Opposition leader Sussan Ley recently unveiled the Coalition’s proposed framework for a Commonwealth royal commission. Ley emphasized that a state-led inquiry might fall short in addressing critical areas such as national security lapses, migration policies, and overarching federal duties.

This raises the question: What could these separate investigations hope to accomplish?

The authorities claim that the father and son involved were motivated by the ideology of the self-proclaimed Islamic State group.

The inquiry aims to scrutinize whether existing laws hindered agencies from taking further action to prevent the attack.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured on Thursday that the Commonwealth would be fully engaged in the state-led investigation.

NSW Premier Chris Minns announced efforts to establish a royal commission to delve into the circumstances behind the Bondi attack and explore strategies for averting similar incidents in the future. Source: AAP / Dean Lewins

Albanese said on Thursday the Commonwealth would “participate fully” in the state inquiry.

NSW Premier Chris Minns said he is working to establish a royal commission to investigate how the Bondi attack happened and how future incidents can be prevented. Source: AAP / Dean Lewins

Scott Prasser is a former government policy adviser and author of the book Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries in Australia.

He told SBS News that while much hinges on the state-based inquiry’s terms of reference, it could focus on matters within NSW jurisdiction, such as the adequacy of NSW Police processes, government programs and community relations.

There is precedent in Australia for joint commissions, including the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which was established cooperatively to overcome jurisdictional limits.

How long could each inquiry take?

However, those with a broad scope to explore complex issues have taken as long as four or five years.

“If properly structured [with] the proper terms of reference and the right membership, [a royal commission] can be very effective at getting to the bottom of things very quickly,” he said.

“As a judge, I sat on a number of terrorism trials where we had to employ very considerable restraint about what could be made public because of national security concerns, and the same thing happens with royal commissions,” he told SBS News.

What’s missing from their scope?

Prasser argued that while the Richardson review will be swift and “makes some sense”, a federal royal commission would address this bigger issue, while also facilitating examination of the interactions between federal and state law enforcement.

“The Richardson review has got no legislative base, no powers … there’s many inquiries like that, and they’re quite effective, but it’s working on the goodwill of people to cooperate with it, which is quite different to a royal commission that makes you cooperate with it,” he said.

Could the two proposed reviews be effective?

“It seems to me that it’s really a NSW issue as far as the event itself is concerned, and the examination of the police, with one exception — and that is the intelligence agencies.”