Antinuclear

Royal Commission into Antisemitism a “$131 Million Whinge”

by Andrew Brown | Aug 5, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/royal-commission-into-antisemitism-a-131-million-whinge/

“Australians are not being investigated for hating Jews. They are being investigated for objecting to a genocide.” Andrew Brown on the Royal Commission into Antisemitism.

Apparently antisemitism simply fell from the sky. Fully formed. Immaculately conceived. Entirely unrelated to anything happening in Gaza. That is the finding Australia has pre-purchased for $131.1 million, confirmed at Senate Estimates in February, with $91 million alone for staffing, property, lawyers and security.

“Every single dollar buys theatre.“

Measure the obscenity. The banking royal commission, which gutted an entire industry’s misconduct, cost $75 million. Aboriginal Deaths in Custody cost $50.2 million.

This inquiry outspends both combined. Meanwhile there is no royal commission into the domestic violence killing a woman most weeks, none into Islamophobia, now soaring. Australia found $131 million for the one inquiry designed never to ask an obvious question.

Blame where it belongs. Anthony Albanese wrote the answer into the question. His Letters Patent instruct the Commission to find the drivers of antisemitism in extremism and radicalisation, the war deleted from the terms of reference before Virginia Bell was even sworn in.

The Albanese government wrote the verdict into the terms of reference, then spent more than the banking royal commission to have a judge read it back. Here is what the money is buying.

Commissioning an alibi

Albanese promised the inquiry would deliver, in his own words, the right outcome. A Prime Minister announcing the right outcome in advance is commissioning an alibi.

This is the government that will gesture at recognising Palestine while refusing to utter the word genocide, that ships F35 components into the supply chain of the slaughter, that sanctions two Israeli ministers and calls it courage. It needed a grand national explanation for collapsing social cohesion that never once mentions its own complicity.

“For $131 million, it has bought one.“

The process delivered. In the first three days of hearings, 23 of 36 witnesses characterised criticism of Israel, opposition to Zionism or Palestine advocacy as antisemitic. Jewish organisations opposed to Zionism were refused leave to appear. Palestinian voices were excluded for lacking a direct and substantial interest.

The accused were barred from the courtroom so the prosecution could run unopposed at public expense.

The grievance parade

And the substance? A grievance parade.

The ABC and SBS hauled in to answer for Jillian Segal’s strong perception, her phrase, that their Gaza coverage lacks balance, then interrogated for declining the contested IHRA definition Bell waved through as uncontroversial.

Keffiyehs, flags, watermelon art, chants of Free Palestine, student encampments and fundraisers for maimed children tendered as exhibits of hate. Protest. Tents. Journalism. Every place an ordinary Australian expressed solidarity with a people being exterminated, recast at public expense as a crime scene. Australians are not being investigated for hating Jews.

“They are being investigated for objecting to a genocide.“

The complainants were welcomed like royalty. Alex Ryvchin of the ECAJ, who called the anti-Israel movement indistinguishable from neo-Nazism, testified at length while his silk objected to opposing counsel merely uttering the word genocide, a finding the International Court of Justice considered plausible back in January 2024.

Robert Gregory of the self-appointed Australian Jewish Association, which the ECAJ itself calls unrepresentative, told the Commission the government egged on antisemitism, fresh from blaming Bondi on visas for Palestinians fleeing the bombs.

Sky’s the limit

Sky News completes the circuit, wheeling Gregory out to demonise protesters, then feeding its own segments back into the panic as evidence.

The outcomes are as predetermined as the terms.

Come 14 December, expect IHRA stamped across the public service and pushed onto civil society, work Segal has begun. Expect ABC oversight its own ombudsman rejected. Expect protest reframed as policing, and regulators monitoring speech the way AHPRA already does, having admitted under oath it watches nurses and doctors for criticism of Israel after Segal’s pressure.

“Expect everything blamed but the war.“

And expect antisemitism not to fall, because you cannot cure what you refuse to diagnose. Every recommendation will manufacture the resentment it claims to fight, and Labor will call the wreckage cohesion.

For almost three years the world has watched a genocide live-streamed by a state claiming to act in the name of the Jewish people, while its Australian cheer squad defended, excused or denied every atrocity.

Now they ask why anger grows.

None of this excuses antisemitism. Not one word of it. The Bondi gunmen murdered Jews for being Jews, and the law should fall hard on every bigot who follows them. Fifteen dead Australians deserved a fearless inquiry. They got a pantomime, their graves deployed as a shield for a foreign state and the government that armed it.

The elephant is blocking the doorway and eating $131 million of paperwork, yet everyone keeps peering around it, declaring there is nothing to see.

This Commission will not defeat antisemitism. It will deliver the most expensive whinge in Australian history, commissioned by a government purchasing its own absolution with public money.

August 10, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | legal | Leave a comment

Royal Commission: lawyers spar over Gaza genocide, health regulator admits Segal pressure

by Stephanie Tran and Wendy Bacon | Jul 30, 2026 , https://michaelwest.com.au/royal-commission-lawyers-spar-over-gaza-genocide-health-regulator-admits-segal-pressure/

A heated exchange erupted at the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion on Wednesday after counsel for the Jewish Council of Australia, Kirsten Edwards SC, questioned Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) chief executive Justin Untersteiner about whether healthcare workers could face complaints for describing Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide.

The exchange prompted strong objections from counsel for the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Michael Borsky KC, who argued the commission should not become

“a platform” for “false claims” about Israel.”

Edwards’ questioning centred on an example contained in the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism’s handbook, which AHPRA adopted alongside the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition in June.

One reading of the analysis provided of this example is that describing or using the words genocide, apartheid, or ethnic cleansing in connection with Israel’s actions in Palestine is antisemitic,” Edwards said.

She noted that international bodies, including the International Court of Justice, had used the term genocide in relation to Israel’s conduct in Gaza and asked how practitioners expressing similar views would be treated under AHPRA’s new approach.

“Prior to the publication of this handbook in January 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled that it was

plausible that Israel’s acts in Gaza could amount to genocide,” Edwards said.

“Genocide claims antisemitic, claims Israel lobby lawyer“

Borsky immediately objected and said the “false claims” would “fuel antisemitism”.

“I object. We respectfully submit that this Commission ought not be used as a platform for referring to such allegations. My friend is wrong. That’s not what was found, and the suggestion is, in any event, irrelevant to the Commission’s terms of reference, it could only be relevant to the subject of the Commission’s terms of reference in fuelling anti-Semitism and eroding social cohesion for these false claims to be advanced through this forum,” he said.

Commissioner Virginia Bell rejected the submission that the questioning was irrelevant.

“As I understand where Ms Edwards is going,” Bell said, “it is to contend that in some contexts, use of the word genocide … might nonetheless not be evidence of hostility towards Jews, but might reasonably be taken as a political statement about the conduct of the State of Israel.”

“I think that’s very much at the heart of aspects of the work of this Commission.”

Genocide denied

Borsky doubled down.

“Commissioner, with the greatest of respect, we understand and accept that. But accuracy matters and what my friend put was inaccurate. It was false. She put that the International Court of Justice has ruled that it was plausible that Israel’s acts in Gaza could amount to genocide.

“That is false, and its airing in public is liable to exacerbate the problem of anti-Semitism in his country,” he said.

Commissioner Bell disagreed.

 “Mr Borsky, calling it false might be going one step beyond a neutral way of framing it,” she said.

Bell observed that the ICJ had not determined whether genocide had occurred but had accepted there was a prima facie case warranting provisional measures while proceedings continue.

Counsel assisting the Royal Commission, Richard Lancaster SC also interjected Edwards’ line questioning twice.

On the first occasion, Lancaster objected to Edwards’ characterisation of the example in the Special Envoy’s handbook, telling the Commission:

“I object to that because it refers to Zionism. It doesn’t refer to Israel.”

On his second interjection, he once again emphasised that the example of antisemitism in the handbook referred to the term “Zionist”.

“The launching pad for Ms Edwards’ questions was an example given in the ASECA handbook.The example does not involve expressions using the word Israel or the government of Israel. It uses the terms Zionist, and so the launching pad for the question does not sit well with Miss Edwards’ explanation of it,” Lancaster said.

The analysis of the example on page 76 of Segal’s handbook argues that “trying to separate ‘antisemitism’ from ‘antizionism’ ignores the history of misinformation, disinformation and antisemitic propaganda that has shaped narratives about Israel and Zionism … Antisemitism and antizionism are both expressions of hatred towards Jews.”

Untersteiner was unable to answer whether the handbook example would be found to be antisemitic. He said that it would depend on “context” in each case and that he was not a decision maker of complaints.

Segal handbook was “tipping point”

Earlier in his evidence, AHPRA CEO Justin Untersteiner confirmed AHPRA had resisted adopting the IHRA definition because of concerns it could inhibit legitimate political speech.
We resisted it for a period of time,” he said, because AHPRA had heard concerns about “the risk of the IHRA definition stifling free speech … within the healthcare system.”

He said publication of the Special Envoy’s handbook earlier this year altered the regulator’s assessment.

“The handbook really provided greater granularity and detail about the definition, about what it does mean and what it doesn’t mean,” Untersteiner said.

“It was on the basis of that handbook, as well as all the feedback that we’d had over a period of time, that we felt it was the right decision then to adopt it.”

When Edwards suggested the handbook had been the “tipping point” in AHPRA’s decision, Untersteiner agreed.

Handbook to inform disciplinary action

Untersteiner also confirmed the handbook would not simply assist staff in triaging complaints but could

“inform disciplinary decisions made by professional boards.“

Asked whether the IHRA definition would be referenced if AHPRA alleged a practitioner had breached professional standards through antisemitic conduct, Untersteiner replied that it would.

“The recommendation and the report … would very much reference IHRA,” he said.

“The appropriate board would be referencing IHRA in making that final decision.”

He further agreed that AHPRA was embedding not only the IHRA definition but also the Special Envoy’s handbook into its regulatory framework.

When asked whether both documents could inform assessments of whether conduct was antisemitic and whether complaints were vexatious, Untersteiner answered: “Correct.”

AHPRA begins social media monitoring

The hearing also revealed AHPRA has begun using social media monitoring tools to monitor practitioners’ social media activity.

“We, like most regulators, use a range of different regulatory tools,” Untersteiner said.

“That includes the use of social media monitoring tools … to help us identify where there might be activity of concern to us related to, for instance, racism or discrimination.”

“We’ve engaged a service provider that undertakes general social media monitoring, and they will use a range of different methods to identify. And by the way, this isn’t just about discrimination, which relates to other issues that might play out in the health system,” he said.

Pressed on whether the monitoring involved searching for particular terms, such as “genocide”, Untersteiner said he was not sufficiently familiar with the technical operation of the system to answer.

Untersteiner said that 85% of complaints related to Islamophobia and anti-Semitism were related to social media activity compared to 40 to 45% of overall complaints regarding racism and discrimination.

Chilling effect acknowledged

Edwards also questioned Untersteiner about complaints made against doctors who had spoken publicly about Gaza.

She referred to correspondence from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners raising concerns that complaints relating to political speech, even when ultimately dismissed, were taking months to resolve and causing considerable stress to practitioners.

Untersteiner acknowledged that even

“unsubstantiated complaints could have a “chilling effect”.

He said AHPRA was considering whether practitioners should sometimes not be notified about complaints unlikely to result in regulatory action in order to reduce unnecessary anxiety.

Abuse after adopting IHRA

Questioned later by Borsky, Untersteiner said he had received abuse following AHPRA’s adoption of the IHRA definition, including allegations that he supported genocide or had been influenced by the Israel lobby.

Borsky also referred to abuse directed at Special Envoy Jillian Segal, who will reappear at the Commission on Thursday.

The hearing did not examine claims that AHPRA had also come under sustained lobbying from pro-Israel organisations before adopting the IHRA definition. 

MWM previously revealed that AHPRA’s decision followed months of lobbying by the Australian Zionist Health Alliance and other advocacy groups, including calls for Untersteiner’s removal and repeated engagement with senior government officials.

August 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | legal | Leave a comment