Key Takeaways
- The Bondi terror attack has sparked calls for a federal royal commission to investigate the incident and the broader issue of antisemitism in Australia.
- Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has ordered an independent federal review led by former ASIO director-general Dennis Richardson, but many argue that this review falls short.
- A NSW royal commission has been proposed, but critics argue that it may not be able to properly examine national security failures and federal responsibilities.
- The Coalition has released proposed terms of reference for a Commonwealth royal commission, and over 120 business leaders and public figures have signed an open letter calling for a federal royal commission.
- The effectiveness of the proposed reviews depends on their terms of reference, membership, and scope.
Introduction to the Issue
The Bondi terror attack has led to widespread calls for a federal royal commission to investigate the incident and the broader issue of antisemitism in Australia. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has ordered an independent federal review led by former Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) director-general Dennis Richardson, but many argue that this review falls short. The review will examine whether the federal intelligence and law enforcement apparatus performed effectively in the context of the terror attack, but critics argue that it may not be able to properly examine national security failures and federal responsibilities.
The Richardson Review
The Richardson review will investigate which federal agencies were aware of the alleged offenders, how they interacted with one another and with state agencies, and whether there were additional measures they could have taken to prevent the attack. It will also explore whether current laws prevented agencies from doing more to stop the attack. However, the review has no legislative base, meaning it lacks the coercive powers that distinguish a royal commission. This has led many to argue that a federal royal commission is necessary to properly examine the incident and the broader issue of antisemitism.
The NSW Royal Commission
A NSW royal commission has been proposed, and NSW Premier Chris Minns has said that work is underway to establish terms of reference as soon as possible. The inquiry would seek to determine how the attack happened and how future tragedies can be prevented. However, critics argue that a state-led inquiry may not be able to properly examine national security failures and federal responsibilities. Scott Prasser, a former government policy adviser, has argued that a joint state-Commonwealth royal commission would be the most effective way to examine both the terror attack and the broader issue of antisemitism.
The Effectiveness of the Proposed Reviews
The effectiveness of the proposed reviews depends on their terms of reference, membership, and scope. Anthony Whealy, a former NSW Supreme Court judge, has argued that a royal commission on a matter of this level of complexity would likely take at least two years. However, Prasser has argued that a royal commission could be completed in about a year if it is designed effectively. Whealy has also argued that the Richardson review, in conjunction with a well-designed NSW inquiry, is an appropriate approach. However, many argue that a federal royal commission is necessary to properly examine the incident and the broader issue of antisemitism.
What’s Missing from Their Scope
Many of those calling for a federal royal commission have argued that it should examine the broader issue of antisemitism in Australia, and the climate in which such ideology has taken hold. Prasser has argued that while the Richardson review will be swift and "makes some sense", a federal royal commission would address this bigger issue, while also facilitating examination of the interactions between federal and state law enforcement. The Richardson review has no legislative base, which means it lacks the coercive powers that distinguish a royal commission. This has led many to argue that a federal royal commission is necessary to properly examine the incident and the broader issue of antisemitism.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Bondi terror attack has sparked calls for a federal royal commission to investigate the incident and the broader issue of antisemitism in Australia. While the Richardson review and the NSW royal commission may be able to provide some answers, many argue that they fall short. A federal royal commission is necessary to properly examine the incident and the broader issue of antisemitism, and to facilitate examination of the interactions between federal and state law enforcement. The effectiveness of the proposed reviews depends on their terms of reference, membership, and scope, and it is crucial that they are designed to provide a comprehensive and thorough examination of the incident and its broader implications.