But Richardson\u2019s resignation will create shockwaves inside Bell\u2019s royal commission. Presumably, it will move faster and inject more substance into its interim report. Bell has been put on \u00adnotice. She and Richardson \u00adrespected each other but there was a chasm between them on how to tackle the intelligence and law enforcement issues.<\/p>\n
Richardson raised the prospect of resignation with Bell a fortnight ago, but nothing eventuated in the interim for him to change his mind. Indeed, he was struggling to ensure he had a seat at the table when decisions were being finalised on intelligence and law enforcement.<\/p>\n
The situation is beyond belief: Albanese started with a Richardson review and no royal commission and ends up with a royal commission and no Richardson review. <\/p>\n
The government\u2019s decision in early January to create a royal commission and fold Richardson into the commission was always likely to be flawed. It was taken in haste and under huge pressures. It meant, from that time, there was no Richardson-controlled and authorised security review.<\/p>\n
The ultimate irony is that \u00adAlbanese probably now feels his initial resistance to a royal commission is shown to have had more substance than people recognised at the time. <\/p>\n
The price for Albanese\u2019s retreat to accept the royal commission was having Bell fill the role. He was insistent about that. Bell has judicial credentials. But is Bell the right fit for the job? The Richardson fiasco raises these doubts. Relegating Richardson to what he calls \u201csurplus to requirements\u201d diminishes Bell\u2019s capacity and \u00adreflects badly on her judgment. <\/p>\n
The lawyers in the royal commission, fixated on their procedures, never recognised Richardson\u2019s authority and \u00adexpertise. There is only one boss in a royal commission and that was Bell, the former judge Albanese had hand-picked.<\/p>\n
Richardson\u2019s resignation is ominous when its full significance is grasped. Obviously, he felt the folding of his brief into the royal commission wasn\u2019t working. He didn\u2019t have the authority he \u00adexpected or needed, given Albanese\u2019s earlier claim he was the best person to conduct the security review. But Richardson was alarmed about the direction Bell was setting.<\/p>\n
The initial Richardson inquiry, created by Albanese as an alternative to a royal commission, had advanced beyond interviews and was focused on findings. Richardson had got to the stage of chapter headings and recommendations. But that\u2019s gone. Bell, as royal commissioner, was heading towards a far more limited \u00adinterim report largely without recommendations in relation to intelligence and law enforcement and didn\u2019t want an extension to give it more weight. <\/p>\n
Richardson publicly said he felt the interim report would be a \u201cvery different animal\u201d from his own intention. The point of the initial Richardson review was to deliver a fast response relating to the powers and processes of the intelligence and law enforcements agencies<\/a> after Bondi. <\/p>\n Richardson was also concerned that substantial recommendations on intelligence and law enforcement would be delayed until the royal commission\u2019s December 2026 final report. He saw this as a mistake and an unjustified delay given the gravity of the Bondi attack and the security risk to the Jewish community. <\/p>\n He advised the royal commission that such recommendations must be sent to the executive government when finalised. Richardson also wanted a scheme to fast-track financial support for Jewish and other schools under threat \u2013 a proposal that was delayed.<\/p>\n The notion that Albanese had made a successful pivot from his post-Bondi leadership failures to strike a sound arrangement that incorporated both Bell and Richardson is now in ruins. Albanese had no role in Richardson\u2019s \u00addeparture. The royal commission is independent of government and Richardson did not speak to Albanese before he resigned. But this week\u2019s drama will only put Bell under more pressure and that, in turn, will intensify the pressure for Albanese<\/a>. <\/p>\n The opposition, unsurpris\u00adingly, calls Richardson\u2019s resignation a \u201cdisaster\u201d. Richardson downplayed this comment and has tried to be supportive of Bell in his public comments. The Jewish community faces a dilemma \u2013 it wants to support Albanese and the royal commission yet its worries about the commission and Bell will only intensify. <\/p>\n Read related topics:Anthony Albanese<\/a> Paul Kelly is Editor-at-Large on The Australian. He was previously Editor-in-Chief of the paper and he writes on Australian politics, public policy and international affairs. Paul has covered Australian governments from Gough Whitlam to Anthony Albanese. He is a regular television commentator and the author and co-author of twelve books books including The End of Certainty on the politics and economics of the 1980s. His recent books include Triumph and Demise on the Rudd-Gillard era and The March of Patriots which offers a re-interpretation of Paul Keating and John Howard in office.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"10 hours ago. Updated\u00a08 hours ago The consequences are serious for Bell, for Albanese and for Australia\u2019s security…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":653184,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[2],"tags":[38602,4740,277119,277111,277103,196121,277105,277106,254061,277110,277113,277108,2936,50,277116,277104,277115,68127,277121,97229,277114,277107,277118,277109,277112,277117,277120],"class_list":["post-653183","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","tag-anthony-albanese","tag-australia","tag-authorised-security-review","tag-cohesion-challenges","tag-dennis-richardson","tag-dink","tag-fast-response","tag-fast-track-financial-support","tag-final-report","tag-initial-resistance","tag-interim-report","tag-judicial-credentials","tag-law-enforcement","tag-news","tag-paul-lawrence-kelly","tag-richard-dobson","tag-right-fit","tag-royal-commission","tag-royal-commissioner","tag-royal-commissions","tag-security-arrangements","tag-security-chief","tag-security-maestro","tag-security-review","tag-security-risk","tag-substantial-recommendations","tag-urgent-security"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":"Validation failed: Text character limit of 500 exceeded"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/653183","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=653183"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/653183\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/653184"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=653183"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=653183"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=653183"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"Paul](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/paul_kelly.png\")
<\/a>Paul Kelly<\/a>Editor-At-Large<\/p>\n