Anthony Albanese’s resistance to calling a national royal commission in the wake of Bondi is nearly impossible to comprehend.

Some would argue a benign explanation – that he misjudged the national mood and has dug himself into a hole. Others think he may fear what an inquiry might turn up, in terms of his government’s failures in combatting the spread of antisemitism.

The calls for a federal royal commission are now reaching a roar. The pressure was palpable at Sunday night’s memorial service at Bondi, where Albanese was booed. He’d offered to speak, but organisers decided that could produce an unseemly reaction.

There are stirrings within Labor. Backbencher Mike Freelander, who’s Jewish, told the Australian Financial Review there should be a royal commission. “It seems to me that there are national issues, so the national government needs to be the one dealing with it.”

Ed Husic, a former minister and a Muslim agrees.

“In the aftermath of the horrific events of Bondi we all need to know not just how this happened – but what we can do to root out extremism, whatever form it comes in. I’ve previously said I don’t care if it’s Islamist or Far Right Extremism, anything that presents a threat to Australians must be confronted.”

Albanese argues a royal commission would take a long time and he doesn’t want to slow responses. “We want urgency and unity, not division and delay,” he told a Monday news conference.

But this is not convincing. NSW Premier Chris Minns is both undertaking a raft of actions with legislation this week (cracking down on protests and symbols, and changing firearm laws) while planning a state royal commission.

Former High Court chief justice Robert French, in a strong call for a national royal commission, said: “There is no requirement for governments to put on hold their responses to the attack, pending the provision of reports by the royal commission.”

The government could ask a royal commission to provide both short-term and longer-term reports.

Albanese at the weekend announced an inquiry into law enforcement and intelligence agencies including ASIO. ASIO has been criticised for not following up its 2019 investigation of one of the gunmen.

ASIO chief Mike Burgess’ response suggests he is confident ASIO has done its job properly. “ASIO is not all seeing and all knowing. Tragically, in this case we did not know about the attack before it happened,” Burgess said in a statement.

“But that does not necessarily mean there was an intelligence failure or that my officers made mistakes.

“I welcome scrutiny and embrace accountability, but some of the recent criticisms of ASIO have been unfounded.”

Burgess himself has been highlighting the antisemitism threat for a long time.

The inquiry Albanese has ordered into these agencies goes only to a slice of the wider issues that culminated in the Bondi massacre. Similiarly, in focusing on gun reform, worthy in itself, Albanese is narrow-tracking.

French has compellingly set out the case for a comprehensive inquiry, describing it as “a moral imperative on the Australian nation as a whole”.

“That is an imperative to consider the conditions which gave rise to the attack and the practical mechanisms which were or could have been available to Commonwealth and state agencies to prevent it.

“It requires consideration of the measures necessary to strengthen and add to those mechanisms including enhanced Commonwealth and state co-operation and co-operation with foreign governments and international agencies.

“Nor can we avoid a clear eyed further public examination of the nature and sources of antisemitism and what can be done to combat it – not as just another species of racism or prejudice but as a societal evil with its own longstanding and bloody history.”

Eminent lawyer Bret Walker has warned against double up.

“I can see well and truly an argument for a Commonwealth royal commission, but I think it would be a crying shame if we were to duplicate costs and to put witnesses to the trouble of answering two royal commissions”, plus other inquiries, he told the ABC.

“Will a Commonwealth royal commission be able to do things that a state royal commission will not have accomplished and which the internal agency and departmental inquiries will not accomplish? You can’t say that as a rule.”

Presumably, however, if the federal government gave way and announced a royal commission, the proposed NSW one could fold into that and the overall result would be broader.

Albanese says his government will co-operate with the NSW royal commission, which will undoubedly probe into federal corners. But the resulting picture will still be limited.

The prime minister reached for a long bow at Monday’s news conference when he drew attention to the oppositon’s suggested wide-ranging terms of reference, declaring they amounted to a “royal commission into the whole functioning of Australia”.

This was a red herring – obviously it would be the government setting terms of reference.

But was Albanese inadvertently revealing his concern at any royal commission inevitably being a deep dive into how our society is “functioning”?

Albanese is always (and rightly) worried about social cohesion, and an inquiry could put some further strains on that. But if there are issues of cohesion that need to be faced up to, we need to admit and deal with them, not avoid them so they fester further.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra. Republished from The Conversation.