Full details of Bondi attack won’t be heard by royal commission, inquiry head says at first public hearing

The royal commission into antisemitism in Australia will not examine key parts of how the Bondi beach terror attack unfolded because of ongoing criminal proceedings.

The first public hearing of the royal commission on antisemitism and social cohesion was held in Sydney on Tuesday, 10 weeks after 15 people were killed and 40 injured at the 14 December Hanukah event.

In her opening statement, the commissioner, Virginia Bell, said the scope of the inquiry would be reduced to avoid prejudicing criminal proceedings.

“One might expect that a royal commission set up to inquire into an attack would lead evidence of it and of the heroism of those who sought to confront the shooters and of those who ran towards the gunfire to offer medical assistance to the wounded,” the former high court justice said.

“An individual has been charged with a terrorism offence and with 15 counts of murder and 40 counts of attempted murder arising out of the attack.

“The trial of that individual will be the occasion to lead evidence of the attack. This commission must do its work without risking any prejudice to that criminal proceeding.”

She said she would meet with the families of the deceased later this week “in less formal surroundings” to explain more fully the limitations on the scope of the commission.

_{Sign up: AU Breaking News email}

But she said building social cohesion was likely to take years, despite being required to deliver her final report by the first anniversary of the attack.

“Examining the ways in which we might strengthen social cohesion in Australia could well be the work of years, not months,” she said.

“One small part of coming to terms with the events of that evening will be the work of this commission. I regard the delivery of my report on or before the first anniversary as a matter of critical importance,” she said.

She said the inquiry would adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, as a “certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as a hatred towards Jews”. She said it included antisemitism directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and their property, and towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

But she also said: “Criticism of the policies that may be pursued by the government of Israel from time to time is not, of itself, antisemitic.”

The commission will identify antisemitic conduct and its drivers in Australian society, examine how law enforcement and security agencies were tackling antisemitic conduct and protecting the Jewish community and look at the circumstances leading up to the attack.

Bell encouraged members of the public to make submissions and said she was “interested in hearing from Jewish Australians who’ve experienced antisemitism, whether at school or at university or in the workplace or elsewhere”.

She said while antisemitism may be the oldest religious and ethnic prejudice, other religions and ethnicities were also subject to prejudice in Australia. As such, the inquiry would include religious faiths, ethnicities and cultures generally.

“Nonetheless, against the background of the massacre of innocent people who appear to have been targeted simply because they were Jewish, I trust everyone will appreciate why the focus of this commission will be on tackling antisemitism as a starting point in strengthening our bonds of social cohesion,” she said.

An intelligence and security review led by the former head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Dennis Richardson, has also been folded into the inquiry.

Richard Lancaster, the senior counsel assisting the commission, described the attack in December as a “truly horrifying event”.

He acknowledged the immense trauma and deep sadness the massacre had caused to Jewish Australians – as well as members of the Bondi community, people visiting for a meal or a swim that evening and “those who bravely rushed to help”.

He said social cohesion was a “consensus that a diverse, multicultural society can subsist and thrive only by mutual acceptance of our respective democratic freedoms exercised according to law. Social cohesion begins with empathy.”