The special envoy’s report doesn’t hold all the answers for defeating antisemitism

In the wake of the Bondi terror attack, the government is under pressure to do more to address antisemitism in Australia.

Many have raised a report by antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal as holding the answers we need. Released back in July, the government is yet to formally respond.

But what does the report recommend, and how much of it is useful for tackling antisemitism? While there are some good ideas in it, it’s not a fix-all for this deeply complicated problem.

A highly charged environment

In response to rising numbers of antisemitic incidents, the Albanese government appointed Segal in July 2024 as the nation’s first special envoy to combat antisemitism. The government also commissioned a plan with recommendations to address the issue.

One year later, Segal published her plan, which set out those recommendations.

The context was highly charged. Jewish organisations were warning of rising hate. This included hate speech, discrimination, bullying, vandalism and physical assaults, and reported increases in both volume and severity.

Other voices pushed back, arguing the numbers were inflated and legitimate criticism of Israel was being counted as antisemitism.

The debate was intense, both within the Jewish community and across the wider public.

Released amid an already polarised debate, the report became an additional focal point for existing disagreements.

As I have written for The Conversation before, a central limitation of the plan was its failure to engage with the most contested issue in public debate: how to clearly distinguish between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel.

This distinction is complex, but it’s essential to combat antisemitism in the current context.

Because the plan did not clarify this difference, many people rejected it outright.

Read more: The special envoy's antisemitism plan is ambitious, but fails to reckon with the hardest questions

Which recommendations might help?

But the plan included several constructive recommendations, particularly those focused on skills, education and coordination.

For example, it proposed working with government departments to ensure consistent recording of antisemitic hate crimes and incidents through a national database. It also called for reviving interfaith work that has stalled in recent years.

This work is especially important for rebuilding trust and social cohesion, particularly after the Bondi attack.

The plan asked online platforms such as X and Meta to take greater responsibility for content on their sites. This included more transparency in moderation decisions and clearer rules for how algorithms shape what people see.

In practice, however, the opposite has happened. Since Elon Musk took over X (formerly Twitter), and following the election of US President Donald Trump, major platforms have relaxed hate-speech moderation.

As a result, extreme content often remains online, even after the Bondi attacks. This includes praise for Hitler, denial of the Holocaust, and other serious attacks against Jewish people that are not removed by the platforms.

The plan further called for stronger coordination between law enforcement agencies to prevent and respond to antisemitic threats, as well as continued government funding for operational security at Jewish institutions and events. Such measures may have helped at Bondi, where security was clearly inadequate.

Which recommendations aren’t so useful?

The more punitive recommendations in Segal’s plan were unlikely to reduce antisemitism. These included withdrawing funding or imposing penalties on universities, cultural institutions or media organisations that did not comply with antisemitism standards set by the envoy.

Rather than helping, these measures inflamed the debate and shifted attention away from antisemitism itself to disputes about free speech and institutional autonomy. Without clear guidelines distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism, such measures could be used politically.

The plan missed an opportunity to address difficult conversations in a constructive way. For example, it called for widespread adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism as a first objective, without discussing why some people resist it.

The approach prioritised compliance over persuasion, limiting its capacity to address underlying disagreement.

What else should we do?

Antisemitism is not one single thing. There is no single solution.

To reduce prejudice and discrimination against Australian Jews, education and sustained community efforts are essential, alongside better coordination across institutions, civil society and technology companies to limit the spread of hateful ideologies. The Jewish community, alongside all communities targeted by hate, should all stand in solidarity rather than in isolation.

But to reduce the risk of violent attacks such as the one in Bondi, the envoy’s recommendations are not enough. Better laws are required to combat terrorism and limit access to firearms – the latter of which the government has already flagged.

Read more: Why can someone in suburban Sydney own 6 guns legally? New laws might change that

Law enforcement agencies need to engage constructively with communities to detect early signs of risk, without infringing on people’s rights and freedoms, as research on the issue has shown. The success of these interventions depends on participation across society and collaboration, so it’s important to build bridges across communities.

For this reason, we should resist authoritarian temptations. Silencing dissenting voices, banning opinions because they feel unpleasant or offensive, or relying on mass surveillance of anyone deemed suspicious will not solve the problem.

These approaches are likely to make it worse. They will antagonise large segments of society instead of fostering collaboration.

The worst terrorist attack on Australian soil struck the Jewish community, and it struck all of us. It is time to collectively reflect on what has happened and how to rebuild lasting social cohesion.