By: Georgie Austin, Clare McNamara and Zoe Jones

At a glance

• On 8 January 2026, the Governor-General issued draft Letters Patent establishing a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. The Commission has been tasked with addressing issues set out in its Terms of Reference, which are wide-ranging and encompass not only the terror event itself, but the ideological drivers behind and influences upon antisemitism in Australia and its impacts upon the daily life of Jewish Australians including with respect to security, physical and mental health and wellbeing.
• The federal announcement has come in the wake of previous announcements made by the NSW Premier Chris Minns that a state-based Royal Commission would be held into the tragic events at Bondi. The NSW government has cancelled its plans for a state-based Royal Commission, but has not ruled out NSW conducting its own independent inquiry into the Bondi attacks.
• These announcements have sparked public discourse about what material differences exist between a federal and state Royal Commission, and what practical implications this distinction may have for the scope of investigation, the parties involved, and the potential outcomes for affected communities.
• This article explains the powers of a federal Royal Commission, and explores how its processes are different to those of a state-based inquiry.

A flurry of media

On 8 January 2026, the Governor-General issued draft Letters Patent establishing a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. The announcement followed the antisemitic terrorist attack on Jewish Australians that took place at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025, and which resulted in the loss of 15 lives and the wounding of a further 40 individuals. The federal inquiry represents the first Commonwealth Royal Commission since the Morrison government established the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide in 2021, which delivered its final report in September 2024.

Leading up to the announcement of this federal Royal Commission, NSW Premier Chris Minns had announced that NSW would conduct its own public inquiry into the Bondi attacks. In the wake of the announcement of the federal Royal Commission, the Premier instead stated that the NSW government would support the federal Royal Commission and confirmed that NSW will fully cooperate with the federal inquiry.

The flurry of announcements has sparked public debate about the utility of a state inquiry, and the differences between the powers of federal and state-based Royal Commissions.

The importance of public inquiries

Statutory public inquiries in Australia take a number of different forms and occur at each level of government. Federal Royal Commissions represent the highest form of statutory inquiry, but there are also:

• State-based Royal Commissions (for example, those established pursuant to the Royal Commissions Act 1923 (NSW) or the Royal Commissions Act 1917 (SA))
• State-based inquiries (for example, boards of inquiry established pursuant to the Inquiries Act 2014 (VIC) or special commissions of inquiry established pursuant to the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 (NSW)), and
• Local government-based inquiries (for example, pursuant to section 438U of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)).

The ability of governments to establish such inquiries is important for several reasons. In many cases, governments do not have the time, resources, or specialist expertise to conduct a thorough investigation themselves. Public inquiries provide a structured and independent mechanism to gather evidence, examine witnesses, and analyse complex issues in detail. They also serve a broader social function, in that inquiries can demonstrate that the government is taking the matter seriously, and provide transparency and reassurance to the public that significant community issues are being addressed systematically. In that sense, inquiries are not only investigatory tools but also instruments to foster public confidence and the perception of accountability and action.

Federal Royal Commissions

Established under section 1A of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) (RCA) by Letters Patent issued by the Governor‑General, federal Royal Commissions are used to investigate matters of national importance that may span multiple jurisdictions or engage federal interests. Since federation, well over 130 federal Royal Commissions have been convened, reflecting diverse issues of public policy, governance, national security and institutional performance. These have included inquiries into Aboriginal deaths in custody, corporate misconduct in the financial services sector, aged care quality, and national disaster arrangements.

A federal Royal Commission is granted comprehensive investigation powers under the RCA. These include:

• Evidence-gathering: Section 2(1)(b) empowers a Royal Commission to summon individuals and entities to produce documents and answer questions relevant to its Terms of Reference. This power ensures that commissions can access information from both public and private actors.
• Public hearings: Section 2(3) authorises the Commission to conduct hearings where evidence is given under oath or affirmation, providing transparency and public accountability.
• Private sessions: Sections 60B and 60C permit the Commission to hold private sessions in which participants are not considered formal witnesses, facilitating the discussion of sensitive matters that may not be suitable for public hearings.
• Search warrants: Section 4 allows a commissioner or a police officer assisting the commission to authorise search warrants.
• Offences: Part 3 of the RCA establishes a regime of offences in relation to federal Royal Commissions, including:
  • Protections for employees from being dismissed as a result of their participation in a Royal Commission (s 6N RCA),
  • Persons that intentionally insult or disturb the proceedings of a Royal Commission, use insulting language or otherwise use words false and defamatory of a Royal Commission (s 6O RCA)
  • Give false or misleading evidence (s 6H RCA)
  • Destroy or conceal documents (s 6K RCA)
  • Bribe, injure or otherwise prevent a witness from attending a Royal Commission (ss 61, 6J, 6M, 6N RCA).

As instruments of the Commonwealth, federal Royal Commissions can compel cooperation from Commonwealth agencies. This is particularly important for inquiries involving matters of national security, public administration, or federal policy. In contrast to state-based inquiries, federal Royal Commissions can investigate issues that transcend state boundaries and can address matters relating to the “peace, order, and good government” of the Commonwealth.

These powers, combined with the public visibility of a federal Royal Commission, make it a potent tool for thorough, high‑level inquiry into complex national problems. However, they are neither inexpensive nor brief exercises. Federal Royal Commissions are necessarily resource-intensive, lengthy undertakings, which reflects the breadth and complexity of the issues they investigate. For example, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse ran for over six years, while others, such as the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, lasted approximately three years.

It is also worthwhile noting that at both federal and state levels of Royal Commission, there exists the power for the Commissioner to abrogate (ie. to go behind, or nullify) claims of legal professional privilege. For federal commissions, section 6AA of the RCA sets out limited circumstances in which such a claim might be made in relation to the production of documents. At the state level, NSW commissions have that same power, albeit set out in less comprehensive terms than the RCA.¹

State Royal Commissions and inquiries

State-based inquiries, including state Royal Commissions and special commissions of inquiry, are established to examine matters of importance within the state’s jurisdiction and typically focus on issues particular to that state or of local concern. Unlike a federal Royal Commission, which is centrally tracked and nationally coordinated, states and territories each maintain independent inquiry mechanisms to respond to governance, operational, and systemic issues within their territories.

State inquiries are a routine feature of governance in NSW. For example, NSW frequently establishes Special Commissions of Inquiry to investigate matters including healthcare funding, emergency services performance, public transport incidents, and systemic failures within public administration. State Royal Commissions, whilst similar to special commissions and state inquiries, are often established for less-systemic reasons and generally to address significant issues of public interest or importance. In both cases, such inquiries provide oversight, promote accountability, and support evidence-based policy reforms at the state level. Victoria operates similarly, using boards of inquiry and other mechanisms under the Inquiries Act 2014 to address state-wide concerns.

Generally speaking, state-based inquiries and commissions have similar, but not as far-reaching powers to a federal Royal Commission. They also vary between each jurisdiction, with some states having more comprehensive inquiry legislation than others. In summary, the general categories of powers of state-based inquiries include:

• Document production: As is the case federally, in NSW section 18 of the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 and sections 11 and 12 of the Royal Commissions Act 1923 (NSW) allow the commissioner to inspect and retain documents for a reasonable period.
• Public hearings: In the same manner as a federal commission, in NSW sections 7 and 15 of the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 and section 11 of the Royal Commissions Act 1923 authorise an inquiry to hold public hearings and receive evidence under oath or affirmation.
• Private hearings: Section 12B of the Royal Commissions Act 1923 (NSW) allows a commissioner of an inquiry to make directions that documents not be published or evidence be taken in private.
• Search warrants: In NSW, section 22 of the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 allows the commissioner to authorise search warrants for investigative purposes.
• Offences: Part 3 of the NSW RCA and Part 4 of the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 each make provision for similar offences to the federal RCA.

Importantly, whilst state inquiries play a key role in investigating systemic or operational failures at the state level, they cannot compel federal agencies or bodies, or exercise their coercive powers beyond the state’s jurisdiction. State-based inquiries can (and often do) examine state-level actions that relate to or interact with federal agencies, and discuss or comment on federal actions if relevant. However, the position historically is that they cannot compel federal agencies to participate. Whilst practically speaking, many federal agencies voluntarily assist state inquiries of significance, there is no compulsion upon them to do so. This represents a potentially significant limiting factor of a state-based inquiry or commission.

Nonetheless, state-based inquiries and commissions remain important mechanisms for operational oversight, governance review, and accountability at the state level. They enable local and state-specific issues to be examined with the care and specificity that such issues require, without the cost and length associated with a federal Royal Commission.

A space for both?

Various commentators have commented on the possibility of both a federal Royal Commission into antisemitism and state-based inquiry in NSW into the Bondi attack operating in tandem. It is not unprecedented for federal and state processes to operate concurrently (for example, the 2019 joint Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability). Similarly, in the UK, both Scotland and the UK government each held a public inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic, with hearings operating concurrently in both inquiries. The key to the effectiveness of such joint processes is coordination and communication between the two inquiries, often with agreements established regarding sharing of information to ensure that documents and other evidence produced to one inquiry is made available to the other.

However, such arrangements raise both practical and procedural considerations. The first and most important of these is enormous burden upon the affected families and communities reliving their lived experiences of the events that are the subject of the relevant inquiry. The majority of the affected families from the Bondi attack have supported the establishment of a federal Royal Commission, citing the need for a national response to the events at Bondi and the broader issue of antisemitism in Australia. However, this powerful need for examination of the tragic events does not diminish the inevitable toll of the media attention and rigorous investigations that will inevitably form part of this inquiry, and it is critical that the affected families are well supported throughout the process.

Another factor is the level of coordination required between the Commonwealth and state authorities necessary to avoid duplication of effort, conflicting summonses, or inconsistent findings being made by each inquiry. In practice, states may choose to defer or suspend their own inquiries when a federal commission is convened, particularly where the federal body has broader investigatory powers and jurisdiction over national agencies. This is further complicated by ongoing criminal investigations which will proceed in tandem with the federal commission.

How the NSW government chooses to respond in light of the federal Royal Commission remains to be seen. NSW Premier Chris Minns has indicated that whilst the NSW royal commission will no longer proceed, and NSW will cooperate fully with the federal royal commission, however, recent reporting suggests there is also some discussion between federal and state governments of a joint federal and state royal commission.

Ultimately, the establishment of the federal Royal Commission marks a decisive choice to address the Bondi attack and its broader societal implications through the most comprehensive national inquiry mechanism available under Australian law. Regardless of whether the inquiry joins with the NSW government, as its work progresses, close attention will be paid to how federal and state processes are coordinated to ensure that accountability, transparency and community confidence are advanced without compounding harm to those most directly affected.

Next steps

Following the issue of the Letters Patent, the Commonwealth has appointed former High Court justice Virginia Bell as Commissioner of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. The Commission’s initial steps will include the appointment of Counsel and Solicitors Assisting, the establishment of a secretariat, and the publication of practice directions governing its evidence-gathering processes, including public submissions, private sessions, and public hearings.

As the inquiry moves into its operational phase, it is expected that a significant number of individuals and organisations will seek authorisation to appear before the Commission, reflecting the inquiry’s national significance and broad remit. The Commissioner is also likely to commence the issuing of compulsory notices and summonses for the production of documents and provision of statements to support the Commission’s early investigative work. Early preparation and full co-operation will be critical for entities likely to be drawn into the Commission’s compulsory evidence-gathering processes.

Key Contacts & Updates

For insights or questions about this article, please reach out to Georgie Austin, Clare McNamara and Zoe Jones.

To receive similar future updates, please complete the form below.