The interim report from the royal commission on antisemitism, set up after the Bondi massacre, leaves hanging more questions than it answers.

Perhaps no one should be surprised. The decision to have this report was a case of putting the cart before the horse.

Initially the government planned, after the December murder of 15 innocent people at a Jewish festival, to have a quick inquiry into whether federal agencies had adequate powers, processes and communications arrangements. That inquiry was to be done by former senior public servant Dennis Richardson.

Later, and reluctantly, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was pushed into having a much wider royal commission into “antisemitism and social cohesion” under Virginia Bell. The Richardson review was folded into the commission. This didn’t go well and Richardson quit in March, declaring he had become a “fifth wheel” and “surplus to requirements”.

The merging of the review, with its end-of-April deadline, into the commission, has meant this interim report has been made before relevant figures have appeared before the commission, which only starts hearing evidence next week.

Given this apparently illogical timing, it would have made more sense to have extended the deadline for the interim report, to enable the commission to gain the full picture on key issues it canvasses. Undoubtedly the government would have granted extra time if the commission had requested it.

As it is, the interim report is thinner than one would wish, as Richardson predicted it would be when he quit.

---

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Dennis Richardson’s exit puts antisemitism royal commissioner under more pressure

---

Albanese at a news conference on Thursday seized on the commission’s conclusion that no legal or regulatory gap had been found that impeded “the ability for law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies to prevent or respond to” an attack of the kind that happened at Bondi.

The legal framework might be OK but how well or badly did agencies operate within it? Key answers to that are left for later.

“Important issues arising from the Bondi attack, including whether there was any failure to identify and act upon intelligence in the lead up to it, or in the allocation of police resources to the Chanukah event, will be addressed in hearings,” the report says.

“No conclusion in these respects can be reached on a review of the agencies’ documents alone and in the absence of according procedural fairness to any person or agency at risk of an adverse finding.”

Precisely. But some hearings will have to be held in secret, the commission adds.

Much material about ASIO is classified in this report, including how it sets its priorities. The report gives year-by-year public statements from ASIO, which assess the various threats.

“It can be seen from the course of the Director-General of Security’s public statements from 5 August 2024 until late 2025 that ASIO publicly and repeatedly drew attention to the heightened risk of a terrorist attack and to an environment of ‘disturbing escalation’ of antisemitic incidents,” the report says.

“It will be necessary to investigate whether and how ASIO and other Commonwealth and state intelligence and law enforcement agencies understood and acted on those assessments of a probable attack; and to consider the adequacy of what was said to be ASIO’s ‘full use of our capabilities and powers’ in the context of ongoing antisemitic attacks.

"These are matters that will be explored in hearings.”

The report invites a lot of reading between the lines.

The commission does make the pointed observation, after reviewing classified material, that despite an overall increase in funding for the national intelligence community, “the proportion of funding allocated to counter-terrorism significantly declined across the NIC over the period from 2020 to 2025”.

Albanese was anxious to stress the government is acting quickly on the report’s recommendations, as far as they relate to Commonwealth responsibilities. Cabinet’s national security committee ticked off on them early Thursday morning.

Of the 14 recommendations, five are secret.

A big restraint referred to in the report is the criminal action against the surviving alleged Bondi offender. This means while some now-secret material may be released subsequently, that could be a long time away given how slowly the law proceeds. A relevant question is how much of a constraint the legal proceedings will put on the commission’s final report.

The report’s chapter about Commonwealth and state intelligence and law enforcement agency activities regarding Bondi is classified. “It should remain confidential until the finalisation of any criminal proceedings arising out of the Bondi attack. Thereafter a public version of the chapter should be released.”

Two recommendations go to the government’s gun buyback scheme, saying in essence it should be finalised as soon as possible. At present some jurisdictions are being recalcitrant or dragging their feet. Queensland on Thursday immediately repeated it would not be budging in its refusal to sign up to the gun buyback.

But, though given a lot of emphasis by the government, the gun issue is not the most important of the many challenges presented by the threats of terrorism and antisemitism.

Certain recommendations go to doing the very obvious. For example: “The Counter-Terrorism handbook should be updated promptly and then at least every three years”, and the Commonwealth Counter-Terrorism Coordinator’s role should be full-time.

The report also says the federal government “should consider whether National Security Committee ministers, including the Prime Minister, should participate in a counter-terrorism exercise, along with all National Cabinet members, within nine months of each federal election”.

At the sharp end of things, the commission recommends a more comprehensive approach by New South Wales police at high-risk Jewish events.

The commission observes, “the outbreak of hostilities between the United States and Israel and Iran in February 2026 is likely to have increased the risk of attacks directed at the Australian Jewish community”.

Public attention has been focused on how the war has exposed Australia’s vulnerability on fuel and other items coming through our supply lines, and its implications for inflation and economic growth. The commission’s grim warning is a reminder of the intensified danger of terrorism as another cost the Iran war poses.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Early voting is now in full swing for the coming Farrer election on May 9. The by-election is being framed as a temperature check of the right in federal politics, given the rise of One Nation and the collapse of the Liberal and National parties.

The competition in the southwestern New South Wales seat is mainly between a high-profile independent, Michelle Milthorpe, and One Nation’s David Farley. Key campaign issues include health, water management, climate projects, and the current oil shock and ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

In this podcast, we spoke to veteran election analyst Antony Green about why this by-election is so nationally significant, including ahead of Victoria’s coming state election.

We also spoke to Milthorpe and, for One Nation’s perspective, Barnaby Joyce. (Farley, who spoke about being One Nation’s local candidate when we visited Farrer last month, declined an interview.)

‘A complete diversion’ from history: Green

Antony Green has covered more than 90 Australian elections over nearly four decades. He highlighted how unusual this Farrer by-election is, contrasting it with generations of elections before it.

Historically, it’s significant. We’ve had a party system now for eight decades – a Labor Party, a Liberal Party, a National Party – they’re the ones that nearly always have competed to form government to win almost all seats.

But this by-election, it looks like a breakout: a contest between an independent and One Nation. That’s a complete diversion from the tradition of Australian political history.

It’s also significant for what’s going to happen at the next election, because Farrer is a very rural seat. It’s the sort of seat Labor rarely polls well in, and they’re not even contesting the by-election. If the Coalition parties can’t win a seat like Farrer […] what are their hopes of winning government at the next election?

Green said if One Nation wins this by-election, it would be their first victory in a federal lower house seat – and give them significant momentum nationally, especially leading up to November’s state election in Victoria.

I think winning Farrer would be a huge boost to One Nation. It would put every member for a rural or regional seat, give them a warning that One Nation is coming for them.

[…] It also portends what we might see at the Victorian election […] Perhaps One Nation will be the party that breaks Labor’s grip on northern and western Melbourne.

Support ‘from around the country’: Milthorpe

Independent Michelle Milthorpe, who’s running for Farrer for the second time, was not willing to be drawn on how much money her campaign had spent far, but said she’s been “overwhelmed” by individual donations.

There’s probably 98% of my donations have come from individual donors from Farrer and around the country […] I’ve got significantly more money than I did last time. So look, that’ll all be disclosed in the only way, that’s actually open and transparent, because I am independent.

[…] We wanted to put our best foot forward in this campaign and to compete equitably with other parties. Like, the [political] parties have had people from all over Australia here, and their staff, MPs from all around Australia here. I’m pretty confident they’re not doing it for free.

So these are other costs that aren’t being considered when people are asking me these questions […] We’ve got volunteers doing the work that other parties have staff doing.

Pressed on how much political crowdfunding group Climate 200 had donated, Milthorpe replied “$20,000” – and contrasted that with the high-profile support given to her opponents, such as billionaire Gina Rinehart’s support for One Nation.

I haven’t had Gina donate any money to my campaign. I haven’t had any gambling companies. I haven’t had any banks, or insurance, or anything like that. So yeah, I’m just really grateful to the ordinary Australians, who’ve gone out and put money in behind my campaign.

---

Read more: View from The Hill: Taylor defends putting One Nation ahead of Farrer independent as ‘least worst option’

---

‘Australians are changing their votes’: Joyce

Asked about One Nation’s rising popularity and controversies it’s faced during this campaign – notably the revelation that its Farrer candidate had flirted with Labor in the past – former Nationals leader turned One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce said there’s nothing new about people trying to bring One Nation down.

It’s just a litany of people who are trying to bring us down, and that’s not unusual. That has happened throughout the history of One Nation. And they grasp anything like, ‘oh, we’ll bring them down with this, we’ll bring them down with that’.

[…] We are under attack from every side because they are terrified of the fact that the Australian people have made a decision to change their vote. They don’t want that. It means things move out of their control. Even the bureaucrats, it means things are moving out of control. And they want to have control. They want two reins and one rein is the Labor Party and the other reins the Coalition. And if they don’t have those two reins, they’re unhappy with their horse.

Asked if Gina Rinehart had given any support to One Nation’s Farrer campaign, Joyce said he didn’t know.

I don’t know whether she is. I mean, I’ll absolutely welcome it if she is, absolutely. Because this is another thing. So we have travel companies [with] multiple, multiple hundred millionaires [that] fund the Greens. And that’s not a problem.

We’ve got Andrew Forrest, who supports with [Anthony] Pratt, the Labor Party, and that’s not a problem. We’ve got Pratt again, and other […] multiple millionaires who support the Liberal Party, but that’s not a problem.

But if someone supports the One Nation party, that’s somehow maligned and suspicious and all has to be brought up. I mean, people have a philosophical view and they back it in. I’d be more upset if no one believed in One Nation to the extent that they’d ever want to support us.

---

Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: why Farrer is a key test for One Nation vs the Coalition

---

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Last February the White House released photos styling President Donald Trump as a king on social media. This week he got to host a genuine king, for the state visit of Charles III and Queen Camilla.

During this week, the royals have been paraded around Washington and New York as symbols of the once “special relationship” the British like to claim exists across the Atlantic.

That relationship has been increasingly strained by Britain’s refusal to take part in the current Iran war, which has led to acerbic comments by Trump against UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Using the royals to bolster ties with the United States has long been a British tradition, despite the reality that the US came into existence by rebelling against royal rule.

Trump is the only president to have been honoured with two state visits to Britain, and he speaks glowingly of his friendship with the king.

As a constitutional monarch, Charles cannot express views other than those of his government. Were Trump to attack Britain for its reluctance to join the attack on Iran, for example, or mention his threat to support Argentina’s claims to the Falkland Islands, the king cannot respond directly.

In his Oval Office meeting with the president, and again when he addressed Congress, the king emphasised that despite temporary disagreements the two countries were bound together in “one of the greatest alliances in human history”.

In a very carefully scripted speech, the king stressed several issues where there is disagreement between the two countries, as in his remarks that “the same unyielding resolve is needed for the defence of Ukraine”. His emphasis on environmentalism allowed for a reference to climate change, hardly a priority of the Trump administration.

The king also spoke of AUKUS, a reminder he is also head of state of Australia along with 14 other countries. The fact his visit is perceived entirely as one on behalf of the United Kingdom is a reminder of the peculiar anomaly of our continuing adherence to the monarchy.

Beyond the pomp and ceremony, will the visit actually affect Trump’s foreign policies? Trump regards himself as the ultimate deal-maker, and even he recognises the king does not make deals for any of his 15 realms and territories.

In private, the king may have softened some of Trump’s views. He may even have been able to explain that the inhabitants of the Falklands cling fiercely to their British citizenship, hoping Trump does not remind him that his disgraced brother, Andrew, fought in that war.

While the ongoing revelations about Jeffrey Epstein hang over both the president and the king, the subject was carefully avoided. Queen Camilla is due to meet several survivors of domestic abuse, and in an echo of her late mother-in-law, to visit a farm housing racing horses.

For both Trump and Charles, this visit comes at an opportune time to promote their brands. Trump’s support is declining as the war in Iran drags on inconclusively and forces up prices. The White House presumably believes images of him with the king might distract people from the growing chaos of his administration.

Equally, the royal visit reminds Britons the monarchy remains their most effective tool of soft power. As Australia’s former High Commissioner in London, George Brandis, reminds us, Charles has had a lifetime of training that allows him to charm foreign leaders even when they dislike his ministers.

The past few years have not been good for the monarchy. Two senior royals, Harry and Andrew, have now removed themselves from royal duties. Both Charles and the future queen, Kate, have had serious illnesses.

For both leaders, a successful visit enhances their standing, even though it is unlikely to change any political positions. The king will not soften Trump’s enthusiasm for fossil fuels, nor persuade reluctant Republicans to increase support for Ukraine.

But he will have demonstrated that monarchy still has its uses in international diplomacy. Possibly the Danish government will be considering whether its hold on Greenland might be strengthened by a visit from King Frederik and Queen Mary.

Dennis Altman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.