A national tragedy moves into an accountability phase
Australia’s response to the Bondi Beach terror attack is shifting from immediate crisis management to longer-term scrutiny, after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signalled support for a royal commission proposed by New South Wales Premier Chris Minns to investigate how the attack was able to occur and what failures—if any—sat in the chain of events leading to the deadliest terror incident the state has faced in decades.
Minns has argued that only a full, independent inquiry with coercive powers can establish a complete account of the lead-up to the attack, including how two alleged offenders were able to plan, arm themselves, and reach a crowded public event with catastrophic consequences.
The prime minister’s support, while carefully framed, marks an important political moment: a recognition that the public’s demand for answers is now running alongside the criminal justice process, and that the credibility of the state’s institutions—police, intelligence, licensing bodies and policymakers—will likely be tested in the months ahead.
What Albanese has said, and what “backing” looks like in practice
Speaking as pressure built for a formal inquiry, Albanese indicated he would support “whatever actions” the NSW government decides are necessary—language that stops short of announcing a Commonwealth-led royal commission but effectively gives Minns political cover to proceed with a state-based one.
That distinction matters. A royal commission can be established by a state or the Commonwealth, and its reach depends on its legal foundation and terms of reference. With elements of national security and counterterrorism often involving federal agencies, debate has quickly turned to whether a NSW royal commission would be enough, or whether a broader federal inquiry is required to compel evidence from Commonwealth bodies and examine intelligence and border settings.
Minns has suggested the inquiry could run in parallel with criminal proceedings—an approach that can be legally complex, but one increasingly demanded by a community that does not want years of silence while a prosecution grinds through the courts.
Why Minns wants a royal commission now
The premier’s public case is built on a blunt premise: the Bondi attack was too serious, too destabilising, and too consequential to be examined only through internal reviews or after-the-fact parliamentary debates. Standing before cameras, Minns said NSW needed a “full and accurate picture” of what happened, and a plan to ensure it cannot happen again.
That sentiment has been echoed—though not uniformly—by Jewish community groups, opposition figures, and commentators who argue that the country’s counter-extremism posture has to be examined under oath, with evidence tested publicly, rather than filtered through departmental summaries.
Minns’ push also comes amid a sweeping legislative response from NSW, including proposed measures on hate speech and symbols, and broader public-order powers—moves that, without a comprehensive inquiry, risk being seen as reactive rather than evidence-led.
The political fault lines: state inquiry, federal inquiry, or both?
The royal commission call has opened an immediate political argument about jurisdiction and responsibility. Opposition leader Sussan Ley has urged Albanese to establish a Commonwealth royal commission, offering to work on its scope—an indication the Coalition sees political and institutional value in a national inquiry that can examine federal agencies directly.
At the same time, there have been signals of caution from some federal voices about timing and interference. The core concern is familiar in large terrorism cases: a public inquiry, if poorly sequenced, can complicate prosecutions by exposing evidence, shaping witness accounts, or triggering legal disputes over prejudice and confidentiality. Minns, however, has argued the stakes are too high to delay.
Behind the politics, there is also a practical question. If the inquiry is state-based, it may still be able to examine many crucial issues—policing, event security, gun licensing and storage rules, and state-level prevention frameworks. But if it seeks to interrogate intelligence assessments, federal watchlists, border movements, or Commonwealth decision-making, a state process may be more constrained than a federal commission, unless there is strong cooperation.
Public mourning continues as leaders promise action
The royal commission discussion is unfolding against a backdrop of ongoing public grief. Albanese and the NSW government have jointly backed a Day of Reflection on Sunday, 21 December 2025, with flags at half-mast and public commemorations intended to honour victims and stand in solidarity with the Jewish community.
Authorities have also confirmed the legal case is advancing: Naveed Akram, 24, has been charged with 59 offences, including 15 counts of murder, while investigations continue into the planning and circumstances of the attack.
What a royal commission would likely examine—and what the public wants answered
Even before formal terms of reference are drafted, the questions driving calls for a royal commission are clear. Australians want to know what warning signs existed, how they were assessed, whether any agency missed opportunities to intervene, and whether systems designed to reduce risk—particularly around firearms access and threat monitoring—were fit for purpose.
They also want clarity on how government responded once the crisis began: whether the event security posture was adequate, whether information was shared quickly enough between agencies, and what changes should be made to prevent copycat violence or retaliatory attacks.
Minns has framed the inquiry as not only a fact-finding exercise but a mechanism to restore public confidence—an acknowledgement that after a mass casualty attack, reassurance is not achieved through slogans. It is achieved through credible answers, visible accountability, and reforms that can withstand scrutiny.
7 years in the field, from local radio to digital newsrooms. Loves chasing the stories that matter to everyday Aussies – whether it’s climate, cost of living or the next big thing in tech.
