Segal defends response to neo-Nazi rally as envoys disagree on terror definition

Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, appeared before Senate Estimates today, where she was questioned about her office’s response to a neo-Nazi demonstration held outside NSW Parliament on 8 November.

Greens Senator David Shoebridge asked Ms Segal why her office had not issued a public statement following the rally by the National Socialist Network (NSN), in which around 60 participants displayed a banner reading “Abolish the Jewish Lobby” and used antisemitic slogans.

Ms Segal explained that while she had not released a formal public statement, she had provided background comments to journalists who contacted her. She also told the committee she had not yet contacted NSW Police directly about the incident but confirmed she would raise it at her next scheduled meeting with law enforcement and community stakeholders.

“It’s a movement, as you say, grounded in hate and intimidation. And they just, they are absolutely seeking to disrupt public life, destroy our social cohesion. I was initially, I might say, reluctant to give them more airplay, but I take your point because they do crave notoriety”.

“Perhaps there should have been a broader statement, but I chose to do it through individual media responses, but be under no illusion, I do condemn them,” Ms Segal said.

Progress on National Plan to Combat Antisemitism

During the hearing, Ms Segal provided an update on her July 2025 Plan to Combat Antisemitism. She said the document has been circulated across government departments and that discussions are underway, but the Albanese government has not yet issued a formal public response.

Among other items, the plan recommends adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism and proposes measures to strengthen education, reporting and responses to antisemitic incidents across public institutions.

Ms Segal noted that while the government has not yet issued a formal public response to the plan, practical steps are progressing in partnership with relevant ministers and agencies. “It’s not as if I am waiting for some holistic response,” Segal stated.

“The government, in one sense, is responding as the plan envisaged, issue by issue, activity by activity … I’m not expecting, and I’m not waiting for some overarching reply.”

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Segal said she was engaging with universities and law enforcement agencies on measures to tackle antisemitism.

Ongoing Role and Government Support

Appointed in July 2024 with bipartisan support, Ms Segal operates with an annual office budget of approximately $1.07 million and reports directly to the Prime Minister and Attorney-General.

A government spokesperson said the Albanese government “values the important work of the Special Envoy” and continues to engage closely with Ms Segal and Jewish community organisations to ensure the safety of Jewish Australians. The Attorney-General’s Department confirmed that a formal government response to the envoy’s plan will be provided in due course.

Disagreement over terrorism definition

Segal’s Senate appearance also coincided with a separate disagreement about whether Australia should rewrite the legal definition of terrorism, with the two federal envoys taking opposing positions.

The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is examining whether the Criminal Code should continue to define a terrorist act as violence carried out to advance a political, religious or ideological cause. A group of 15 Muslim organisations has urged the monitor to remove any reference to religion, arguing the wording unfairly links faith with extremism.

Aftab Malik, the special envoy for tackling Islamophobia, backed the change in a detailed submission and has repeated his concerns in public comments.

In recent remarks about the impact of current counter-terrorism settings, Malik said: “The reality is that Islamophobia in Australia has been persistent, at times ignored and at other times denied, but never fully addressed.” He argued that including religion in the definition “wilfully obscures the faith and practice of everyday Muslims with that of fringe, political and ideological voices” and has helped “cultivate a climate of suspicion and fear”.

At Senate estimates, Malik confirmed his stance, telling senators he would “advocate that religious actions or motives be removed from the definition and instead place politics or ideology”.

In her written submission to the review, Segal has taken the opposite view. She wrote that it is “particularly important” to retain the terms “political”, “religious” and “ideological” because they “assist to focus the definition and accordingly, the finite resources of law enforcement authorities”. Segal pointed to sentencing analysis undertaken for the review, noting that “almost 95 per cent of sentencing decisions reviewed involved religion as at least one of the motives”.

The government has not indicated whether it supports revising the definition, and the review remains underway.