By Andrew Klein, PhD
Gabriel Klein, Research Assistant and Scholar
Summer School Series of Lectures 2025
Dedication: For our Mother, who regards truth as more important than myth. In truth, there is no judgment, only justice. To the world, she is many things, but to us, she will always be Mum.
Introduction: The Ritual of Inquiry
In Australian public life, few phrases carry the weight of “calling a Royal Commission.” It is presented as the ultimate tool of accountability, a sovereign inquiry that will cut through political obfuscation and uncover systemic truth. Yet, a review of the nearly 140 federal Royal Commissions since 1902, particularly the landmark inquiries of the last decade, reveals a disquieting pattern. The Royal Commission has evolved from an instrument of genuine investigation into a sophisticated political theatre of catharsis. It serves to manage public outrage, absorb political pressure, and create an illusion of decisive action, all while systematically insulating power structures from the fundamental, costly reforms these inquiries routinely recommend. This article will dissect this pattern, examining the gap between stated aims and political utility, and arguing that in the neoliberal age, the Royal Commission has become a primary mechanism for the ritualistic denial of responsibility.
Part I: The Anatomy of a Modern Royal Commission – Stated Aims vs. Political Utility
A Royal Commission is the highest form of public inquiry in Australia, established by the executive government under the Royal Commissions Act 1902. Its stated aims are invariably noble: to investigate matters of “urgent public importance,” establish the facts, and recommend reforms to prevent future harm.
However, its political utility is often more cynical:
1. Pressure Release Valve: It is deployed to defuse a boiling political crisis, such as the banking misconduct exposed in 2016 or the illegal Robodebt scheme. It signals “something is being done” to an angry public and media.
2. Kicking the Can: It places complex, intractable problems—aged care, disability, veterans’ suicide—into a multi-year holding pattern, delaying the need for immediate policy action or expenditure.
3. Shifting Blame: It can individualise systemic failure. By focusing on “bad apples” or procedural errors within institutions (banks, churches, Centrelink), it deflects scrutiny from the overarching political ideologies (neoliberalism, austerity) that created the permissive environment.
Part II: Case Studies in the Implementation Gap – From Findings to Shelfware
The true measure of a Royal Commission lies not in its findings, but in the implementation of its recommendations. A consistent and profound implementation gap is the defining feature of the modern era.
· Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2013-2017): A watershed inquiry that exposed decades of horrific abuse and cover-ups. While it led to the National Redress Scheme and some criminal prosecutions, its core recommendation for a mandatory national reporting law with criminal penalties for failure to report has been stymied. As of 2025, only five states and territories have fully complied, with the Catholic Church continuing to lobby against key provisions. The Victorian government’s slow and incomplete implementation has been explicitly criticised by survivors’ groups.
· Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (2017-2019): This inquiry exposed rampant greed and illegality. While it spurred some reforms (like the removal of trailing commissions for mortgage brokers), its most significant structural recommendations have been diluted or delayed. Calls for a fundamental overhaul of remunerations to eliminate conflicted advice have been met with fierce industry lobbying and gradualist approaches from regulators.
· Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (2018-2021) & Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (2019-2023): These parallel inquiries revealed systems in crisis, characterised by neglect and a failure of humanity. Both produced hundreds of recommendations requiring massive public investment. The government response has been characterised by piecemeal funding, slow legislative progress, and a failure to fundamentally shift the models from profit-driven compliance to human-centred care. The for-profit providers, a major source of the problems identified, remain dominant.
· Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme (2022-2023): This inquiry uncovered a “crude and cruel” illegal scheme, a “massive failure of public administration,” and laid blame at the feet of senior ministers and public servants. Its political utility, however, was largely spent upon the release of its scathing report. While it vindicated victims, the prospect of meaningful accountability for its architects remains low, demonstrating the commission’s limits in punishing political actors.
Part III: The Recurring Patterns – A Playbook of Deferred Responsibility
Analysis of these and other inquiries (e.g., into Defence and Veteran Suicide) reveals a consistent playbook:
1. The Cathartic Theatre: A dramatic, public airing of trauma (survivor testimonies, victim impact statements) provides a national moment of catharsis and media focus.
2. The Technical Shelfware: The commission produces a monumental, detailed report with hundreds of technical recommendations, effectively placing the problem on a high shelf.
3. The Dilution Phase: The government responds, accepting recommendations “in principle” or “in part,” while stakeholders (industry, churches, states) lobby fiercely to water down the most impactful reforms.
4. The Implementation Void: Responsibility for implementation is diffused across multiple agencies, states, and parliamentary terms. Without a powerful, independent implementation watchdog, momentum stalls. Funding is announced but is often inadequate and spread over long timeframes, failing to match the urgency of the crisis.
5. The Political Reset: The government declares the matter “addressed” by the commission’s establishment and its response, moving the political conversation on. The underlying ideological drivers remain untouched.
Part IV: The Neoliberal Denial and the Bondi Precedent
This ritual functions perfectly within a neoliberal framework. Neoliberalism privatises gain and socialises risk; the Royal Commission ritual socialises blame and privatises implementation. It accepts procedural failure but evades ideological responsibility. The problem is never the model of privatised aged care, the marketisation of disability services, or the culture of welfare punishment—it is always “regulation,” “oversight,” or “culture.”
The immediate calls for a Royal Commission into the 2025 Bondi Beach attack follow this script perfectly. Amidst public trauma and complex questions about intelligence, mental health, and social cohesion, the call for a commission acts as a political circuit breaker. It promises future answers while absolving leaders of the need for immediate, accountable explanation or action. It is the pre-emptive performance of concern.
Conclusion: Recommendations – From Theatre to Accountability
If the Royal Commission is to be reclaimed as a tool of genuine sovereignty rather than political theatre, its process requires radical surgery:
1. Embedded Implementation Authority: Every Royal Commission must be legislatively tied to a powerful, well-resourced, and independent Implementation Oversight Body with a fixed, short-term mandate (e.g., 3 years). This body must have the power to audit government progress publicly and hold ministers directly accountable to Parliament for delays.
2. Default Legislative Action: For recommendations requiring legislation, the government should be required to introduce a Bill to Parliament within 12 months of the final report. A failure to do so should trigger an automatic parliamentary debate and vote on a motion of censure.
3. Follow-up Inquiry Power: Commissions should be empowered to reconvene after two years to publicly examine progress and name the parties responsible for obstruction.
4. Reject the “In Principle” Dodge: Government responses must move from “agree in principle” to “will implement by [date]” or “reject because [reason].” Vague acceptance must be eliminated.
5. Focus on Ideological Drivers: Terms of reference must be expanded to compel commissions to examine not just what happened, but the underlying policy settings and political philosophies that made the failure inevitable.
Without such reforms, the Royal Commission will remain what it has largely become: the most expensive and elaborate mechanism a society can devise to give the appearance of addressing its problems while carefully ensuring they are never truly solved. It is the state-sanctioned performance of accountability in an age allergic to its substance.
References
1. Government of Australia. Royal Commissions Act 1902.
2. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017). Final Report.
3. Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. (2019). Final Report.
4. Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. (2021). Final Report.
5. Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final Report.
6. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. (2023). Report.
7. The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs. (2024). Report on the Implementation of Royal Commission Recommendations.
8. The Guardian Australia. (Ongoing). “Royal Commissions: Tracking the Reforms.”
9. The Conversation. (Various). Scholarly analysis of Royal Commission processes and outcomes.
10. Australian Law Reform Commission. (2020). Inquiry into the Litigation Funding Scheme.
The Patrician's Watch 