"In essence – a ‘judicial ‘inquiry’ is a nonsense".

Of course it's nonsense. Senate enquiries are nonsense. Hanson-Young is nonsense. The Senate, Senators are just part of the nonsense that is too much government, too many laws and regulation, and the biggest nonsense of all is the amount of new legislation dreamed up and enacted each year in the Australian parliament. Politicians think making up new laws and regulations is what it's about. Before Julia Gillard was belatedly given the flick, she actually bragged about the amount of new legislation her nonsensical government brought in. She was proud of it! Most of the rubbish just moulders away, forgotten, on the books.

Royal Commissions, which are massively costly, have no power, and just recommend at best, are also nonsense.

Come to think of it, Australia and it's poor quality politicians are becoming more nonsensical by the day.

"Only the executive government can establish a royal commission" - thankfully! And they rarely act on twaddle coming from silly committees run by nincompoops who have their snouts in the trough only through a quota system depending on their position on a voting slip

Scott seems so keen to argue semantics that he's missed the point completely.
The senators want a judicial inquiry as opposed to a parliamentary inquiry.

That it is not the official name for an institution type does not matter; the term is widely understood, and this is this is merely a recommendation to set one up, not the draft legislation!
Likewise, whether it has the state of a court is of little relevance; the people who don't know it doesn't are unlikely to know why that matters anyway.

The inquiry, if and when it happens, will have the powers and status it is given. The constitution does limit what these could be, of course, but there is no evidence even suggesting that anyone would exceed their authority here, so it's a complete non issue.