The federal government’s expert adviser on antisemitism says universities should face funding cuts if they fail to fight antisemitism, mainstream news outlets and social media platforms should be put on notice, and more should be done to deport people spreading hate.
Anthony Albanese is considering the plan from Jillian Segal, which also calls for stricter hate speech laws to prevent vilification of Jews, and more education in schools about antisemitism. It is unclear which ideas Labor will implement.
While parts of the plan have bipartisan political support, others are more contested, with concerns raised by legal groups about impingements on free speech and genuine criticism.
What is the plan?
Segal, the federal special envoy to combat antisemitism, outlined her plan to address the issue on Thursday. There are 49 “key actions”, with some reinforcing existing government actions – like cancelling visas of non-citizens involved in antisemitism – and other ambitious and sometimes controversial proposals.
Some ideas are in the federal domain, others are for state governments and civil society, and several will be undertaken by the envoy’s own office without legislation.
What does it call for?
Segal’s key recommendations include:
Strengthening legislation on antisemitic conduct and “intimidating protest activity”.
Tougher screening of visa applicants for antisemitic views, with a focus on addressing visa refusals or cancellations.
A “report card” on universities’ handling of antisemitism on campus, suggesting blocking government funding if they fail to act.
Withholding or terminating funding to universities, academics and arts organisations that promote antisemitic conduct or fail to act against it.
Increasing education of antisemitism in school curriculums.
Using “trusted voices to publicly refute antisemitic views” on social media.
A plan to “monitor media organisations … to avoid accepting false or distorted narratives”.
On the ABC, Segal said stripping uni funding would be a “last resort”.
In a broader proposal, Segal suggests collaborating with other antisemitism envoys worldwide to change content moderation on social media platforms and boost protections against hate speech online. That would include efforts to increase transparency around social media moderation, clamp down on anonymous hate accounts, and “ensure AI does not amplify antisemitic content”.
Will the government follow the plan?
Government sources said they would now take time to consider its recommendations before giving a formal response.
The federal education minister, Jason Clare, has already backed better antisemitism teaching in schools.
Albanese said his government was already undertaking some of the actions recommended by Segal, but indicated at least some of the new recommendations “can be implemented quickly”.
“There are a number of things that will require work over a period of time,” he said.
Albanese did not give a timeline for the government’s response, but promised to “work constructively with the envoy”.
How does the report define antisemitism?
It recommended all levels of government adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. However, that definition is contested in some quarters, with some concerns it was increasingly being used to conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel.
Segal told the ABC she would not “distribute guidelines” on antisemitism, because it was contingent on context, but cited “saying Israel has no right to exist and that all the Jews in Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth” as an example.
Noting repeated and high-profile arson attacks at synagogues and vandalism of Jewish schools or cultural sites, the report cites figures that from October 2023 to September 2024 more than 2,000 cases of antisemitism – including threats, assaults, vandalism and intimidation – were reported.
However, some critics have questioned such figures. In analysis of a separate dataset of 389 reported antisemitic incidents against different criteria, the Jewish Council of Australia – a liberal group that has been critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza – classified just one in five of those (79) as antisemitic under its definition of “discrimination, prejudice, hostility, or violence against Jews as Jews, or Jewish institutions as Jewish”. The JCA concluded almost half of those amounted to support for Palestine or criticism of Israel or Zionism, but did not meet its definition of antisemitism, including use of the phrase “from the river to the sea”.
Segal’s report states that research commissioned by the special envoy “highlights a stark divide between Australians under 35 and those over 35” on attitudes toward the Jewish community and “the existence of the state of Israel”, claiming younger Australians were more likely to hold antisemitic views.
What have been the reactions?
Peak Jewish groups backed the envoy’s plan. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry “strongly endorsed” the “urgently needed” measures in the plan.
“We call upon all sectors of society, including government, law enforcement, the media, the university sector, education authorities and online platform providers to co-operate with the special envoy and the Jewish community to give this action plan full force and effect,” said the ECAJ president, Daniel Aghion.
The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, backed the plan but demanded clarity on the government’s intentions, while the shadow home affairs minister, Andrew Hastie, called for “a whole-of-government response” to antisemitism. The independent MP Allegra Spender also urged the government to act swiftly.
What concerns have been raised?
The prominent barrister Greg Barns SC, of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, was concerned that threatening funding of academic or arts bodies could lead institutions to censor members, or set stronger internal rules, which he warned could impinge on freedom of speech or expression. He noted the government had strengthened hate crime laws only in February, specifically to better protect places of worship, and urged more time be allowed for existing laws to be enforced.
“We’re concerned universities and cultural institutions will feel compelled to impose regulations that severely curtail those rights, with draconian penalties attached to them,” Barns said.
“It’s the wrong approach, you can’t legislate a problem out of existence. The best way forward is prevention, using the existing suite of laws to enforce the law, and prevention through education – engagement with community groups, police, to ensure protests etc are within the law.”
Doug Cameron, a former leftwing Labor senator who quit parliament in 2019, called on his former colleagues to “find their voice, examine the implications of adopting the Segal report and ensure that there are no restrictions to opposing Israeli genocide in Gaza”.
“Recognise Palestine, condemn the slaughter of innocents and antisemitism will decline,” he wrote on X.
The Jewish Council of Australia claimed Segal’s plan risked “undermining Australia’s democratic freedoms” and “inflaming community divisions”. The group said the plan would “risk censoring criticism of Israel” and not address the root causes of antisemitism.
Would the plan stop criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza?
Segal and Albanese both denied legitimate criticism would be classed as antisemitism.
The prime minister noted he himself had criticised the Netanyahu government’s military actions in Gaza, including the deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians.
“But you can put forward those views respectfully,” he said.
“Whatever your issue in the Middle East, it is not advanced by attacking people here in Australia because of who they are, because of their faith, because of their identity.”
The Labor MP Josh Burns, who is Jewish, wrote in the Guardian this week “there must be space for legitimate criticism of the Israeli government”.
