Media has spoken. Now for government

The Royal Commission on Antisemitism has taken centre stage. With the ABC and SBS appearing last week to give evidence, the inquiry is now confronting the national conversation at its most sensitive point: how public institutions, political leaders and media organisations responded to the sharp rise in antisemitism since late 2023.

Their testimony has reinforced a central truth that the commission cannot fully understand the environment in which antisemitism escalated without hearing directly from senior federal ministers.

The ABC and SBS evidence illustrates the pressures facing public broadcasters as they managed polarised debate, online hostility and the expectations of different audiences. Both organisations acknowledged the rise in antisemitic sentiment, the distress experienced by Jewish staff and viewers and the difficulty of maintaining editorial balance in an environment in which misinformation spreads rapidly and social media amplifies extreme voices.

Their testimony also made clear that editorial decisions are determined by the broader national climate, influenced by government policy, Cabinet messaging and the mood set by senior ministers.

This is precisely why ministerial evidence is now essential. The commission’s task is to understand how government assessed the threat, how decisions were made, and whether policy settings matched the seriousness of the moment.

Only ministers can explain how the government interpreted public discourse, how it responded to rising community anxiety and how it directed agencies during a period of heightened tension.

Commissioner Virginia Bell’s interim report already pointed to gaps that ministerial testimony could fill. The report noted that policy settings relating to online safety and extremist content may not have kept pace with the threat environment. It raised questions about counter-terrorism resourcing, the adequacy of legal provisions and the effectiveness of community support mechanisms.

These are matters of Cabinet responsibility. They cannot be fully understood without hearing from those who shaped the decisions.

The divergence between ASIO director-general Mike Burgess’s public statements and the interim report’s interpretation of resourcing trends is a case in point. Burgess argued that funding followed the assessed threat level and that increased resources may not have prevented the Bondi attack.

The interim report, however, observed that counter-terrorism funding declined as a proportion of overall national intelligence spending between 2020 and 2025. Only ministers can clarify how strategic priorities were set, how competing demands were weighed and how Cabinet understood the developing threat landscape.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong are key to this inquiry. Wong’s statements on the Middle East conflict moulded public debate and influenced how communities interpreted the government’s stance. Albanese’s condemnations of antisemitism were welcomed, but the commission must examine whether the government’s operational responses matched the seriousness of the threat. Their evidence would illuminate how national messaging was developed and how risks were assessed.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland and Multicultural Affairs Minister Anne Aly hold portfolios directly relevant to the commission’s mandate. Burke oversees security agencies and community protection measures. Rowland is responsible for legal policies addressing hate speech, discrimination and extremist activity. Aly’s work on social cohesion is important for understanding how communities were supported or left vulnerable during a period of heightened hostility.

The ABC and SBS testimony underscores another important point: Jewish Australians commonly felt their concerns were acknowledged but not fully understood. Public broadcasters described the pressures placed on Jewish staff, the difficulty of reporting on antisemitism while handling accusations of bias from multiple directions and the need for clearer national leadership in establishing expectations for respectful public discourse. These are matters that fall squarely within ministerial responsibility.

Some argue that calling ministers to testify risks politicising the commission. But the issues under examination are already political. Government policy, diplomatic positions, public messaging and security decisions affect the environment in which communities live. A serious inquiry cannot avoid these factors simply because they involve political leaders. Nor can public statements, interviews or parliamentary debates substitute for sworn evidence tested under the commission’s procedures.

Bell’s decision to reject a public-interest immunity claim regarding certain Cabinet documents was an important development. It affirmed the commission’s authority to examine material central to policy formation. Ministerial evidence would complement that documentary record, giving context and explanation that written material alone cannot supply.

The rise in antisemitism since late 2023 has shaken assurance among Jewish Australians. Threats against schools and synagogues, harassment on campuses, intimidation on public transport and surges in online abuse have created a climate of fear and uncertainty. Communities want assurance that decision-makers recognise both the reality of the threats and the cumulative impact on daily life. The commission’s task is to answer those questions with lucidity and independence.

The ABC and SBS evidence has sharpened the inquiry’s focus. It has shown how public discourse evolved, how communities experienced hostility and how institutions struggled to respond. But it has also made clear that the commission cannot complete its work without hearing from those who shaped national policy during this period.

The decision to call ministers rests solely with Bell. But given the terms of reference, the gravity of the issues and the evidence now before the commission, the case for ministerial testimony is stronger than ever.

Roland Gridiger OAM is a lawyer, Holocaust survivor, and a survivor speaker at the Sydney Jewish Museum.