A "problematic" definition of anti-Semitism would have ramifications for free speech and likely affect workplaces and university campuses, a legal expert says.
Anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal on Thursday handed down her report on combating hatred against Jewish people, recommending Australia adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of prejudice.
But Palestinian advocacy groups, in addition to the definition's lead drafter Kenneth Stern, have questioned it being used to suppress free speech by conflating criticism of Israel with hatred.
The report also urges the government to cut funding to universities, programs or academics that enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism.
All public funding agreements with festivals or cultural institutions should include terms to allow for the termination of the agreement when they promote or facilitate hatred, it says.
Bill Swannie, a senior lecturer at ACU's law school, said the IHRA's definition was "problematic" and there wasn't a need for any specific prohibition on anti-Semitism.
"If we've got a more expanded definition of anti-Semitism, for example, under university codes of conduct, it could mean that people were disciplined in the workplace, or students were disciplined in a university context for conduct which wouldn't be prohibited under the national racial discrimination laws that we have," he told AAP.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is mulling over Ms Segal's findings, and is yet to commit to implementing the recommendations.
The General Delegation of Palestine to Australia said the call for adoption of the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism was "deeply concerning".
"All people of conscience must have the right to openly and legitimately criticise injustices and violations committed by any state, including Israel's ongoing policies and practices of settler-colonial expansionism," the delegation said in a statement.
"Speaking out against these violations is not an act of anti-Semitism, it is a duty and a moral obligation."
Liberal Senator James Paterson said the IHRA definition was important, because what constituted anti-Semitism was highly contested.
"It has been a very helpful tool and helpful guideline. No one in Australia, though, is proposing that (it) should be legislated or that there should be consequences under the law for transgressing IHRA," he told ABC radio.
Ms Segal has been called on to resign in recent days after revelations a trust linked to her husband made a donation to a right-wing lobby group.
Her husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth Discretionary Trust, which gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in the 2023/24 financial year.
The envoy is not listed as a director or shareholder of the company, Henroth Investments Pty Ltd, which made the payment.
Ms Segal said she had no involvement with her husband's donations.
