Despite winning the argument and helping force Anthony Albanese to backflip on a royal commission, Sussan Ley has continued criticising the Labor government over its response to the Bondi terror attack, pointedly declining to support the inquiry’s terms of reference and complaining that the Coalition’s model wasn’t chosen.

While antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal urged Australians to “move forward” and support the inquiry, Ley’s attacks have not abated, demanding Labor ministers be put “in the dock” for cross-examination.

The last few weeks have arguably been Ley’s strongest as opposition leader, her genuine passion and advocacy for action on antisemitism coming alongside compassion and sympathy for the Jewish community as she grieved alongside victims of the attack. But with the government now agreeing to a royal commission Ley would be well served to switch gears from all-out attack mode, or run the risk of repeating the overreach which has become an unfortunate hallmark of her leadership.

_{Sign up: AU Breaking News email}

The opposition leader’s response to Thursday’s announcement was to accuse the prime minister of “delay, weakness and resistance”, calling the decision to appoint just one commissioner – esteemed former high court judge Virginia Bell – “inadequate” and a “failure to grasp the gravity of the issues”. After weeks of calling for a royal commission, Ley focused almost solely on continuing to attack Albanese, her 745-word statement finding little room to welcome the announcement or endorse its terms.

Albanese on Friday defended the time taken, calling for “national unity” going forward.

Instead, Ley again blasted Albanese in an email on Friday to Liberal supporters titled, “The prime minister ran out of excuses”, claiming the switch was “not an act of leadership, it is an admission that his litany of excuses have collapsed”.

Later – in bold underlined text – Ley’s email branded Albanese’s delay “weakness”.

There are legitimate questions to ask about Labor’s response, and some of Albanese’s claims beggar belief. He claimed the timeline was down to untangling legal concerns and negotiations with NSW. No doubt those concerns and negotiations were real – but then why did Albanese and his ministers, in multiple media appearances over three weeks, continually downplay or criticise the concept of a federal royal commission? Beyond promising cooperation with NSW’s commission, why did the PM not flag until so late in the piece that discussions were under way? If they’d planned this all along, it would have been easy to make that clearer before Thursday.

“We needed to get the right commissioner, the right terms of reference, in the right time frame … It’s essential for bringing the nation together in national unity and building social cohesion while we tackle the evil scourge that is antisemitism,” Albanese said.

While Liberal colleagues such as Jono Duniam and James Paterson were more welcoming of the royal commission, saying they wanted it to succeed and accepting the terms of reference, on Friday morning Ley twice demanded that government ministers end up “in the dock” to explain their actions.

It’s not unfair at this point to note Ley, when first asked about a royal commission on 17 December said she backed the concept but that such inquiries “can’t be a convenient place for this government to send every difficult question”, instead calling for “immediate action”.

Ley, as with any opposition leader, is under no obligation to give the government a free pass; the Coalition’s position had heeded the calls of the Bondi victims, the Jewish community and countless figures in public life, and it’s fair for Ley to point out the government took its time to agree. But her use of “in the dock”, with clear implications of a criminal on trial in a courtroom, does little to foster the kind of social cohesion that community leaders are pleading for.

Nor did claims, amplified by former Liberal treasurer Josh Frydenberg, that Bell would be an unsuitable commissioner. Ley declined to endorse Frydenberg’s comments, and Frydenberg declined to repeat them after the announcement – perhaps sensibly realising that airing vague and nebulous criticisms of an esteemed high court judge was unwise.

Segal, speaking to Sky News, praised Bell as an “eminent jurist” and called for all sides of the debate to come together.

“We have to sit down now, we have a royal commission … we have to accept this is an important decision by the cabinet and move forward, very strongly supporting the commission and the work of the commissioner,” Segal said.

“I’m hoping the community gets completely behind this.”

With the royal commission receiving the backing of Jewish community leaders, it is time for politicians to let the inquiry – and, indeed, the ongoing criminal court proceedings – do its work. When public hearings begin and documents are published, there will no doubt be legitimate criticisms of the government to be made.

But until then, any ongoing efforts that undermine public confidence in the royal commission will surely be looked upon poorly.