Pro-Palestinian activists are preparing to respond to potential adverse findings by the Antisemitism and Social Cohesion Royal Commission, as the inquiry moves closer to finalising its report. Organized groups involved in some of the commission's most contentious hearings have received notices requesting submissions in response to counsel’s findings, which will form the basis of the final report due on December 18.

The commission, chaired by former judge Virginia Bell, is in its final stages, with parties who participated in hearings asked to address written submissions prepared by counsel assisting. These submissions summarize legal views and proposed findings related to each hearing block. The process is intended to ensure procedural fairness by allowing parties who could face negative conclusions to respond before the report is published.

Palestine Action Group (PAG) organiser Josh Lees confirmed that his group received such a notice and plans to submit a response this month. Lees criticized the commission’s structure and conduct, particularly its handling of protest rights and the limits imposed on speech, assembly, and demonstration. He noted that despite PAG’s efforts, the group was denied the opportunity to offer live evidence, with its lawyer permitted to participate on only one of the commission’s 62 sitting days. PAG’s single witness statement was entered into the record, but it did not witness extensive direct examination.

During its limited appearance, PAG’s lawyers questioned David Ospis, then chief of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, about the timing and scale of Israel’s initial military response in Gaza. This questioning stirred tensions within the Jewish community and resulted in public disputes, including denials from Ms Bell regarding claims that the inquiry had been "hijacked" by the group.

The commission spokesperson emphasized that counsel's submissions were shared selectively with those granted leave to appear or respond on specific issues, and declined to comment on engagements with individual parties. Non-publication orders prevent the disclosure of counsel’s submissions or parties’ replies.

In addition to PAG, the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism has also received opportunity to respond to counsel’s submissions, particularly on issues examined during the commission’s third hearing block focusing on universities. Mainstream Jewish organizations engaged throughout the inquiry have maintained ongoing dialogue with the commission’s legal team.

Critics of the commission, including former disability royal commissioner Ronald Sackville, have argued that its investigation of protests was superficial and lacked substantive analysis. Calls were made following the completion of public hearings for Ms Bell to extend the inquiry in order to compel protest leaders to testify, a move that was ultimately not pursued.

The commission’s final report, which will encapsulate these contested issues, is scheduled for release later this year.