This article was originally published in Australian Financial Review on or about 22 December 2025 and was written by the author in their capacity as a contributor for that publication.
It has been republished on the IPA website with permission. The views expressed are those of the author alone.
Perhaps what is most noteworthy about the Bondi memorial organisers’ rejection of the prime minister’s offer to speak was how unsurprising it was. Anthony Albanese just doesn’t have a whole lot to say.
The response to the Bondi massacre was a test of leadership and empathy that the prime minister failed.
Consider the comparison with 2002. John Howard’s famous speech in Bali following the twin bombings in Kuta that claimed 88 Australian lives was one of the former prime minister’s finest moments.
Howard’s Bali speech not only offered national solace and resilience, it reinforced Australia’s commitment domestically and with Indonesia to take on terrorism. Howard rose to the occasion as a national leader.
Albanese’s haphazard response highlights an inability to connect with Australians on a deeper level.
The horrifying image of members of Australia’s Jewish community being savagely gunned down at one of Australia’s most iconic locations marked a time for clear and concise national leadership.
Yet few will remember what Albanese has said in the days following the massacre.
Despite a heavy media presence, the prime minister’s efforts have been seen as robotic and wooden.
In one bizarre exchange, Albanese responded to a question about whether the government had done enough to combat antisemitism, claiming “we’re doing what we can”.
To another similar question about his government’s record, he noted “anti-semitism didn’t begin in 2022”.
Small wonder the memorial organisers did not feel compelled to give the prime minister a speaking slot.
If the prime minister were capable of speaking honestly about the condition of the country and social cohesion, then maybe things would have been different. But it is a truth that Albanese dares not speak.
The Bondi massacre highlights that successive governments have had too little regard for the integration of a record number of arrivals into Australia.
In February this year, ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess reported on a surge in antisemitic attacks, pointing out that “the normalisation of violent protest and intimidating behaviour lowered the threshold for provocative and potentially violent acts”.
Thinking and speaking honestly about Bondi invites too many questions about how the policy of multiculturalism has enabled a violent minority under the guise of “cultural diversity”.
One does not need to be a cynic to recognise Albanese’s narrowness. He once remarked “I like fighting Tories, that’s what I do”, offering a testimony to the tribal politics he honed at the University of Sydney as a left-wing student activist.
The prime minister’s response to the Bondi massacre appears to confirm this narrow tribal mentality. Rather than put the national interest first and acknowledge the problem of festering radical Islamism, Albanese has put forward ideas to make restrictive gun laws even more strict and to add more so-called “hate speech” laws to the statute books.
Nobody could seriously argue that it is not already unlawful to incite violence, or that the authorities are incapable of monitoring organisations or individuals that engage in conduct that could lead to violence.
Those who imply that if only the legislation had been different, the attack would not have happened are either lying to us – or to themselves.
The Australian people deserve better from their leaders, but it is telling that so few in parliament could be named to provide that alternative leadership.
The dearth of statesmen in modern politics means the likes of Howard are not waiting in the wings – they are distant memories.
