Aa
  • Read, Watch, Listen
  • TJI Series
  • Community Action
  • Events
  • Zedi
Follow us and continue the conversation
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Test yourself with the TJI Quiz!

Adjust size of text

Aa

Follow us and continue the conversation

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube

Your saved articles

You haven't saved any articles

What are you looking for?

Original reporting, insightful analysis and diverse views, delivered straight to your inbox

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Your support fuels our mission to inform, entertain and inspire.

The Jewish Independent is bound by the Standards of Practice of the Australian Press Council. If you believe the Standards may have been breached, you may approach The Jewish Independent or make a complaint to the Australian Press Council in writing at www.presscouncil.org.au. The Council may also be contacted on 1800 025 712.

  • Our Story
  • Contact us
  • Our Team
  • Support us
  • Guidelines
  • Pitch your idea
  • Republishing us
  • Community Action
  • Our Awards
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Aboriginal FlagTorres Strait Islanders Flag

The Jewish Independent acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Traditional Owners and Custodians of Country throughout Australia. We pay our respects to Elders past and present, and strive to honour their rich history of storytelling in our work and mission.

© The Jewish Independent 2026All Rights Reserved
Website design and development by Your Creative, MelbourneTerms & ConditionsPrivacy Policy
HomeRead, Watch, ListenAustralia
Royal CommissionAnalysisAustralia

Now is the time for the Royal Commission to deliver, not be politicised

The only metric that matters is whether the Royal Commission can reduce antisemitism in Australia
Dean Sherr
Print this
Commissioner Virginia Bell

Commissioner Virginia Bell at the final week of hearings for the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion (screen capture)

Published: 27 August 2026

Last updated: 27 August 2026

As the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion concluded its final public hearings this week, it faces its biggest set of challenges to date.

The first is to deliver a final report which makes comprehensive findings about the spread of antisemitism in Australia over the past three years, and recommendations that can be practically enacted and make a real difference to reduce its prevalence across our society.

But the other challenge it faces is to rise above the politicisation and partisanship that has infected all discussion and debate around antisemitism in this country and hampered efforts to tackle it at every turn.

For the most part, the Royal Commission has provided a welcome respite from that politicisation. It has provided a meaningful platform for the community to raise its voice on how antisemitism has impacted us through our own experiences across every facet of Australian life, not least those who survived or lost loved ones at the Bondi terror attack.

But it has also heard from community and religious leaders; security and extremism experts; and probed representatives of law enforcement, government and security regulators; universities and schools; social and traditional media platforms; and the cultural and creative sectors.

This list is not an assurance of the exhaustiveness of its witness list, nor an endorsement of its work – most of which has been done outside the public eye, and can only truly be judged when we see its final report.

However, it is important that it has been largely able to probe these serious and difficult issues in an independent and controlled forum, away from the combative, partisan and sensationalised worlds of our parliaments and our media.

This is worth reflecting on as it faces a new wave of criticism over the past two weeks from both sectors over perceived deficiencies in its areas of focus, its public hearings, and its length.

Inflammatory attacks on the Commission and a renewed political debate over its length can only serve to undermine confidence in its success

This wave began when former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg publicised the fact that he had not been called to appear as a witness in the Commission’s public hearings, also criticising the cross-examination by APAN’s lawyers of NSW JBoD President David Ossip during a hearing on the Sydney Opera House protest. Community peak bodies subsequently backed the Commission’s position that it was not endorsing APAN’s position but was obliged under the rules of procedural fairness to grant it leave.

Though Frydenberg was not directly critical of the Commission, it was soon followed by claims the Commission was “running a protection racket for the Albanese government”, and other politicians complaining they too had not been called.

By the time parliament resumed, the Federal Coalition had begun formally calling for the Commission to be extended, through a motion moved by Shadow Minister Julian Leeser, who did appear as a witness to the Commission’s hearings.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor’s labelling the end of its hearings a “betrayal to the Jewish community” and his subsequent post decrying its work and virtually predicting its failure risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Whatever their intentions, this combination of inflammatory attacks on the Commission and a renewed political debate over its length and focus can only serve to undermine confidence in its success and foreshadow further political fighting over the vital reforms it must result in.

Calls for the Commission’s extension are understandable, and they have not been solely made by the Coalition side – NSW’s Labor Premier Chris Minns also indicated his support for an extension if it would help the Commission take a wider perspective.

I certainly recognise the good intentions of community members signing petitions for an extension, but there are a few things to say about this debate.

The first is that the Commission’s independence is one of the fundamental reasons the community campaigned for its establishment – a comprehensive inquiry into antisemitism that had full independence from government, but also from the media and the broader public.

That independence is important for many reasons – how many times have we felt the government’s response to antisemitism was hampered by fear of backlash or overt pressure from sections of the public, or that antisemitism thrived in institutions because its perpetrators effectively bullied others into compliance or silence?

That independence must be universal – the Commission’s imperative to set its own course free from interference towards its final report on antisemitism in this country ought to be respected by our community as much as anyone, knowing what is at stake if they do not.

Of course, if the Commission believes it needs more time, it should be given an extension – but that must be the Commissioner’s decision, not the government’s.

An extension would allow it to hold further public hearings and call more witnesses, but there is no guarantee these would canvass ground not already covered in written submissions or its private hearings and deliberations. The risk of a more interrogatory stretch of hearings would be to further inflame political division ahead of a critical time requiring political agreement on the action ahead.

Stretching the Commission’s reporting out into a new year would also risk weakening its momentum and would certainly delay the implementation of its recommendations, which will have to be considered and enacted by all levels of government.

Royal Commissions are the most comprehensive tools Australia has to examine and respond to major crises, but they are also often the slowest, taking years or decades for their recommendations to be enacted, and even longer for their impacts to be realised.

This is undoubtedly why the community organisations engaged directly with organising and working with the Commission have declined to support its extension, preferring to focus on the campaign ahead to ensure it realises prompt and effective action to curb antisemitism.

Of course, criticism of this Royal Commission has been persistent since it was called – sustained attacks have come from activists claiming variously that it has been a political project either orchestrated or manipulated by the so-called “Zionist” or “Israel lobby,” to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, to silence pro-Palestinian activism, or even to distract from Israel’s crimes.

Witnesses at the Royal Commission have faced not only the trivialisation or denial of their experiences, but retribution, abuse and harassment, from both the far-right and far-left.

Suffice to say, those who want it to fail do not need more help cutting it down from people who genuinely care about the antisemitism crisis that it was created to tackle.

Few Australians alive today know much about the Hawke Government’s Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. But if there’s one thing they do know about it, it’s that 36 years on from its final report, its recommendations have still not been fully implemented, and the problem it tried to fix has only gotten worse.

The legacy of the Royal Commission into Antisemitism will ultimately be cast not by the work it does this year but by the impact its Final Report has, and the implementation of its recommendations.

The only metric its success can be judged on is simple – will it reduce antisemitism in Australia?

Right now, none of us knows the answer to that question. What we do know is that our community – together with our strongest friends and allies – have stepped up and done our part, showing resilience and courage in the form of our organising, our submissions, our advocacy and our testimonies.

We have given the Commission the information it needs from us to tackle this problem. Right now, we have to keep pulling in the same direction, and to get ready to campaign as hard for its recommendations to be enacted as we did for it to be established.

You might also like
  • Mind the mentality: not every rejection is antisemitism
    Nomi Kaltmann
  • Antisemitism, homophobia and a radical response to both
    Dennis Altman
  • Confronting Richard Flanagan and the myth of the Israel lobby
    Mary Garden
logomark.67a07ee3
We believe in the free flow of information

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, by using our Creative Commons licence

You might also like

    Generation Change: Rachel Moshel
    Generation ChangeInterviewArts & Culture

    Rachel Moshel: Creating a space for Jewish art and joy

    Gideon Cohen
    ANNIKA WELLS PRESSER
    Israel Hamas WarNewsAustralia

    No action to stop Hezbollah ally beaming antisemitic and anti-Israel content into Australia

    Michael Visontay
    Woman with land and houses behind her
    NewsAustralia

    Australia to increase sanctions against West Bank settlements

    Deborah Stone 2

About the author

Dean Sherr

Dean Sherr

Dean Sherr is a consultant and a former adviser to state and federal Labor MPs, including media adviser to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. He has also served as a past AUJS National President and ECAJ councillor.

More from the author

AnalysisAustralia

Labor MPs joint speeches provide glimmer of hope amid division

AnalysisAustralia

ALP draft stained by Hamas omission but conference set to maintain status quo

OpinionAustralia

Segal report backlash reveals the heart of the antisemitism debate’s problem

Comments2

  • Avatar of Miriam Frommer

    Miriam Frommer27 August at 11:38 pm

    It is unclear to me when James refers to “this” whether he means the article by Dean Sher. If so, how does it legitimise the suppression of criticism of Israel? I believe it is impossible for anyone to state categorically what motivates another person’s behaviour, and it is regrettable that already the climate for reception of the Royal Commission’s report is being tainted.

  • Avatar of James

    James27 August at 11:27 am

    No point writing a comment because this is clearly just another Israeli government run influence operation to provide a thin veneer of legitimacy on suppressing criticism of Israel, and no comment that runs contrary to the desired narrative will be posted.