A fast review for quick results? Isn't that what happened after the protesters made genocidal chants at the Sydney Opera House? What a review that was. An internal review, aka a fig jam review. It found that there was no problem and no reason to change a thing. And all the people who thought they heard things like "f the Jews" and "gas the Jews"? Well, apparently they were suffering from racist hearing.

Bondi was the result of that "fast" review and consequent denial that there was a problem. Now Albo, after years of inaction in the face of rising antisemitism, wants more fig jam reviews. Presumably those reviews will find that despite there being a few minor issues, the authorities did a great job. They will likely also find that the main issue was lax gun laws.

We need a royal commission as it is the best means of recognising and addressing a serious problem. Fig jam reviews are not likely to change anything.

Julie Andrew’s has the answer:

There are those
I suppose think we're mad
Heaven knows the world is gone
To wrack and to ruin

What we think is chic, unique, and quite adorable
They think is odd and "Sodom and Gomorrable"
But the fact is everything today is thoroughly modern.

Modernity is the problem.

The modern world is inclusiveness of Islamists, so we must compromise and accomodate them.

Good luck with that one!

If you want to reduce tension related to variance within our community, authorities should stop trying to make life in to a kind of contest.
Doing so negatively exaggerates feelings related to difference.
This ploy is especially evident in sport.
If we lose, we should acknowledge it with grace.
Instead of using a rambling diatribe which gives us no dignity.

Better to say something like:
'we played hard.
We used all the skill we had.
We were determined.
But on the day, the better team won.
We congratulate them on a game well played.
We thank them for the sportsmanship they displayed.
We hope we will meet them again.
But next time we hope to win.'

That would be far better, and it gives a sense of kindness.

IF.

#… But next time we hope to win…#

Life is not a game of sport. There are no controls over the players involved in social contests, and right there is the Achilles heel of our daily contest as subjects of a non- inclusive Government such as we have: The Government as we are now saddled with, like it or not, is objectively, for its own ideological ends, divisive. That is not comparable to a game of football.

Neither does a game of football include murderous moments where losers let loose with a hundred rounds of projectiles, deliberately aimed at their perceived enemy which is unarmed and defenceless on the opposing team. That circumstance is not in any rules of sport.

It is perfectly fine to feel rage towards the umpires which preside over an unfair and one sided contest, engineered by their own unwillingness to be ALL inclusive of their subjects, and not the totally opposite!

After Australia’s own Oct 7th moment at Bondi, nothing will remain the same as it didn’t for Israel!
Israel, since that wake-up call moment of theirs, is showing us how to deal with Islamists; hard, rough and merciless, which are the rules now from the revised rule book: Australians should take note and heed advice from Netanyahu, freely given. Israel knows how this game works; it’s not a sporting contest!

"If your argument is now that the RC wouldn't be about prevention, urgency, or operational response, then the urgency rhetoric collapses."

I never said it was about urgency. That was just something you concocted to try to find a way to defend Albo's avoidance of an RC.

"If it is about causes and enablers, explain why a slow, years-long inquiry is preferable to existing intelligence, policing, and security mechanisms"

All indications are that this was a failure of the intelligence and police services who, towing the government line, were more concerned with right wing phantoms than actual Islamist threats. Putting these same people in charge of the inquiry is an exercise in arse covering all around. That's why a truly independent inquiry is required and why the authorities are trying so hard to avoid one.

Fester,

You're arguing that some fast reviews can be inadequate or defensive. That may be true in particular cases.

But that still doesn't resolve the contradiction I raised. Royal commissions are slower again, often taking years, overlapping with prosecutions and intelligence work. If urgency is the claim, they are structurally the least responsive option.

The question isn't "RC or fig-jam review". It's how urgent risks are addressed now versus how broader accountability is handled later. Conflating the two doesn't strengthen the case for an RC.

The contradiction remains, and it continues to expose those seeking to capitalise on the deaths of others.
__

mhaze,

That's a different argument, and it's the first time you've actually made it. But notice what's happened? he case for an RC has now shifted from urgency and prevention to institutional distrust. That alone concedes the point that an RC is not an urgent or operational response.

On your claim of "independence": a royal commission does not bypass intelligence and police agencies. It relies on the same records, witnesses, briefings, and classified material. If those institutions are as captured or incompetent as you assert, an RC doesn't fix that problem, it just interrogates it more slowly and publicly.

Independence is not achieved by assuming existing mechanisms are bad and a royal commission must therefore be good. It has to be shown that the RC is a better instrument for establishing facts, improving prevention, and protecting intelligence sources. You haven't done that.

At the moment, "independent" seems to mean "more likely to reach the conclusions you already hold". That's not a standard of inquiry, it's an outcome preference.