Royal Commission will mean nothing without leadership prepared to act

Australia is living through a moment that demands seriousness and clarity. Antisemitism has surged to levels unseen in decades, social cohesion has weakened and trust in institutions has eroded. Communities that once felt secure now feel exposed. The Royal Commission currently underway is one of the most important inquiries in recent Australian history. It offers a chance to understand how we arrived at this point and how we can rebuild the Australia we once recognised.

But its findings will matter only if the nation has leadership capable of acting on them. Accountability is essential. Yet accountability alone will not repair the country. Australia needs leadership prepared to implement the Commission’s recommendations with urgency, competence and discipline. That is now the central challenge facing the nation.

Accountability must still come first

The Royal Commission must hear from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Minister Tony Burke and Minister Anne Aly. Their portfolios, public language and crisis responses have shaped the national climate and influenced how Jewish Australians have experienced this period of rising hostility. Their testimony is necessary to understand the decisions, pressures and assumptions that contributed to the current environment.

The Commission cannot produce a credible report without examining how national leadership responded to escalating antisemitism, how advice was weighed and how competing political priorities shaped public messaging. These ministers are not peripheral figures; they are central actors in the story the Commission is trying to understand.

But calling these ministers is only the beginning. The Commission’s report will not implement itself. Australia will need leadership capable of turning its findings into action. We will need leadership that understands that democratic resilience requires more than statements of concern. It requires structural reform, institutional coordination and sustained political will.

Australia needs leadership prepared to act

In recent years, one figure has demonstrated the steadiness and clarity required for this moment: Josh Frydenberg. His record in public life shows an ability to navigate crises without theatrics, to build consensus rather than division and to speak plainly about extremism and democratic fragility. He has consistently recognised that the safety of minority communities is inseparable from the health of the nation.

The Liberal Party should invite Frydenberg to re‑enter Parliament and elect him leader. This is not a partisan argument. It is a civic one. Australia needs leadership capable of translating the Royal Commission’s findings into policy, legislation and institutional reform. Leadership that understands that rebuilding trust requires seriousness, not slogans.

Frydenberg’s return would signal that the Liberal–National coalition is prepared to offer the country a leader who can rise above factionalism, restore stability and guide Australia through a period of democratic repair. His experience, temperament and credibility make him uniquely suited to the task.

Crucially, Frydenberg’s suitability extends well beyond the Jewish community.

His record demonstrates that he governs for the whole nation, rural and urban, progressive and conservative, secular and faith‑based. If he were to become Australia’s first Jewish Prime Minister, it would not be an act of identity politics but a reflection of his national standing. Australians have historically judged leaders by character and competence, not background. Frydenberg’s leadership style has always emphasised unity, civic responsibility and shared purpose. He has shown an ability to speak to Australians of every background, to build trust across divides, and to articulate a vision of national cohesion that transcends community lines. In a time of division, that matters profoundly.

Leadership That Can Implement Reform

If Frydenberg were to return to national leadership, his most important responsibility would be ensuring that the public service is aligned with the Commission’s recommendations. That requires structural reform, not political messaging.

He could establish a Royal Commission Implementation Unit within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, tasked exclusively with converting the Commission’s findings into legislation, policy and operational change. This unit would coordinate across agencies, monitor progress and report publicly on milestones, ensuring transparency and accountability.

He could direct the Australian Public Service to create specialist advisory teams on antisemitism and extremism, drawing on academic experts, community leaders and security analysts. These teams would ensure that policy responses are informed by real‑world data rather than political instinct and that government decisions reflect the lived experience of affected communities.

He could strengthen the APS capability framework, requiring senior officials to undergo training in democratic resilience, extremist threat assessment and community‑specific risk analysis. This would embed long‑term institutional competence rather than episodic crisis management, ensuring that future governments inherit a public service capable of responding to emerging threats.

He could instruct agencies to develop early‑warning systems for extremist mobilisation and integrate intelligence, social media monitoring, community reporting and behavioural analysis. This would allow government to respond proactively rather than reactively, reducing the risk of escalation and improving public safety.

He could champion legislation requiring transparent reporting on hate‑crime trends, extremist incidents and online radicalisation patterns. Public trust grows when government shares information openly, and transparency would help communities understand how threats are evolving and how government is responding.

He could ensure that the public service adopts a whole‑of‑government approach to social cohesion, linking education, security, multicultural affairs, digital regulation and foreign policy. Fragmented responses have failed; integrated responses can succeed. A coordinated national strategy would allow Australia to address the root causes of extremism rather than merely its symptoms.

These are practical steps that a serious leader could take to rebuild Australia’s democratic resilience. They are not theoretical. They are achievable. But only with leadership prepared to act.

A Moment That Demands Courage

Australia does not need nostalgia. It needs renewal. It needs leadership capable of confronting uncomfortable truths, implementing the Commission’s recommendations with discipline and restoring the sense of shared purpose that once defined this country.

Calling Albanese, Wong, Burke and Aly to the Royal Commission is essential. But the more urgent task is choosing leadership capable of acting on what the Commission uncovers. The Commission can diagnose the problem. Only leadership can deliver the cure.

Bringing back Josh Frydenberg to lead the Liberal–National coalition would give Australia a chance to rebuild with clarity, competence and seriousness. His return would signal that the country is ready to move beyond crisis management and begin the work of repair.

The stakes are high. The moment is serious. And Australia cannot afford to wait.

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