Who Is Asking Albanese for a Royal Commission — and Why?
- Written by The Times
Australia is in the midst of a growing national debate over whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should convene a federal royal commission in response to the deadly terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025 — and the broader rise in antisemitism and extremist violence across the country.
At the centre of the controversy is the Prime Minister’s decision not to establish a royal commission, instead commissioning a “short, sharp” review into security agency performance led by former intelligence chief Dennis Richardson. Albanese insists this review — to report by April 2026 — is the fastest way to strengthen Australia’s national security settings without fuelling division.
But widespread pressure from community leaders, public figures, political groups and victims’ families is challenging that stance. Here’s who is calling for a royal commission — and the reasons they give.
1. Families of Bondi Beach Victims
Families directly affected by the Bondi terror atrocity — which claimed 15 lives, including a 10-year-old child — have been among the first to urge a federal royal commission. They argue that only a full public inquiry can uncover systemic flaws in national security, government responses, and societal attitudes that might have allowed the attack to occur, and to prevent future tragedies.
For loved ones who lost family members, a royal commission is seen not only as a path to answers but as an essential part of national accountability and healing.
2. Jewish Community and Religious Leaders
Eight major Jewish and communal organisations — led by groups such as the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) and the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) — have joined the call for a royal commission into antisemitism in Australia. They argue that rising hate incidents against Jewish Australians over the past two years, particularly since the conflict in the Middle East in October 2023, point to systemic issues beyond a single terror incident.
These leaders emphasise that incremental security measures are not enough. They want a transparent and public process to examine societal trends, institutional responses, and legal frameworks in combating antisemitism.
3. Sporting Icons and Public Figures
More than 60 prominent athletes — including Olympic greats Dawn Fraser, Ian Thorpe, Lleyton Hewitt and Jess Fox — have signed an open letter urging Albanese to establish a federal royal commission into the anti-seminitic terror attack and related extremism.
The group argues that a royal commission is the “most credible and unifying pathway” to ensure safety and cohesion for all Australians and to restore social harmony. Many of the athletes frame their call as an act of national leadership and moral clarity at a time of deep social concern.
4. Business and Employer Groups
Australia’s largest business organisations — including the Business Council of Australia (BCA) and other employer bodies — have publicly supported calls for a federal royal commission following the Bondi tragedy. More than 130 business leaders signed a statement arguing that a comprehensive national inquiry is needed to address broader security, social and economic implications for Australia.
Their backing highlights how concerns over public safety and social cohesion are resonating beyond traditional advocacy groups into the corporate sector.
5. Teal and Crossbench MPs
A group of independent and “teal” MPs, led by Monique Ryan and supported by colleagues including Kate Chaney, Zali Steggall and Sophie Scamps, has also formally demanded a royal commission.
Their call goes beyond investigating the Bondi attack to include proposals for legal reform, stronger protections against hate speech, and expanded funding for community safety initiatives — especially for those at risk of targeted violence.
6. State Political Figures and Former Leaders
Former state premiers and senior political figures, including ex-Victorian premiers from both sides of politics, have added weight to the call for a federal inquiry, arguing that only a national royal commission can encompass Commonwealth responsibilities and federal-level institutional actions.
Even within New South Wales, debates are intensifying over the limits of a state royal commission versus the need for a national one.
Why There Is Resistance from Albanese
Despite mounting public pressure, Prime Minister Albanese has rejected the royal commission calls, arguing that the Richardson review will provide practical, timely recommendations on national security failures without the cost, delay or social division associated with a royal commission.
Government spokespeople also warn that a royal commission — by its public nature — could inadvertently give a platform to extremist voices and delay urgent reforms. Critics dismiss this reasoning as political avoidance.
The ongoing tension between demands for transparency and the government’s focus on rapid, closed-door review means the debate over a royal commission is likely to dominate Australian politics well into 2026.
