View from The Hill: Segal’s antisemitism plan gives government controversy, not clarity

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese may be rueing what seemed a good idea at the time – the appointment of a special envoy to combat antisemitism (as well as an envoy to combat Islamophobia).

Or perhaps Jillian Segal, a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, was the wrong choice for the position, despite her extensive legal, business and organisational background.

Her plan to Combat Antisemitism, released on Thursday, has stirred controversy. Now Segal has had to distance herself from a $50,000 donation from a trust controlled by her husband, John Roth, and his brother, made to the right-wing group Advance.

“No one would tolerate or accept my husband dictating my politics, and I certainly won’t dictate his. I have had no involvement in his donations, nor will I,” Segal said, after embarrassing revelations about the money.

When Segal presented her strategy last week, it was applauded by many in the Jewish community. But critics find it disappointing. It is simultaneously too thin – even accepting it is a plan rather than a fully fledged, comprehensive report – and overblown in its recommendations.

The wave of antisemitism we’ve seen in Australia since October 2023 has been both shocking and appalling. Many politicians and institutions, including some universities, have handled the situation badly. Documenting in some detail what happened is important as part of any blueprint for the future.

So it is surprising the Segal report does not provide more of a record. It would have been useful to have a list of the major attacks, rates of apprehension, prosecution and conviction, and what’s known about perpetrators and motivations (including criminals using antisemitism to get leverage for personal advantage).

On strategy, by contrast, the envoy’s report goes for broke. Among her most controversial recommendations are removing funding from universities and cultural institutions that fail to deal effectively with antisemitism. (Segal has since stressed this is a last resort.)

Segal proposes to prepare a scorecard assessing universities’ performances. She says if systematic problems remain by the start of next year, the federal government should appoint a judicial inquiry into campus antisemitism.

There is no prospect of the government adopting the tougher proposals among the Segal recommendations. Albanese and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke were at the plan’s launch (it would have looked bad for them not to be). But it was notable Albanese made no commitment on adopting the recommendations.

Burke told the ABC on Monday night “I think the objective here is not to be stripping funding [from universities], it’s not to be cancelling people, the objective is actually to never fall foul of the need to make sure that we’re combatting antisemitism”.

On university defunding, Segal’s plan is simply impractical. What exactly would be the benchmarks of failure? How much funding would be withheld?

With more egregious issues – such as encampments on campuses – having been dealt with, navigating around the issues of free speech would be tricky at best.

The challenges of arts funding would be even more problematic, given the licence in artistic expression.

One problem with Segal’s report is that she inserts herself too personally into what she believes should be done. For instance, she says in her foreword, “The pages that follow outline how the Envoy will address antisemitism across education, law, digital spaces and community life”. And later, “The Envoy will work with government to enable government funding to be withheld [from errant universities and academics]”.

Under Segal’s plan, she will monitor media organisations (which means the ABC and SBS), “to encourage accurate, fair, responsible reporting and assist them to meet their editorial standards and commitments to impartiality and balance and to avoid accepting false or distorted narratives”.

At first glance, that might sound reasonable. But it could risk descending into harassment. The Lattouf affair was an example of the ABC giving in to lobbying from pro-Israel complainants and ending up losing an unfair dismissal case.

When pressed about what criticisms she had of the ABC, Segal initially said she didn’t have anything in particular in mind. Later, she produced an example. She didn’t sound well-prepared.

Some “narratives” are black and white; others are grey, and the greys can come in many shades. People of goodwill, within the media and outside, will have a range of views on Middle East issues. Balance and impartiality will involve judgements, let alone the difficulties of being sure about accuracy.

Segal’s report refers to the fact that, according to research she commissioned, younger people – those under 35 – have different perceptions on the Middle East and the Jewish community than older people.

Segal emphasises the importance of educational effort in combating antisemitism, which comes down to issues of teaching history and promoting tolerance. Again, there are areas of absolute clarity (the details and evils of the Holocaust and the broader history of antisemitism) and contested areas (various issues in and about the Middle East).

Segal’s call for the wider adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism has brought some blowback.

This defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”, including through words or physical actions. This definition is controversial because examples that accompany it include “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”.

The government has reconfirmed its adoption of this definition, so the controversy over it arising from the Segal plan has become something of a diversion from more practical issues.

To sum up, the central flaw of the Segal document is that it lacks nuance. Some of its recommendations go beyond what is feasible or desirable. Treasurer Jim Chalmers, fielding a question on Monday about the Advance donation, described the plan as presenting “suggestions, ideas and proposals”.

Burke, reiterating the position of Albanese, said on Monday night there was “a whole lot [of the plan] where you hope that you can find pathways to avoid antisemitism where some of the recommendations never need to be considered”.

One risk is that the plan’s overreach could be counterproductive – it could trigger a counter-reaction from other groups that inhibits proper recognition of the extent of the problem of antisemitism. Its weaknesses make the plan a missed opportunity.