Calls for a federal royal commission into the Bondi terror attack continue to grow.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has stood firm in recent weeks, insisting a review into the country's intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in conjunction with a NSW royal commission, will be a faster and more effective response.
Albanese has ordered the independent federal review to be led by former Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) director-general Dennis Richardson.
He has also pledged to support a state-based royal commission, which NSW Premier Chris Minns said will "get to the answers" about what happened.
However, Jewish organisations, Bondi victims' families, the Coalition, the human rights commissioner, and a widening range of other voices argue that the proposed investigations fall short.
Last week, Opposition leader Sussan Ley released the Coalition's proposed terms of reference for a Commonwealth royal commission, saying a state-led inquiry would be unable to properly examine national security failures, migration and visa settings, and broader federal responsibilities.
On Friday, pressure intensified further when more than 120 business leaders and public figures signed an open letter calling for a federal royal commission. Several former Victorian premiers also called for one.
So what could each of these investigations actually achieve?
The Richardson review
This review will examine whether the federal intelligence and law enforcement apparatus performed effectively in the context of the terror attack, in which two alleged gunmen, Sajid and Naveed Akram, targeted a Jewish celebration at Bondi Beach, killing 15 people.
Authorities allege the father and son duo were inspired by the ideology of the self-proclaimed Islamic State group.
Richardson will investigate which federal agencies were aware of the alleged offenders, how they interacted with one another and with state agencies, and whether there were additional measures they could have taken to prevent the attack.
It will also explore whether current laws prevented agencies from doing more to stop the attack.
A NSW royal commission
Minns has not yet laid out a timeline for the state-based inquiry, but he said work is underway to establish terms of reference as soon as possible.
The inquiry would seek to determine how the attack happened and how future tragedies can be prevented, he said on Monday.
Minns said the inquiry would have access to other jurisdictions and the heads of federal agencies.
Albanese said on Thursday the Commonwealth would "participate fully" in the state inquiry.
NSW Premier Chris Minns said he is working to establish a royal commission to investigate how the Bondi attack happened and how future incidents can be prevented. Source: AAP / Dean Lewins
He told SBS News that while much hinges on the state-based inquiry's terms of reference, it could focus on matters within NSW jurisdiction, such as the adequacy of NSW Police processes, government programs and community relations.
He argued a joint state–Commonwealth royal commission would be the most effective way to examine both the terror attack and the broader issue of antisemitism, because neither a state nor a federal inquiry alone could examine the full picture.
There is precedent in Australia for joint commissions, including the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which was established cooperatively to overcome jurisdictional limits.
How long could each inquiry take?
The Richardson review report will be provided to the government by the end of April, with Albanese arguing that a royal commission could take years to deliver findings.
Many royal commissions take months, Prasser said.
However, those with a broad scope to explore complex issues have taken as long as four or five years.
In Prasser's view, the terms of reference proposed by the Opposition are "far too complex and too detailed".
But he believes that a royal commission into the Bondi attack could be completed in about a year if it is designed effectively.
"If properly structured [with] the proper terms of reference and the right membership, [a royal commission] can be very effective at getting to the bottom of things very quickly," he said.
Anthony Whealy, a former NSW Supreme Court judge, disagrees, saying a commission on a matter of this level of complexity would likely take at least two years.
"As a judge, I sat on a number of terrorism trials where we had to employ very considerable restraint about what could be made public because of national security concerns, and the same thing happens with royal commissions," he told SBS News.
What's missing from their scope?
Many of those calling for a federal royal commission have argued it should examine the broader issue of antisemitism in Australia, and the climate in which such ideology has taken hold.
Prasser argued that while the Richardson review will be swift and "makes some sense", a federal royal commission would address this bigger issue, while also facilitating examination of the interactions between federal and state law enforcement.
"The Richardson review is looking at one particular aspect of national security. We're not looking at the wider issues of what's driven this," Prasser said.
The Richardson review has no legislative base, he noted, meaning it lacks the coercive powers that distinguish a royal commission.
"The Richardson review has got no legislative base, no powers ... there's many inquiries like that, and they're quite effective, but it's working on the goodwill of people to cooperate with it, which is quite different to a royal commission that makes you cooperate with it," he said.
Could the two proposed reviews be effective?
Whealy, who serves as chair of the Centre for Public Integrity, believes the Richardson review, in conjunction with a well-designed NSW inquiry, is an appropriate approach.
"A NSW royal commission would be best placed to look at the incident itself, because it happened in NSW," he said.
"It seems to me that it's really a NSW issue as far as the event itself is concerned, and the examination of the police, with one exception — and that is the intelligence agencies."
"They fall within a Commonwealth responsibility, and the prime minister has correctly appointed one of the most distinguished Australians, whose integrity and experience cannot be doubted, Dennis Richardson, to report very quickly on whether there's a failure there," Whealy said.
While a NSW royal commission would not investigate antisemitism nationally, he said it would still conduct a meaningful examination of how antisemitism manifested in NSW.
"What's happened in NSW is indicative of what's happening the world over on this issue at the moment."
Share
