As public pressure mounts on the Albanese government to establish a royal commission into the killings at Bondi Beach, a familiar assumption has resurfaced in Australian political debate: that only a royal commission can deliver truth, accountability and justice when matters of public concern are grave enough.

This assumption is widespread – and understandable – but the academic evidence suggests it is only partially correct.

Royal commissions are not inherently better at uncovering truth or delivering reform than other forms of inquiry. Rather, they are a specialised political instrument, effective in particular circumstances and distinctly inefficient in others.

Pat Rafter, Jess Fox, Ian Thorpe and Grant Hackett are among prominent Australian sportspeople to sign an open letter calling for a royal commission into antisemitism.Credit: Composite image

Royal commissions derive their prestige from perceived independence. Typically chaired by senior judges and armed with coercive powers, they can compel testimony, override institutional secrecy and create a public record that is difficult to dismiss. This makes them........

© The Sydney Morning Herald