A group of former Labor politicians is appealing to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to reconsider his stance on a royal commission into the Bondi Beach terror attack and rising antisemitism in Australia. In an open letter, the 21 signatories, who have strong ties to the party's organizational wing, unions, and parliamentary factions, argue that only a federal inquiry has the reach and authority to examine the 'broader ecosystem of terror and hate' that led to the Islamic State-inspired attack on a Jewish festival event at Bondi on December 14, resulting in 15 deaths and over 40 injuries. The letter highlights the anger and fear within Jewish communities, where Australians are forced to take extreme measures to ensure their safety, such as sending children to schools guarded by armed security and praying behind blast-resistant walls. It emphasizes the impact on the health of democracy and national security, including the values and institutions that have helped create a safe, harmonious, and multicultural Australia. Former defense materiel minister Mike Kelly, a co-convenor of the party's Friends of Israel group, argues that the attack is part of a broader narrative of rising antisemitism, and that the violence did not emerge in isolation but from an environment where hatred has been allowed to grow unchecked. The intervention puts pressure on Albanese, who has so far rejected calls for a federal royal commission, citing potential length, divisiveness, and duplication of ongoing work. However, the letter's authors argue that a Commonwealth inquiry is necessary to compel federal agencies and social media companies to provide evidence and offer legal protections for whistleblowers. The signatories call for a broad terms of reference to examine systemic, legal, institutional, inter-jurisdictional, and educational issues, including the role of online radicalization, hate speech, and the effectiveness of intelligence-sharing between state and federal agencies. The letter also invites discussion on the limitations of the NSW royal commission, which the authors welcome but consider inherently limited in its ability to compel evidence from institutions and individuals beyond its jurisdiction.
