July 14, 2025 • 21 mins
Some have hailed it as a dangerous document that could restrict our freedom of speech. Others have celebrated it, saying it will lead to protections that are overdue for a community that has long been battered by prejudice.
We are, of course, talking about the report that Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism, handed to prime minister Anthony Albanese last week.
But what changes, if any, will our government implement from amongst Segal’s recommendations? And does she have any power, herself?
Today, deputy federal editor Nick Bonyhady, and federal politics reporter Olivia Ireland, join me to discuss all of this. And what we should make of the sizeable donation that Segal’s husband has made to a right wing lobby group.
Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:02):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Selinger Morris. It's Tuesday,
July 15th. Some have called it a dangerous document that
could restrict our freedom of speech. Others have celebrated it,
saying it will lead to protections that are overdue for
(00:22):
a community that has long been battered by prejudice. We are,
of course, talking about the report that Jillian Segal, the
special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, handed to Prime Minister Anthony
Albanese last week. But what changes, if any, will our
government implement from amongst Segal's recommendations? And does she have
any power herself? Today, Deputy federal editor Nick Bonyhady and
(00:47):
federal politics reporter Olivia Ireland joined me to discuss all
of this and what we should make of the sizable
donation that Jillian Segal's husband has made to a right
wing lobby group. Welcome, Nick and Olivia.
S2 (01:03):
Good to be here.
S3 (01:04):
Thanks for having us.
S1 (01:06):
Okay, so there's been a few days of headlines now
about this report, but can we just back up a bit?
Can you tell us a bit about who Jillian Segal
is and what this role that she's got is all about?
S2 (01:16):
So Jillian Segal, she's a very distinguished businesswoman and lawyer.
So she was previously a partner at a major corporate
law firm in her early career. And then she sort
of moved on into being the deputy commissioner for the
Australian Securities and Investment Commission. And then she established herself
(01:37):
again with um, being on boards of various groups, including
like NAB. And then she, uh, had a huge role with, um,
sort of the response to October 7th as a part
of a Jewish lobby group. And from that point on,
she was appointed as the antisemitism envoy by the government.
S4 (01:59):
We have seen since October 7th last year a significant
rise in anti-Semitism in Australia. And that is why the
government has made the decision to appoint a special envoy
on anti-Semitism. And I'm very pleased that Jillian Segal has
(02:19):
agreed to take up that role. Jillian.
S2 (02:22):
So this is an appointment that was made about a
year ago. The role, at this point in time, before
the report involved her essentially investigating how problematic are anti-Semitism
had become around Australia.
S4 (02:37):
It's important that as part of those ongoing efforts to
promote social cohesion, uh, that Jillian will advise myself and
the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs minister, but also engage with
the community about how we can raise education.
S2 (02:56):
She has a number of staff and powers to investigate things.
And now, since her report has come out, her role
will be about implementing that. And she definitely has the
ability to put out public notices and, you know, recommendations. Um,
(03:17):
and she would have very much a voice to the
government that would be heard and at times adopted.
S3 (03:24):
The context of that is that there's just been an
enormous upsurge in anti-Semitic hate. There's been instances of arson attacks, uh,
comments made to even school children that are just hideous
graffiti on the walls of Jewish institutions, including schools. And
that's led that community to have really genuine fears for
(03:46):
their safety. Uh, in the months and years since October 7th. Obviously,
anti-Semitism has gone on vastly longer than that, but there's
been a noticeable upsurge that led the government to create
this position about a year ago.
S1 (03:57):
Okay, so let's get to Siegel's report then. It was
published last week. What were the key recommendations? Because, you know,
there's 49 of them. But let's get into the key recommendations.
S3 (04:05):
So Siegel's report is very broad and it seeks to
tackle antisemitism across society. So some of those are about security,
practical security at Jewish institutions. But her biggest focus is
on the educational and cultural spheres. She says that everything
starts with education. And so education needs to have a
(04:26):
really strong anti anti-Semitism focus.
S5 (04:31):
But education is central. It shapes not only what young
Australians know, but how they think and how they treat others.
And the plan promotes a nationally consistent approach to teaching
about the history, harms and modern forms of anti-Semitism through
the lens of democracy, social inclusion.
S3 (04:49):
Teachers, university lecturers need to be educating their pupils about anti-Semitism,
about the horrors of the Holocaust, and that needs to
then permeate into a whole bunch of other areas. So
she calls for training on anti-Semitism, uh, for judicial officers,
for Border Force staff, for educators. She calls for funding
(05:11):
to be stripped from organizations that don't adequately tackle anti-Semitism.
She calls for monitoring of the media to ensure that
they're upholding the highest standards. And undergirding this all is
a definition of anti-Semitism that's become quite controversial. But really,
this is a broad blueprint across society.
S2 (05:30):
Segal has done the media rounds, and she she really
pushed the point that this is designed to be a carrot,
not a stick. She wants, you know, organizations, particularly universities.
I think they're really in the spotlight with this because
of especially all the encampments that happened last year, for
them to sort of learn how to really discuss anti-Semitism
(05:53):
and how to combat that. She says she doesn't want
it to be about criticizing or condemning particular groups. She
wants this to be seen as a positive. That's been
her big message throughout the week.
S1 (06:07):
Which is interesting because obviously a lot of people referring
to the universities and the cultural institutions, they have sort of,
I think, received this in a very different way. But
we'll get into that in a bit. Let's get into
her definition of anti-Semitism, the one that she would like
to have adopted nationally. What is it and why is
it so controversial?
S3 (06:26):
The definition comes from a group called the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance, and that has been widely adopted in some
other countries and is already in use in some parts
of government and the tertiary education sphere. And the definition
itself is not a wildly controversial one. It highlights that
(06:51):
if you discriminate or express hatred towards Jewish people than
that is anti-Semitic. What is more controversial is that the
definition comes with a series of examples that are used
to explain what might be anti-Semitic, and some of those
examples are very helpful in clarifying, and people see them
(07:11):
as being very positive. But critics of the IHRA definition,
including Kenneth Stern, who was one of the people involved
in its creation, have come to believe that the definition
can be used or is being used to stifle legitimate
criticism of the State of Israel.
S6 (07:29):
But when you start having official definitions of what is
a particular type of hatred that leads to, you know,
problems that are, in my country, at least, the United States,
reminiscent of McCarthyism, the idea that you can lose your funding,
which we're seeing, that you can be deported.
S3 (07:49):
And the reason for that is that some of the
examples in the definition say things like if you were
to criticize Israel in a way that you would not
any other democracy, then that is an instance of anti-Semitism.
S6 (08:07):
And what that does is not only harm democracy, it
blinds us to how anti-Semitism actually works.
S3 (08:15):
Now, some people believe that that is totally reasonable, and
that often criticism of Israel is used to mark anti-Semitism
under the surface, and that the two things often go
hand in hand in a kind of where there's smoke,
there's fire way. But the other way of seeing it
is that it's very difficult to know how much criticism
(08:37):
a person would place on a whole range of nations,
and very few people have time to be comprehensive in
their criticism of every nation that has alleged human rights abuses.
And so that definition can therefore be weaponized, the critics
say to shut down that criticism to make the cost
of criticizing Israel too high, to make critics wary that
(08:57):
they will be charged with anti-Semitism in public debate. And
there's other elements of that definition and its associated examples
that are seen in a similar way. But that kind
of encapsulates the fears.
S1 (09:10):
And the prime minister, Anthony Albanese. He did address this
point in his response to the report. Right.
S3 (09:15):
The Prime Minister has broadly welcomed the report. He has
declared that it's a vital document to address the crisis
of anti-Semitism in Australia.
S4 (09:25):
anti-Semitism is an evil scourge and there is no place
in Australia for anti-Semitism.
S3 (09:32):
He thinks that public discourse has got out of line
on this issue.
S4 (09:37):
The kind of hatred and violence that we've seen on
our streets recently is despicable, and it won't be tolerated.
And I want those responsible to face the full force
of the law.
S3 (09:51):
That what started out as legitimate criticism of Israel has,
in some cases, metastasized into an endorsement of anti-Semitic violence
that has left Jewish people in Australia, a great many
of them in the hideous position of feeling unsafe in
their own country, thinking of leaving. And this is one
of the conclusions of Siegel's report. And it's a report
(10:14):
that has been endorsed by most of the major mainstream
Jewish organizations in this country, who say it is incredibly
welcome and incredibly timely document to address this crisis. What
Albanese hasn't done is say explicitly which of the recommendations
his government will pursue. Instead, what he said is we
are already doing some of these, and that's true. So,
(10:36):
for example, the report says that people who hold anti-Semitic
views shouldn't be allowed to hold Australian visas. And already
we've seen the rapper, formerly known as Kanye West, denied
a visa to come to Australia. He of course, released
a completely hideous song called Heil Hitler. So that is
already occurring. Other recommendations. Albanese says the government will adopt
(10:58):
others the envoy can just do on her own. So,
for example, she says she'll monitor media reporting. She can
do that. The government doesn't need to be involved. And
then there are other recommendations that do need government, either
endorsement through legislation or cooperation to, for example, like the envoy,
deliver training to different public servants. The government would need
(11:19):
to okay that and we don't know if they will
or not.
S1 (11:24):
We'll be right back. Some people have said that some
of the recommendations in the report sound a little bit Trumpian.
For example, proposing that funding be stripped from groups, including
educational institutions, if they fail to address antisemitism. So how
has that been received?
S2 (11:44):
I would say it's mixed. So people in the academic world,
or groups such as the Jewish Council of Australia, which
is a left wing organisation. Definitely argue it's out of
Donald Trump's playbook in that the American president cut funding
to Columbia University on the grounds it tolerated antisemitism. I
spoke to Jillian Segal about this, and she really made
(12:06):
the point. She wanted to push that this is worst,
worst case scenario, and she really didn't want it to
be seen as the ultimate choice. So there's a bit
of a kind of walk back, maybe of, um, you know,
not wanting this to be the absolute focus of the report,
but it is that sort of controversial move with, yeah,
(12:28):
certain groups finding this to be quite controlling of, you know,
particularly cultural institutions, um, universities and schools.
S3 (12:40):
The context for this discussion is that many Jewish Australians
feel that the arts and cultural worlds, which are worlds
that Jewish Australians have been really heavily involved in, have
distinctly taken a side in the Israel-Palestine conflict. And that's
been the Palestinian side. And they feel that Jewish voices
(13:00):
aren't sufficiently represented in things like arts festivals or writers talks,
that they're being silenced or sidelined from a world they
care deeply about, and that over time, that kind of
erasure of Jewish voices might ultimately lead to a normalisation
of attitudes that could be pro-Palestinian but but could veer
(13:22):
into outright antisemitism. On the other hand, much of the
arts community feels that it's vital to be on what
they see as the right side of this issue. Standing
with an oppressed people who are suffering from airstrikes and
military raids, hunger and deprivation, according to many NGOs and
United Nations organisations. And so that's setting the stage for
(13:46):
a really intense conflict over culture. And then the other
thing is what the institutions are doing about it, because
in the most part, we have not seen the actual, say,
ballet companies, theater companies, art galleries or educational institutions push
back against Siegel's report. Indeed, the universities have given public
commitments to adopt the IHRA definition prior to the report
(14:10):
being released. Now, how exactly they implement that is not clear,
but you have institutions that are essentially being put in
a position of having, in many cases, a quite left
wing base of employees who are broadly very supportive of Palestine.
And now facing a pushback from the Jewish community and
the envoy, with some government backing, putting them in these
(14:34):
institutions in a pretty hard position.
S1 (14:36):
And then we found out over the weekend that Gillian
Siegel's husband is linked to a $50,000 donation to Advance Australia.
So can you tell us about this? Why? It's raised
eyebrows and what Jillian Segal has said in response to
reports about it.
S2 (14:50):
Yeah. So it came out that her husband's family trust
had donated $50,000 to Advance Australia. So this is the
group that people might remember during elections and the voice campaign,
seeing a very strong sort of conservative belief, you know,
comparing the Labor Party to a vote for China or
the CCP, um, criticizing the Greens as Hamas supporters, um,
(15:15):
and in fact, describing some labor politicians as Hamas supporters
and then being against welcome to country. So these are
very sort of divisive issues that this group advocates on.
And the Australian Electoral Commission donation returns was able to
to show that this trust had donated to Advance Australia. Again,
(15:39):
this is by her husband's trust and company. It's not
by her specifically. She's come out instantly saying that she
had nothing to do with it, and she doesn't dictate
her husband's politics like he doesn't dictate hers. It really
does sort of come down to being about optics.
S1 (15:55):
I mean, it does raise really interesting issues, doesn't it?
I mean, I'd love to know. Nick, perhaps you could
weigh in on whether this should even matter. Like, should
people in positions such as Siegel be accountable for their
partner's donations? I can see why it would be so
offensive to think that they should be. But then you
look at some of the statements that have been attributed
to Advance Australia. You know, the group recently claimed Palestinians
(16:16):
in Australia were a risk to security. They've posted anti-immigration content.
So that's uncomfortable too, isn't it, because it goes so
much counter to what Jillian's trying to accomplish. But of course,
this is not her. Nick, what do you think?
S3 (16:30):
I think it's perfectly reasonable for the members of a
couple to have very different politics. You see that among politicians.
You see that probably in your own social circles, and
advance Events is putting an avowedly conservative point of view
into elections. It fully declares everything. It's a right wing
version of climate 200 or of GetUp! It plays a
(16:54):
role in public discussion, but I think I agree with
what Liv said, which is that this creates a challenge
for the envoy's message that her report is a strictly
non-partisan document. And more than that, and more particularly, it
makes it harder for it to be received in the
way that she's asked for it to be received. She said,
(17:15):
please take this as a good faith attempt to solve
a really thorny problem and let us as a society,
go and run with it. And even if it is
not the case that she had any knowledge of or
involvement in her husband's donation, she will be perceived as
being tied to it fairly or unfairly. And that's going
(17:36):
to make her work harder.
S1 (17:38):
Yeah, absolutely. And just to wrap up, I'll put this
to both of you. What are the chances? Do you
think that the government will actually adopt recommendations from the report?
I mean, the government, of course, has been under a
fair amount of pressure to address anti-Semitism. But at the
same time, some of the recommendations, it would seem that
they would be very difficult to implement.
S2 (17:57):
I mean, you know, as we said earlier, there are
some that the government is already doing, like particularly when
it comes to visa holders. It's already quite strict. So
there are parts to it and there are parts, you know,
education of the Holocaust in schools like that is, uh,
I think relatively lacking in, um, kind of controversy. So
(18:20):
there's a lot to that report that the government can
quite easily agree to. And as Nick said earlier, there
are some things that Sigal can just do as an envoy. So,
for example, giving a report card on universities, like outlining
publicly what universities have done well or haven't done well
with anti-Semitism, there's really no need for any kind of
(18:42):
government agreement to that. The things I think that will
be interesting to watch and interesting to keep the government
accountable on is whether or not there'll be any sort
of funding clauses in contracts or anything of that nature
with the creative groups. That is probably the most controversial
(19:02):
one that the government really would have to be involved with.
So I think that one, I imagine would take, if
the government were to adopt it a very long time
for them to to adopt it, because it's just so controversial.
S3 (19:16):
Yeah. It's an incredibly thorny area. The Khaled Sabsabi saga,
which is the artist who was chosen to represent Australia
at the Biennale. And then it came to light that
he had works that featured members of Hezbollah, the Lebanese
militant and terrorist group. And then he was pulled from
that and then he was reinstated. That saga illustrates just
(19:41):
how difficult this is, because things like the arts are
necessarily subjective, and if the government is going to apply
bright line standards that seek to stamp out anti-Semitism and
then enforce those standards where people might lose jobs or funding,
that is going to be very, very difficult to implement.
(20:02):
And it could be quite controversial in its application. And
as the government seeks to straddle the line of stamping
out anti-Semitism whilst preserving free speech, whilst also seeking to
stamp out Islamophobia and allow legitimate discussion and criticism of
Israel over the conduct of its war in Palestine. Balancing
all of those things and the political incentives that come
(20:23):
with them is going to be very thorny indeed. We're
going to be following it with great interest to see
how they manage that position.
S1 (20:32):
It's a tricky one, for sure. So thank you so
much to both of you, Nick and Olivia, for your time.
S2 (20:37):
Thanks very much. Appreciate it.
S3 (20:39):
Thank you.
S1 (20:45):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by myself
and Kai Wong, with technical assistance by Josh towers. Our
executive producer is Tammy Mills. Our head of audio is
Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of The
Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy the
show and want more of our journalism, subscribe to our
(21:05):
newspapers today. It's the best way to support what we do.
Search The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe and sign up for
our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of
the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your
inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm
(21:26):
Samantha Selinger. Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Selinger Morris. It's Tuesday,
July 15th. Some have called it a dangerous document that
could restrict our freedom of speech. Others have celebrated it,
saying it will lead to protections that are overdue for
(00:22):
a community that has long been battered by prejudice. We are,
of course, talking about the report that Jillian Segal, the
special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, handed to Prime Minister Anthony
Albanese last week. But what changes, if any, will our
government implement from amongst Segal's recommendations? And does she have
any power herself? Today, Deputy federal editor Nick Bonyhady and
(00:47):
federal politics reporter Olivia Ireland joined me to discuss all
of this and what we should make of the sizable
donation that Jillian Segal's husband has made to a right
wing lobby group. Welcome, Nick and Olivia.
S2 (01:03):
Good to be here.
S3 (01:04):
Thanks for having us.
S1 (01:06):
Okay, so there's been a few days of headlines now
about this report, but can we just back up a bit?
Can you tell us a bit about who Jillian Segal
is and what this role that she's got is all about?
S2 (01:16):
So Jillian Segal, she's a very distinguished businesswoman and lawyer.
So she was previously a partner at a major corporate
law firm in her early career. And then she sort
of moved on into being the deputy commissioner for the
Australian Securities and Investment Commission. And then she established herself
(01:37):
again with um, being on boards of various groups, including
like NAB. And then she, uh, had a huge role with, um,
sort of the response to October 7th as a part
of a Jewish lobby group. And from that point on,
she was appointed as the antisemitism envoy by the government.
S4 (01:59):
We have seen since October 7th last year a significant
rise in anti-Semitism in Australia. And that is why the
government has made the decision to appoint a special envoy
on anti-Semitism. And I'm very pleased that Jillian Segal has
(02:19):
agreed to take up that role. Jillian.
S2 (02:22):
So this is an appointment that was made about a
year ago. The role, at this point in time, before
the report involved her essentially investigating how problematic are anti-Semitism
had become around Australia.
S4 (02:37):
It's important that as part of those ongoing efforts to
promote social cohesion, uh, that Jillian will advise myself and
the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs minister, but also engage with
the community about how we can raise education.
S2 (02:56):
She has a number of staff and powers to investigate things.
And now, since her report has come out, her role
will be about implementing that. And she definitely has the
ability to put out public notices and, you know, recommendations. Um,
(03:17):
and she would have very much a voice to the
government that would be heard and at times adopted.
S3 (03:24):
The context of that is that there's just been an
enormous upsurge in anti-Semitic hate. There's been instances of arson attacks, uh,
comments made to even school children that are just hideous
graffiti on the walls of Jewish institutions, including schools. And
that's led that community to have really genuine fears for
(03:46):
their safety. Uh, in the months and years since October 7th. Obviously,
anti-Semitism has gone on vastly longer than that, but there's
been a noticeable upsurge that led the government to create
this position about a year ago.
S1 (03:57):
Okay, so let's get to Siegel's report then. It was
published last week. What were the key recommendations? Because, you know,
there's 49 of them. But let's get into the key recommendations.
S3 (04:05):
So Siegel's report is very broad and it seeks to
tackle antisemitism across society. So some of those are about security,
practical security at Jewish institutions. But her biggest focus is
on the educational and cultural spheres. She says that everything
starts with education. And so education needs to have a
(04:26):
really strong anti anti-Semitism focus.
S5 (04:31):
But education is central. It shapes not only what young
Australians know, but how they think and how they treat others.
And the plan promotes a nationally consistent approach to teaching
about the history, harms and modern forms of anti-Semitism through
the lens of democracy, social inclusion.
S3 (04:49):
Teachers, university lecturers need to be educating their pupils about anti-Semitism,
about the horrors of the Holocaust, and that needs to
then permeate into a whole bunch of other areas. So
she calls for training on anti-Semitism, uh, for judicial officers,
for Border Force staff, for educators. She calls for funding
(05:11):
to be stripped from organizations that don't adequately tackle anti-Semitism.
She calls for monitoring of the media to ensure that
they're upholding the highest standards. And undergirding this all is
a definition of anti-Semitism that's become quite controversial. But really,
this is a broad blueprint across society.
S2 (05:30):
Segal has done the media rounds, and she she really
pushed the point that this is designed to be a carrot,
not a stick. She wants, you know, organizations, particularly universities.
I think they're really in the spotlight with this because
of especially all the encampments that happened last year, for
them to sort of learn how to really discuss anti-Semitism
(05:53):
and how to combat that. She says she doesn't want
it to be about criticizing or condemning particular groups. She
wants this to be seen as a positive. That's been
her big message throughout the week.
S1 (06:07):
Which is interesting because obviously a lot of people referring
to the universities and the cultural institutions, they have sort of,
I think, received this in a very different way. But
we'll get into that in a bit. Let's get into
her definition of anti-Semitism, the one that she would like
to have adopted nationally. What is it and why is
it so controversial?
S3 (06:26):
The definition comes from a group called the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance, and that has been widely adopted in some
other countries and is already in use in some parts
of government and the tertiary education sphere. And the definition
itself is not a wildly controversial one. It highlights that
(06:51):
if you discriminate or express hatred towards Jewish people than
that is anti-Semitic. What is more controversial is that the
definition comes with a series of examples that are used
to explain what might be anti-Semitic, and some of those
examples are very helpful in clarifying, and people see them
(07:11):
as being very positive. But critics of the IHRA definition,
including Kenneth Stern, who was one of the people involved
in its creation, have come to believe that the definition
can be used or is being used to stifle legitimate
criticism of the State of Israel.
S6 (07:29):
But when you start having official definitions of what is
a particular type of hatred that leads to, you know,
problems that are, in my country, at least, the United States,
reminiscent of McCarthyism, the idea that you can lose your funding,
which we're seeing, that you can be deported.
S3 (07:49):
And the reason for that is that some of the
examples in the definition say things like if you were
to criticize Israel in a way that you would not
any other democracy, then that is an instance of anti-Semitism.
S6 (08:07):
And what that does is not only harm democracy, it
blinds us to how anti-Semitism actually works.
S3 (08:15):
Now, some people believe that that is totally reasonable, and
that often criticism of Israel is used to mark anti-Semitism
under the surface, and that the two things often go
hand in hand in a kind of where there's smoke,
there's fire way. But the other way of seeing it
is that it's very difficult to know how much criticism
(08:37):
a person would place on a whole range of nations,
and very few people have time to be comprehensive in
their criticism of every nation that has alleged human rights abuses.
And so that definition can therefore be weaponized, the critics
say to shut down that criticism to make the cost
of criticizing Israel too high, to make critics wary that
(08:57):
they will be charged with anti-Semitism in public debate. And
there's other elements of that definition and its associated examples
that are seen in a similar way. But that kind
of encapsulates the fears.
S1 (09:10):
And the prime minister, Anthony Albanese. He did address this
point in his response to the report. Right.
S3 (09:15):
The Prime Minister has broadly welcomed the report. He has
declared that it's a vital document to address the crisis
of anti-Semitism in Australia.
S4 (09:25):
anti-Semitism is an evil scourge and there is no place
in Australia for anti-Semitism.
S3 (09:32):
He thinks that public discourse has got out of line
on this issue.
S4 (09:37):
The kind of hatred and violence that we've seen on
our streets recently is despicable, and it won't be tolerated.
And I want those responsible to face the full force
of the law.
S3 (09:51):
That what started out as legitimate criticism of Israel has,
in some cases, metastasized into an endorsement of anti-Semitic violence
that has left Jewish people in Australia, a great many
of them in the hideous position of feeling unsafe in
their own country, thinking of leaving. And this is one
of the conclusions of Siegel's report. And it's a report
(10:14):
that has been endorsed by most of the major mainstream
Jewish organizations in this country, who say it is incredibly
welcome and incredibly timely document to address this crisis. What
Albanese hasn't done is say explicitly which of the recommendations
his government will pursue. Instead, what he said is we
are already doing some of these, and that's true. So,
(10:36):
for example, the report says that people who hold anti-Semitic
views shouldn't be allowed to hold Australian visas. And already
we've seen the rapper, formerly known as Kanye West, denied
a visa to come to Australia. He of course, released
a completely hideous song called Heil Hitler. So that is
already occurring. Other recommendations. Albanese says the government will adopt
(10:58):
others the envoy can just do on her own. So,
for example, she says she'll monitor media reporting. She can
do that. The government doesn't need to be involved. And
then there are other recommendations that do need government, either
endorsement through legislation or cooperation to, for example, like the envoy,
deliver training to different public servants. The government would need
(11:19):
to okay that and we don't know if they will
or not.
S1 (11:24):
We'll be right back. Some people have said that some
of the recommendations in the report sound a little bit Trumpian.
For example, proposing that funding be stripped from groups, including
educational institutions, if they fail to address antisemitism. So how
has that been received?
S2 (11:44):
I would say it's mixed. So people in the academic world,
or groups such as the Jewish Council of Australia, which
is a left wing organisation. Definitely argue it's out of
Donald Trump's playbook in that the American president cut funding
to Columbia University on the grounds it tolerated antisemitism. I
spoke to Jillian Segal about this, and she really made
(12:06):
the point. She wanted to push that this is worst,
worst case scenario, and she really didn't want it to
be seen as the ultimate choice. So there's a bit
of a kind of walk back, maybe of, um, you know,
not wanting this to be the absolute focus of the report,
but it is that sort of controversial move with, yeah,
(12:28):
certain groups finding this to be quite controlling of, you know,
particularly cultural institutions, um, universities and schools.
S3 (12:40):
The context for this discussion is that many Jewish Australians
feel that the arts and cultural worlds, which are worlds
that Jewish Australians have been really heavily involved in, have
distinctly taken a side in the Israel-Palestine conflict. And that's
been the Palestinian side. And they feel that Jewish voices
(13:00):
aren't sufficiently represented in things like arts festivals or writers talks,
that they're being silenced or sidelined from a world they
care deeply about, and that over time, that kind of
erasure of Jewish voices might ultimately lead to a normalisation
of attitudes that could be pro-Palestinian but but could veer
(13:22):
into outright antisemitism. On the other hand, much of the
arts community feels that it's vital to be on what
they see as the right side of this issue. Standing
with an oppressed people who are suffering from airstrikes and
military raids, hunger and deprivation, according to many NGOs and
United Nations organisations. And so that's setting the stage for
(13:46):
a really intense conflict over culture. And then the other
thing is what the institutions are doing about it, because
in the most part, we have not seen the actual, say,
ballet companies, theater companies, art galleries or educational institutions push
back against Siegel's report. Indeed, the universities have given public
commitments to adopt the IHRA definition prior to the report
(14:10):
being released. Now, how exactly they implement that is not clear,
but you have institutions that are essentially being put in
a position of having, in many cases, a quite left
wing base of employees who are broadly very supportive of Palestine.
And now facing a pushback from the Jewish community and
the envoy, with some government backing, putting them in these
(14:34):
institutions in a pretty hard position.
S1 (14:36):
And then we found out over the weekend that Gillian
Siegel's husband is linked to a $50,000 donation to Advance Australia.
So can you tell us about this? Why? It's raised
eyebrows and what Jillian Segal has said in response to
reports about it.
S2 (14:50):
Yeah. So it came out that her husband's family trust
had donated $50,000 to Advance Australia. So this is the
group that people might remember during elections and the voice campaign,
seeing a very strong sort of conservative belief, you know,
comparing the Labor Party to a vote for China or
the CCP, um, criticizing the Greens as Hamas supporters, um,
(15:15):
and in fact, describing some labor politicians as Hamas supporters
and then being against welcome to country. So these are
very sort of divisive issues that this group advocates on.
And the Australian Electoral Commission donation returns was able to
to show that this trust had donated to Advance Australia. Again,
(15:39):
this is by her husband's trust and company. It's not
by her specifically. She's come out instantly saying that she
had nothing to do with it, and she doesn't dictate
her husband's politics like he doesn't dictate hers. It really
does sort of come down to being about optics.
S1 (15:55):
I mean, it does raise really interesting issues, doesn't it?
I mean, I'd love to know. Nick, perhaps you could
weigh in on whether this should even matter. Like, should
people in positions such as Siegel be accountable for their
partner's donations? I can see why it would be so
offensive to think that they should be. But then you
look at some of the statements that have been attributed
to Advance Australia. You know, the group recently claimed Palestinians
(16:16):
in Australia were a risk to security. They've posted anti-immigration content.
So that's uncomfortable too, isn't it, because it goes so
much counter to what Jillian's trying to accomplish. But of course,
this is not her. Nick, what do you think?
S3 (16:30):
I think it's perfectly reasonable for the members of a
couple to have very different politics. You see that among politicians.
You see that probably in your own social circles, and
advance Events is putting an avowedly conservative point of view
into elections. It fully declares everything. It's a right wing
version of climate 200 or of GetUp! It plays a
(16:54):
role in public discussion, but I think I agree with
what Liv said, which is that this creates a challenge
for the envoy's message that her report is a strictly
non-partisan document. And more than that, and more particularly, it
makes it harder for it to be received in the
way that she's asked for it to be received. She said,
(17:15):
please take this as a good faith attempt to solve
a really thorny problem and let us as a society,
go and run with it. And even if it is
not the case that she had any knowledge of or
involvement in her husband's donation, she will be perceived as
being tied to it fairly or unfairly. And that's going
(17:36):
to make her work harder.
S1 (17:38):
Yeah, absolutely. And just to wrap up, I'll put this
to both of you. What are the chances? Do you
think that the government will actually adopt recommendations from the report?
I mean, the government, of course, has been under a
fair amount of pressure to address anti-Semitism. But at the
same time, some of the recommendations, it would seem that
they would be very difficult to implement.
S2 (17:57):
I mean, you know, as we said earlier, there are
some that the government is already doing, like particularly when
it comes to visa holders. It's already quite strict. So
there are parts to it and there are parts, you know,
education of the Holocaust in schools like that is, uh,
I think relatively lacking in, um, kind of controversy. So
(18:20):
there's a lot to that report that the government can
quite easily agree to. And as Nick said earlier, there
are some things that Sigal can just do as an envoy. So,
for example, giving a report card on universities, like outlining
publicly what universities have done well or haven't done well
with anti-Semitism, there's really no need for any kind of
(18:42):
government agreement to that. The things I think that will
be interesting to watch and interesting to keep the government
accountable on is whether or not there'll be any sort
of funding clauses in contracts or anything of that nature
with the creative groups. That is probably the most controversial
(19:02):
one that the government really would have to be involved with.
So I think that one, I imagine would take, if
the government were to adopt it a very long time
for them to to adopt it, because it's just so controversial.
S3 (19:16):
Yeah. It's an incredibly thorny area. The Khaled Sabsabi saga,
which is the artist who was chosen to represent Australia
at the Biennale. And then it came to light that
he had works that featured members of Hezbollah, the Lebanese
militant and terrorist group. And then he was pulled from
that and then he was reinstated. That saga illustrates just
(19:41):
how difficult this is, because things like the arts are
necessarily subjective, and if the government is going to apply
bright line standards that seek to stamp out anti-Semitism and
then enforce those standards where people might lose jobs or funding,
that is going to be very, very difficult to implement.
(20:02):
And it could be quite controversial in its application. And
as the government seeks to straddle the line of stamping
out anti-Semitism whilst preserving free speech, whilst also seeking to
stamp out Islamophobia and allow legitimate discussion and criticism of
Israel over the conduct of its war in Palestine. Balancing
all of those things and the political incentives that come
(20:23):
with them is going to be very thorny indeed. We're
going to be following it with great interest to see
how they manage that position.
S1 (20:32):
It's a tricky one, for sure. So thank you so
much to both of you, Nick and Olivia, for your time.
S2 (20:37):
Thanks very much. Appreciate it.
S3 (20:39):
Thank you.
S1 (20:45):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by myself
and Kai Wong, with technical assistance by Josh towers. Our
executive producer is Tammy Mills. Our head of audio is
Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of The
Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy the
show and want more of our journalism, subscribe to our
(21:05):
newspapers today. It's the best way to support what we do.
Search The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe and sign up for
our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of
the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your
inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm
(21:26):
Samantha Selinger. Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com