Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion – Day 1 Summary

The Royal Commission’s first public hearing took place in Sydney at 10:30 am on 24 February 2026, with Commissioner the Hon Virginia Bell AC SC opening proceedings. The session was procedural, no evidence or witness testimony was presented.

1. Commission remit and process:
Commissioner Bell outlined how the inquiry will proceed against its terms of reference: examining the nature and prevalence of antisemitism in Australia, the circumstances around the Bondi terror attack, and recommendations for strengthening social cohesion and countering ideologically and religiously motivated extremism.

2. Definition of antisemitism:
Bell confirmed that the Commission will apply the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism as its analytical foundation. She acknowledged criticisms of that definition but noted it must be applied in context, and clarified that criticism of Israeli government policies, by itself, is not antisemitic.

3. Scope limitations:
Because a criminal trial of the Bondi shooter is ongoing, the Commission will not hear eyewitness accounts or detailed evidence about the attack at this stage, to avoid prejudice to that process.

4. Broader context:
Commissioner Bell indicated that while antisemitism is the central focus, broader issues of prejudice against religious faiths, ethnicities and cultures are part of the cohesion inquiry.

5. Call for submissions:
Jewish Australians were specifically encouraged to share experiences of antisemitism, whether in schools, workplaces or daily life, through written submissions.

What Didn’t Happen

• No testimony from survivors or victims’ families due to trial sensitivities.
• No evidence was heard.
• No formal statements from other affected communities or organisations were presented on Day 1.

Why This Matters

1. Definitions Will Shape the Inquiry’s Outcomes

The decision to adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, including its examples, is foundational. That definition includes some examples relating to criticism of Israel that have drawn controversy. The way the Commission interprets and applies it will influence its findings on what constitutes antisemitism in Australia.

2. Nothing Is Fixed — Context and Submissions Still Matter

Bell explicitly invited submissions and cautioned that context matters in applying definitions. That means the Commission is open to evidence and argument about interpretation, scope, and boundaries. This is a critical opportunity to frame how definitions affect broader communities.

3. The Commission Acknowledged Broader Prejudice Issues

While the focus is on antisemitism, the Commissioner also recognised that other religions and ethnicities experience prejudice, an opening for broader engagement on issues like Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism if framed within the cohesion mandate.

4. Procedural Restraint Signals Credibility

Bell’s emphasis on avoiding prejudice in an ongoing criminal trial and on the contextual application of definitions suggests a methodical, evidence-based approach rather than reactive policymaking.

Implications Going Forward

📌 Definitions matter: The IHRA definition’s use will be a touchstone for how the Commission evaluates alleged antisemitism, and how it distinguishes it from political expression.

📌 Narrative framing is fluid: Early acknowledgement of other forms of prejudice offers a structural opening if submitted arguments are well grounded.

📌 Record building starts now: The initial framing of scope, definitions, and evidentiary limits will influence interim and final reports, and ultimately shape national law and policy responses.

Follow us

Instagram