At the Bondi Attack Memorial, A Pair of Politicians Turned Tragedy To Political Gain. This Is Inexcusable.

Mourners crowded around a sprawling expanse of floral tributes near the Bondi Pavilion on Tuesday, their tones quietly rising in a timeless melody of peace. Shalom, shalom, they intoned in unison, while sorrow descended like the grey clouds overhead.

This emotional intensity of the occasion was suddenly shattered by cries: “Albo must go”, and then a retort, “What exactly did you do? You’re in the parliament too.” The song stopped. Confused, I looked over.

There, positioned at the forefront of the assembly, flanked by formally dressed guards and journalists, stood two individuals widely regarded as some of the most blatant political opportunists ever elected to the nation's legislature.

Amid the press of somberly dressed people, their expressions contorted by sadness, the pair stood out, dressed clearly to play for the cameras.

Polarizing Rhetoric In Shared Grief

A prominent politician, who has career has been defined by creating discord ever since entering politics, spoke about freedom and security and the ability to live “free from fear”. This individual stated she wanted hate preachers “rounded up”. And echoed the rallying call of her public persona, “Let’s get back the Australia I grew up in … I look at the people we are bringing to the country. Certain countries they should not be allowed to come here.”

Some of the crowd, among them a man in distinctive headwear, visibly approved of her empty words, holding up their phones to record them and then pressing even closer for selfies. “We support you”, “You alone who tells the truth.”

Not everyone agreed.

“The Australian people reject extremes,” one volunteer remarked, as he struggled to process her comments. “If she had her way I likely would not be able to be here.”

It follows that the nations of origin of the individuals hailed as “brave citizens” for offering their lives to tackle the gunmen—one nation and another—would not be on her approved list either.

An Attack on the Concept of Australia

In the immediate aftermath from the violence, the overwhelming public sentiment has been that this was not just a focused killing of Jewish Australians, but an assault on the core notion of the country as an welcoming society where fairness and acceptance were considered virtues, security for most people was commonplace, and faith did not play a defining role.

The fact this occurred in a place that brings joy, a site that rivals the nation’s most iconic symbol as an international calling card, was breathtaking. We know that for terrorism to achieve its aim, iconic locations are always the chosen objectives and human beings the tragic consequence.

It is the political response should so rapidly turn to self-interest, name-calling and pointless debate—concerning whether to address the obvious flaws in the nation’s much-vaunted gun laws or the problem of antisemitism—was an even more powerful indication of the era we live in.

Naturally, both must be addressed, seriously and substantially, not simply by hiding behind process, announcing inquiries or demanding increased monitoring.

A Dereliction of Responsibility and the Emergence of a Cynical Spectacle

The public are in good company in struggling with hard conversations that demand more than superficial answers, but when the primary political groups—even after tragedy—cannot find consensus on the basics, that is a dereliction of their core duty.

Having listened to the self-promoting remarks, I was nonetheless taken aback to hear a quip while she moved through the crowd to leave the vigil: “Perhaps I'll carry an symbol into the parliament and see what they do.” To turn this profound tragedy, which touches on what some have called a profound divide in the country's psyche, into a political pantomime is beyond the pale.

This past year, so much of what was once unthinkable has become virtually routine. Hateful racist, misogynist and prejudiced language has been excused under the phoney guise of open dialogue, angry mobs online have gone unchecked, and fear has become widespread. It is scarcely surprising that under these conditions some individuals become prey to divisive figures.

Certain analysts call the current era a “pivotal moment”—a phase when we glimpsed a potential cruel order, driven by those with unaccountable power and wealth. One must hope that the assessment of pollsters is correct when they note that the public see through those who “seek to weaponise sorrow, search for scapegoats and turn fear into a wedge.”

It is imperative that this cynical theatrical display become the accepted standard. Addressing it will require resolve, courage and selflessness, like that displayed by the ordinary citizens who followed their impulses to protect others at whatever cost.