Key Takeaways:
- The Australian government has announced a review of federal intelligence agencies in response to the Bondi massacre, but has refused to establish a royal commission into the attack.
- The review, led by former spy chief Dennis Richardson, will assess the performance and capacity of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio) and Australian federal police (AFP).
- The review will not consider the broader issue of antisemitism, despite demands from the Coalition, victims’ families, and others.
- The government has argued that a royal commission would take too long and provide a platform for perpetrators of anti-Jewish hate, but critics argue that this is not a valid reason to refuse an inquiry.
- The decision has been met with criticism from opposition parties and victims’ families, who are demanding a more comprehensive and public inquiry into the attack.
Introduction to the Bondi Massacre Inquiry
The Australian government’s response to the Bondi massacre has been met with criticism and controversy, particularly with regards to the decision not to establish a royal commission into the attack. On Monday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the release of terms of reference for an inquiry into the massacre, but it was not the royal commission that many had been hoping for. Instead, the government has opted for a review of federal intelligence agencies, led by former spy chief Dennis Richardson. This review will assess the performance and capacity of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio) and Australian federal police (AFP), but will not consider the broader issue of antisemitism.
The Richardson Review
The Richardson review will examine specific questions, including what was known, and when, of Sajid and Naveed Akram before the father and son allegedly killed 15 people and injured dozens of others. The review will be wrapped up in April, allowing the federal government to move quickly to implement any urgent recommendations. While this review is a necessary step in responding to the massacre, it is not a substitute for a royal commission, which would have the power to compel evidence and provide a national public spotlight on the issue. Richardson has been assured "full access to all materials he considers may be relevant to his inquiry", but his work will be conducted in secret, which has raised concerns about transparency and accountability.
The Case for a Royal Commission
The decision not to establish a royal commission has been met with criticism from opposition parties, victims’ families, and others. A royal commission would provide a more comprehensive and public inquiry into the attack, and would have the power to compel evidence and hold those responsible to account. The government has argued that a royal commission would take too long and provide a platform for perpetrators of anti-Jewish hate, but critics argue that this is not a valid reason to refuse an inquiry. Royal commissions can hold sessions in private and submissions can be redacted or withheld from public release, including any sensitive intelligence or national security matters. The fact that some of the most traumatised – the families of the Bondi victims – are among those demanding a public inquiry, undermines the government’s argument that a royal commission would be too traumatic for the Jewish community.
The Government’s Response
The government has defended its decision not to establish a royal commission, with Prime Minister Albanese arguing that it is acting in the national interest. The government has also pointed to its other responses to the massacre, including the tightening of gun laws and the promise of stronger hate speech laws. While these responses are welcome, they do not address the need for a comprehensive and public inquiry into the attack. The government’s decision has been met with criticism from opposition parties, who argue that it is not doing enough to address the issue of antisemitism and to hold those responsible to account.
Conclusion and Next Steps
In conclusion, the Australian government’s decision not to establish a royal commission into the Bondi massacre has been met with criticism and controversy. While the Richardson review is a necessary step in responding to the attack, it is not a substitute for a royal commission. The government’s arguments against a royal commission are not convincing, and the decision has been met with criticism from opposition parties, victims’ families, and others. The government must reconsider its decision and establish a royal commission into the attack, in order to provide a comprehensive and public inquiry into the massacre and to hold those responsible to account. Ultimately, the government’s response to the Bondi massacre will be judged on its ability to provide justice and accountability for the victims and their families, and to address the broader issue of antisemitism in Australia.