Since October 7, 2023, antisemitism in Australia has surged at a pace few imagined possible. Jewish schools have required police protection. Synagogues have been targeted. Hate speech has moved from the fringes into the streets. And last month, the country witnessed the unthinkable: an Islamist terrorist attack on Bondi Beach that claimed innocent Jewish lives.
In response, the calls for a Royal Commission have been widespread and persistent. They have come from the Jewish community, from media commentators, from former senior politicians, from security experts — and now, critically, from within Labor’s own ranks.
Yet Prime Minister Anthony Albanese continues to resist.
The Calls Are Broad — and Growing
At the Bondi vigil, the public reaction was unmistakable. When the President of the Jewish Board of Deputies called for a Royal Commission, the crowd applauded. When the Prime Minister spoke, he was booed. That contrast told its own story.
More significantly, Labor MP Ed Husic — himself Muslim — broke ranks to call for a Royal Commission, arguing that Australians deserve to know not just what happened, but why it happened, and how extremism took root. Another Labor MP, Mike Freelander, has echoed that call. These are not fringe voices. They are members of the governing party saying that accountability matters more than political comfort.
Outside Parliament, the case has been made repeatedly: only a Royal Commission has the power to compel testimony under oath, subpoena documents, examine political decision-making, and establish a public record. A departmental review simply cannot do that.
So why the resistance?
What a Royal Commission Would Examine
Critics argue that a Royal Commission would inevitably scrutinise a series of uncomfortable decisions and non-decisions taken by the government in the past two years.
It would examine why the government sat on the Segal Report — authored by its own antisemitism envoy — for months while antisemitic incidents escalated, and why key recommendations were dismissed or delayed.
It would examine whether ASIO warnings about radicalisation hubs were adequately acted upon, and whether known centres of extremist preaching were left untouched despite intelligence concerns.
It would examine the government’s approach to hate speech enforcement, including why repeated antisemitic chants at public demonstrations were tolerated with little apparent consequence.
It would examine the Prime Minister’s associations, public messaging, and the broader tone set by senior ministers — including foreign policy rhetoric that critics say may have emboldened hostility toward Australia’s Jewish community.
None of these questions can be properly explored without the full powers of a Royal Commission.
The Political Calculations
Craig Kelly, in a widely circulated X post, has put forward a more blunt explanation: that the Prime Minister fears what a Royal Commission would reveal about political calculation overriding public safety. Kelly argues that decisions around funding, immigration, community engagement, and enforcement were shaped by electoral considerations — particularly in seats with large Muslim populations — rather than by security advice.
Whether one accepts Kelly’s conclusions or not, the underlying point is difficult to dismiss: a Royal Commission would expose the decision-making process itself. Who was warned. When. By whom. And what was done — or not done — as a result.
That exposure is precisely what a departmental review avoids.
The Deflection Strategy
Instead of addressing radicalisation pathways and ideological drivers, the government has pivoted to familiar ground: gun reform. Yet Australia already has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. The issue at Bondi was not access to firearms — it was the failure to confront extremist ideology and networks before violence occurred.
Even former Prime Minister John Howard has described this pivot as a deflection.
The Question That Won’t Go Away
If the government is confident it acted appropriately…
If warnings were handled responsibly…
If no political considerations influenced security decisions…
Then why fear a Royal Commission?
Royal Commissions exist precisely for moments like this — when trust has broken down and the public needs more than reassurance. Refusing one does not protect social cohesion. It undermines it.
The longer Anthony Albanese avoids a Royal Commission, the more it appears that the truth — whatever it may be — is politically inconvenient.
And in a democracy, that is reason enough to demand it.
No comments:
Post a Comment