After initially calling for a federal royal commission into the Bondi attack, Greg Barns and Kym Davey explain why they have changed their minds – and why existing legal processes may offer greater accountability without inflaming division.

On 20 December we wrote on these pages that in the aftermath of the terrible events at Bondi there should be a federal royal commission. We argued that “[T]he stakes in human lives are too high after this appalling assault. We need a national Royal Commission to examine all the domestic policing, security, and intelligence aspects of the matter.” And we observed that too often “internal inquiries by security and police agencies are too often limited in scope and held in secret.”

We were wrong for a number of reasons in arguing for a royal commission, although as we note below, we think that there will be, through the coronial process, a forum that is public and which is widely respected in every jurisdiction in Australia.

What has compelled us to change our minds are a number of factors.

It has become obvious that the legitimate call for security and police agency transparency and accountability has been hijacked by elements of the pro-Israel lobby demanding that the focus of a Royal Commission should be........

© Pearls and Irritations