Jack Waterford | Albanese criticised over Bondi massacre inquiry | The Border Mail

That need won’t be, cannot be, satisfied by a private and secret inquiry conducted by a security insider however conscientiously he goes about his remit. He might satisfy Albanese’s limited desire for information, but he will not – cannot – make findings of fact about what happened at Bondi, the actions of various police agencies and civilians, the quality of the information exchange between Commonwealth and state agencies, or the efficacy and circumstances of actions by ministers, at both state and federal level, to combat anti-Semitic feeling. Some of the “facts” will be contested, and his authority to make findings will be limited if those with strong views and feelings cannot cross-examine witnesses, to contest evidence presented, or to put alternative interpretations of what occurred. Richardson is, in this sense, neither a judicially trained person, however expert he is in Australia’s intelligence community and its functions, nor a person who will feel comfortable in making rulings about strongly contested issues, such as the definition of anti-Semitism.