Diving into the backflip on Bondi royal commission

The decision to backtrack from calls for a full royal commission into the Bondi Beach terror attack is one of the most politically charged moments in Australia’s recent history.  

With 15 innocent people killed and many more injured at a Hanukkah festival in December 2025, calls for a comprehensive inquiry were loud and deeply emotional. People gathered, mourned, lit candles and asked the same question on repeat, how did this happen here? The subsequent backflip on a royal commission has reopened that question, not as a political flashpoint, but as a deeply human one about trust, safety and healing. 

Yet the government’s shift in position has sparked a fierce debate about leadership, accountability and the nation’s willingness to confront underlying issues of extremism and antisemitism. At the heart of the debate is not whether a royal commission is a perfect tool, but whether communities feel heard. 

Why some support the backflip Those backing the government’s revised position argue that healing does not always come through the biggest inquiry, but through timely, practical action. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said his focus was on unity and social cohesion, stressing that communities needed the reassurance now that changes are being made, not years down the track. 

Supporters point out that multiple investigations are already underway, including coronial inquests and security reviews, and argue these processes can deliver answers more quickly for families and frontline services. From this view, restraint is about avoiding inquiry fatigue and ensuring reforms aren’t delayed while governments wait for final reports. 

Some community leaders have also warned against allowing grief to become polarised. They argue that endless political debate risks overshadowing remembrance, compassion and the quiet work of rebuilding trust between communities. 

Why others are feeling let down by the decision For many affected communities, however, the backflip has landed as a missed opportunity to fully acknowledge the scale of the trauma. 

Jewish community leaders, including New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies president David Ossip, have argued that a royal commission is not about blame, but about visibility, a chance to publicly examine how hatred and extremism are growing and how institutions respond before violence erupts. 

Families of victims and survivors have echoed that sentiment. For them, a royal commission represents the strongest signal that the nation is willing to sit with uncomfortable truths, not just administratively but publicly. When that signal appeared to waver, it created confusion and hurt, rather than reassurance. 

Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay has also supported a federal inquiry, saying that understanding the deeper causes of violence, including online radicalisation and social fragmentation, is essential if communities are to feel genuinely safer. 

Finding the right answers It seems both sides of this debate are motivated by care, for victims, for communities, and for Australia’s future. The disagreement is less about whether answers are needed and more about how to seek them. 

Former politicians from across the spectrum, including former Labor MPs who signed an open letter calling for a royal commission, framed their plea in community terms: that Australians deserve a transparent, national conversation about violence, hatred and prevention, not one conducted behind closed doors. 

Meanwhile, supporters of the government’s approach stress that inquiries alone do not create safer streets or stronger communities. They argue that legislation, funding for mental health services, policing resources and education are where real protection is built. 

What it means to everyone else For everyday Australians, this debate is not abstract. It lives in parents wondering how to talk to their children, in communities feeling exposed and in people wanting reassurance that warning signs will not be missed again. 

The question now is not whether the government changed course, but whether the path forward restores confidence. A community-minded response requires transparency, genuine consultation with affected groups, and clear communication about what investigations will -  and won’t - deliver. 

In times of tragedy, leadership is measured not only by decisiveness, but by empathy. Australians are not asking for perfection. They are asking to be included, informed and respected as part of the process of understanding what went wrong and how to ensure it never happens again.