What is a royal commission? Could one into the Bondi attack create meaningful change?

Less than a month on, Australia is still grappling with the consequences of the Bondi attack, in which 16 people were killed (including one of the shooters) and 40 more were injured. Most of the victims were Jewish and were attending an event to mark the start of Hanukkah.

Many have asked how this could happen in Australia. They also want to know how to stop something like this from happening again.

In the search for answers, the federal government, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, has been strongly criticised. Emotions are high, and political debate has made the situation more tense.

A lot of people want a royal commission into the attack and antisemitism more generally.

So if the government did decide to hold one, how might it work? What can royal commissions do that other investigations can’t, and what are the potential pitfalls?

What is a royal commission?

A royal commission is an independent investigation set up by the government to examine serious problems and issues. They are the highest form of formal inquiry.

Royal commissions collect evidence, hold hearings (both public and private) and recommend changes to laws or policies. The government of the day is not compelled to act on these recommendations.

They are usually led by a judge or a senior legal expert. They are created through official documents, called letters patent. These are approved by the Governor-General. The letters also appoint the commissioners.

The scope of a royal commission, called the terms of reference, explain what the commission will investigate and what questions it must answer.

The government recommends both the commissioners and the terms of reference. If costs are a concern, the government can specify a budget ceiling for the commission.

What powers do they have?

Royal commissions have stronger powers than other investigations, such as reviews and parliamentary inquiries. They can require witnesses to give evidence and demand documents from government agencies and others. They can take evidence under oath and punish people who refuse to cooperate with fines or jail time.

These powers would be important in the event of a Bondi royal commission, investigating what government agencies knew before the attack. Some agencies may be unwilling to share information. Right now, we don’t know if that is the case, but a royal commission could compel them to do so.

It could also reduce rumours and conspiracy theories by formally setting the record straight.

It might also uncover mistakes. If mistakes were made, it is better to admit them. Hiding mistakes makes it more likely they will happen again.

What are the risks?

The government has been under intense pressure to launch a royal commission in this case for all the reasons above.

Critics say the government has acted too slowly, although it has established an independent review of Australia’s intelligence agencies, led by former diplomat Dennis Richardson.

For several weeks, Albanese has resisted the idea of establishing a royal commission, saying such a body would work too slowly and could produce unhelpful recommendations.

While this can occur with a royal commission, it’s not an inevitable outcome.

Australian governments have used royal commissions for more than one hundred years. They can lead to long-lasting change, but they do not always succeed.

An example of a royal commission that generated lasting change in recent years was the 2014 Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program.

By contrast, few recommendations have been implemented from the disability royal commission that reported in 2023.

One risk is that an inquiry becomes a replacement for real action. These concerns are valid, but they can be reduced by setting clear and focused terms of reference.

To function as intended, royal commissions need careful planning and guidance. This is entirely in the government’s hands.

3 things to get right

Running a royal commission on this issue would be difficult. Missteps could occur, and the government might not like the findings.

Past experience, however, shows what can help a commission succeed. Prioritising and sequencing what matters to address is crucial.

First, the commission should focus on public safety. This is the most urgent matter. It should examine how intelligence and security agencies share information and respond to threats. Listening to experts and testing different scenarios could lead to quick improvements.

Second, the commission should focus on prevention. This would take longer and would require addressing big questions: what future is most desirable for Australian society? And how can we protect values like democracy, tolerance, and human rights?

Any commission should listen to people in this country’s diverse communities. It should not rely on legal experts and processes alone. It should be open to learning from other experts and citizens, especially those with experiences of antisemitism and extremism.

Finally, the terms of reference should direct the royal commission to produce recommendations that are succinct, practical and affordable. If we say “never again” then we must support those words with appropriate policy design and fully costed implementation plans.

A well-constructed, results-oriented royal commission would be an investment in Australia’s future. But such an inquiry requires breaking from bureaucratic business-as-usual.

The task calls for political courage, a mandate to engage broadly, and commissioners willing to lead the co-design of policy solutions.