Comment

Marcia Langton
A royal commission must lead to change

The demands for a royal commission to investigate the massacre of Jews at the annual Chabad Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach on December 14 are an understandable response to the tragedy that killed 15 people and wounded 40 others.

I support the royal commission. Anthony Albanese’s announcement that it would be established was very good news. However, the terms of reference will be critical to its success. So, too, will be follow through on whatever recommendations it might make.

What do we expect of a royal commission? The “truth”? Justice? My experience suggests we should think again.

From 1989 to 1990, I worked within the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The commissioners presented 339 recommendations, including Recommendation 92, which proposed that imprisonment must be a sanction of last resort, and Recommendation 122, which set out a rigorous duty of care for all police officers, correctional guards and youth justice workers in the system.

The mistake we made in 1991, when that royal commission reported to the federal parliament, was failing to ensure many of these recommendations were legislated immediately. We might have saved a great many of the more than 600 Indigenous Australians who have died in custody since.

My experience of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody also illustrated that the royal commission process does not lead to swift action. The conclusion of the process, often years later, is a set of recommendations to be considered by some future government.

Today, three-and-a-half decades later, the evidence is damning. Australian governments have not only failed to implement the commission’s key recommendations – they seem increasingly unlikely to ever do so.

The massacre at Bondi Beach was an act of depravity. It was fuelled by malignant ideology, by the worst possible hatreds. It came after years of rising anti-Semitism and repeated warnings from the Jewish community. Many have accused the prime minister of being slow to act on anti-Semitism and of not taking the issue seriously enough.

The suffering of the Jewish community cannot be doubted or understated. Before this bloody attack there had been various firebombings of Jewish buildings. One synagogue had been burnt to the ground and at least two others targeted. Jewish schools had been vandalised and Jewish businesses defaced. Reports of anti-Semitic violence had escalated.

No doubt there were intelligence failures related to the Bondi attack. One of the two alleged gunmen had been on a “known entity management list” since about 2021, but this did not prevent his accomplice gaining a gun licence in 2023.

Many before me have recoiled from the politicisation of the massacre at Bondi Beach and the unprecedented lack of bipartisanship, however. Media outlets had a field day publishing lists of eminent Australians who wanted a royal commission. Various Coalition figures accused the government of “hiding” something.

On Monday, a group of former Labor politicians wrote to the prime minister, asking him to establish the royal commission. “Only a Commonwealth royal commission can unpack the dynamics of Jew hatred,” they wrote, “including aspects such as the social media threat, how hate and incitement is weaponised in Australia and how we can come together across the nation to defeat it.”

On December 21, only a week after the terrorist attack, the prime minister announced the establishment of an independent review of “Australia’s federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies”, to be led by former senior public servant Dennis Richardson. This review will now feed into the royal commission.

The government’s first commitment following the Bondi attack was that there would be an immediate strengthening of Australia’s gun laws.

After a meeting of national cabinet the day after the massacre, Albanese announced that commissioned police ministers and attorneys-general had been requested to develop options, including: Australian citizenship be required to acquire firearm licences; accelerating work on the National Firearms Register; limiting the number of firearms any one individual can hold; and limiting open-ended firearms licensing and the types of guns that are legal.

On the Friday, Albanese announced that the government would help fund a national gun buyback scheme, following in the footsteps of then prime minister John Howard’s similar plan after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

The next day, New South Wales Premier Chris Minns and Attorney-General Michael Daley announced a ban on the display of symbols of Islamic terrorist organisations, including Al Qaeda, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic State. They also announced a potential ban on “hateful slogans” such as “globalise the intifada”, which would be included on a list of violent rhetoric. Albanese has put forward similar measures to strengthen hate speech laws.

Along similar lines, Minns wants parliament to grant him “extraordinary powers” to effectively ban protests for three months.

Both the Commonwealth and NSW governments’ responses have been swift and substantial. These actions demonstrate a commitment to addressing the issue head on. Yet some of the advocates for a royal commission would have us believe that our enemy is not the Islamic State but our own government, and, more specifically, our prime minister. We should ask: What outcomes beyond these responses already implemented should be contemplated? Two issues are candidates for consideration: stricter bail conditions and longer sentences for terrorist-related criminal activity.

The sub judice principle, which prohibits public discussion of cases under judicial consideration, presents a significant challenge to the royal commission and is mentioned explicitly in the proposed terms of reference. The surviving alleged gunman is facing 57 charges.

Even George Brandis, a former attorney-general, has failed to mention the problem of sub judice. The principle remains crucial to ensuring fair trials, particularly in high-profile criminal and terrorist cases where public interest and media attention are intense.

While courts must balance the sub judice principle with that of open justice and freedom of the press, the principle is applied to prevent external influences from affecting the fairness of legal proceedings.

The principle requires that media outlets be careful not to publish details about evidence that hasn’t been presented in court. This helps prevent potential jurors from being influenced by information that is not officially part of the trial.

Public figures, including politicians, are expected to refrain from commenting on ongoing cases. This helps maintain the integrity of the judicial process and prevents undue influence on judges or juries. In the digital age, the principle extends to social media posts and online discussions. Sharing or discussing evidence related to an ongoing case could be considered contempt of court.

The principle helps protect witnesses from external pressures or influences that might affect their testimony. Judges often instruct juries to avoid external information about the case, including media reports or online discussions. In terrorism cases, the principle may be applied more strictly to protect national security interests and prevent the spread of sensitive information.

As noted above, the terms of reference for the royal commission will be critical.

The letters patent outline that it will explore how to tackle anti-Semitism “by investigating the nature and prevalence of antisemitism in institutions and society, and its key drivers in Australia, including ideologically and religiously motivated extremism and radicalisation”. It will also examine the “circumstances surrounding” the Bondi massacre.

The commissioner, former High Court judge Virginia Bell, has been asked to make recommendations to law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies. She has also been asked to make “any other recommendations arising out of the inquiry for strengthening social cohesion in Australia and countering the spread of ideologically and religiously motivated extremism in Australia”.

In the first instance, we should temper our expectations about what a royal commission will be able to achieve.

My experience with the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody serves as a sobering reminder: 35 years on, its 339 recommendations remain largely unimplemented, with Indigenous incarceration rates more than doubling since 1991 and Indigenous Australians probably the most incarcerated people on record in the world.

Royal commissions do not guarantee truth or justice.

Our focus should be on implementing effective policies to prevent future attacks and to foster a united, resilient society. Definitions of anti-Semitism, of when anti-Zionism crosses into hate speech, and of hate speech against peoples of any “race” or religion, can be legislated sooner rather than later. Anything less is a disservice to the Bondi Beach victims and to our nation.

A royal commission into the Bondi massacre, into the failures of security agencies and into rising anti-Semitism, is necessary. Its recommendations will then need to be acted upon.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on January 10, 2026 as "Action over words".

For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers. We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth. We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care, on climate change, on the pandemic.

All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers. By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential, issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account politicians and the political class.

There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this. In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world, it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.

Send this article to a friend for free.

RELATED READING