After initially calling for a federal royal commission into the Bondi attack, Greg Barns and Kym Davey explain why they have changed their minds – and why existing legal processes may offer greater accountability without inflaming division.

On 20 December we wrote on these pages that in the aftermath of the terrible events at Bondi there should be a federal royal commission. We argued that “[T]he stakes in human lives are too high after this appalling assault. We need a national Royal Commission to examine all the domestic policing, security, and intelligence aspects of the matter.” And we observed that too often “internal inquiries by security and police agencies are too often limited in scope and held in secret.”

We were wrong for a number of reasons in arguing for a royal commission, although as we note below, we think that there will be, through the coronial process, a forum that is public and which is widely respected in every jurisdiction in Australia.

What has compelled us to change our minds are a number of factors.

It has become obvious that the legitimate call for security and police agency transparency and accountability has been hijacked by elements of the pro-Israel lobby demanding that the focus of a Royal Commission should be ‘antisemitism’.

The necessary inquiry into the actions of Australian intelligence and counter-terrorist agencies, and with partner agencies in the Philippines, has became secondary to the naked politicisation of the terrorist attack by those in the pro-Israel lobby who see the aftermath of Bondi as being an opportunity to curtail Palestinian voices, and have the dangerously broad definition of antisemitism proposed by the IHRA recommended by a royal commissioner. The broader agenda is likely to be to pressure the Albanese government into withdrawing its long overdue recognition of the state of Palestine.

We assert in particular that any royal commission framed around that hotly contested definition of antisemitism would inflame community tensions and risk diverting attention from the legitimate criticism of the Israeli government’s war, including its genocide, against the Palestinian people.

The extraordinary pressure being placed on the prime minister to hold a royal commission with terms that suit elements of the pro-Israel lobby, is well organised and now very clear. It is an orchestrated attempt to stampede the government into an inquiry that deliberately conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. In the process, all other issues of racism, including rampant Islamophobia, are to be swept aside. A constellation of sports stars and captains of industry signing up to a Royal Commission call can’t hide the real intention here.

Another good reason for our change of mind is the eloquent and robust argument of a leading Jewish lawyer, Robert Richter KC. The media generally has shown little or no interest in the thousands of lawyers who oppose a royal commission, focusing instead on 200-odd signatories to a letter (Greg Barns helped organise over 1300 lawyers to sign a letter to the Australian government on Gaza) who think it’s a good idea.

But the Nine newspapers ran a story last week in which Mr Richter pointed out some highly pertinent facts for lawyers to consider.

Richter told Nine’s Rob Harris that “If there is to be a royal commission … it will go for years, and its definitions will be argued about endlessly.” He is right. There is also the obvious problem of two royal commissions, one in NSW and a national version running simultaneously. This will almost certainly create delays, confusion and may lead to competing outcomes.

Richter also pointed out something that does not suit the narrative of opportunist politicians like New South Wales and Victorian Premiers Chris Minns and Jacinta Allan and many pro -Israel lobbyists. They wish to blame those of us who attended Palestinian support marches for what happened at Bondi. This is offensive and arrant nonsense.

As Mr Richter said; “The tragedy at Bondi was the result of a stuff-up by ASIO in not red-flagging the man for overseas travel or anything of the kind, red-flagging his father,” he said. “It was a complete stuff-up by a combination of ASIO, the federal police, NSW Police and border control. We don’t need a royal commission for that.”

One wonders why it is some lawyers can’t see that this is the case?

We are not saying that the community should be kept in the dark about ASIO and police conduct and strategies in relation to intelligence about the two ISIS trained gunmen. But this can be achieved through, among other things such as a criminal trial of the one man who survived, a coronial process already commenced by the New South Wales Coroner.

Coroners have broad powers in investigating the cause of death. They can look at system failures. They can make recommendations. In fact coroners have often been more influential than royal commissioners in being the impetus in change in government policy.

But above all, what is so disheartening, but not surprising, is that yet again elements of the pro-Israel lobby and their political and media friends, are seeking to push their anti-Palestinian cause, this time through the vehicle of a royal commission.

Those who think the royal commission is a good idea should, as we have done, think again.