Royal Commissions: What They Are and Why They Matter

Recent events have drawn significant public attention to Royal Commissions, particularly calls for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to establish one following the tragic Bondi shootings on 14 December 2025.

Understanding what a Royal Commission is, what it can achieve, and how it differs from other inquiries is essential.

What is a Royal Commission?

A Royal Commission is a formal public inquiry into an issue of significant public concern. A Royal Commission is the highest form of public inquiry in Australia and is a form of non-judicial and non-administrative governmental investigation. Although Royal Commissions are only temporary bodies, they can last for many years. They do not give a verdict at the conclusion of proceedings, but they can refer matters to the DPP for investigation.

The purpose of Royal Commissions is usually either:

investigative: to discover the truth about something; or
advisory: to assist in developing government policy.

Once a Royal Commission has been established, the Government will decide on what are called the terms of reference. The terms of reference is a document prepared by the Government that formally defines the powers of the Royal Commission. This defines the scope and powers of the Royal Commission, and includes the date by which the Commission must finish its inquiry and the date that the final report will be delivered. The Government also provides the funding for the Commission, and appoints the Commissioner/s heading the Commission, who is usually a retired, notable judge.

Scott Prasser, author of Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries in Australia (2006) explains:

‘a royal commission is a form of public inquiry – that is, one of those ad hoc, temporary bodies with members, often expert, from outside of government that, through consultation and hearings, seeks submissions, assesses issues, produces a report and makes recommendations…

They are statutorily based on the Royal Commission Act 1902 (Cth), which confers on commissions coercive powers of investigation as well as the ability to provide legal protection to witnesses.’

How does a Royal Commission Work?

A Royal Commission typically carries out the following activities during a hearing:

Evidence is presented to the Royal Commission in a number of different ways for different purposes. For example, the public is given the opportunity to provide written submissions and presentations at hearings. Evidence may also be gathered by summoning witnesses.
Hearings may either be open or closed to the public.
Commissioners will gather information and consult with both non-government and government experts.
After all evidence and information is gathered and reviewed by the Commissioner/s, the Royal Commission will hand down a final report. This report will typically contain: key information about the issue, an overview of the hearings, and the Commissioner/s findings, which may include recommendations to the Government or Government Agencies.
The Commissioner/s may also refer information about suspected crimes to the Department of Public Prosecutions.

Why are they ‘Royal’ and what does the King have to do with them?

Royal Commissions have existed for hundreds of years in England. In fact, William the Conqueror appointed one!
As Clokie and Robinson explain in their 1937 book Royal Commissions of Inquiry: The Significance of Investigations in British Politics:

As the name implies, Royal Commissions owe their foundation to an exercise of the royal prerogative. The source of their existence is to be found in the generally assumed right of the Crown to appoint officials to perform duties temporarily or
permanently on behalf of the King

In Australia, under the Royal Commission Act 1902 (Cth),

‘the Governor – General may, by Letters Patent in the name of the Sovereign, issue such commissions, directed to such person or persons, as he or she thinks fit, requiring or authorising him or her or them or any of them to make inquiry into and report upon any matter specified in the Letters Patent, and which relates to or is connected with the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, or any public purpose or any power of the Commonwealth.’

The power to establish a Royal Commission rests with the Governor-General, who is the King’s (ie Royal) representative in Australia. In practice, it is a convention that the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Ministers (executive government) except in very rare circumstances.

How are they different from a Court Decision?

While a Royal Commission may be chaired by a retired judge and resemble a court in some respects, its purpose and processes differ significantly:

Courts resolve legal disputes through a trial, that is heard by a judge or jury in a court of law, applying established rules of evidence (such as the presumption of innocence) to create legally binding decisions

Royal Commissions investigate and/or provide policy advice. Their investigations are more inquisitorial in nature with broad and coercive investigative powers, which are usually derived from the terms of reference. Royal Commissions apply different standards to courts regarding what they can accept as evidence, and they do not provide any witnesses with protection against self-incrimination, as is the case when an individual appears before a court. Royal Commissions produce a report that has findings and recommendations that are not legally binding.

What are the benefits of a Royal Commission?

According to Scott Prasser:

‘Royal commissions have traits that make them desirable to retain, to be used again and again, and these concern their perceived independence from what many see as an increasingly politicised world. That independence is reinforced by their ‘publicness’, their open processes and their very ad hoc, temporary nature. They are part of the system, but not quite captured by it. This is why when all seems lost, when a matter needs urgent attention, when independence is paramount, hardpressed governments continue to turn to royal commissions – the ‘institution of last resort’ – when all else is deemed inadequate… royal commissions are bespoke instruments. They can be specially formed to suit the particular problem they are being used to investigate. Each one is different. It is this flexibility that underpins their success.’

Prasser also notes that governments often do not appoint Royal Commissions despite public pressure. An omission that can be just as revealing as their decision to establish one.

Why is there a call for a Royal Commission that looks into the Bondi Beach Tragedy?

The Bondi Beach tragedy on 14 December 2025 has raised many questions about the rise of antisemitism, the lack of cohesion, and the adequacy of Australia’s legal and security frameworks. In this context, calls for a Federal Royal Commission have grown louder, with the Jewish community, community leaders, business figures, and members of the legal community emphasising the need for an inquiry of the highest order.

The following are some of the bases for calling a Federal Royal Commission:

1. To Understand the Causes of the Attack

In a statement from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, together with the Jewish roof organisations in each State and Territory it outlined:

It is critical that government and society understand the sources of antisemitism especially in the last two years, and how Australia arrived at its present position where hatred of one ethnic and religious minority has become so extraordinarily rampant.

Only a Federal Royal Commission encompassing the nation as a whole, would provide that process.

2. To Address Nationwide issues

In an open letter from Senior Members of the Australian Bar, former judges and senior barristers outlined:

‘Antisemitism in Australia is inherently a national issue. While the Bondi Beach tragedy occurred in Sydney, it resulted from a problem that requires a response from the Commonwealth Government. Antisemitism is not only a New South Wales problem. It is an Australian problem… Commonwealth agencies have the ability to examine the full national picture and play a critical role in identifying, detecting and combating extremism.’

3. To Recommendation Measures that Prevent Future Attacks

On 2nd January 2026, more than 130 business leaders called on the Australian Government to establish a Royal Commission. In their statement they highlighted the need for a practical plan of action and said:

‘we recognise the need for clear answers as to how the Bondi massacre could occur, and for practical solutions to restore social cohesion and protect the safety of all Australians. We must end the unprecedented harassment, intimidation and violence directed at the Australian Jewish community since October 7, 2023.’‘This is a national crisis, which requires a national response. This goes beyond politics, it’s about the future of our country.’

4. To Identify laws and institutional arrangements that need to be changed

One of the most important principles of the rule of law is that everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law. Everyone should be entitled to conduct their affairs in the knowledge that their personal safety is protected by an effective system of laws and institutions.

A Federal Royal Commission would be an effective way of identifying those laws and institutional arrangements that need to be strengthened to uphold equality before the law in Australia.

5. To Enhance Public Confidence and Democratic Resilience

The Law Council of Australia stated in its media release (6 January 2026):

‘Public confidence in Australia’s legal system depends on the law operating effectively to protect all members of the community from harm, intimidation and violence. When any group is targeted on the basis of identity or belief, the legitimacy of the legal system as a whole is undermined.’

The Law Council concluded:

‘For that reason, Royal Commissions are appropriate only in the most exceptional circumstances. The Bondi terrorist attack—the deadliest act of terrorism on Australian soil—meets that threshold. The scale of the loss of life, the broader context in which the attack occurred, and its profound implications for community safety, social cohesion and confidence in our legal system demand an inquiry of the highest order.’

This is consistent with the Open Letter from Senior Members of the Australian Bar that highlighted:

‘Antisemitism thrives in conditions of mistrust, secrecy, and misinformation. Public confidence in the integrity of Australia’s response is therefore not incidental; it is essential.

The protection of Australians from antisemitism is not a political issue. It is a moral one and goes to the very heart of a government’s fundamental role to protect its citizens.’

Join mailing list to receive monthly updates