TRANSCRIPT - ABC AM RADIO INTERVEIW WITH DAVID LIPSON - TUESDAY 30 DECEMBER 2025
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
INTERVIEW
ABC RADIO NATIONAL AM - DAVID LIPSON
TUESDAY, 30 DECEMBER 2025
SUBJECTS: Dennis Richardson review, response to request for federal royal commission, NSW royal commission
DAVID LIPSON: Almost every day since the Bondi terror attack, the pressure has continued to pile on the Prime Minister to hold a royal commission with victims, families, security and legal experts, leaders of various religious groups and some Labor MPs all calling for such an inquiry. And almost every day the government has sought to explain why it's not a good idea, suggesting a royal commission would take too long and yesterday claiming it would platform the worst voices of anti-Semitism. Instead, it's announced a review into the actions of federal security agencies led by former spy chief Dennis Richardson. Tony Burke is the Minister for Home Affairs and joins me now. Good morning.
MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS, TONY BURKE: Good morning, David.
LIPSON: Why don't the terms of reference for this review by Dennis Richardson mention the word antisemitism?
BURKE: The review from Dennis Richardson is clearly, and you go through the terms, it's in the wake of an antisemitic terror attack. That's what it's in the wake of.
LIPSON: So why doesn't it mention that word?
BURKE: It's specifically in the wake of Bondi, like there is no way of conducting that inquiry without dealing with antisemitism. What matters is that we have terms of reference that give Dennis Richardson all the powers to be able to deal and provide recommendations, and provide recommendations fast on anything we need to do to be able to upgrade the national security systems in Australia. That's what that's about. And it's. And there is an urgency to us being able to do this. The other methods of inquiry that are proposed take years.
LIPSON: Not always. You can deliver an interim report, for example, in a royal commission that could be tightly focused on security matters.
BURKE: In terms of a royal commission for the security part of it, the benefits of a royal commission where you have them are that the evidence is heard publicly. That's overwhelmingly the long-term benefit of using a royal commission method. But you also, in a royal commission, have retired judges usually chairing them. This is the right sort of inquiry to be able to deal with things quickly. It has the right powers, and it also has the right expert. Nobody in Australia is better qualified to be able to provide across the board advice on national security than Dennis Richardson.
LIPSON: You say a royal commission is a bad idea because it would platform some of the worst of antisemitic voices. Isn't that precisely one of the reasons to do it? To ventilate the trauma and prosecute the issues so we better understand and address the problem.
BURKE: We have other royal commissions... say a royal commission into child abuse, for example, where that has happened for institutions, you have all the different arguments being vented, but nobody there saying, I didn't believe this wasn’t abuse. When you are dealing with the events of the last two years, I do not want to see the people who organise the protests outside of the Opera House explaining publicly with all that platform that you get from a royal commission, as to why they believe what they were doing was reasonable.
LIPSON: But the families want that, don't they? The community. And the families want that. The Jewish community.
BURKE: I'm yet to find anybody who wants people like that to be given a platform. What the community is certainly asking for is certainly asking for their voices to be heard. They are certainly asking for the trauma and experience that they have been through to be able to be understood. And they are asking for answers, for solutions and for accountability.
LIPSON: The review by Dennis Richardson doesn't have royal commission powers, obviously. It relies on cooperation from the security agencies under investigation. And, you know, former AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty makes this point. It requests information while a royal commission compels evidence under oath. Why don't the victims of this atrocity deserve the most thorough federal inquiry Australia has to offer?
BURKE: Dennis Richardson will get full cooperation from the agencies, full cooperation. They have guaranteed that, he is comfortable with the guarantees he's been given. The government's guaranteed that.
LIPSON: That's your assurance, and I'm not disputing that. But, you know, isn't part of this about perception? You know, the public needs to see this happening in a fully independent way in an inquiry that is out of the control of the government of the day.
BURKE: Well, there is no attempt from the government to be in control of what Dennis Richardson does. Dennis Richardson has his terms of reference. He will conduct that. He will do that independently and he will get full cooperation.
LIPSON: You understand politics well, and you would have seen and no doubt felt the mounting pressure for a royal commission. Can you now categorically rule out any royal commission in the future?
BURKE: Well, there will be a royal commission from New South Wales.
LIPSON: Federal Royal Commission.
BURKE: I'm just answering the question you asked. There will be a royal commission from New South Wales. We will cooperate with that. That will happen. We have made clear that when we look at what needs to be done. For what needs to be done in terms of antisemitism, for what needs to be done in terms of national security, the process that people have gone through, and I understand completely, completely why people start at royal commission. We have just had the most extraordinary, horrific massacre on Australian soil and people see the worst event and say, well, logically, that means you should go straight to what is normally the biggest response. That is a completely logical starting point for people to get to, and I understand it completely. But when you look at that method and you say, okay, it's not the best pathway for national security, and it carries very real risks of making social cohesion worse and of actually platforming some of the voices that are the most dangerous, then that's why the government chooses a different path.
LIPSON: So you're not ruling out a royal commission, a federal one?
BURKE: I've made clear that we are going down a different pathway.
LIPSON: Ok.
BURKE: I've made that clear. We've made that clear continuously.
LIPSON: Tony Burke, thank you for your time.
BURKE: Thanks, David.
ENDS