58 minutes ago
1
The ABC and SBS have declined to adopt the contested definition of antisemitism endorsed by the federal government and royal commission, the national broadcaster claiming it could be used to stifle legitimate debate.
Both broadcasters emphasised their concern about antisemitism but argued it was important for their editorial independence to use their own definitions. The move is an express rejection of the definition demanded by Jillian Segal, Australia’s special envoy to combat antisemitism.
The definition from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance says in part that “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”. But it is accompanied by examples suggesting some criticisms of Israel could be antisemitic, which has made the definition controversial.
The ABC confirmed to this masthead it had chosen not to adopt the alliance’s definition. A spokeswoman said it did not disagree with the “underlying concept of antisemitism” but that it wanted to use its own editorial policies to maintain independence and public trust.
“The ABC’s existing guidance on hate speech is clear and unambiguous, including the principle that legitimate criticism of the State of Israel or the actions of some Israelis becomes antisemitism when the target shifts from ‘Israel’ to ‘Jews’,” the spokeswoman said.
SBS has also decided to not adopt the alliance’s definition, instead using the term “antisemitism” to refer to “prejudice or discrimination against Jewish people”, according to talking points prepared for senior executives ahead of Senate appearances and seen by this masthead.
The talking points state that the broadcaster recognises envoy Jillian Segal’s conclusion that “antisemitism is real and pervasive and has devastating consequences for its victims, eroding social cohesion”. The notes go on to state that SBS is editorially independent of the government and “will not be adopting the IHRA definition”.
The IHRA definition has been endorsed by federal and state governments, and adopted by the ongoing Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. In her 2025 plan to combat antisemitism, Segal said that the definition should be adopted by “all levels of government, public institutions and regulatory bodies”.
That would “establish a clear national understanding of antisemitism across all areas of state and federal government responsibility,” she wrote. “Consolidating a uniform national definition of antisemitism is a critical first step toward co-ordinated action.”
Antisemitism has been on the rise in Australia in recent years amid Israel’s war in Gaza. In December, the Bondi Beach terror attack on a Hanukkah celebration claimed the lives of 15 people and led to the royal commission.
Progressive, Islamic and pro-Palestinian groups have opposed the definition, saying it stifles free speech and legitimate criticism of Israel.
A spokesman for Segal was contacted for comment. Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said it was ludicrous that people were still debating definitions of antisemitism when it was such a serious threat to Australian life.
“The IHRA definition is being used by the royal commission as well as governments around the world, including our own,” Ryvchin said.
On the first day of the royal commission in February, commissioner Virginia Bell admitted the definition was “not free of controversy”. The definition itself was not controversial, she said, but two examples of the definition in use were controversial because they had led to suggestions that criticising the Israeli government could be wrongly branded antisemitic.
One of the 11 provided examples suggests it could be antisemitic to claim Israel’s existence is a “racist endeavour”.
The ABC pointed to the definitions in its statement, saying that some of the “illustrative examples have become increasingly contentious and are widely regarded as ambiguous”.
“These examples have been the subject of highly politicised debate internationally and have, in some contexts, been applied in ways that risk conflating legitimate political and policy critique with antisemitism,” the ABC spokeswoman said.
“The ABC notes that the IHRA’s core definition – ‘antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews’ – is not inconsistent with the ABC’s understanding or practical application of antisemitism.”
Bell told the hearing in February that her view was that concerns about the examples pay insufficient attention to a requirement that they be interpreted in context, and to the terms of the definition itself.
Text surrounding the core definition produced by IHRA notes that: “Criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
The divergence in definitions of antisemitism is consequential in part because Segal last year recommended she monitor the media to ensure “accurate, fair and responsible reporting” on the issue.
Segal’s report said that funding for institutions such as the ABC and SBS should be withheld if they are found to have promoted division or spread false or distorted narratives.
“Funding agreements or enabling legislation should be drafted to ensure that public funding can be readily terminated where organisations or individuals engage in or facilitate antisemitism,” the report reads.
According to the FOI documents, SBS met with Segal in April last year and acknowledged the report she produced. SBS agreed that all media organisations should engage in fair, accurate and responsible reporting, but said it was monitored by its audiences every day and was accountable to its own code of practice and independent ombudsman.
In a statement, an SBS spokesperson said the broadcaster was independent, focused on social cohesion and took great care with its language and terminology.
“SBS acknowledges there are diverse definitions of antisemitism and does not adopt or endorse any one organisation’s definition,” the spokesperson said. “SBS’s role is to report on these issues in a balanced and impartial way.”
The recent federal budget included an additional $3 million over three years to extend production of SBS Examines, a podcast which focuses on “dispelling misinformation and disinformation impacting Australia’s social cohesion, especially in multicultural and multilingual communities”.
SBS has reported extensively on the impacts of antisemitism on the Jewish community, it said, and as the multicultural and multilingual broadcaster, it plays a vital role in fostering social cohesion and “giving a choice to underrepresented groups”.
Progressive Jewish lobby group, the Jewish Council of Australia, challenged the use of the IHRA definition in the ongoing royal commission last week, arguing that it blurred the line between hate speech and political speech. Several other Jewish groups of much longer standing are solidly in favour of the definition, arguing it is a vital tool to help root out overt and coded antisemitism.
The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.
