One week after the Bondi Beach massacre, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a review into Australia’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
While the move acknowledges public concern, it also highlights a deeper and more uncomfortable truth: Australia’s national security architecture failed, and a bureaucratic review alone may not be enough to restore public confidence.
The attack, which killed 15 people at a Hanukkah festival and wounded dozens more, has shaken the nation. It was not only the brutality of the violence that horrified Australians, but the growing sense that warning signs were missed, intelligence failed to connect, and law enforcement was unprepared for the scale of the threat.
The Prime Minister has tasked the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet with examining whether federal agencies have the “right powers, structures, processes and sharing arrangements” to keep Australians safe. The review, to be led by former senior public servant Dennis Richardson, will report by April 2026 and be made public.
On paper, this sounds responsible. In practice, it risks being perceived as inadequate.
The central question Australians are asking is simple: how did two men allegedly inspired by ISIS manage to carry out the deadliest terrorist attack on Australian soil despite years of counter-terrorism laws, agencies, and surveillance powers? How did Sajid Akram legally acquire six firearms within two years? And why were there not more police at a known public Jewish event during a period of heightened threat?
These are not abstract policy questions. They go to the heart of public safety and trust.
Former treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s criticism of the review as “wholly inadequate” reflects a broader frustration. A departmental review, critics argue, examines systems from the inside — often cautiously, sometimes defensively. It may identify technical gaps, but it rarely assigns accountability or confronts political failures.
That is why calls for a Commonwealth Royal Commission have gained traction. A royal commission would have the power to compel witnesses, examine classified material independently, and publicly test whether political decisions, funding priorities, or ideological blind spots contributed to the failure to detect and prevent the attack.
The government insists the review will build on previous intelligence assessments. But Bondi was not a theoretical risk scenario; it was a real-world catastrophe. The attackers reportedly attended Islamic centres known for extreme preaching and remained off the radar of counter-terrorism agencies. That alone demands a level of scrutiny that goes beyond internal process checks.
There is also a broader issue at play. Australia’s security environment has changed rapidly. Online radicalisation, lone-actor terrorism, and ideologically driven violence have blurred traditional warning signs. Intelligence agencies must adapt, but so must political leadership.
If the review becomes a way to defer harder decisions — about policing resources, radicalisation prevention, immigration screening, or hate preachers — it will fail the victims of Bondi and the wider community.
Australians do not expect absolute safety. But they do expect honesty, accountability, and urgency.
Bondi should be a turning point, not another chapter in a long list of post-tragedy reviews that promise lessons learned but deliver little change. Whether this review restores confidence will depend not on its language, but on whether the government is willing to confront uncomfortable truths — and act on them.
