Speaker 1: From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.
Speaker 1: It's Wednesday, February twenty five, twenty twenty six. Labor frontbencher
Speaker 1: Julian Hill says the concerns of people who marched in
Speaker 1: March for Australia anti immigration rallies should be listened to,
Speaker 1: not dismissed. Hill is the Assistant Minister for Multiculturalism and
Speaker 1: he referenced March for Australia's concerns about what he calls
Speaker 1: unacceptable cultural practices on Australian soil, including homophobia, gender discrimination
Speaker 1: and forced marriage. That story is live right now at
Speaker 1: the Australian dot Com dot a U. The Federal Opposition
Speaker 1: wants a full review of the work done by e
Speaker 1: Safety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. That's after a Federal court
Speaker 1: finding she's been operating outside the scope of her powers.
Speaker 1: Coalition spokesperson for Communications Sarah Henderson says the government should
Speaker 1: probe how many potentially unlawful removal notices the commissioner has
Speaker 1: issued What's antisemitism and what's free speech? The first day
Speaker 1: of the Bondai Beach massacre. Royal Commission has gone there
Speaker 1: right at the top. Commissioner Virginia Bell and Council assisting
Speaker 1: Richard Lancaster say they believe Australians can all agree that
Speaker 1: antisemitism is out of control and empathy needs to come back.
Speaker 1: But is that wildly optimistic in today's climate? Today, Chief
Speaker 1: International Correspondent Cameron Stewart joins us to assess where this
Speaker 1: probe is going. Cameron Stewart is the Australian's Chief international
Speaker 1: correspondent and just like me, he was watching the opening
Speaker 1: addresses of the Bondai Royal Commission. Cam it's going to be,
Speaker 1: of course about the Bondai Beach massacre in which fifteen
Speaker 1: people died. Of course, somebody is up on charges in
Speaker 1: relation to that. Navide R Crumb, one of the shooters,
Speaker 1: the other shooter our crime, was shot dead at the scene.
Speaker 1: So there's a criminal process underway. How's the Royal Commission
Speaker 1: going to do its work with that in the background?
Speaker 2: Claire, Although the references of the Royal Commission are to
Speaker 2: look at the circumstances leading up to the shooting, including
Speaker 2: the intelligence and law enforcement response as well, and what
Speaker 2: they knew quite clearly because there were criminal proceedings of
Speaker 2: Foot Commissioner Bell said, Look, there's some things we simply
Speaker 2: mon't be able to talk about, certainly not in public.
Speaker 2: They suggested there would be quite a few private, closed
Speaker 2: door hearings in relation to that aspect of the Royal Commission.
Speaker 2: I think everyone understands that, of course, the Royal Commision
Speaker 2: does have to be extremely careful not to prejudice those
Speaker 2: criminal charges against that surviving government. And so that's what
Speaker 2: she was saying. Look, we will be looking at this,
Speaker 2: but we will be looking at it with those constraints
Speaker 2: in mind.
Speaker 1: Can Virginia Bell said she'd be using the International Holocaust
Speaker 1: Remembrance Association's definition of anti Semitism. Now, for people who
Speaker 1: are unfamiliar with this, this is hot. Over the past
Speaker 1: couple of years, there's been great controversy about what antisemitism
Speaker 1: actually is and how it interacts or lives alongside freedom
Speaker 1: of speech and the right of people who believe that
Speaker 1: Israel has done the wrong things in its war in
Speaker 1: Gaza to express that opinion. Let's hear Virginia Bell reading
Speaker 1: aloud that International Holocaust Remembrance association IRA definition of antisemitism.
Speaker 3: The definition itself is uncontroversial. It provides antisemitism is a
Speaker 3: certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as a
Speaker 3: hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are
Speaker 3: directed toward Jewish or non Jewish individuals and or their property,
Speaker 3: toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. The definition is
Speaker 3: accompanied by eleven exacts examples of conduct which could amount
Speaker 3: to anti Semitism. At least two of the examples are
Speaker 3: controversial and have led some critics to argue that the
Speaker 3: IRA working definition wrongly labels as anti Semitic the expression
Speaker 3: of political views which do not reflect a hatred of Jews.
Speaker 1: Now, Virginia Bell didn't say exactly which examples she was
Speaker 1: talking about there, But I went and had a look
Speaker 1: at that IRA definition cam and I think this might
Speaker 1: be what she's talking about. The eleven examples listed by
Speaker 1: IRA things that are antisemitism start with calling for aiding
Speaker 1: or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the
Speaker 1: name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Speaker 1: That one's pretty uncontroversial. Another one that I think is
Speaker 1: uncontroversial is making mendacious, dehumanizing demonizing or stereotypical allegations about Jews,
Speaker 1: and it goes on like that. But the ones of
Speaker 1: a Niebel identified are controversial, I would suggest, are these.
Speaker 1: Example ten is drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to
Speaker 1: that of the Nazis. Example seven is denying the Jewish
Speaker 1: people their right to self determination, for example, by claiming
Speaker 1: that the existence of a state of Israel is a
Speaker 1: racist endeavor, or promoting myths about a world Jewish conspiracy
Speaker 1: or Jews controlling the media, and so on. Kem, You've
Speaker 1: been at protests throughout the past couple of years about
Speaker 1: the war in Gaza. We have seen people saying those
Speaker 1: things in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne and Brisbane
Speaker 1: since October seven, haven't we that Israel is a Nazi
Speaker 1: state and that Jews control everything?
Speaker 2: Look, that's right. Certainly, the activist movement, the activist ramp
Speaker 2: of the pro Palestinian movement, doesn't really even try to
Speaker 2: separate the politics of Israel with criticism of Jewish people
Speaker 2: in Australia. I mean, that's the unfortunate fact. That's what
Speaker 2: we've seen play out on the streets for over two
Speaker 2: years now, and you know, that's obviously one of the
Speaker 2: root causes here of the tensions that arise in anti
Speaker 2: semitism we've seen over the past two and a half years.
Speaker 2: And I think what Commissioner Bell was saying was, look,
Speaker 2: she accepts there have been debates about that definition of
Speaker 2: anti Semitism, but the fact is clear that the Albanisia
Speaker 2: government has accepted that definition. And what she's saying is,
Speaker 2: we're not going to get bogged down in this Royal
Speaker 2: Commission having endless debates about this. We can't do that.
Speaker 2: We need to move on and look at the actual issues.
Speaker 2: She did make the point though, which of course is
Speaker 2: a very correct point, that just mere criticism of the
Speaker 2: policies of the Israeli government does not constitute anti Semitism.
Speaker 2: So she was very clear on that point. But she
Speaker 2: did say We're not going to get bogged down on
Speaker 2: definitions of anti Semitism in this Royal Commission.
Speaker 1: It's interesting, though, isn't it. Cam By going there on
Speaker 1: day one in her opening address, she kind of has
Speaker 1: set this out as a battleground that it is going
Speaker 1: to be addressed. I mean, I'm imagining that these public
Speaker 1: hearings are going to involve people wearing kefias and people
Speaker 1: who are not hashing it out in public using this
Speaker 1: as an opportunity to kind of grandstand about exactly these
Speaker 1: issues from both sides.
Speaker 2: What do you think, Yeah, look, that's right. What she's
Speaker 2: interestingly done is she's made the point which might seem
Speaker 2: a very obvious point to people if she's doing a
Speaker 2: Royal commission on anti Semitism, but she said that I
Speaker 2: am going to prioritize throughout this Royal Commission the focus
Speaker 2: on anti Semitism. And what she then said was I
Speaker 2: do accept, of course that other religions experience in tolerance
Speaker 2: and prejudice against them as well. However, as a starting point,
Speaker 2: we've had the massacre of people at Bondai. That's my
Speaker 2: starting point. We are going to focus on anti Semitism.
Speaker 2: And I think that's an important point for her to
Speaker 2: make their clear because certainly you've got a lot of
Speaker 2: claims by propalasity in groups that Islamophobia in Australia is
Speaker 2: just as big a problem as anti Semitism, and so
Speaker 2: I think she's clearing the ground to say, look, we
Speaker 2: have fifteen people who have been killed at Bondai, you
Speaker 2: have synagogues that have been burnt down, people are asking
Speaker 2: out to school, et cetera. I mean, is quite clearly
Speaker 2: a bigger problem than Islamophobia. She didn't say all those
Speaker 2: in her words, but that's what she was meaning.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's justist into a little snippet of that.
Speaker 3: I'm mindful that while antisemitism may be the oldest religious
Speaker 3: and ethnic prejudice, other religions and ethnicities are also subject
Speaker 3: to prejudice in Australia. I expect that social cohesion will
Speaker 3: be advanced by measures that address discrimination against religious faiths,
Speaker 3: ethnicities and cultures generally. Nonetheless, against the background of the
Speaker 3: massacre of innocent people who appear to have been targeted
Speaker 3: simply because they were Jewish. I trust everyone will appreciate
Speaker 3: why the focus of this Commission will be on tackling
Speaker 3: anti senmmotism as a starting point in strengthening our bonds
Speaker 3: of social cohesion.
Speaker 1: Cam. I mean, she seems pretty optimistic there to me.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think that everyone who is going
Speaker 1: to be giving evidence that this Royal Commission is going
Speaker 1: to accept that antisemitism short or be or is the
Speaker 1: starting point. What do you think?
Speaker 2: Look, I think it absolutely has to be the starting point,
Speaker 2: because I think quite clearly that has been the main
Speaker 2: form of racial hatred we've seen in Australia for the
Speaker 2: last two and a half years, and it's called led
Speaker 2: indirectly or directly, we don't exactly know it to another
Speaker 2: for evidence to the massacret Bondo. So look, I think
Speaker 2: it's entirely correct that she takes that approach. But you're
Speaker 2: right clear. There will be a lot of people who
Speaker 2: will be debating this in the hearings, and I think
Speaker 2: this is one of the interesting things about this Royal
Speaker 2: Commission because it goes into social cohesion as well as
Speaker 2: anti semitism. There's a lot of sort of subjective matters
Speaker 2: here which will be the point of argument during the hearings,
Speaker 2: and I think there's going to be quite a few passions.
Speaker 2: There'll be people who are upset by what is unearthed
Speaker 2: of the hearings and what is said, and some of
Speaker 2: those people who actually opposed the Royal Commission originally said, look, listen,
Speaker 2: it will undermine social cohesion to have all these views
Speaker 2: expressed in public. But look, I think the contrary argument
Speaker 2: to that, and I think a better argument is that
Speaker 2: social cohesion was fraying and has been praying in Australia anyway.
Speaker 2: You certainly can't get much more afraid than having fifteen
Speaker 2: dead people at bondnine and terror attack, and so these
Speaker 2: things need to be aired. But I think we're going
Speaker 2: to be up for some very emotional and passionate hearings
Speaker 2: in the months ahead.
Speaker 1: Richard Lancaster SC who's the council assisting the Royal Commission,
Speaker 1: went to this point about social cohesion. Let's just listen
Speaker 1: to that.
Speaker 4: Let us patent to social cohesion as the national consensus
Speaker 4: in support of democracy, freedom and the rule of law.
Speaker 4: The consensus to which the letters patent refer is not
Speaker 4: a uniformity of opinion, nor does it require or involve
Speaker 4: the suppression of fair criticism and debate. It is quite
Speaker 4: the opposite. In my submission, it is a consensus that
Speaker 4: a diverse, multicultural society can subsist and thrive only by
Speaker 4: mutual acceptance of our respective democratic freedoms exercised according to law.
Speaker 4: Social cohesion begins with empathy. A large part of the
Speaker 4: work of this Commission will be to present evidence to
Speaker 4: allow a broader understanding of the scourge of anti Semitism.
Speaker 4: Its nature and prevalence throughout Australian society and its impact
Speaker 4: on the lives of fellow Australians. Through that understanding, there
Speaker 4: may be opportunities to improve.
Speaker 1: I think many people in the Jewish community can are
Speaker 1: hoping that what comes out of this Royal Commission is
Speaker 1: a criticism essentially of governments for allowing, for example, March
Speaker 1: is over the Harbor Bridge marches in every city every
Speaker 1: weekend for two years, where critics of Israel loudly suggested
Speaker 1: that Israel was a terrorist state, Israel was a Nazi state,
Speaker 1: and so on. I just really wonder about Richard Lancaster's again,
Speaker 1: I think quite optimistic idea there that just by existing
Speaker 1: and hearing evidence, the Royal Commission is going to convince
Speaker 1: everyone that antisemitism is real and that it's bad. What's
Speaker 1: your take on that?
Speaker 2: Yes, I mean social cohesion, of course is slightly in
Speaker 2: the eye of the beholder, isn't it. I mean it's
Speaker 2: not an absolute term. Everyone judges it in different ways.
Speaker 2: I think what Lancaster is saying is they want to
Speaker 2: investigate and try and redraw the line, if you like,
Speaker 2: between anti semitism and freedom of expression. I mean you know,
Speaker 2: for example, in tertiary institutions, with those protests on campus,
Speaker 2: academics claimed academic freedom for saying what they were saying
Speaker 2: in their criticism of Israel, but often that straight into
Speaker 2: anti Semitism, and so that was used to justification, if
Speaker 2: you like, for antismitic comments. In the arts community, we've
Speaker 2: had a similar blurred line between so called creative freedom
Speaker 2: and comments which border on anti Semitism. We had the
Speaker 2: Adelaide Writers' Festival controversy, for example. I think what the
Speaker 2: Royal Commission will seek to do, which is an almost
Speaker 2: impossible task, to be honest, is draw those lines in
Speaker 2: what they see as a reasonable and balanced way between
Speaker 2: freedom and expression and avoiding veering into anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: In that quite fevered moment where members of the Jewish
Speaker 1: community were lobbying Anthony Albanesi to hold a Royal Commission,
Speaker 1: there were also suggestions for judges who could be the commissioner.
Speaker 1: One was Federal Court Justice Michael Lee, another was former
Speaker 1: High Court Chief Justice Robert French. They were people who
Speaker 1: members of the Jewish community thought would be fair to
Speaker 1: their point of view. There was some concern about Virginia Bell,
Speaker 1: Josh Friedenberg, the former federal Treasurer, said that he had
Speaker 1: heard concerns about Virginia Bell from the Jewish community, although
Speaker 1: it was never quite identified exactly what those concerns would be.
Speaker 1: What was your sense on Tuesday of how Virginia Bell's
Speaker 1: going to be and how her conduct of this is
Speaker 1: going to go down with the Jewish community.
Speaker 2: I mean, those criticisms I think were puzzling because they
Speaker 2: were so vague. We never got to the heart of
Speaker 2: what the concerns were, and I think they were very counterproductive,
Speaker 2: frankly for the Jewish community to have done. I mean,
Speaker 2: they'd finally got that we should have the Royal Commission announced,
Speaker 2: and then they're complaining about the Commissioner, and I think
Speaker 2: that was just a step too far, and I think
Speaker 2: they regretted it fairly quickly. To be honest, I think
Speaker 2: they should be reassured by what Commissioner Bell said. I
Speaker 2: think she made a point a smatism will be the
Speaker 2: number one focus. She's not going to be debating a
Speaker 2: softening of the standards of anti Semitism as far as
Speaker 2: the Declaration of it goes. She's going to be practical
Speaker 2: and to get through as many of the terms of
Speaker 2: references as she can in the most comprehensive manner possible.
Speaker 2: I think she was pretty impressive, and I think the
Speaker 2: Jewish community, at least from the small amount that we saw,
Speaker 2: should take comforting what we heard.
Speaker 1: Cameron Stewart is The Australian's chief international correspondent. Thanks Cam Pleasure.
Speaker 1: You can check out Cameron's reporting and all our coverage
Speaker 1: of the Royal Commission right now at the Australian dot
Speaker 1: com dot au