Anthony Albanese wants to do that NOW – or Australians will hold considering he has one thing to cover

Anthony Albanese‘s refusal to call a Commonwealth royal commission into the Bondi Beach attack becomes less defensible by the day.

It’s not principled; it might not even be strategic, if the PM has nothing to hide. But it is certainly stubborn.

Albo is answering ‘no’ to the question: does the country deserve the full truth about how the Bondi terror attack happened? He doesn’t seem to want to know how antisemitism was allowed to metastasise, and whether or not there were failures with intelligence, policing, and visa settings.

A Commonwealth royal commission is the only way to get to the bottom of such questions. The remarkable thing now is the coalition of proponents for holding one versus the narrow cast of opponents, which includes our PM: a man who, as opposition leader, called for royal commissions at the drop of a hat suddenly doesn’t see their worth.

The coalition supports holding one. Victims’ families and Jewish community leaders are demanding one. Teal independents have put their support in writing. Former High Court Chief Justice Robert French has urged a national approach.

Business heavyweights and employer groups have lined up behind it, including peak bodies arguing only a federal royal commission can avoid the limits of a purely state-based process.

The Human Rights Commissioner has publicly warned that Bondi was not ‘an isolated act of violence’ but the culmination of rising antisemitism, and that empty words won’t do.

Former senior Labor figures, including ministers, MPs, senators, and party and union officials, have now broken ranks to say what is obvious to most of us: NSW alone cannot compel Commonwealth institutions, cannot properly reach across jurisdictions, and cannot give federal officers the protections to speak frankly.

Which is why Albo must call a Commonwealth royal commission.

Privately, NSW Premier Chris Minns also wants Albo to call one and is waiting patiently in the hope that it happens soon.

Against all of that, the PM’s position has narrowed to a lonely strip of sand. Albo, using rehearsed lines that a royal commission would ‘take too long’ and ‘sow divisions,’ is a solitary opponent to calling one.

Backed by the Greens, of course, who have also been busy warning about hate speech reforms restricting free political speech and accusing conservatives and media of ‘weaponising’ the tragedy.

If Albo wants to argue a royal commission is unnecessary, then the rest of us are entitled to wonder: what exactly is he afraid it might find that his current approach will not?

The alternative the PM is offering is an internal review led by former ASIO chief Dennis Richardson, run within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Richardson’s credibility is not in doubt, but that’s not the point.

The point is that an internal review, by design, is far narrower than what the country is asking for. It’s an evaluation of intelligence and law enforcement effectiveness, not a full national reckoning. And it doesn’t have the coercive powers of a royal commission.

A royal commission can compel witnesses and documents. It can take evidence under oath. It can hold public hearings to restore confidence and expose failures, as well as private hearings to protect classified material and traumatised witnesses when necessary.

Albo’s argument about the need for speed as a reason not to hold one is a classic political sleight of hand. He could conduct a speedy internal review as well as a comprehensive independent one. But he won’t – for some reason.

Even the ‘it will take years’ excuse isn’t the clincher Albo thinks it is. Royal commissions can be structured to report quickly, especially if the terms of reference are disciplined.

Albo isn’t naive about royal commissions. He has spent a political lifetime demanding them when it suited him. When Scott Morrison resisted a royal commission into veteran and defence suicides, Labor under Albo’s leadership leaned in hard for a full royal commission, arguing it would be more comprehensive and, crucially, was what grieving families wanted.

Guess what grieving families from Bondi are asking for?

That is the mirror now held up to the Prime Minister. Back then, the logic was: if the public needs the truth and families need answers, government doesn’t get to hide behind narrower internal reviews.

Now, when Jewish families are grieving, when community leaders are pleading, when former Labor ministers and union officials are signing letters, the logic flips.

It’s all too hard, too slow, and too divisive.

That inconsistency is why his refusal is curdling into a perception that Albo is more worried about the politics of a royal commission than its purpose. What a debasing reality for voters to have to come to terms with about their PM.

A Commonwealth royal commission would inevitably range into uncomfortable territory: what governments did or didn’t do as antisemitism escalated.

Whether warning signs were missed, whether federal agencies shared intelligence effectively, whether online incitement was treated as background noise until it became bloodshed.

Also, whether policy settings around radicalisation, visas, deportations, protests, policing, and hate crimes were fit for a changing environment as the Jewish community cried out for more protections.

For Albo, these unknowns seem to be reasons not to hold a royal commission, whereas the rest of us see them as the strongest arguments for one. Could the PM be any more out of touch if he tried?

At some point, Albo has to take notice of the broad coalition of advocates for a royal commission.

I’m also aware that a letter signed by more than 1,000 senior Australian business leaders is soon to be delivered to the PM, also demanding a royal commission.

If Australia’s institutional settings allowed for popular plebiscites to force royal commissions, as happens in other parts of the world, the terms of reference would already be drawn up.

Albo has talked about national unity and resisting division. The irony is that his continuing refusal is becoming the division. It is making the government look defensive. It is making the PM look captured by process arguments that no longer convince anyone outside his own bubble. And that’s the best-case scenario. At worst, he looks completely compromised.

Bondi was a national trauma. The response should be national, independent, and commensurate with what occurred.

If Albo still thinks his political instincts matter more than that, he should prepare for the next phase of this debate: not whether a royal commission should happen, but why the PM fought so hard to stop it – and why he has to go.