The families of 11 of the Bondi Beach massacre victims
Former Governor General Peter Cosgrove
Former High Court chief justice Robert French
Former chief scientist Alan Finkel
Former intelligence chief Nick Warner
Former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg
Former AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty
Former BCA president Graham Bradley
Billionaire Jack Cowin
The family of Katrina Dawson, who was killed in the 2014 Lindt Cafe siege
ECAJ co-chair Peter Wertheim
Former Qld premier Peter Beattie
Labor backbenchers Mike Freelander and Ed Husic
More than 136 silks – including former Federal Court chief justice James Allsop, former solicitor-general David ­Bennett, former Federal Court judges Julie Dodds-Streeton, Sylvia Emmett, Raymond Finkelstein, Ron Merkel, Ronald ­Sackville, Peter Jacobson, Paul Anastassiou



Ms Ley accused Mr Albanese of failing to listen to the request of the victims’ families.

“The families of victims want this commonwealth royal commission,” she said.

“The Jewish community wants it. Eminent Australians want it. And I suspect millions of ordinary Australians want it too. Former governors general want it. Judges, former AFP commissioners, senior lawyers and security experts want it. The Coalition wants it. Even Labor MPs want it.

“Today, the Prime Minister thumbed his nose at these families and told them, in effect, that he knows better.”

The Liberal Opposition Leader said that “instead of listening to those most affected, the Prime Minister has decided to speak over them”.

“Instead of the truth, he’s hiding behind process,” she said.

“By speaking over victims and their families and declaring that his pathway forward is the right one, the Prime Minister has actually insulted those who have endured the unimaginable.

“It is not protective, it is patronising.

“It’s also an insult to the Australian people. Australians do not need to be shielded from the truth.”

Ms Ley also picked up on Mr Albanese’s argument that her proposal for a royal commission would be too wide-ranging.

“We need to be wide-ranging in consulting and listening and understanding the surge of anti-Semitism across this country,” she said.

“Australians are entitled to know how the Prime Minister can be trusted to confront anti-Semitism if he won’t answer questions about it within the Labor Party itself.”

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 29^th, 2025 at 4:41pm:



I was merely contemptuous of Albawheezy before, now I despise him.

He dragged this country through a most devisive Voice campaign and then pretended to be deaf to the shrieking voices of pro-Hamas fascists for two years.

The little twerp is the same as he was in his studet years, a frothing little Trot. As are his ministry. These 80s ****wits have captured covernment, public service, universities, the arts and all the institutions.

Jasin wrote on Dec 29^th, 2025 at 6:29pm:


Without using Google, or any other assistance, can you explain what a Royal Commission is?

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 29^th, 2025 at 7:50pm:


Yeah.

Didn't think so.

Albaweasel,Tony Burqa and Ha'penny Wrong want to avoid any examination of Islamic immigration and their refusal to reform and assimilate.

Dan Jervis-Bardy

A review of Asio and the federal police is worthwhile, but it’s not a substitute for a royal commission into antisemitism


‘Asked bluntly if those calling for a royal commission were simply wrong, Anthony Albanese insisted he was acting in the national interest.’ Photograph: Audrey Richardson/Getty Images

When Anthony Albanese opened a press conference on Monday announcing the release of terms of reference for an inquiry into the Bondi massacre, it seemed for a fleeting moment that he had belatedly agreed to hold a commonwealth royal commission.

The timing would have been understandable, after the victims’ families had penned an open letter pleading for one, making the sort of intervention that can be politically untenable for any prime minister to refuse.

“You cannot bring back our loved ones. But with a well-led Commonwealth royal commission and strong action, you may be able to save many more,” the letter signed by families of 11 of the 15 victims read.

Albanese might have been able to rebuff Sussan Ley’s Coalition, Jewish leaders and many others who have demanded a national inquiry, but could he resist the heartfelt calls from relatives of the deceased?

Yes.

The terms of references, Albanese revealed in the next breath, were not for a royal commission but rather the former spy chief Dennis Richardson’s review of federal intelligence agencies, which was first announced a week after the 14 December massacre.

The Richardson review will assess the overall performance and capacity of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio) and Australian federal police (AFP) and examine specific, pertinent questions, including what was known, and when, of Sajid and Naveed Akram before the father and son allegedly killed 15 people and injured dozens of others.

It would not consider – as the Coalition, the victims’ families and others have demanded – the broader issue of antisemitism.

The inquiry will be wrapped up in April, allowing the federal government to move quickly to implement any urgent recommendations.

For that reason alone, it is worthwhile and necessary.

But such a narrow inquiry is not a substitute for a commonwealth royal commission, with the powers it has to compel evidence and, just as crucially, the national public spotlight it commands to ensure accountability.

Richardson has been assured “full access to all materials he considers may be relevant to his inquiry”, according to the terms of reference. But his work, which will presumably include interrogation of the Asio boss, Mike Burgess, will be conducted in secret.

After previously dismissing a royal commission on the grounds it would take too long, or that the Coalition’s proposed terms of reference were too wide-ranging, Albanese and the home affairs minister, Tony Burke, presented a new argument on Monday.

Burke suggested a royal commission that examined antisemitism would provide a new platform for perpetrators of anti-Jewish hate, forcing grieving communities to “relive” the trauma of the past two years.

“We need to have the sort of inquiry that keeps Australians safe and that does not provide a platform for the worst voices. The Richardson inquiry does exactly that,” Burke said.

Burke’s desire to avoid further traumatising the Jewish community might be well intentioned. But the argument is undermined by the fact that some of the most traumatised – the families of the Bondi victims – are among those demanding a public inquiry.

If the risk of re-traumatisation was reason enough not to hold a royal commission, would the harrowing but necessary inquiry into institutional responses to child sexual abuse have been held?

Royal commissions can hold sessions in private and submissions can be redacted or withheld from public release, including any sensitive intelligence or national security matters.

Nobody is suggesting neo-Nazis be allowed to spew hatred from the witness box.

Albanese has rightly rejected the Coalition’s suggested terms of reference, which would amount to an unruly examination of universities, the media and even the Human Rights Commission.

But that is not a legitimate reason to refuse an inquiry, because it is Albanese, not Ley, who decides its scope. Nor is the fact that New South Wales has committed to its own state-based inquiry.

Asked bluntly if all of those calling for a royal commission were simply wrong, the prime minister insisted he was acting in the national interest.

“Well, my heart breaks for the families of the victims of the Bondi terrorist atrocity,” he said.

“My job as the Australian prime minister is to act in the national interest. It is in the national interest for us to do the Richardson review on national security.”

In the fortnight since the Bondi shootings, Albanese has instigated a nationwide tightening of gun laws, including the first firearm buyback since Port Arthur, and promised stronger hate speech laws as part of a renewed effort to stamp out antisemitism.

The responses might have been slower and more uncoordinated than his critics have demanded. But, in simple terms, he got there in the end.

...

Albaweasel, Burqa and Wrong a spineles, despicable and dishonest twerps.

The excuse for not holding a Royal Commission is weaselly and totally unbelievable.
Airing tramatic ideas did not prevent the RC on child abuse, elder abuse, disabled abuse, veteran suicides.