The federal inquiry found that Australia’s Jewish community “was the evident target of the attack,” in which Sajid Akram and his son Naveed allegedly opened fire on crowds gathered at the Sydney beachfront suburb on Dec. 14, marking the country’s deadliest mass shooting in three decades.

An email sent by the Community Security Group to police before the event warned that “a terrorist attack against the NSW Jewish Community is likely and there is a high level of antisemitic vilification,” the report said.Police responded that they could not provide dedicated officers for the Hanukkah gathering but said mobile patrols would be sent to “check in and monitor the event,” according to the inquiry.

The commission said police should consider strengthening security arrangements for Jewish celebrations that have a strong public presence, particularly during periods of heightened threat.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Thursday the federal government would implement all recommendations made by the inquiry and pledged stronger protections for the community.“I can assure the Australian public that the government will do everything necessary to protect the community in the wake of the Bondi attack,” Albanese told reporters.

Asked whether police had failed to adequately monitor the Bondi event, Albanese said operational responsibility rested with the New South Wales state government.The royal commission, Australia’s highest form of public inquiry, is examining intelligence failures, police preparedness and the broader rise of antisemitism across the country following the attack.

It said Australia’s counter-terrorism capabilities “could be improved” and recommended an immediate review of leadership structures and information-sharing arrangements between agencies responsible for national security and counter-terrorism.

The shooting triggered widespread debate over antisemitism in Australia, public anger over the protection of Jewish communities and renewed political pressure to tighten gun control and hate crime laws.

Victims’ families wrote an open letter in December urging Albanese to establish a federal royal commission into what they described as the rapid rise of antisemitism in Australia.“We demand answers and solutions,” the letter said.

Sajid Akram, 50, was shot dead by police during the attack. His 24-year-old son Naveed, an Australian-born citizen, remains in custody and has been charged with terrorism offenses and 15 counts of murder.

The inquiry is being led by former High Court judge Virginia Bell and is expected to continue examining evidence through public hearings over the coming months.

Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme, once hailed as one of the country’s most ambitious social policy reforms, is undergoing its most significant restructuring since its creation as the Albanese government moves to curb rising costs and restore what ministers describe as long-term sustainability.

The federal government this week announced sweeping changes to the NDIS, including tighter eligibility rules and mandatory independent functional assessments for all participants, in a package projected to save the budget A$35 billion over four years.

The reforms come as annual scheme costs approach A$50 billion and concerns intensify over whether the system can remain financially viable in its current form.David Bowen, the inaugural chief executive of the National Disability Insurance Agency, said the scale the scheme has reached would likely have prevented it from being approved had governments anticipated its current size.

“Had any government, of any political persuasion, known it was going to be this size, by this time, it would have never been funded in the first place,” Bowen said.The NDIS was introduced following a landmark 2011 Productivity Commission report, which described Australia’s previous disability support framework as underfunded, fragmented and inefficient.

The commission proposed a national insurance model that would provide individualised support for people with permanent and significant disabilities, replacing the inconsistent state-based systems that had long drawn criticism.At full implementation, the scheme was expected to support around 410,000 Australians and cost approximately A$13.5 billion annually. Alongside it, a second level of support—known as tier two was intended to provide broader community-based assistance for the roughly four million Australians living with disability who would not qualify for individualised packages under the NDIS.The commission argued that while the upfront costs would be substantial, the long-term economic and social benefits would significantly outweigh the expenditure.

Over time, however, participation and costs expanded far beyond original projections. Health Minister Mark Butler said the growth was driven by both structural design flaws and implementation failures, including poor market regulation and an eligibility system that allowed broader entry than originally intended.

Butler said the NDIS had become vulnerable to what he described as a “free-for-all” environment in parts of the support market, allowing some providers to exploit weak oversight while costs accelerated.He also said the eligibility framework had shifted away from assessing functional impairment toward diagnosis-based access, allowing significantly more people to enter the scheme than policymakers initially expected.

The largest area of growth has been autism-related participation. According to government figures, people with autism now account for 324,200 participants, representing 43% of all people currently enrolled in the NDIS.Bowen said that during the trial years of the scheme, an autism diagnosis alone was not sufficient for entry and eligibility was based more strictly on the level of functional impairment.

He said that changed after his retirement from the NDIA in 2017 and described the policy shift as one that broadened the scheme “incalculably.”In response to this expansion, Butler last year announced a jointly funded A$4 billion federal-state initiative known as Thriving Kids, aimed at supporting children under nine with mild developmental delays and autism outside the NDIS and reducing pressure on the scheme.

The government now plans to legislate a system under which every participant will undergo evidence-based independent assessments to determine both eligibility and the level of support required. The proposal mirrors, in part, reforms previously attempted by the Coalition government under Scott Morrison.

In 2021, the Coalition proposed mandatory independent assessments requiring participants to complete a three-hour interview with a government-contracted health professional. The plan was met with strong opposition from disability advocates, state governments and Labor, which accused the government at the time of undermining the scheme.

Labor campaigned in the 2022 election on protecting the NDIS and criticised the Coalition over attempts to reduce access. After winning government, however, the fiscal reality of the scheme’s rapid expansion prompted a policy shift.Bill Shorten, appointed as NDIS minister, took charge of reforms to a system he had helped establish during the Gillard government.

He commissioned a major review led by Bruce Bonyhady, another key architect of the NDIS, which recommended creating a stronger system of foundational disability supports outside the scheme—effectively implementing the second-tier support model originally proposed by the Productivity Commission.

At the same time, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese secured agreement from national cabinet for the first formal annual growth target for NDIS costs, initially set at 8%.“We know that the trajectory of NDIS expenditure is just not sustainable into the future,” Albanese said after the April 2023 meeting, warning that without intervention the scheme could reach A$97 billion within a decade.Following another A$13 billion cost blowout, that target has now been revised further, with the government aiming to reduce annual growth to 2% until 2030.

The changes have triggered significant concern across the disability community, particularly among participants uncertain about how new eligibility rules and reassessments may affect their access to support.

Australian Disability Network chief executive El Gibbs and other advocates have warned that while reform is necessary, the political language surrounding cost containment risks framing disabled Australians as a financial burden rather than citizens entitled to support.

Disability advocacy groups say many participants remain deeply anxious about what the reforms will mean in practice, especially for families who rely on the scheme for daily care, therapy and independence.

Australian Federation of Disability Organisations chief executive Ross Joyce Bennison said uncertainty around the reforms had created widespread fear among participants.“I think people are also feeling like they’re being heralded as a burden on society,” Bennison said.“It feels really not very nice to be a disabled person in Australia at the moment.”

As parliament prepares to consider the legislation next month, the government faces the challenge of balancing fiscal restraint with preserving confidence in one of Australia’s largest and most politically sensitive social programs.

Following a tough loss, the Liberals need to genuinely listen to the concerns of people, whether they reside in city apartments or in the countryside.

It was just another morning in Canberra when the Breaking News spread that President Donald Trump, back at the White House, had signed an important executive order. This order meant there would now be a big 10% tax on everything Australian exports to the United States. This sudden announcement was a huge shock for the Liberal Party. They had always believed in the strong friendship with the US, feeling secure because of it. But now, that relationship was causing problems. The American flag, once a symbol of safety and security, was now becoming a sign of economic trouble and challenges in upcoming elections. For many, this was a wake-up call to rethink how this alliance impacts the future.

Political Rust due to Liberal’s ‘Mateship’ Relationship

For a long time, the Liberals were known to rely on their strong ties with Washington for their foreign and economic policies. This close relationship was seen as a key part of their strategy, starting with John Howard and continuing with Scott Morrison, who focused on building friendly alliances. They promoted this connection as a kind of safety net against the unpredictable nature of the Asia-Pacific region. However, when President Trump imposed tariffs, it had a negative impact on many Australian products like beef, wine, lithium, and education services. The previous promises of security no longer seemed dependable. Exporters were frustrated, business leaders rushed to adjust their supply chains, and farmers in rural Australia became increasingly worried as American buyers could vanish quickly.

Failure of ‘Make Australia Great Again’

The “Make Australia Great Again” campaign led by Peter Dutton ended in disappointment instead of victory. The campaign offices and Liberal Party halls were partially empty, signalling a possible failure. Dutton had adopted strategies like those of Donald Trump. He opposed “woke” culture, talked tough about immigration, and wanted to reduce the public service. While these ideas excited a small group, most Australians found them out of touch with their daily lives. Trump’s trade tariffs had already hurt Australian exports and increased living costs, causing people to reject the chaos linked to Dutton’s approach. Many felt Dutton acted too much like Trump, and his campaign failed on election night as he even lost his own seat. When Anthony Albanese celebrated his win, it was clear Australians wanted stability instead of chaos. The Liberal Party’s attempt to imitate American politics turned into a lesson on the risks involved.

PM Anthony Albanese capitalized despite Dutton’s attacks

Anthony Albanese initially faced a difficult situation when Trump’s tariffs had a big impact on Australia’s economy. Peter Dutton criticized Albanese, claiming he was so unimportant that Trump ignored him while deciding the tariffs. Instead of getting upset, Albanese took the opportunity to address the concerns of Australians. He called the tariffs “totally unwarranted” and said they were “not the act of a friend.” However, he made it clear that he did not want to respond with more tariffs. Albanese emphasized, “We will not join a race to the bottom that leads to higher prices and slower growth,” expressing his belief in finding better solutions for the economy.

Albanese remained calm in his leadership. He introduced specific support for industries that were affected, starting with a $1 billion resilience fund. Alongside this, he promised to help exporters discover new markets. He pointed out to voters that the US takes only five percent of Australia’s exports, assuring them that Australia was better prepared than most to handle these tough times. Meanwhile, Dutton’s campaign may have faced difficulties due to uncomfortable comparisons with Trump and a shift to extreme right-wing allegations. This approach made his campaign seem loud and disconnected from what the public really expected for this term, which was steadiness and reliability, not showy displays.

Dutton claimed he was the only one who could have gotten an exemption from Trump, but many people didn’t buy it. This was because there were photos of his party members wearing “MAGA” hats and praising Trump, which were still fresh in voters’ minds during the campaign. Meanwhile, Albanese stayed calm and didn’t blame others, which appealed to voters who were tired of external chaos. Instead of getting involved in loud disputes, he promised to fight for Australian jobs, industry, consumers, and values. By doing this, Albanese turned Dutton’s criticisms into evidence of his own strong leadership.

A Confused campaign launched by Liberals

In 2025, the Liberal Party’s campaign was confusing and inconsistent. They kept changing their policy plans, and their announcements usually came too late to make an impact on voters. Peter Dutton was once considered a strong leader, but his leadership lacked the charisma during the campaign. The campaign put too much focus on his personality, but the reality is Australia and American voters are far different. The party’s message wasn’t precise to voters, and they reversed their positions on important issues like cutting public sector jobs and remote work. They also failed to provide clear alternatives to Labor’s cost-of-living plans. Liberal MP Keith Wolahan said, “We must recognize that things went awry,” which showed that many people in the party thought things didn’t go well.

A new dawn waits for Liberals

Following a tough loss, the Liberals need to genuinely listen to the concerns of people, whether they reside in city apartments or in the countryside. To make a comeback, they must address the problems from their last campaign and refocus on their core mission: supporting families, small businesses, and those who feel left out by rapid changes. By zeroing in on real solutions – like managing inflation, lowering living costs, and creating a balanced energy plan that includes renewables, gas, and nuclear – the Liberals can begin to rebuild trust where it’s needed most.

The party should admit where it went wrong, let go of outdated slogans, and present a clear vision for Australia’s future. This includes focusing on sustainable economic growth and tackling the housing crisis by developing new homes and infrastructure. It also involves restoring trust in public services such as Medicare and local roads. For the Liberals to regain their footing, they must pursue bold and credible reforms. This means cutting down on excessive regulations, supporting small businesses, and ensuring that every policy directly addresses the real-life issues Australians face, like stagnant wages and rising bills. The Liberals must work as a Team instead of highlighting focus on their leader, which requires a unifying leadership who is more accepted and cherished among common Australian circles. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.