ss “This is nothing short of a cover-up of corruption”—Peter Leahy, former Australian Army Chief and National Security lecturer, has fiercely slammed the Albanese government for claiming a public inquiry is not the right forum to address national security. Leahy insists that after Australia’s deadliest Bondi terrorist attack, the public urgently deserves a Royal Commission to guarantee justice, accountability, and real protection. He pointedly noted that if such a tragedy had happened before Albanese became Prime Minister, Albanese himself would have been among the loudest voices calling for a Royal Commission. Now, critics accuse the government of avoiding scrutiny to hide serious failures, and Leahy’s uncompromising stance has ignited a nationwide storm, winning strong support from Australians across all states and territories

“This is nothing short of a cover-up of corruption”—this explosive declaration thrust Australia’s national security debate back into the spotlight, as former Australian Army Chief Peter Leahy launched a blistering attack on the Albanese government’s refusal to establish a public inquiry.

Leahy, now a respected lecturer on terrorism and national security at the National Security College, University of Canberra, accused the government of deliberately shielding itself from scrutiny following the deadliest Bondi terrorist attack in Australian history.

Speaking with rare intensity, Leahy rejected claims that a public inquiry was an inappropriate mechanism for examining national security failures, arguing that transparency is essential precisely when state power and public safety intersect.

According to Leahy, the scale and brutality of the Bondi attack fundamentally changed the threshold for accountability, making closed-door reviews insufficient for restoring public trust shaken by such a catastrophic failure.

He insisted that Australians are not demanding sensationalism, but clarity. Families of victims, he argued, deserve honest answers, not carefully managed statements designed to minimize political damage.

Leahy stressed that a Royal Commission is uniquely equipped to compel testimony, examine classified decisions responsibly, and expose systemic weaknesses without compromising ongoing security operations.

The former Army Chief dismissed government concerns about national security sensitivities, noting that Australia has previously conducted Royal Commissions into defense, intelligence, and policing without endangering the nation.

He warned that refusing such scrutiny fuels suspicion, reinforcing public perception that political self-preservation is being prioritized over justice and reform.

Central to Leahy’s critique was his claim that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s stance represents a stark reversal of principle rather than a considered policy position.

Leahy argued that had the Bondi tragedy occurred before Albanese assumed office, the then-opposition leader would have been among the loudest advocates demanding a Royal Commission.

That contrast, Leahy said, is what troubles Australians most. The issue is not process, but consistency, integrity, and the courage to confront uncomfortable truths once power is attained.

Critics of the government have echoed this view, suggesting the refusal reflects fear that institutional failures across agencies could be exposed under oath.

Leahy emphasized that accountability should not be mistaken for blame. He framed a Royal Commission as a learning mechanism designed to prevent future tragedies, not to score political points.

Nevertheless, the political implications are unavoidable. National security failures, if confirmed, could have serious consequences for ministerial credibility and bureaucratic leadership.

The Albanese government has maintained that existing review mechanisms are adequate, arguing that sensitive intelligence matters are better handled internally by experts.

Leahy strongly disagreed, warning that internal reviews often lack independence and rarely satisfy public demand for impartial truth after mass-casualty events.

He cautioned that secrecy, even when legally justified, can rapidly erode democratic legitimacy if citizens believe information is being deliberately withheld.

Public reaction suggests Leahy’s warnings have resonated widely. Across states and territories, calls for a Royal Commission have grown louder in the days following his remarks.

Survivors and victims’ families have joined civil liberties groups, arguing that transparency is essential to healing and national resilience.

Legal scholars have also weighed in, noting that Royal Commissions are designed precisely for moments when public confidence in government decision-making is deeply shaken.

Leahy’s military background has lent added weight to his criticism. Few question his understanding of security complexities, making accusations of naivety difficult to sustain.

Supporters argue that if someone of Leahy’s experience believes transparency outweighs risk, the government should seriously reconsider its position.

Others within the security community remain cautious, warning that politicizing terrorism risks oversimplifying deeply complex intelligence failures.

Leahy responded to such concerns by emphasizing that complexity is not an excuse for opacity, particularly when lives have been lost on such a devastating scale.

He argued that democratic societies are strongest when they confront failure openly, rather than burying it beneath procedural justifications.

The controversy has now placed intense pressure on the Prime Minister, whose leadership image has been built on transparency and institutional reform.

Opposition figures have seized the moment, accusing the government of hypocrisy and demanding immediate action to restore public confidence.

Yet the strongest momentum has come from ordinary Australians, many of whom view the issue as transcending party politics altogether.

For them, the Bondi attack represents a collective trauma requiring collective reckoning, not selective disclosure filtered through executive control.

As debate intensifies, the government faces a defining choice: maintain its current stance or yield to mounting pressure for a Royal Commission.

Peter Leahy has made clear where he stands. In his view, refusing open scrutiny after such tragedy risks becoming a deeper failure than the attack itself.

Whether the Albanese government listens remains uncertain, but one reality is now undeniable: the demand for transparency has become a national force impossible to ignore.

The controversy shows no signs of fading, as media coverage continues to amplify public frustration and demands for accountability. Several senior former officials have quietly expressed agreement with Leahy, suggesting the resistance to a Royal Commission may prove politically costly.

Public trust, once eroded, is difficult to rebuild without visible acts of openness and responsibility from those in power. Analysts warn that prolonged refusal could deepen cynicism toward institutions meant to safeguard citizens.

For many Australians, this debate has become a litmus test of democratic transparency rather than a narrow security dispute. The government’s next steps will likely shape its credibility well beyond this single issue. If ignored, calls for a Royal Commission may resurface even more forcefully after future security reviews.

Leahy has indicated he will continue speaking out until meaningful action is taken. His stance has emboldened others to challenge official narratives without fear. In the end, the national conversation now centers on whether truth or political convenience will prevail.