Australia’s pursuit of social harmony just hit a significant roadblock. The decision to refuse the Palestinian peak body leave to appear at the royal commission on antisemitism and social cohesion isn't just a procedural hiccup. It's a fundamental failure to understand how interconnected these issues really are. You can't fix one side of a fractured society by looking through a peephole.
The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) sought to be a part of this conversation. They weren't asking to take over. They wanted to provide context on how the current geopolitical climate affects Palestinian Australians and, by extension, the broader social fabric. The commission said no. This move risks turning a vital inquiry into a siloed exercise that ignores the messy, overlapping reality of modern Australian life.
Why social cohesion requires every voice at the table
Social cohesion isn't a buzzword. It’s the glue that keeps a multicultural society from cracking under pressure. When the federal government announced this royal commission, the goal was clear: address the rising tide of antisemitism while ensuring all Australians feel safe and included.
But here’s the thing. You don't get a complete picture of social friction by excluding one of the groups most directly impacted by the current global tension. By denying APAN standing, the commission creates a vacuum.
I’ve seen this before in public policy. You try to solve a specific problem by narrowing the scope so much that you miss the root causes. Palestinian Australians are reporting record levels of Islamophobia and targeted harassment. Their experiences aren't separate from the rise in antisemitism; they're often two sides of the same coin of rising intolerance. Ignoring one side doesn't make the other side easier to solve. It just makes the final report incomplete.
The legal wall and the Palestinian peak body
The technical reason for the refusal usually boils down to "relevance" or "legal standing." Royal commissions have tight timelines. They have specific terms of reference. Judges running these shows often worry about "mission creep." They don't want the inquiry to turn into a debate about Middle Eastern history.
That’s a fair concern in a vacuum. However, we aren't living in a vacuum.
The Palestinian peak body argued that their inclusion was necessary to understand the full scope of how international conflicts bleed into Australian streets. They wanted to talk about the dehumanization that fuels hate on both sides. If the commission is tasked with looking at "social cohesion," how can it justify ignoring the peak representative body for a community that is currently at the center of the national conversation?
It feels like a defensive play. It’s easier to manage a narrow inquiry than a broad one. But easy isn't what we need right now. We need a difficult, honest, and uncomfortable look at why Australians are turning on each other. You don't get that by keeping the "difficult" voices outside the room.
What this means for the credibility of the inquiry
Trust is the currency of any royal commission. If a significant portion of the population feels like the process is rigged or biased from the start, the final recommendations won't hold weight. They'll be dismissed as partisan.
I talk to people in these communities daily. The sentiment is shifting from "let’s see what they find" to "they’ve already made up their minds." That’s dangerous. When people lose faith in formal institutions, they look for alternative ways to be heard. Often, those ways are less constructive.
The commission’s mandate includes looking at the impact of the October 7 attacks and the subsequent war on Australian society. APAN represents thousands of people who have lost family members, who are watching their heritage being destroyed, and who are facing backlash here at home. Their perspective on "social cohesion" is literally lived experience.
Breaking down the exclusion
- The Scope Argument: Critics say the commission is specifically about antisemitism. But the title explicitly includes "social cohesion." You can't have one without the other.
- The Time Argument: There’s a claim that adding more parties slows things down. Justice delayed is justice denied, sure. But a fast report that's wrong is worse than a slow one that's right.
- The Neutrality Argument: Some fear APAN’s presence would "politicize" the commission. Newsflash: it’s already political. Pretending it isn't is just gaslighting.
The ripple effect on Australian multiculturalism
Australia prides itself on being a successful multicultural experiment. We love our food festivals and our diverse suburbs. But true multiculturalism is tested during times of war and grief. That’s where we are right now.
By sidelining the Palestinian peak body, the commission sends a message that some grief is more "relevant" than others. That some fears are more worthy of state-funded investigation. This creates a hierarchy of victimhood that is the absolute antithesis of social cohesion.
Think about the schoolyards. Think about the universities. These are the places where "social cohesion" actually lives or dies. Students are arguing. Teachers are struggling to manage the tension. If the royal commission doesn't provide a roadmap that includes everyone, those tensions will just keep simmering.
Moving beyond the gatekeeping
We need to stop treating these issues as a zero-sum game. Acknowledging the pain and the rights of Palestinian Australians doesn't diminish the very real and terrifying rise of antisemitism. In fact, understanding the mechanics of hate helps everyone.
If the commission stays on this track, it’ll produce a report that's technically proficient but socially useless. It will be a document that sits on a shelf because half the country feels ignored by it.
The commissioners need to rethink this. Even if they don't grant full "party standing" with the power to cross-examine, there must be a formal, high-level way for APAN to contribute. A submission in a pile of thousands isn't enough for a peak body.
What you can do next
Don't just wait for the final report to drop in eighteen months. The process is happening now, and it’s flawed.
- Demand transparency: Keep an eye on who is granted leave to appear. If the balance is skewed, call it out. Public pressure matters.
- Support independent reporting: Follow outlets that are actually talking to both Jewish and Palestinian community leaders. Don't rely on soundbites.
- Engage locally: Social cohesion starts at the bottom. Talk to your neighbors. Support local initiatives that bring different groups together without waiting for a government stamp of approval.
- Write to your MP: Let them know that a royal commission into social cohesion that excludes major stakeholders is a waste of taxpayer money.
The Palestinian peak body being shut out is a symptom of a larger problem. We're afraid of the full truth. We’re afraid that if we hear everyone’s pain at once, it’ll be too much to handle. But that’s exactly what a royal commission is for. It’s supposed to handle the "too much." Anything less is just a performance.
