The Prime Minister is facing mounting pressure to establish a wide-ranging national inquiry into the Bondi Beach massacre, with calls intensifying from Jewish groups and victims' families.
Commissioner Adds Voice to Growing Chorus
Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay has publicly criticised the Albanese government's current approach. The government has opted for a review into intelligence and law enforcement, led by former ASIO chief Dennis Richardson, rather than a full royal commission.
Ms Finlay argued that understanding the 'deeper causes of violence' is critical. 'The Bondi terrorist attack was driven by anti-Semitism. Confronting that directly must be a national priority,' she stated on social media. She insisted that a federal royal commission is essential to fully comprehend the events and prevent any recurrence.
Political and Legal Pressure Builds
Ms Finlay's intervention follows significant legal pressure. More than 135 former judges and senior barristers have signed an open letter demanding a royal commission. However, the call is not unanimous, with top barrister Robert Richter speaking against the idea.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has defended the government's chosen path. He assured Australians that Mr Richardson was 'the most qualified person you could possibly have' to examine intelligence and security matters. Mr Richardson's review has already begun and is slated for completion by the end of April.
Mr Albanese stated there would be no repercussions for Ms Finlay, a government-appointed official, for voicing her opinion. 'People are entitled to their opinion,' he told reporters, while maintaining that a royal commission would take years to deliver findings.
Diverging Paths: Federal Review vs. State Inquiry
The situation highlights a divergent approach between federal and state authorities. While the federal government pursues its review, NSW Premier Chris Minns has committed to a state-level royal commission into the attack. Premier Minns has indicated he will not lobby the Prime Minister to change his federal stance.
The debate centres on the scope and authority of the investigation. Proponents of a royal commission argue it possesses greater powers to compel testimony and examine broader societal issues, including the roots of anti-Semitic violence, whereas the government's review is focused on operational intelligence and enforcement responses.
