Andrew L. Urban
To all those (everyone it seems except Anthony Albanese’s Labor government) clamouring for a Royal Commission into the Bondi massacre, cool it. Not because it isn’t warranted but because it could well be hijacked by a Government that has not shown any integrity on matters around the broad subject of Israel, Islamic terrorism and antisemitism. Best wait for a Coalition Government. We can’t put it past Anthony Albanese to hobble any Royal Commission by its terms of reference. It would be a despicable slamming shut of the accountability door.
To formulate terms of reference (ToR) for a Royal Commission into the December 14, 2025 Bondi Beach massacre in a way that protects government decisions, actions, commissions, and omissions, the government (as the entity issuing the letters patent) could strategically narrow the scope, focus on non-contentious or external factors, and include explicit exclusions or limitations. Royal Commissions in Australia are independent but bound by their ToR, which define what can be investigated, the timeline, and the focus—allowing the government to steer clear of scrutiny on sensitive areas like intelligence failures, immigration policies, counter-terrorism resourcing, or prior warnings about antisemitism.
Below (with research help from AI), we outline the key terms with example formulations, drawing from precedents in Australian Royal Commissions (e.g., those into aged care, disability, and veteran suicide, which often used bounding language to control breadth).
- Narrow the Timeframe and Factual Scope
– Rationale : Limit the inquiry to the immediate events of the day or post-incident response, avoiding examination of pre-event government decisions (e.g., visa approvals for the perpetrators, funding cuts to security agencies, or ignored intelligence reports). This protects omissions like failing to act on prior threats by excluding historical context.
– Example Formulation :
– “Inquire into and report on the circumstances immediately surrounding the events at Bondi Beach on December 14, 2025, including the actions of the perpetrators, the response by emergency services on the scene, and any immediate factors contributing to the incident’s escalation. The inquiry shall not extend to events or decisions prior to December 1, 2025, or post-incident policy reviews.”
– This mirrors narrow ToR in inquiries like the Lindt Cafe siege inquest, which focused on the day-of events rather than broader systemic government lapses.
- Focus on External or Non-Government Factors
– Rationale : Direct attention to community, private sector, or individual responsibilities (e.g., social media’s role in radicalization or local venue security), sidelining government agencies. This shields commissions like resource allocation to ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) or omissions in monitoring travel (e.g., the perpetrators’ Philippines trip).
– Example Formulation :
– “Examine the role of community organizations, private security providers, and online platforms in preventing or responding to acts of targeted violence, with a view to recommending improvements in non-governmental practices. The Commission shall not inquire into the adequacy of federal or state government policies, intelligence operations, or legislative frameworks related to counter-terrorism, immigration, or firearms control.”
– Similar to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (2018), which emphasized provider practices over government funding decisions, using language like “without limiting the scope… but having regard to” to subtly redirect focus.
- Emphasize Future Recommendations Over Retrospective Blame
– Rationale : Frame the ToR around forward-looking improvements rather than evaluating past government performance, reducing the risk of adverse findings on actions or omissions. This avoids “witch hunts” into why warnings about rising antisemitism were not heeded.
– Example Formulation :
– “Identify opportunities for enhancing community resilience and public safety measures in the future, based on lessons from the Bondi Beach incident, without assessing the reasonableness or effectiveness of prior government decisions, actions, or resource allocations. Recommendations shall be limited to voluntary best practices for stakeholders outside government.”
– This echoes the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide (2021), which used broad but protective phrasing like “systemic issues… with a focus on practical reforms” to prioritize solutions over accountability.
- Include Explicit Exclusions and Limitations
– Rationale : Directly carve out protected areas, such as national security matters or inter-agency coordination, citing reasons like “operational sensitivity” or “avoiding duplication with ongoing reviews” (e.g., the announced short review by Dennis Richardson into security agencies). This protects omissions in federal-state collaboration or commissions like approving the perpetrators’ entry.
– Example Formulation :
– “The scope of the inquiry is limited to public education and awareness campaigns on hate-based violence, excluding any review of classified intelligence, law enforcement protocols, government visa processes, or actions by federal agencies prior to or during the incident. Matters already under review by independent bodies, such as the Australian Federal Police or state coronial processes, shall not be duplicated.”
– Precedents include the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2013), which excluded certain legal proceedings with clauses like “shall not inquire into… ongoing matters,” preventing overlap that could expose government.
- Set a Short Timeline and Resource Constraints
– Rationale : Impose tight deadlines or budgets to discourage deep dives into government conduct, as extended inquiries often uncover more. This indirectly protects by limiting evidence gathering on complex issues like policy omissions.
– Example Formulation :
– “The Commission shall complete its inquiry and deliver a final report no later than six months from the date of establishment, focusing on high-level summaries rather than detailed forensic analysis of individual decisions.”
– This is seen in time-bound commissions like the Bushfires Royal Commission (2020), where short timelines kept the focus superficial on some government aspects.
In practice, these formulations could be combined into a single set of ToR, issued via letters patent by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. While calls for a broader Royal Commission (e.g., from victims’ families and business groups) emphasize antisemitism and security failures, a protective approach like this aligns with the government’s preference for a limited review, as stated by PM Albanese. However, overly restrictive ToR risk public backlash or judicial challenges if seen as undermining the commission’s purpose.
And we could bet an Albanese Royal Commissioner would not be someone like the fearless former judge Walter Sofronoff KC who chaired the ACT Board of Inquiry into the handling of the Brittany Higgins allegation of rape against Bruce Lehrmann, skewering the ACT DPP Shane Drumgold in the process.