paywalled). This is an assertion that:
Serious rifts between NSW and Australian Federal Police over joint operations run in the months before the Bondi massacre led to a request to change intelligence procedures and protocols of the nation's high-powered Joint Counter Terrorism Team and ongoing 'bad blood' between security agencies.
The Royal Commission announced by NSW Premier Chris Minns has the ability to investigate both the decision about resourcing protection and the intelligence failure, including the relationship with the Commonwealth. It is appropriate that this is a state Commission because the core issues are state based. To the extent that the State Commission might want to compel Federal Agencies to present documents or personnel to front as witnesses, a State Commission can do so with the cooperation of the Federal Government. Anthony Albanese has already announced that this cooperation will be provided.
A further important investigation remains the criminal prosecution of the surviving alleged perpetrator. It is likely that much of the evidence about the sequence of events leading up to the attack will be disclosed in that hearing. It would, however, be a travesty if the ongoing commentary about the events resulted in any impediment to the trial.
Matters that perhaps should be left to evidence are being reported in the media, such as the story in today's Daily Telegraph (paywalled) that the alleged perpetrators spent 28 days in their hotel room in the Phillipines but never received any training from ISIS. If true, it means that the security agencies didn't miss any communication between the father and son and ISIS. It makes the intelligence failure seem less.
Beyond the issue of how the attack could have occurred against a backdrop of rising antisemitism is a separate question of whether the rsing antisemitism itself was causal. Were the perpetrators radicalised by rising communty antisemitism or was it something more specific and direct - such as a single preacher? This may have already been revealed by the younger alleged perpetrator in police interviews that will be provided as evidence in the criminal prosecution.
My personal view is that it is highly unlikely that a general increase in community antisemitism was causal. Far more likely is the radicalisation of the perpetrators was a response to the manner in which Israel responded to the 7 October attacks. Under the Internatonal Holocaust Rememberance Alliance definition of antisemitism 'Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel' is listed as an example of antisemitism.This merely makes the attack itself, if motivated by Israel's response to the Hamas attack, antisemitic. It does not mean that the community level of antisemitism was a trigger.
Whether the rising level of antisemitism was causal or not, this is the other aspect that proponents of the Royal Commission are promoting. In a clip from SkyNews on 30 December 2025 Chris Minns outlined how he thought the NSW Royal Commission would address this. He said:
But I do believe [a Royal Commission] is an important opportunity to be looking at the circumstances and sequence that led up to this horrifying attack at Bondi on the 14th of December. And that includes
anti-semitism in our community. You can't we can't have an investigation without an examination of the creeping rise of anti-semitism. I've said in the past that it begins with a chant, then migrates onto online, then malicious damage, then arson, then horrible acts of violence. And we need to examine that sequence.
A charitable interpretation of this part of the call is that the the Federal Government could have done more to restrain the apparent increase in antisemitism. Note that while it is undeniable that the manifestations of antisemitism have increased, whether the actual level of 'hatred towards Jews' has changed is disputable. After all, as has been noted often, antisemitism is a hatred with a very long history.
More recently the Australian business community have joined the call for a Federal Royal Commission, first through an open letter by 130 business leaders and then by a statement by large business groups. Another Frydenberg tweet provides us with the text of he former:
We call on the Australian Government to immediately establish a Commonwealth Royal Commission as a first step towards taking Australia forward with a meaningful, practical plan of action.
As business leaders and proud Australians committed to upholding our values of tolerance and mutual respect, we recognise the need for clear answers as to how the Bondi massacre could occur, and for practical solutions to restore social cohesion and protect the safety of all Australians. We must end the unprecedented harassment, intimidation and violence directed at the Australian Jewish community since October 7, 2023.
This is a national crisis, which requires a national response. This goes beyond politics, it’s about the future of our country.
The Australian Industry Group website provides the full text of their call. Their focus somewhat bizarrely was the need for the inquiry to enhance prosperity, saying:
As we return to work after the new year break, we must ensure that shock and grief do not turn into ongoing anger and division, particularly in our workplaces.
Workplaces are perhaps the greatest melting pots we have as a country, where people from truly diverse backgrounds come together to work for their common success. Our workplaces are therefore deeply representative of the communities found across our nation, and it follows that we must strive for them to be inclusive.
Without sustainably safe and cohesive workplaces and communities, we cannot deliver prosperity for all Australians, which is the ultimate objective underpinning the advocacy and efforts of our organisations.
A federal Royal Commission can help us learn and understand what happened, what needs to be done differently and bring us together in the shared goal of preventing future tragedy.
A federal approach to a Royal Commission would avoid some of the limitations of a state-based approach and help ensure we bring a whole-of-nation focus to tackling antisemitism.
Importantly, the findings and recommendations of such a commission could build on the useful steps already taken by Federal, state and territory Governments around the country.
These contributions advance the thesis that the function of the Royal Commission into antisemitism is to promote 'tolerance and mutual respect' and to promote 'sustainably safe and cohesive workplaces'. Yet the voices that promote the Royal Commission loudest are also those that seek to divide us. Pauline Hanson on X stated:
We must have a Royal Commission into Australia’s deadliest terror attack at Bondi. The terms of reference have to include an investigation into the character of people being let into this country. It has to look at citizenship, immigration and compatibility with Australian culture.
This is just part of the slew of comments that have used the terror attack to target the whole Muslim community in the same kind of 'collective responsibility' approach that is used in the definition of antisemitism. These attacks on more recent arrivals seem only the more bizarre when it is realised that the older alleged perpetrator has been in Australia since the 1990s while the youngr one was born here.
But before we get to the Royal Commission let's just remember two things - antisemitism is hate directed at Jews, and the only political party that has ever done anything about hate speech is the ALP. This began in 1975 with the Whitlam Government introducing the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. It was amended during the Keating Government by the Racial Hatred Act 1995. This legislation introduced section 18C into the earlier Act. This section reads:
18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
At the urging of the Institute of Public Affairs Tony Abbott in 2013 promised reform to section 18C. It didn't matter to the right wing libertarian crowd that these changes, as noted by the Australian Human Rights Commission, were introduced in response to the National Inquiry into Racist Violence , the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody , and the Australian Law Reform Commission's Multiculturalism and the Law report.
It was in support of Abbott's plan for reform that George Brandis famously declared:
People do have a right to be bigots. In a free country people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive or insulting or bigoted.
The proposed amendments were reportedly opposed by Indigenous Liberal MP Ken Wyatt who threatened to cross the floor to oppose the change. The same article stated 'Jewish MP Josh Frydenberg is also understood to have expressed reservations about weakening the protections.' Months of lobbying by 'representatives from the Aboriginal, Greek, Jewish, Chinese, Arab, Armenian and Korean communities' proved to be effective with the amendments failing to pass in the Senate.
In contrast to Frydenberg who was happy to be part of a Government attempt to water down section 18C, in response to the rise in antisemitism the Albanese Government acted on the fact that 18C of the RDA did not impose criminal penalties. In introducing what is now the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Act 2025, the Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill stated:
The measures in the Bill would seek to combat the increasing prevalence of hate speech involving calls to force or violence. Public discourse has increasingly been weaponised, with hateful rhetoric aimed at attacking groups in the Australian community. Urging and threatening force or violence against targeted groups, or members of targeted groups, undermines and erodes Australia’s shared values. The harm caused by this conduct can be profound – it is an attack on the dignity of targeted groups, and members of targeted groups, which affects the physical and psychological wellbeing not only of those targeted, but of the whole community. It can also lay the foundation for violence and extremism. The offences are not intended to capture mere expressions of opinion or belief, however hateful or reprehensible. This conduct would be criminalised only where it involves threats of force or violence.
So after all this history, it is a bit rich having the LNP mounting a campaign that the ALP hasn't done enough to respond to rising hate of Jews, i.e. antisemitism. Our old friend Tony Abbott apparently has no recollection that he ever promoted the abolition of section 18C of the RDA. Today his complaint is:
There’s been a double standard enforcing hate speech laws. So there’s nothing wrong with the laws as they stand; they just need to be enforced equally, as opposed to partially.
So Abbott's stance is 'there is nothing wrong with the laws' while the Albanese Government has already identified the need for further reform.
Where the double standard exists is in the manner of arguing against antisemitism, particularly Jewish collective responsibility for the actions of the State of Israel, while simultaneously reviling Islam and holding Muslims collectively responsible for Islamis extremeism. Hate is hate. That antisemitism has the longer and ugliest history is not a reason for giving it priority in dealing with hate.
It is hard to fathom exactly what people expect to achieve from the powers of a Royal Commission into hate speech and acts. Royal Commission's are more notorious for the extent to which recommendations are only partially implemented. At best it can be an inquiry into what actions the Government should have taken or could now take.
Yet the same voices calling for the Royal Commission claim that Albanese should have responded earlier to the 'recommendations' of Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism. It was hard for the Government to respond to the Envoy's plan, as it was framed entirely as actions the Envoy proposed to take. The Government in its response reframed these as recommendations.
In hindsight the Government erred in deciding to have Special Envoys on combatting Antisemitism and Islamophobia. The issue is racially or religiously motivated hate speech and hate crimes which have no place in Australia. The aspirations of the business leaders, business groups and now sports stars for sustainably safe and cohesive comminities requires an assault on all hate, not just hate directed at one group. To have demonstrate our values of tolerance and mutual respect we have to apply that to all elements of our community.
The righful place for this function isn't special positions in Home Affairs. The correct place is in the Human Rights Commission - the entiy already charged with dealing with section 18C of the RDA. It is simply absurd that the Human Rights Commissioner has aligned herself with those calling for the Royal Commission. It was particularly disappointing when only a few days earlier she seemed to be suggesting that the armoury for dealing with race and religious hat has already been built.
Finally we should address the question of what interogation the security agencies should be subject to. The answer is relatively simple. There is already established an inquiry mechanism in legislation with the power to subpoena winesses and to compel the provision of documents. That is the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The beauty of this is that the necessary guiderails for dealing with security and intelligence related information is already in place in Part 4 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001. Furthermore the committee can be tasked to review any matter referred by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Attorney-General. There is no need to wait for Parliament to sit to commence an inquiry.
I was never an influential enough adviser to be able to provide guidance to Anthony Albanese on matters as significant as these, but my suggestions are as follows:
1. The PM needs to stop being defensive and start attacking the campaign for a Royal Commission as being clearly well orchestrated and divisive. Daily drops of new open letters are not an accident.
2. The PM to highlight the importance of not doing anything that might jeopardise the ability of the surviving alleged perpetrator to face trial.
3. Move the Government focus clearly to the question of racial and religious hate speech and hate acts. The focus on antisemitism is by itself divisive, not unifying. Make 'the war on hate' the theme for 2026. Avoid referring to antisemitism or islamophobia separately.
4. Have one of the Ministers provide a reference to the PJCIS on the operation of the security and intelligence agencies on the response to hate speech and acts with specific reference to (a) the adequacy of resources (financial, human resource and technology) (b) the adequacy of powers for prosecutions and (c) the coordination with State and Territory agencies.
4. Provide a commitment in writing to Chris Minns that the Australian Government will instruct agencies to fully cooperate with the NSW Royal Commission unless the agency is given a written direction from the Minister for Home Affairs in relation to specific requests to appear, provide answers or produce documents.
5. Call out the hypocricy of those in the LNP who were party to introducing legislation to amend s18C of the RDA who now criticise the Government of not doing enough on racial or religious hate.
Separately and for completely different reasons the Federal Government does need to take further action to reduce impact of temporary migration on Net Overseas Migration (NOM). The Permanent Migration Program has been declining since 2022-23. The first part of this would be to talk more frequently about addressing NOM through the Migration Strategy.
A bigger piece of work remains to regulate religion, hopefully I will write on that soon.
