TRANSCRIPT -TV INTERVIEW – 7:30 WITH SARAH FERGUSON – MONDAY 14 JULY 2025

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TV INTERVIEW
ABC 7:30 WITH SARAH FERGUSON
MONDAY, 14 JULY 2025

SUBJECT: THE REPORT BY THE ENVOY TO COMBAT ANTISEMITISM, JILLIAN SEGAL.

SARAH FERGUSON: The report released last week proposes cutting funding to universities and cultural institutions that failed to tackle antisemitism, monitoring public broadcasters for balance, and also recommends the screening of visa applicants for antisemitic views. Tony Burke is the minister for home affairs, he joins me now from Canberra. Tony Burke, welcome to 7:30.

MINISTER TONY BURKE: Good evening, Sarah.

FERGUSON: Now, it was revealed last week that the husband of Antisemitism Envoy Jillian Segal gave money to the controversial and divisive right wing lobby group Advance Australia. To be clear, she did not make the donation, and she is not responsible for him, but she has not criticised it. Were you blindsided by that?

BURKE: I wasn't aware of it until the reports came out, and I'd say two things. First of all, Advance is an appalling organisation, and that organisation does the opposite of pursuing social cohesion. And you go through a long list of people who they try to push to the margins and a long list of tropes that they're guilty of using, but I have no time for that organisation at all. Secondly, and this was referenced in your question, it's a long time since we've been a country, where you would blame a woman for decisions of her husband. And so with that in mind, I don't think she's answerable for her husband. She said she didn't know about it. And I've got no reason to do anything other than believe her.

FERGUSON: Let's go to the substance of the report. Will the government be accepting the envoys recommendations on a system for stripping funding from universities who fail to tackle antisemitism, according to the envoy.

BURKE: Well, I think the objective here is not to the stripping funding, is not to be cancelling people, the objective is actually to never fall foul of the need to make sure that we're combatting antisemitism. And this is where a lot of the discussion, and I respect why, has gone straight to the edges of ‘well, what would the punishment be, what would the penalty be.’ The objective here is that you don't end up in that world. The objective here is, you know, over the last year and a half, we have seen a spike in antisemitism in Australia. All forms of bigotry are unacceptable, but at the moment, you know, your question, we're focussing on this one, and it has an ancient, ugly tradition. We want to make sure that people in Australia, can live free from it, and we want to make sure that students can go to university and can study without being harassed, and some have been harassed. We want people to not be victimised because they might be wearing a star of David or wearing a yamaka. And those things have happened and they're all unacceptable.

FERGUSON: Now, you say at the fringes, but nonetheless, this is contained within a report that she is expecting to work with the government on the kind of report card that I just described. Let me ask the question in this way. Is antisemitism, as the report claims, normalised in Australian universities and in their courses?

BURKE: Well, I'm sure there are… she wouldn’t’ have put that in the report unless there were some Jewish students where that has been their experience. And as long as that's been the experience of any students, then that's unacceptable.

FERGUSON: I think the question is not about one specific discreet experience. It's about the normalisation at a university. I think that's broader than the experience of a single student. The question is, is antisemitism per se normalised at Australian universities? ‘Cause that's what the report describes?

BURKE: And the report is… the envoy is independent. So this is a report to government, not a report of government. And the Prime Minister made clear when he and I stood either side of Jillian Segal that, you know, some aspects of the report can be implemented immediately. There's some where you work through it slowly, and there's a whole lot where you hope that you can find pathways to avoid antisemitism where some of the recommendations never need to be considered because you found other pathways.

FERGUSON: Let's just go to a couple of the other elements of it. In the report, Ms Segel says the envoy will provide antisemitism training to Home Affairs staff and anyone dealing with visas. Is that a role that you support her having in into who qualifies for entry into Australia?

BURKE: Oh, I've been encouraging both Jillian Segal as Antisemitism Envoy and Aftab Malik,  the Islamophobia Envoy, to be engaging with the agencies, including the Department of Home Affairs, including with my Arts agencies as well. I think everybody instinctively has a starting point against bigotry, but there can be different softer ways that bigotry finds its way into decision making, and to be able to have some people very much focussed on this, who are able to provide that sort of information is a good thing. So some of that has already been happening, but there'll be more of it.

FERGUSON: Do you agree that the envoy should monitor public broadcasting for balance?

BURKE: Oh, I think the envoys are monitoring what happens in the media all the time across all the---

FERGUSON: Tony Burke, I'm just going to jump in there. This is not an informal thing. This is saying inside a report that the envoy should have the ability, the capacity to monitor public broadcasters for balance. That's more than just watching and observing what's happening in the media. So much more, it's a much more active role than that. Do you support the envoy monitoring the ABC and SBS for balance?

BURKE: Well, I'm not sure it is more than that. Like, if you're talking about monitoring, you, these are public broadcasters where what they do is public in the same way as free to air TV is public, and is monitored and is watched. And if there are examples where envoys believe that there's antisemitism, then that's something that they would report on to the different networks and you try to make sure that these things stop. It's been received very much as though somehow the person may be in charge of decisions about balance. I think monitoring is something, you know, well, well before you get to those sort of--

FERGUSON: Nonetheless, this is a position that's been given authority by the government. The report is being generally well received by you and the Prime Minister. I'll ask the question a different way, because when questioned about what sorts of things would be being monitored, the envoy spoke about the ABC's reporting of the War in Gaza. So does it concern you that reporting the killings of tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza targeting hospitals, a plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza, could be captured by this monitoring and labelled antisemitic.

BURKE: Look, I think she referred to a specific example and Radio National this morning, ABC Radio National, had a very good response to it, I thought. Which was where they said that the objection that the envoy had put was in fact, already covered in the article and the ABC, once it had been drawn to their attention, had changed the headline and an investigation had happened, they checked it up and found that they'd been behaving consistently with the charter. When I heard that response from the ABC this morning, I thought that was very thorough.

FERGUSON: Alright, so just briefly, the report is generally predicated on an acceptance in all areas of government, of a specific definition of antisemitism. The use of which to control speech, monitor or control speech, or debate, has been clearly rejected by its author as something akin to McCarthyism. Why do the government endorse this particular definition of antisemitism?

BURKE: I heard that interview this morning, and the person, I'm presume we’re referring to the same person..

FERGUSON: We are…

BURKE:  I don’t recall his name. But I heard his interview, and he certainly was particularly concerned, not just about this definition, but his concern was any definition, and his real objection was about it being weaponised. My view is, he's probably right that any definition will be weaponised, and so that was his one here, but I think it's also true that in the current climate, even if there were no definition, it would be weaponised in different ways. I've had, for example, some people throw accusations at me in my department when we refused a couple of visits. I found the definition actually pretty helpful, working through and making sure that there was absolute clarity, that the decisions we had taken were in no way, in no way involving antisemitism. And the tests, which I think is really helpful in that definition, as it refers to whether or not you have a double standard, which causes you to ask the question, would I make the same decision, you know, knock someone back, for example, for arguing that is Islamophobia was rational. Would I make the same decision if someone applied for a visa on a speaking tour and they wanted to argue that antisemitism was rational? Yeah, I'd stop them too. And that's specifically taken from the words of the definition. A lot of people, when they object to the definition, you show them the words at the top of the page, you say, ‘which bit do you object to,’ or ‘what does this prevent you from saying that you would want to say?’ Their answer is always the way it gets weaponised. And I think it's a weaponisation that's a problem, rather than her those individual words.

FERGUSON: Tony, thank you very much. We look forward to the full response to the report in due course. Thank you for joining us.