Australia news LIVE: PM's China visit continues; Antisemitism envoy scrutinised over husband's donation to right-wing group
Latest posts
6.52am
Antisemitism envoy distances herself from husband's donation to right-wing lobby group
Olivia Ireland
Antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal has distanced herself from donations by her husband's family trust to controversial conservative lobby group Advance Australia days after she released recommendations on how the government needs to respond to rising hate towards Jewish people.
Loading
Australian Electoral Commission donation records lodged by a company Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of show that the Roth family trust, Henroth, gave $50,000 to Advance in 2023-24.
Advance Australia has previously said a vote for Labor is endorsed by the Chinese Communist Party, that teal candidates are hidden Green politicians, and has accused left-leaning politicians of being 'mostly on the same side as Hamas'.
Segal's role as envoy is to fight antisemitism and enhance social cohesion, and she has asked for endorsement of her report on combating antisemitism. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese explicitly said he did not want the report to be politicised.
6.48am
AUKUS dilemma looms large over PM's China visit
The future of the AUKUS agreement is dominating Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's visit to China, as the US looks for assurances on how AUKUS submarines would be deployed in the event of war.
In that context, Albanese was pressed on whether Australia would join a US-China war over Taiwan, but he declined to answer.
As Chief Political Correspondent Paul Sakkal writes in his analysis of the trip so far, the warm welcome and extensive praise exchanged between the nations' leaders contrasts with the 'prickly points of difference couched in strictly diplomatic language'.
Sakkal writes:
Intruding into this cozy atmosphere of mutual co-operation is one of the leading China hawks in the Trump administration.
The words of Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon figure reviewing the AUKUS pact, echoed around the room on day one of Albanese's China visit.
The Pentagon policy chief largely confirmed on Sunday what this masthead reported last week: he wants allies like Australia to be clearer about how they would support the US in potential conflicts, including but not limited to one with China over Taiwan.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
‘Nightmare scenario': Concerns over China's reaction to Port of Darwin ownership
The Australian North Asia Correspondent Will Glasgow says Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's commitment to ending the Chinese ownership of Port of Darwin would 'embarrass' China and create a 'red line'. 'There's some pretty loud pieces about that and about the damage that Australia will do to its economic relationship with China if the Prime Minister goes through on that election commitment to end the Chinese ownership of Port of Darwin,' Mr Glasgow told Sky News Australia. 'My sense is that Xi Jinping may choose to not raise it, may choose to not make a big deal of it.'
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Controversial anti-Semitism definition weighed up
Australia shouldn't legislate a controversial definition of anti-Semitism or impose penalties for breaching it, coalition frontbencher James Paterson says. Anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal on Thursday handed down her report on combating hatred against Jewish people. She recommended Australia adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which some groups argue conflates criticism of Israel. The report also urges the government to cut funding to universities, programs or academics that enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. All public funding agreements with festivals or cultural institutions should include terms to allow for the termination of the agreement when they promote or facilitate hatred, it says. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is mulling over the findings, and is yet to commit to implementing the recommendations. Senator Paterson said the IHRA definition was important, because what constitutes anti-Semitism is highly contested. "It has been a very helpful tool and helpful guideline. No one in Australia, though, is proposing that (it) should be legislated or that there should be consequences under the law for transgressing IHRA," he told ABC's RN on Tuesday. "I don't think anyone should propose that. I don't think that'd be consistent with Australia's approach to free speech." Ms Segal has been called on to resign in recent days after revelations a trust linked to her husband made a donation to a right-wing lobby group. Her husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth Discretionary Trust, which gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in the 2023/24 financial year. The envoy is not listed as a director or shareholder of the company, Henroth Investments Pty Ltd, which made the payment. Ms Segal said she had no involvement with her husband's donations. Former foreign minister Bob Carr said the envoy must clarify that she does not share her husband's political views. "What I'm asking for her is a full bodied repudiation of views that are every bit as repugnant as the anti-Semitism that she focuses on and she addresses," he told Sky News. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke defended Ms Segal, saying she should not be held accountable for the actions of a man. "It's a long time since we've been a country where you would blame a woman for decisions of her husband," he told ABC's 7.30 on Monday. "She said she didn't know about it, and I've got no reason to do anything other than believe her."
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Envoy's recommendations have put the Prime Minister in a bit of a bind
An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last. An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last. An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last. An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last.
