Gemma Tognini of GT Communication criticized the Australian Royal Commission into Antisemitism for failing to deliver answers or address core issues [1, 2].
The critique highlights growing frustration over whether the commission's current approach can effectively dismantle systemic hatred or hold influential figures accountable.
Speaking during an interview with News24 host Chris Kenny, Tognini questioned the lack of aggressive inquiry into those promoting antisemitic rhetoric [1, 2]. She specifically pointed to the absence of rigorous questioning for individuals who spread views laced with hatred [1].
"Why are we not seeing cross‑examination of some of the people who have been saying and purveying views that are laced with hatred?" Tognini said [1].
Tognini noted that the public and affected communities are relying on the commission to provide concrete results rather than surface-level proceedings [1]. She said there is significant merit to the concerns being raised regarding the commission's current trajectory [1].
"We’re all looking to this royal commission to deliver answers," Tognini said [1].
The commission was established to investigate the prevalence and nature of antisemitism within Australia [2]. However, critics like Tognini argue that without the cross-examination of key purveyors of hate, the process may fail to reach the root of the problem [1, 2].
Tognini's comments suggest a gap between the commission's mandate and its execution, a gap that may leave the community without the clarity it seeks [1].
“"Why are we not seeing cross‑examination of some of the people who have been saying and purveying views that are laced with hatred?"”
This criticism reflects a tension between the procedural nature of royal commissions and the expectations of victims and advocates. If the commission avoids the adversarial process of cross-examination, it risks being perceived as a symbolic gesture rather than a mechanism for legal or social accountability.
