Will Albo be called?

Andrew L. Urban

It starts today. Witnesses will be heard at the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, starting with Alex Ryvchin,  co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Ever since the release of the Terms of Reference, we have been concerned at how probing Commissioner Virgina Bell will be to examine how Labor’s actions generated the environment in which antisemitism flourished since October 7, 2023. Are we heading for a case of wrongful conviction, wrongfully blaming failures of the security services while ignoring the grave mistakes – commissions and omissions – of PM Albanese and Team? See our full submission to the Commission.

Early this morning I emailed the media team at the Commission, asking if the PM will be called as a witness and whether any Premiers will be called. The team promptly replied: ” Our witness lists will continue to be published on our website. Hearing Block 1 focuses on lived experienced witnesses.” We’ll have to wait. But yes, he could be called; he enjoys no legal immunity.

There are indications the commission is willing to scrutinise government decision-making broadly, with calls for “direct and frank evidence from ministers” to avoid gaps in accountability. That suggests senior political figures could be asked to give evidence.

But can we really expect Commissioner Bell to indict the PM, who appointed her, for any significant contributions to the blooming of antisemitism via his own decisions?

The PM could be called if his personal knowledge or decisions are directly in issue. I argue that proviso apples; the questions below outline why I believe so (they are not exhaustive):

Some questions for Albo at the Royal Commission:

Responding to media in December 2025, you have said that you could have done more to act on antisemitism. In retrospect, what could you and your Government have done better?

The September 2025 recognition of a non-existent State of Palestine, celebrated by the terrorist group Hamas, is often cited as a contributing factor to the atmosphere of antisemitism in Australia. Do you accept the criticism as valid?

March 15, 2024: Resumption of UNRWA Funding: After a brief pause in January 2024 due to allegations of UNRWA staff involvement in the October 7 attacks, in March 2024 the government resumed and increased funding to UNRWA by another $6 million. This decision faced backlash from pro-Israel groups amid ongoing investigations. Do you consider that decision reinforced the view that your government favoured Palestinians at the expense of Israel and Jews in general?

August 12, 2025: Statement on Netanyahu Being “In Denial” Over Gaza Suffering. You accused Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu of being “in denial” about the suffering inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza, amid calls for a ceasefire. This personal critique was seen as escalating Australia’s criticism. Should you have made this criticism private to avoid inflaming antisemitism in Australia?

A number intending Israeli visitors to Australia have been denied visas, including former Israeli cabinet minister Ayelet Shaked. In contrast, thousands of visas have been granted to Palestinians (framed by some as “anti-Israeli”). Was this a deliberate policy to denigrate Israel?

Why was there such limited response from your government to the various outbreaks of antisemitic violence and hate, ranging from campus intimidation to hate preachers celebrating the Hamas attack?