Key Takeaways:
- The Australian government is facing growing calls for a royal commission into antisemitism, despite initial resistance from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
- The calls for a royal commission have been led by the federal Coalition, judges, former governors, and top silks, and have been joined by the families of those killed in a recent antisemitic attack.
- A royal commission could provide a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attack and the broader issue of antisemitism in Australia.
- However, there are concerns that a royal commission could amplify bad faith voices and that its recommendations may not be implemented.
- The government has announced a review into the attack, but it may not address the broader issue of antisemitism in Australia.
Introduction to the Debate
The debate over a royal commission into antisemitism in Australia has been ongoing, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese facing growing pressure to establish an inquiry. Despite his initial resistance, the calls for a royal commission have not gone away, and have instead grown in number. The federal Coalition, judges, former governors, and top silks have all joined the calls, and the families of those killed in a recent antisemitic attack have added their voices to the chorus. This has made it increasingly difficult for the prime minister to reject the idea of a royal commission.
The Case for a Royal Commission
The argument in favor of a royal commission is that it would provide a thorough and public investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attack and the broader issue of antisemitism in Australia. This would allow for a full and frank discussion of the issues, and would provide a platform for the voices of those affected by antisemitism to be heard. It would also provide a clear-eyed examination of Australia’s biggest social problems and could serve as a symbolic admission of systemic problems. Furthermore, a royal commission could provide a yardstick to measure government inaction decades into the future.
Concerns and Limitations
However, there are also concerns that a royal commission could amplify bad faith voices and that its recommendations may not be implemented. The prime minister has argued that a royal commission could provide a platform for the worst voices, and that it could be used to score political points. Additionally, the experience of past royal commissions has shown that their recommendations are not always implemented, and that they can be limited in their ability to solve deep and intractable social issues. For example, the 1991 royal commission into Indigenous deaths in custody gave 339 recommendations, many of which remain unimplemented, and the disability royal commission dealt with issues so complex that not even the commissioners could agree on the future of segregated schools, group homes, and disability workplaces.
The Government’s Response
The government has announced a review into the attack, which will be led by former New South Wales Supreme Court judge, Anthony Whealy. However, this review may not address the broader issue of antisemitism in Australia, and may not provide the same level of public scrutiny and accountability as a royal commission. The prime minister has argued that the review will be able to get to the bottom of the issues surrounding the attack, but it is unclear whether it will be able to address the deeper and more complex issues surrounding antisemitism in Australia.
The Path Forward
There are two paths of inquiry that must be interrogated after the attack. The first follows the specific circumstances that meant a man once investigated by ASIO could become further radicalized, along with his father, who bought six guns legally. The second traces the circumstances that have enabled antisemitism to fester more broadly in Australia, evidenced again just days ago, when a rabbi’s car was firebombed at Christmas. A royal commission could provide a thorough investigation into both of these paths, and could provide a clear and comprehensive understanding of the issues surrounding antisemitism in Australia.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate over a royal commission into antisemitism in Australia is complex and multifaceted. While there are concerns about the potential limitations and risks of a royal commission, there are also strong arguments in favor of establishing an inquiry. The government must carefully consider the options and decide on the best course of action to address the issue of antisemitism in Australia. Ultimately, the goal should be to provide a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the issues, and to take concrete steps to address them. The government must also ensure that any inquiry is thorough, transparent, and accountable, and that its recommendations are implemented in a timely and effective manner.