Document production in the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion

In response to the antisemitic terror attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025, the Federal Government announced a Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.

By 14 December 2026, the Commission must submit its final report documenting the results of the inquiry and recommendations addressing the Australian Government’s response to the terror attack, drivers of the attack and issues concerning the prevalence of antisemitism within the Australian community, including since 7 October 2023.

Scope of the Commission

The Commission’s terms of reference cover extensive ground and are primarily designed to address the following four issues:

• the manifestation of antisemitism in Australia
• the work of law enforcement bodies and other government agencies
• the circumstances of the Bondi Beach terror attack
• the improvement of social cohesion among Australians.

Confidential and sensitive documents – do you have to produce them to the Commission?  

Given the nature of the issues before the Commission, information covering matters of national security will be required. Government agencies and similar bodies will be looking at how to best assist the Commission when calls for these types of documents are made, whilst still ensuring that those confidential documents are not publicly disseminated.  

Ordinarily where the Commission, pursuant to its powers under the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) (Act), compels by way of summons the giving of evidence or production of documents, responding persons may object to the production or publication of that information and/or documents on the ground of public interest immunity.

To that end, the Act has in-built mechanisms that limit the scope of where production and/or publication of a document or thing is required:

• as a defence for the failure to produce, if the document or thing is not relevant to the matters into which the Commission is inquiring
• if a reasonable excuse resisting production is available, and that excuse is not expressly abrogated by the Act (for example, you cannot automatically resist production of a document on the basis of legal professional privilege being a reasonable excuse, as that privilege has been mostly abrogated by s6AA of the Act)
• if the Commission accepts argument made by the responding party in support of a non-publication direction or order sought for the relevant document or part/s of the document.

For the ground of public interest immunity, there is no provision within the Act which prevents a responding party from asserting they have a reasonable excuse, on that ground, to resist production. It is therefore apt to note the following provisions already made in the Letters Patent dated 9 January 2026, which have arguably anticipated the making of public interest immunity claims by parties in this Commission and which requires the Commission to:

 …recognise and appropriately protect any intelligence information or operationally sensitive information.. …establish appropriate arrangements with the heads of the relevant Australian intelligence entities for obtaining, storing, accessing, using, disclosing and returning intelligence information relating to an Australian intelligence entity.

The wording of the aforementioned paragraphs indicates that efforts to limit production on this ground are likely to be futile. It may therefore be more appropriate for responding persons to focus on efforts to limit the publication of those documents. For example, during our engagements in the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants and the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, the respective Commissions issued a detailed practice guideline setting up a sophisticated document management protocol to manage the production of highly sensitive and confidential documents. The practice guideline will typically set out the process for seeking a non-publication direction to limit publication of these documents and will require the responding party to set out the basis for its application, including the concern it seeks to alleviate by obtaining the direction. The Commissioner will then consider and rule on the application.

In our experience, and in the vein of public interest immunity grounds, responding persons have been successful in limiting publication of a document or part of a document on the basis that publication may risk disclosure of internal and operational methodology which may impact ongoing or future operations of the relevant agency or body.

What we can do to assist you

If you would like to discuss how the Commission might affect you or the interests of an organisation in which you are involved, we would be pleased to assist you and can be contacted here. Find out how we support clients through Royal Commissions and Commissions of Inquiry.

We have considerable experience in Royal Commissions and public inquiries. To date, Holding Redlich has been engaged to act in 15 Royal Commissions and Commissions of Inquiry, and has both asserted and defended public interest immunity claims consistently throughout. Some notable engagements include:

• Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants (Lawyer X Royal Commission) – in the role as Solicitors Assisting
• Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide – in the role acting for Comcare, the federal work health and safety regulator and workers’ compensation authority
• Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme – in the role acting for individual persons within Services Australia
• the Liverpool City Council Public Inquiry – in the role as Solicitors Assisting.

Disclaimer
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future.

Published by:

Jessica Tilbury

Howard Rapke

Katerina Stevenson, Randy Palihakkara, Madelyn Rothe

Share this