Royal Commission on Bondi attack raises questions of independence

The royal commission into the Bondi attack is facing scrutiny over its independence, scope and purpose as political pressure mounts, writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.

ROYAL COMMISSIONS often meet to confirm the obvious and signal modest change. They do not offer a binding solution, have no coercive powers against the government of the day, and although they claim to be independent, they can be susceptible to interest groups.

They are also expensive, demanding, often long, and serve as a calming factor that absorbs pressure and allows the rulers of the day to delay action. Scott PrasserA scholar long knowledgeable about the pitfalls of public administration, suggests such commissions ‘They are most effective when the real problem is a lack of legitimacy rather than a lack of knowledge’.

The wistful, bleating insistence on appointing a royal commission Bondi Beach attack Last December, a bad shooting attack Those celebrating Hanukkah are not immune from the usual criticism when 16 people, including one of the shooters, died.

Prime Minister of Australia Anthony Albanese At first he resisted it, select for an independent review of Australia’s federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to be led by the former director-general of domestic intelligence. dennis richardson. The main focus of the review is the Australian Security Intelligence Agency (ASIO) and Australian Federal Police (AFP) in terms of performance, appropriate authorizations, systems, processes and procedures, including information sharing protocols.

Albanese’s resistance to a Commonwealth royal commission was also partly due to the New South Wales Government already running its own version; A version that the Albanese Government has promised to support with the necessary resources and weight. However, although the Prime Minister was not very convinced, he showed that he was in favor of return.

After much bleating and open letters from public figures from politics to sports, Albanese Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion To be led by former Supreme Court Justice Virginia Bell.

The commission faces problems even in its infancy. Some prominent figures in the Australian Jewish community were hoping for a sympathetic, possibly even philosophical, voice to guide them. The question was not whether the appointee would be sympathetic to the evidence, but whether he would be at least partially sympathetic to the feelings of an interest group. In other words, any sense of objective justice or strict detachment from the issue would be a secondary consideration.

Chairman of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies reveals his specific and parochial understanding of how such a commission would work David Ossip said Australian Financial Review it was “It’s time to deliver more unity, not less.” after “Two long years of division in Australia”. This meant reaching a consensus on the selection of the royal commissioner; This was a crude way of saying that the best fit should get the seal of approval from members of the Australian Jewish community.

Ossip said:

“The Royal Commission to examine what led to the worst terrorist attack and crisis of antisemitism in our country’s history must have the confidence of the Jewish community.”

It is hard not to learn more about this, arguing that Ossip confuses consensus with tampering, distortion, and premature decision-making. As long as the lobby agrees, consensus will be reached and appropriate findings will then emerge.

President Zionist Federation, Jeremy Leiblerlike that even more directbrings a dose of identity politics into play:

“Any royal commission must be structured in terms of reference and the identity of the commissioner. [in such a way that it] “To achieve its goal, it must gain the trust of the Jewish community, the community most affected by the attack, and society more broadly.”

Without basis, the commissioner’s choice led to some penalties. Albanian, moaned Former Coalition Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, ‘I was told directly by leaders of the Jewish community that they had serious concerns’ It’s about Bell.

Frydenberg continued:

‘After more than two years of unprecedented hatred, harassment and violence against the Jewish community, culminating in Australia’s deadliest terrorist attack at Bondi Beach, it is unthinkable that the Prime Minister would choose a commissioner who does not have the full confidence of the Jewish community.’

Atayın appealed to Frydenberg, ‘The right Commissioner, whose leadership will provide the answers and solutions our country urgently needs.’.

This raises an uncomfortable question. What would be a suitable commissioner for Frydenberg? approved by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? A figure openly embracing definition antisemitism concluded by International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance? Someone who rejects the view, one accepted by UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry into the Occupied Palestinian TerritoriesIn addition to many non-governmental and human rights organizations, to contain based in israel B’TselemDo you think Israel’s actions in Gaza are genocidal?

A. report Trying to identify vague concerns about Bell’s appointment, the ABC cites the following perceptions: ‘He was linked to the Political Left’. There was also a ‘The lack of trust between the community and the Albanian Government is a contributing factor to fears that the eventual selection of royal commissioners will not examine elements of the antisemitism issue that are important to them’.

A bureaucratic and costly gain is at hand. Richardson’s review will likely be joined by a Federal Royal Commission linking arms with the NSW Royal Commission. There will be a lot of duplication. Early deciders will be hoping for positive findings to further prune the wilting tree of free expression in Australia, while silencing criticism of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians.