The first week of Australia’s Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion began with a paradox that every Jewish Australian already understands in their bones: the need is urgent, the stakes are existential, and the systems tasked with responding are moving far too slowly.

On Tuesday morning, in Courtroom 12D of the New South Wales Supreme Court, Commissioner Virginia Bell opened the inquiry with words that were both validating and quietly alarming. This Commission, she said, would treat the deadline for its final report – the first anniversary of the Bondi massacre – as “a matter of critical importance.” But in the same breath, she acknowledged what many in the Jewish community feared from the moment this inquiry was announced: that the timetable is so tight it will “impose limitations” on what can be properly investigated, tested, and proved. “My focus will be a practical one,” she told the court. 

It is a Commission born from trauma – yet tethered to the constraints of criminal justice, intelligence secrecy, and bureaucratic delay. And by the end of this first week, one conclusion was already hard to avoid: this Royal Commission may end up defining not only what Australia does about antisemitism — but what it couldn’t do and can’t do in time.

Day 1 — Tuesday, February 24: The opening hearing that set the limits

The opening hearing was short, procedural – yet unusually revealing.

1) The Commission says it will not hear the most emotionally powerful evidence – At least for now… 

Commissioner Bell addressed the Bondi massacre directly. The inquiry’s third term of reference does, in fact, include examining the attack, including “the lead-up and planning of this atrocity.” But, she explained, the surviving attacker has been charged with terrorism and multiple murder counts, and the criminal trial is where evidence of the attack will be led and largely derived from if needed. 

Then came the line that landed like a slamming door:

“Leading evidence at this Commission from people who may be witnesses or survivors in the criminal proceeding would create that risk, and for that reason it will not occur.

“Leading evidence at this Commission from people who may be witnesses or survivors in the criminal proceeding would create that risk, and for that reason it will not occur.

For Jewish families who lost loved ones – and for survivors whose lives were split into “before” and “after” – that is not a technicality. It is a profound emotional reality: the Commission created because of Bondi is warning it cannot yet fully incorporate Bondi.

2) A stunning admission: the interim report may land before evidence can be led

The Commission’s interim report is due by April 30 and is meant to focus on urgent issues tied to security arrangements, agency effectiveness, and information sharing. 

But Bell told the court that delays in obtaining and assessing intelligence and law-enforcement material have already made it unlikely counsel assisting will be able to adduce evidence on key questions – including the adequacy of the Hanukkah event security arrangements – before that deadline. 

In other words: the Commission is being asked to deliver “urgent” findings at speed, while admitting the documentary base may not be ready.

3) The inquiry adopts IHRA — and draws a line on Israel

Bell said the Commission will apply the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, reasoning that it makes “evident sense” to use the same definition adopted by the Commonwealth and states. 

She also addressed the flashpoint she knows will define the public debate:

“It is uncontroversial that criticism of the policies… of the government of Israel… is not, of itself, antisemitic.

“It is uncontroversial that criticism of the policies… of the government of Israel… is not, of itself, antisemitic.

That sentence is doing heavy lifting. It is an attempt to stop the inquiry becoming a culture war proxy – while still naming the reality Jewish Australians have lived through since October 7: that “criticism” has often blurred into harassment, intimidation, and demonisation of Jews as Jews. It will be most interesting to see how this actually applied.

4) The most important line of the week: “years, not months”

Bell delivered the quote that will likely haunt this process from now until December:

“Examining the ways in which we might strengthen social cohesion in Australia could well be the work of years, not months. 

“Examining the ways in which we might strengthen social cohesion in Australia could well be the work of years, not months. 

The Commission’s reporting deadline is not “years.” It is months. And Bell acknowledged that the final report being due by the first anniversary will impose limitations – even as she argued the symbolism and significance of that anniversary deadline make it “critical.” 

5) A call to Jewish Australians — and a moral justification for the inquiry’s Jewish focus

Bell explicitly invited Jewish Australians to make submissions about their lived experience -“at school or at university or in the workplace or elsewhere.”  And she laid out why antisemitism is the starting point:

“Against the background of the massacre of innocent people who appear to have been targeted simply because they were Jewish… the focus… will be on tackling antisemitism as a starting point.

“Against the background of the massacre of innocent people who appear to have been targeted simply because they were Jewish… the focus… will be on tackling antisemitism as a starting point.

Albeit not the exact wording or phrasing I would have used – This matters. It is the Commission stating, on the record, what Jews have been pleading for Australia to admit: antisemitism is not theoretical. It is not “online discourse.” It can culminate in unspeakable atrocities the likes of which this country hasn’t seen before.

6) Counsel assisting: the first operational warning lights

Senior Counsel Assisting Richard Lancaster SC gave process detail with real consequences: submissions flagged as urgent should be received by March 13, while submissions generally will be accepted into April and May. 

He also reinforced the “trial prejudice” barrier – saying they do not propose public hearings on matters directly tied to the pending charges, and “judgment will need to be exercised” about where that line is drawn. 

And then, outside the official transcript, the first real conflict appeared: documents. Lancaster warned bluntly that document production “is not presently where we would like it to be.” 

An ominous warning of what may be to come.

Day 2 — Wednesday, February 25: The story becomes feasibility, delay, and trust

The second day didn’t deliver testimony. It delivered something that may prove more decisive: the first indications the system is already straining and lagging. Very little more than debates surrounding government institutions’ ability to produce required evidence was discussed.

1) The Commission’s “wobbly start” becomes a symbol

ABC reported technical problems – audio issues and a live-stream dropout during the opening hearing.  On its own, it’s minor. But as symbolism, it fed a growing anxiety: this is enormous, national, and urgent – and yet it feels hurriedly assembled. ABC also noted the Commission’s public “portal” – the website for submissions – went live only weeks earlier, while submissions “could take weeks” to prepare. 

That is not a PR issue. It is an evidentiary one. Because the Commission’s legitimacy will rest heavily on the lived experiences Jews choose to share – and on how carefully those stories are read, tested, and weighed. Time constraints mean it will almost be impossible for the commission to fully evaluate, analyse or even read the vast volume of submissions expected.

2) A respected former commissioner says what many Jews are thinking: it needs 21–24 months

Former royal commissioner Ron Sackville AO KC told ABC’s 7.30 the issues are complex and “21 to 24 months” would be a more realistic timeframe. Expressing that this time frame in comparison to previous Royal Commissions is minute – yet the issues at hand are far more drastic.

This matters because it’s not activist criticism; it’s institutional expertise. The fear isn’t that the Commission doesn’t care – it’s that it cannot physically do the work a Royal Commission is meant to do in the time allowed.

3) The Jewish reality on camera: “I can’t exist as a Jew in public”

If there was one moment this week that cut through process into lived truth, it was survivor Jessica Chapnik Kahn telling 7.30:

“I can’t exist as a Jew in public in Australia at the moment in a public gathering. It’s heartbreaking.

“I can’t exist as a Jew in public in Australia at the moment in a public gathering. It’s heartbreaking.

That line is why this Commission exists. It is also an implicit accusation: that Australian public life has become, for many Jews, conditional – dependent on concealment, caution, or security.

Late-week developments reported today: Families, survivors — and the “no hearings until late March” reality

Bell invited families and others directly affected by the attack to meet her “later this week” in less formal surroundings (Bondi) to explain limitations and answer questions. 

Today’s reporting indicates such meetings took place at Bondi Pavilion, where Bell again stressed the Commission cannot hear evidence from witnesses or victims in a way that risks compromising the trial – meaning in plain English she can only hear realistically evidence from before December 14, 2025.

One report also relays Bell telling attendees that hearings are not expected to begin before the end of March, heightening anxiety about how much can be properly tested before the April 30 interim report. 

The failures already visible – in week one

This Commission is only days old. But several weaknesses are already clear.

1) The interim report is being demanded before the evidence is ready

Bell openly conceded it is unlikely evidence on key security and intelligence issues can be led before April 30 because of delays and legal processes around disclosure and immunity. 

That is not a footnote; it’s a structural problem: an urgent report without the full record. An Interim report in April with much of the needed evidence, facts and testimony is already an extremely concerning issue.

2) The attack that birthed the inquiry is legally quarantined

The Commission is constrained from hearing testimony from those who may be potentially witnesses in the criminal proceedings – and will avoid public hearings on matters bound up in pending charges. 

For Jewish Australians, this can feel like being asked to accept a bitter trade: sustained change must wait so justice can happen.

3) Document production is already faltering

Bell detailed why intelligence agencies moved slowly – public interest immunity, nondisclosure, privilege. The ABC reported counsel assisting’s dissatisfaction with document production progress. 

A Royal Commission lives or dies on documents. The story of this inquiry may become less about moral clarity – and more about whether agencies comply fast enough. 

4) Submissions vs time: the fear Jews are already expressing

Council assisting Lancaster, told the public that urgent matters should be submitted by March 13, and submissions will be received into April and May. 

That is an invitation – but also an implicit warning: not everything can shape the interim report, and a tidal wave of testimony may arrive too late to be fully processed with the care it deserves.

What it all means for Jewish Australians — and for Jews watching from abroad

This Royal Commission is not merely an Australian policy exercise. For many Jews it is a national stress test:

Will Jewish fear be treated as legitimate, or as a political inconvenience?

Will antisemitism be defined as a lived reality with consequences, or diluted into a “social cohesion” abstraction?

Will institutions – universities, bureaucracies, police forces, intelligence agencies – be required to show not statements, but systems?

Bell’s language has, so far, been unusual about Jewish experience, including her statement that victims “appear to have been targeted simply because they were Jewish,”. However she did make an explicit call for Jewish Australians to tell the Commission what antisemitism looks like in daily life. 

But language is not protection. Protection is enforcement, intelligence sharing, security posture, prosecution, education standards, and institutional accountability – and those are exactly the areas being squeezed by time.

What to expect tomorrow and next week

Based on what has been said on the record this week, here’s what is realistic to watch for – and what likely won’t happen yet:

More stakeholder engagement and preparation, not headline witness testimony. Bell has already been conducting less-formal meetings with victims’ families and the Jewish community to explain constraints.  

Behind the scenes, the document fight continues. Expect pressure on agencies to speed production, because counsel assisting has already signalled impatience.  

A push for “urgent issues” submissions ahead of the March 13 marker for anything intended to influence the interim report.  

More clarity on hearing blocks and witness sequencing – but multiple reports suggest substantive hearings may not begin until late March.  

The Commission’s first real credibility battle: whether it can extract enough material, fast enough, to issue interim recommendations that are more than generic.

And here is the key point for Jewish readers: if the interim report is thin, it won’t necessarily mean the Commission is unserious. It may mean the machinery of the state moved too slowly – again – and in the face of antisemitism still rising.

If this Commission “succeeds”, it could lay down reforms that change Jewish life in Australia: safer schools, safer campuses, real accountability in institutions that have too often explained antisemitism away. If it fails, it will likely fail not because the threat was misunderstood necessarily – but because of the governments given time, secrecy, and bureaucracy outran the inquiry designed to confront them.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)