On 30 December 2025, the Prime Minister said that “actual experts and current experts” had advised against establishing a Royal Commission following the Bondi terrorist attack. Minister, can you identify the experts the Prime Minister was referring to? And were any of them from the Attorney‑General’s Department?
Respondent:
Senator, thank you for the question. I don’t know the answer, but I will seek advice from the Prime Minister and the Attorney‑General and come back to you.
Senator Scarr:
Thank you. The Prime Minister also indicated this advice came from heads of agencies. Minister, which agency heads was the Prime Minister referring to?
Respondent:
I’m not aware, Senator, but again, I will ask and report back.
Senator Scarr:
Thank you. Secretary, were you or your department asked to provide any advice on whether a Royal Commission should be established following the Bondi terrorist attack?
Respondent:
No, Senator.
Senator Scarr:
So you were not asked to give advice and were not consulted?
Respondent:
The Attorney‑General’s Department was consulted only on draft letters patent after the decision had been made to establish a Royal Commission. We were not asked for advice prior to that point.
Senator Scarr:
Just to clarify for the record: no one in the Attorney‑General’s Department — including the branch responsible for Royal Commissions and the Commonwealth’s central expertise in this area, a branch I have always found highly professional in this committee — was asked to provide advice to the Prime Minister before he stated that “actual experts and current experts” advised against a Royal Commission. Is that correct?
Respondent:
That is correct. To be precise, our Royal Commissions branch had recently been disbanded because the major Royal Commissions had concluded. We retained some corporate knowledge internally, and we have since re‑established the branch.
Senator Scarr:
But even with that restructuring, the department still held the expertise relating to the conduct of Royal Commissions — including when they should be established, how letters patent should be drafted, reporting timelines, and the broader operational considerations. That expertise remains within your department, correct?
Respondent:
Yes, Senator. We administer the Royal Commissions Act and retain oversight of all related matters. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet also has a significant role in such decisions.
Senator Scarr:
Given that, doesn’t it follow — particularly for a matter of this seriousness — that advice should be sought from all relevant areas of government with expertise in Royal Commissions, including the Attorney‑General’s Department?
Respondent:
As I said, Senator, we administer the Act and hold that expertise.
Senator Scarr:
Minister, I am frankly astonished that the Prime Minister did not seek advice from the Attorney‑General’s Department before deciding against a Royal Commission and publicly stating that “actual experts and current experts” were advising him against it. Yet the one department with the most relevant expertise was not consulted. How could that be the case?
Respondent:
The Secretary has explained that the specific Royal Commissions branch had been disbanded some time before the Prime Minister’s comments. That said, Senator, the important point is that the Prime Minister did establish a Royal Commission, in cooperation with New South Wales. A federal inquiry led by Mr Richardson was set up immediately after the attack and has now been folded into the Royal Commission process. The government has taken action consistent with what was being called for.
Senator Scarr:
Minister, with respect, this goes beyond the opposition. After the worst terrorist attack Australia has faced, the Australian Jewish community, retired judges, legal experts, and civic leaders were calling for a Royal Commission. The Prime Minister said “actual experts and current experts” advised him against it — and yet the Attorney‑General’s Department, the central repository of expertise on Royal Commissions, wasn’t consulted. If they weren’t the experts the Prime Minister relied on, then who were these “actual experts” and “current experts”?
Respondent:
Senator, the government has established the Royal Commission. It is being led by former Justice Bell and incorporates both the NSW process and the Richardson inquiry. The events in Bondi were horrific, and the government is committed to supporting a thorough investigation. The Attorney‑General’s Department will, of course, support the Commission’s work.
Senator Scarr:
So you acknowledge that your department holds the Commonwealth’s expertise on the management and operation of Royal Commissions. Given that, why weren’t you consulted when the Prime Minister stated that experts advised against establishing one?
Respondent:
I can only restate my earlier answer: the Prime Minister considered the issues over a period of time and ultimately decided to initiate a Royal Commission, bringing the relevant processes together. The focus now should be on supporting the Royal Commission to do its job as effectively and promptly as possible, including with the assistance of the Attorney‑General’s Department.
Senator Scarr:
Thank you.
