The antisemitism envoy’s recommendations to remove funding from universities, charities and cultural bodies if they promote or fail to act against antisemitism have sparked concerns among academics and peak bodies that funding could be weaponised to censor opinion and silence dissent.
Jillian Segal’s 20-page plan, released on Thursday, made a series of sweeping recommendations, including launching a “university report card” and withholding government funding from universities, cultural institutions and festivals that “facilitate, enable or fail to act against antisemitism” – a move she later clarified was a “last resort”.
The powers would also allow public grants provided to university centres, academics or researchers to be terminated “where the recipient engages in antisemitic or otherwise discriminatory or hateful speech or actions”.
Peak Jewish groups backed the envoy’s plan. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry “strongly endorsed” the “urgently needed” measures.
The federal government has not committed to the plan in full, with the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, saying he “wouldn’t like to put a deadline on something” when asked by the media on Thursday if institutions could have funding withdrawn within the year.
The Jewish Council of Australia’s executive officer, Max Kaiser, said if the government did so it would function as a tactic that “echoes the authoritarian playbook used by figures like Donald Trump – using funding as a weapon to enforce ideological conformity”.
The Trump administration has successfully cut billions in funding to several universities – including Columbia, on the grounds it tolerated antisemitism during pro-Palestinian protests on campus – and warned dozens more that it is investigating them.
“Tying public funding to vague and politically loaded criteria and definitions is not only undemocratic, it’s deeply dangerous,” Kaiser said.
“Threatening to impose surveillance, censorship or punitive funding measures fundamentally undermines the autonomy of universities, cultural organisations and charities.
“These are the very institutions that nurture critical thinking, creativity and democratic engagement – and they must remain free from political pressure and ideological control.”
Universities Australia’s CEO, Luke Sheehy, said the peak body had been “working constructively” with the special envoy and welcomed the “significant body of work”, and would liaise with members to consider the recommendations.
“Academic freedom and freedom of expression are core to the university mission, but they must be exercised with responsibility and never as a cover for hate or harassment,” he said.
The Group of Eight, representing Australia’s research-intensive sandstone universities, said its members were “determined to take all necessary actions to both respond to and prevent antisemitism on campus”.
But the president of the National Union of Students (NUS), Ashlyn Horton, described the plan as “Trumpian”, and a “serious overreach” that undermined the independence of higher education institutions.
“It’s authoritarian, not anti-racist,” she said.
Dr Jordana Silverstein, a cultural historian at the University of Melbourne, said the plan was a “clear attack” on university education and research, including the Australian Research Council (ARC), while Daniel Angus, a professor of digital communication at Queensland University of Technology, said the report set a “dangerous precedent” by “threatening academic independence and informed and open debate”.
Angus, who has researched hate speech and misinformation for decades, said antisemitism must be taken seriously but that the strategy released on Thursday “risks collapsing legitimate political critique, especially that of the state of Israel, into hate speech”.
Segal’s plan appeared to take aim at the media and the ABC, and said the envoy would “monitor media organisations to … avoid accepting false or distorted narratives”.
“Publicly funded media organisations should be required to uphold clear editorial standards that promote fair, responsible reporting to avoid perpetuating incorrect or distorted narratives or representations of Jews,” the plan said.
A spokesperson for the ABC said it had a “strong and transparent system of self-regulation” and “a transparent complaint system available to audiences through an independent ombudsman.”
The plan would also remove the deductible gift recipient status from any charitable institution that “promotes speakers or engages in conduct that promotes antisemitism”, and enable funding to be stopped for any cultural institution or festival that “promotes, facilitates or does not deal effectively with hate or antisemitism”.
The CEO of the Community Council for Australia (CCA), David Crosbie, said he had seen “no evidence” that the legislative change was necessary or would add anything to existing charity provisions.
Crosbie said it was difficult to think of any charity that could be seen to be pursuing its purpose by promoting antisemitism, or any form of racist or religious discrimination.
“Existing accountability and reporting requirements of charities are strong enough … to investigate and remove the charitable status of any charity involved in what would amount to promotion of unlawful and violent behaviour,” he said.
“I should also note that peaceful protest is at the heart of our democracy … We need to be careful that we are not silencing dissent for the sake of silencing dissent.”
Prof Jo Caust, a principal fellow at the University of Melbourne’s school of culture and communication, said it would be a “disaster” for Australia to go down the path of the US on questions of censorship, adding that it all depended on how the plan was interpreted and actioned.
“It certainly will put pressure on cultural institutions in a way that may be very difficult for them to address,” she said.
“When there’s not very clear guidelines of where the lines are, then the risk is self censorship … reconsidering certain artists or certain ideas. The most challenging thing is that it might make organisations much more risk averse.”
A spokesperson for Creative Australia said it would “work constructively with all government stakeholders”, adding it was already a condition of its funding that recipients complied with all applicable anti-discrimination laws.
