In the wake of Bondi, our leaders have prioritised politics over people
A Royal Commission and sweeping reforms have been announced, but what do they set out to achieve, and what are the risks?
The pain of antisemitic violence has continued to reverberate through the country since the horrific events of the Bondi terror attack on December 14. None have been more affected than Australia’s Jewish community, and calls to address the circumstances that led to such targeted violence are both warranted and necessary. However, the concerted push to exploit community fears to serve bipartisan political interests and appease the demands of pro-Israel lobbyists has set us on a dangerous path.
Opposition figures, present and past, have been particularly shameless in their efforts to co-opt a national tragedy for short-term political gain, taking cue from the ever-opportunistic Pauline Hanson to fan the flames of the so-called “immigration debate”.
The immense political pressure has quickly translated into a rush of sweeping policy reforms at the state and federal levels, beginning with a package of new laws fast-tracked through a recalled NSW Parliament in the days before Christmas. Here, the Minns Government packaged in much-needed updates to gun control with regressive protest restrictions wrapped in a rhetoric that falsely conflates anti-genocide and pro-Palestinian demonstrators with the ISIS-inspired antisemitic views held by two alleged terrorists.
The new restrictions, which enable police to block authorisation of marches for up to 90 days after a terror attack, have been opposed in a constitutional challenge brought by the Blak Caucus, Palestine Action Group, and Jews Against the Occupation ‘48. Minns has flagged that controversial changes to hate speech laws are also on his agenda, with a flash inquiry into the possible prohibition of political slogans deemed to incite violence - targeting phrases like ‘Globalise the Intifada’, a phrase that Palestinians have repeatedly explained captures the spirit of resistance against illegal occupation. The inquiry is due to report back by 31 January.
But all eyes are now on the Prime Minister, who, after weeks of pressure from lobbyists and the opposition, has all but fully capitulated to their demands. It began in December with the government’s commitment to fully adopt the remaining elements of Jillian Segal’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism, which has faced criticism for embodying a controversial definition of antisemitism that encompasses criticism of the state of Israel.
On Christmas eve, Albanese announced that Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who has publicly signed his name to artillery shells used to strike Gaza, would be formally invited to visit Australia in early 2026 to provide support to the Australian Jewish community. Penny Wong this week reiterated that this visit was “a good thing”, despite the fact that nine Jewish groups have signed a letter urging the Prime Minister to rescind the invite, citing concerns it risks “exacerbating racism and antisemitism during an incredibly fragile moment”.
The big one came last Thursday, when Albanese backflipped on his initial resistance to a royal commission, succumbing to persistent campaigning from hardline parts of the Jewish community and a coalition of more than 60 Australian sporting stars, backed by the Murdoch media.
The announced probe into antisemitism and social cohesion will be led by former High Court justice Virginia Bell - which has angered some members of the Jewish community who have claimed she is too closely aligned with Labor to be impartial. Meanwhile, many on the progressive side of politics (us included) have strong reservations as to whether a royal commission is the most appropriate mechanism for investigating the worst terror attack in this country’s history, for which criminal proceedings are likely to be ongoing for some time.
To unpack some of these concerns, let’s take a look at how this mechanism works.
