1 week ago
2
February 23, 2026 — 3:53pm
The royal commission into the Bondi Beach massacre and antisemitism in Australia begins in Sydney on Tuesday with its first public hearings. Royal commissioner Virginia Bell and counsel assisting Richard Lancaster, SC, will deliver opening statements explaining how they will perform their duties.
Later this week, Bell will visit Bondi, the scene of the worst terror attack in the nation’s history, to meet with survivors of the massacre and relatives of the 15 innocent people killed on December 14.
Those invited have been told that Bell will use the informal meeting to explain “limitations on the approach the commission can take to leading evidence of the circumstances of the attack and answer questions about how it will operate”.
With a tight mid-December deadline and expansive terms of reference, Bell and Lancaster have much work to do over the next year. Here are the five key issues they will examine.
How prevalent is antisemitism in Australia, and how does it compare to other forms of prejudice?
The royal commission’s terms of reference instruct it to investigate “the nature and prevalence of antisemitism in institutions and society, and examining its key drivers in Australia, including religious and ideologically motivated extremism and radicalisation”. The inquiry should also assess “the impact of antisemitism on the daily life of Jewish Australians including with respect to security, physical and mental health and wellbeing”.
Jewish organisations have recorded a surge in antisemitic incidents following the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel and the war in Gaza, including attacks on synagogues, homes, Jewish daycare centres and restaurants.
The latest Scanlon Foundation report into social cohesion, released last year, found that 15 per cent of Australians said they hold negative feelings towards Jews, up from 9 per cent two years earlier. (Thirty-five per cent of Australians said they held negative views against Muslims and 18 per cent about Christians.)
An important, but complicated, question for the royal commission will be the connection between antisemitism in Australia, events in the Middle East and the Albanese government’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
What motivated the shooters?
Two months after the attacks, Australians still have little insight into exactly what motivated Naveed Akram and father Sajid to unleash terror on Bondi Beach. Naveed came onto domestic spy agency ASIO’s radar in 2019 because of his associations with radical preachers in Sydney’s western suburbs. Even though it appears he fell off security agencies’ radar in following years, he and his father became radicalised by falling under the sway of Islamic State, a terror group that pursues an extreme, fundamentalist vision of Islam.
Bell’s terms of reference call for her to examine the “lead-up to and planning of the attack”. So, what drove the Akrams from being devout Muslims to violent extremists? Did the war in Gaza, and other events in the Middle East, influence their radicalisation? Or were other factors more important? Some evidence related to this aspect of the royal commission may remain confidential because of the requirement that the inquiry does not prejudice ongoing criminal hearings.
Did intelligence and security failures contribute to the Bondi attack?
This section of the inquiry is being led by former ASIO and Defence Department boss Dennis Richardson. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese originally planned for Richardson’s probe to be a standalone inquiry, sitting alongside a NSW royal commission, but rolled it into the Commonwealth royal commission after bowing to community pressure to establish the wider investigation. Richardson will deliver to Bell by April an interim report examining the performance of intelligence and law enforcement agencies leading up to the attack. ASIO and the Australian Federal Police will be his focus.
Richardson, who has begun holding interviews, will examine whether the relevant agencies could have done more to prevent the attack. He is also investigating whether there were failures in information sharing between ASIO, AFP and NSW Police. A key question will be whether authorities should have kept a closer watch on Naveed Akram after deciding in 2019 that he did not adhere to or intend to engage in violent extremism. For example, should authorities have raised an alarm when the father and son travelled to a known terror hot spot in the Philippines as they planned the attack? Or when Sajid began amassing a stockpile of firearms.
ASIO said in a recent statement: “Tragically, ASIO did not know what the perpetrators of the Bondi attack were planning – or indeed that they were planning anything. This is a matter of grave regret. It weighs on us heavily. But that does not mean additional resourcing would have prevented the attack or there was intelligence that was not acted on or that our officers made mistakes.”
The spy agency continued: “Ultimately, the royal commission will make its own assessment ... based on all the evidence, rather than selective claims.”
Separately, the royal commission will also examine whether there should have been a bigger security presence, including more police officers, at the Hanukkah celebration at Bondi.
Did governments ignore warnings of rising antisemitism?
Jewish community leaders had warned since the October 7 attacks that they felt increasingly unsafe in Australia and expressed fears that a fatal attack could occur. Some are angry at the federal government for what they believe was a lack of action and a failure to take the problem seriously enough. Albanese counters that he appointed Australia’s first special envoy for combating antisemitism and increased security funding for the Jewish community. In December 2024, the AFP announced it would lead a special operation, with the support of ASIO, to investigate threats, violence and hatred towards the Australian Jewish community and parliamentarians. Still, there are questions about whether warnings went unheeded and more could have been done to clamp down on antisemitism.
A thorny issue for the royal commission will be how the war in Gaza and the broader Israeli-Palestinian dispute influenced the rise of antisemitism in Australia. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued that the Albanese government’s criticism of Israel during the war, and its recognition of Palestinian statehood, helped foment antisemitism in Australia. Others contend that governments and individuals, including in Australia, must be able to criticise actions of the Israeli government without being branded antisemitic.
What legal reforms and societal change is needed?
Albanese brought back parliament early this year to pass new laws on gun control and hate speech following the Bondi massacre, but more action is likely to follow. The terms of reference for the royal commission call for Bell to make “recommendations to counteract and prevent manifestations of antisemitism”. It will be fascinating to see to what extent her recommendations endorse those of Jillian Segal, the government’s envoy for tackling antisemitism, who delivered a detailed and controversial blueprint last year. Segal called for a crackdown on antisemitism in universities, the media and the arts sector.
The terms of reference also say the royal commission should “contribute to strengthening social cohesion in Australia and countering the spread of ideologically and religiously motivated extremism in Australia”, which opens the inquiry’s remit beyond antisemitism. Indigenous groups have already said they want to participate in the royal commission, as have Islamic and pro-Palestinian organisations. Bell will need clear parameters to keep the royal commission on track given she has just 10 months to complete her work.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.
