Dennis Richardson’s shock resignation from the antisemitism royal commission will rattle Australians’ faith in the inquiry’s ability to determine how the worst terror attack in Australian history occurred.
After 15 innocent people were gunned down at a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach late last year, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the former ASIO and Defence Department boss was uniquely qualified to scrutinise whether any policing or intelligence failures contributed to the attack.
When Albanese bowed to public pressure to hold a royal commission, he said Richardson would continue his work and fold it into commissioner Virginia Bell’s probe.
Now Richardson has stepped away with just a month-and-a-half remaining until Bell is scheduled to deliver her interim report. The news blindsided Jewish community leaders, who had been given no indication he was about to quit.
An inquiry that already looked rushed, and was facing questions about its effectiveness, has now suffered a major reputational blow, inflicted from within. In Richardson’s own words, his departure is an “embarrassment all round”.
Presented to the public as a crucial contributor to the royal commission, Richardson now says that he proved “surplus to requirements”. Indeed, he said he was essentially being treated as an overpaid research assistant.
On its first day of public hearings a fortnight ago, the royal commission felt like an airplane being constructed in midair. This reflected the haste with which Bell and her team needed to get the royal commission off the ground if they had any hope of meeting their imposing deadlines.
Much of Bell’s opening statement was spent explaining what the royal commission would not be able to do. One of her key points was that the decision to merge Richardson’s less formal inquiry into the royal commission had complicated and slowed the process.
“Perhaps inevitably, the absorption of an administrative inquiry into this royal commission has led to some delay,” Bell said. She warned that the time it was taking to obtain documents meant it was unlikely her April 30 interim report would form a definitive judgment on policing and intelligence failures. That verdict will have to wait until her final report, due in December.
What was presented as a mere complication was in fact something far deeper. As he was leaving the hearings, Richardson told reporters he was not writing the interim report or, indeed, any report. His job now was to advise Bell and the findings would be written in her voice. He was not complaining, but the need for clarification pointed to a mismatch between public perceptions of his role and his actual duties. Behind the scenes, he was increasingly frustrated about the legalistic, hierarchical nature of the royal commission and the fact the interim report would not contain the specific, practical recommendations he felt ready to deliver.
According to Richardson’s timeline, it was around then he spoke to Bell about maybe resigning. Two weeks later, he walked out the door. Their different approaches to the job proved insurmountable.
Despite multiple early morning interviews and an impromptu press conference, Richardson’s public justification for stepping down remains confusing and unsatisfying. Again and again, reporters asked variations of the same question: Why are you resigning rather than finishing the job? His response – that he didn’t feel sufficiently challenged by the role – didn’t feel commensurate with the seriousness of the task at hand: getting to the bottom of the worst terror attack in Australian history and doing everything possible to ensure such a massacre doesn’t happen again.
His premature departure represents a collective failure.
From the moment Albanese reluctantly announced the federal royal commission, there were concerns about the way it had been established, and how Richardson’s work would fold into it. Now we know that it didn’t just look clunky, it was clunky.
Albanese may privately grumble that he was right to begin with and that a quick, standalone report from Richardson would have been more effective. But it was he who called the royal commission, set its terms of reference and signed off on its structure. He can’t claim the credit for what goes right with the royal commission and blame others for what goes wrong.
If Bell didn’t make Richardson feel sufficiently utilised and sure of his responsibilities, then that is a failure. As for Richardson, he could have carried on for a few more weeks and done his best to be of use, even if he felt the process was cumbersome. If he felt overpaid, he could have taken a pay cut.
Ensuring maximum public confidence in the royal commission is more important than whether any of its employees feeling sufficiently challenged, no matter how impressive their resume.
As the famous dictum states, it is important for justice to be seen to be done, not just that it be done. As well as being effective, the royal commission must be perceived as being effective.
After a rocky start, it is now crucial the royal commission establish its credibility and fulfil its mandate. The survivors of the massacre, the relatives of those who died at Bondi and the Jewish community deserve no less. Neither does the Australian public.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.
Matthew Knott is the foreign affairs and national security correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.Connect via X, Facebook or email.