Sports, Politics, Broadcast and Media Specialist
The Architecture of Avoidance: Australia Announces ‘Review’ into Bondi Massacre
The Australian government today has announced a review into the Bondi massacre. This review is built to quell concerns, not to illuminate the real truth. The prime minister announced this review from Canberra to the media. However, there is something missing and very telling about the entire thing. There he stands, in front of the press gaggle, yet not one single victim, victims family, bereaved family or religious leader stands beside him.
That should be enough to tell you everything you need to know about the Jewish communities thoughts on his announcement. The “independent review” into the Bondi massacre will be led by former senior public servant Dennis Richardson AC, a former ASIO director, defence secretary and ambassador to the US, and has already been labeled in the media as the “Richardson Review.”
For those of us actively living in the aftermath and with the consequences of Bondi, this announcement reads as nothing more than risk management. This is not the action of a government confronting its own failures. It is the action of a government attempting to define the boundaries of accountability before questions grow too large to control and real accountability can be faced. If Anthony Albanese believes this review will relieve the pressure bearing down on him from the Jewish community, he has profoundly misunderstood us. What Bondi did was strip away our patience for partial answers, narrow scopes, and processes designed to tidy up rather than tell the truth.
We are not asking for speed. We are asking for honesty. And those two things are not the same.
What has been announced, and denied
The government has announced the Richardson-led review, examining whether federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies acted appropriately in the immediate lead-up and during the Bondi Hanukkah massacre. It will assess information sharing, agency powers, coordination, and decision-making. It will report its findings by roughly April next year.
At the same time, the government has explicitly refused the request from the families of the murdered as well as the broader Australian Jewish community for a Royal Commission focusing on antisemitism and the Bondi massacre.
That refusal is not incidental. It is the most important fact in this entire story. A Royal Commission is not merely a larger inquiry. It is a fundamentally different instrument of truth. It compels evidence. It forces testimony. It operates publicly. It cannot be neatly scoped to avoid political discomfort. And crucially, it can examine government decisions, not merely agency performance. The families asked for that. The Jewish community has asked for that. The government today has said no.
Why the choice of Richardson is not reassuring – it is revealing
Dennis Richardson is being presented as a figure of unimpeachable seriousness. Former head of ASIO. Former Secretary of Defence. Former Secretary of Foreign Affairs. A man whose résumé reads of a life spent embedded in the institutions trusted with this country’s security.
However, that is precisely the problem. This review asks us to believe that someone who once ran ASIO can now independently interrogate whether ASIO, and the intelligence ecosystem it sits within, failed to grasp the scale and urgency of the threat that culminated in Bondi. Again this has nothing to do with Richardson’s integrity – and there is no need to impugn it, but the structural conflict is undeniable. This is not an outsider holding a system to account. This is the system reviewing itself, through one of its most senior alumni.
Independence is not about whether a person is respected. It is about whether the process is free from institutional self-protection. A former intelligence chief is uniquely placed to understand the system. He is also uniquely disinclined – consciously or otherwise, to expose its deepest cultural and political failures. No individual, however experienced, can stand entirely outside a structure they helped build. To pretend otherwise is to mistake credibility for independence.
A review designed to ask “how,” not “why”
The terms and scope of the review matter. They tell us what the government wants examined – and, more importantly, what it wants excluded or simply doesn’t deem necessary for us to know. This review will focus on process. On whether information was shared. On whether powers were adequate. On whether agencies acted “effectively”.
What it will not do – because it has been deliberately designed not to. Is interrogate the environment in which Bondi became possible. Bondi did not occur because of a single missed briefing or broken communication channel. It occurred at the end of a long period in which antisemitism in Australia intensified, radicalised, and was increasingly tolerated as a political and cultural problem rather than treated as a security threat.
A review that isolates Bondi from that broader reality is not neutral. It is evasive. It treats the attack as an operational anomaly rather than the foreseeable consequence of sustained failure to confront antisemitism with seriousness and consistency.
You can’t investigate the collapse of a dam while refusing to examine the rising water.
The April deadline is not urgency – it is containment
The government’s central justification for rejecting a Royal Commission is time and material needed. We are told that such a process would take too long, that answers are needed quickly, that action must be immediate.
This argument collapses under scrutiny. A serious government could implement immediate protective and enforcement measures now, while still launching a Royal Commission to address the deeper causes and failures. These are not mutually exclusive paths. They are complementary ones. The insistence on a four-month review culminating in an April report is not about urgency. It is about control. It sets a political horizon that allows the government to claim closure before the most uncomfortable questions can mature.
Antisemitism did not develop on a four-month timeline. Bondi was not the product of four months of failure. And preventing the next attack cannot be achieved through a process designed to finish quickly.
Speed without scope is not decisiveness. It is avoidance.
Treating Bondi as a standalone event is an analytical failure
Perhaps the most dangerous flaw in the government’s approach is its insistence on treating Bondi as a discrete, isolated incident rather than the culmination of an escalating threat.
Antisemitism in Australia did not suddenly appear at Bondi. It had been growing – quietly, then visibly, then loudly, and then violently. Jewish institutions were vandalised. Homes were targeted. Businesses were attacked. Public rallies crossed from protest into intimidation. Online discourse radicalised at extraordinary speed. Even after Bondi, antisemitic activity surged rather than receded. Reports are now surfacing that online antisemitism since the attack has risen by over 600% ! Hatred did not pause in shame – it accelerated. Any inquiry that refuses to treat antisemitism in its entirety – its drivers, networks, online ecosystems, and political permissiveness, as part of the causal chain. Is structurally incapable of preventing recurrence.
This review proposes to audit the response to the explosion while refusing to examine the fuse.
Federal focus as political insulation
Another feature of this review deserves attention – its heavy emphasis on federal agencies. Of course the AFP and ASIO matter. But antisemitism in Australia is not confined to the federal domain.
Policing of protests, enforcement of hate crime laws, protection of public gatherings, and response to intimidation often sit at the state level. Cultural permissiveness is shaped locally, federally and politically. By narrowing the focus to federal agencies, the government insulates itself from a broader examination of how antisemitism was handled, or mishandled across the entirety of the system.
A Royal Commission could cut through jurisdictional evasions. A review can be carefully shaped to avoid them.
The quiet insult at the heart of this decision
There is an unspoken message embedded in this announcement: we know better than you (our Jewish community) what kind of truth is safe. The families of the murdered asked for the strongest form of accountability Australia has. The government responded with a lesser one, framed as sufficient, faster, and more responsible.
That posture is not protective. It is patronising.
It suggests that full exposure of antisemitism – and the failures surrounding it, is too destabilising for the country, and that Jewish Australians should accept a managed version of the truth for the sake of social comfort. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke stated that if a Royal Commission was established “The necessary outcome would be to re-platform and provide a public platform for some of the worst statements and worst voices” in relation to antisemitism. Is Minister Burke trying to in other words that he is trying to protect our community from the antisemitism of the past two years, that occurred under his watch? We have quite literally lived it and infact do want it brought to light to show the absolute repulsive nature of it. We did not ask him to comfort us.
Comfort has never saved Jewish lives. Clarity and action has.
This is not leadership – it is risk aversion
Leadership, in moments like this, does not mean choosing the option that minimises political damage. It means choosing the option that maximises truth, even when that truth implicates your own decisions. A Royal Commission would be messy. It would be long. It would be uncomfortable. It would force ministers, officials, and agencies to answer questions in public under oath.
That is precisely why it is needed. The Richardson review is neat. It is contained. It is professional. It is designed to conclude a chapter that this Government is trying to forget.
And that is precisely why it is inadequate.
What i had hoped for
From a personal perspective, this is, in all honesty not what i had hoped was going to happen. Whilst chatting to my Rabbi, Rabbi Levi Wolf from Central Synagogue this Shabbat, i told him that i was asked if i would personally shake Mr Albanese’s hand and he asked me what i responded. I said to him that i would, but with this explanation.
Wether we like it or not he is our democratically elected Prime Minister and will be in the immediate aftermath of this crisis, as i do not see a world in which he resigns (no matter how great that would be). Therefore i explained, that in no way, shape or form do i criticise bereaved family, victims, survivors or even anyone in the wider community for not to doing the same. But for me i would say that because i still personally respect our elected Prime Minister whomever that may be and i would shake his hand. However I would make two things absolutely crystal clear. The first would be that he must now act like every elite sports coach does after a shocking defeat. That coach, will face the media, they will apologise to the teams community sincerely, they will not place blame on anyone else but establish that the buck stops with them and therefore it is ultimately their failure even if that is not entirely true. The next thing that coach does having apologised and established the previously mentioned is say that, this week we will review everything, we will be honest, thorough and tough and we will make sure that doesn’t happen again. They will say that you may not believe them but watch this team from now on and promise this will be the turning point and say it with impunity.
That, in essence is what i told my Rabbi the PM needs to do. He first needs to apologise, acknowledge that he is leader of this country and the buck well and truly stops with him. He will take the blame wholly and not lay blame on anyone else. He will listen to the communities demands and implement them and know that trust will now have to be earned. He secondly needs to state that in addition to the demands being met and his apology, he will work tirelessly using this event as a turning point in his tenure to make sure antisemitism is dealt with and that nothing like Bondi can and will ever happen again. This is because history judges great leaders on what they do next. For example, in New Zealand after the Christchurch massacre, then PM Jacinda Arden did exactly those things and became a global epitome of leadership and history will remember her for her response. I would have told Albanese to do exactly the same.
Alas, today’s announcement has crushed my seemingly naive approach completely. The PM decided to do nothing of the sort.
Bondi demands courage, not reviews
The tragedy in Bondi is not the moment for politics, meaningless words or reviews. It was this Governments moment for moral courage and clarity.
Fifteen people were murdered at a Jewish gathering in one of Australia’s most public spaces. Families now live with a permanent scars and this community now lives in a perpetual state of grief, anger, sadness and fear. This community has lost any remaining tolerance for symbolic action dressed up as resolve.
If Anthony Albanese believes this review will quiet our demands, he has misunderstood the depth of what has broken. We are not seeking reassurance. We are seeking accountability to commensurate with the loss.
A review can tidy processes. Only a Royal Commission can confront the truth.
History is unforgiving to governments that choose convenience when courage was required. This government has been given the chance. They have failed.
What we do next is up to us. We can no longer rely on them.
Related Topics
Related Posts
