In a notable change of heart, Albanese’s government has reversed its stance in response to the Bondi attack, ultimately agreeing to a Royal Commission inquiry. This shift comes after initially insisting for a review of the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies instead.

While the steps have been framed as necessary to maintain public safety, both approaches raise deeper constitutional queries about the limits of executive power, the erosion of accountability, and the need to protect Australia’s democratic institutions.

The proposed Commission must not suffer the same fate as previous inquiries whose many findings were ultimately left unimplemented. Royal Commissions or an internal review cannot be treated as symbolic exercises; they must lead to concrete action that addresses the underlying causes of harm. 

As Australia navigates this pivotal moment, will it uphold its commitment to the rule of law, or will the crisis once again be used as a pretext to expand state power without meaningful scrutiny?

READ: Indiscriminate suppression: Attacking pro-Palestinian protests after the Bondi killings 

Executive power and the absence of constitutional safeguards

Australia is unique among liberal democracies for lacking a federal Bills of Rights and Human Rights Act. Instead, civil liberties are protected indirectly through a combination of constitutional structure, statutory & common law safeguards, as well as political convention. For years, civil society has been pushing for a federal Bills of Rights that aligns with international obligations. Despite strong recommendations, such as those made in the 2024 Parliamentary Committee Report, this essential reform remains pending. In the face of this legislative gap, it is incumbent upon the Parliament, the courts, and independent oversight bodies to apply check and balance preventing the executive branch from overstepping its authority.

In practice, Australia’s national security and counterterrorism have become areas where executive discretion is at its widest and least accountable. Over the past two decades, successive governments have expanded preventative detention powers, lowered thresholds for surveillance, and curtailed protest rights, often with bipartisan support.

Law enforcement arrested seven men in Sydney amid fears of a planned “violent act,” though no direct links to the Bondi shooters have been confirmed —photos: supplied.

The Bondi response seems to follow this pattern. Preventative actions have been taken in the absence of publicly tested evidence, while the political narrative has emphasised urgency over scrutiny. This happens despite of constitutional orthodoxy that clearly states how necessity does not displace legality. The High Court has consistently held that executive power must remain proportionate, justified, and subject........

© Middle East Monitor