Two Reports, Unequal Standards: Australia’s Fight Against Hate Risks Stalling

In the span of just a few months, Australia has produced two landmark national reports: one on antisemitism, the other on Islamophobia. On paper, this should be cause for optimism. Two vulnerable communities, both facing rising hostility, each given the focus of a government-appointed envoy. Yet when these reports are placed side by side, the differences are stark. One is enforceable and practical. The other is aspirational, largely advisory, and lacking the teeth to guarantee real change. Most troubling of all, ministers have already signalled that action on one may be held up until the other is addressed, leaving both communities in limbo.

The Antisemitism Plan, led by Jillian Segal AO, a respected lawyer and corporate leader, reflects global best practice and adopts internationally recognised standards. Released in July 2025, it proposes that universities face funding consequences if they fail to protect Jewish students, that vulnerable schools and synagogues receive urgent security upgrades, and that police, prosecutors, and courts receive proper training so hate crimes are recorded and prosecuted consistently. Crucially, the Segal plan relies on measures government could implement immediately. No new laws are required. The results are measurable: safer campuses, stronger data, and more consistent protection for Jewish Australians.

By contrast, the Islamophobia report delivered in September by Special Envoy Aftab Malik offers a very different model. Malik, an academic and interfaith adviser, centred his 54 recommendations on broad frameworks such as education programs, public-sector training, and anti-racism strategies. Its headline reform, adding religion as a protected attribute under federal anti-discrimination law, would indeed benefit Muslims, but also Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and others. Yet it is slow, complicated, and wholly dependent on Parliament. Beyond that, most of the report’s proposals are non-binding. There are no enforcement mechanisms, no penalties for non-compliance, and no committed funding. Critics also note that the envoy has no prosecutorial power, leaving most of the recommendations as policy suggestions rather than obligations.

The tone of the two reports is also very different. The antisemitism plan is anchored in global consensus, designed to improve domestic safety without straying into foreign policy. The Islamophobia report, however, repeatedly invokes Gaza, Israel, and October 7, drawing on contested NGO and UN claims, including allegations of genocide. By importing foreign policy disputes into what should be a domestic safety framework, the report risks undermining its own legitimacy. Even more concerning, it highlights Palestinian Australians as a community in need of special mention, while saying nothing about Israeli Australians—even though many have faced harassment and vilification since October 7. Such selective naming sends a corrosive signal about whose safety counts.

There is also a more fundamental question we must ask. Are there really two equally vulnerable communities in Australia facing rising hostility? The data suggest otherwise. Antisemitism is well documented and clearly surging. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry recorded over 2,000 anti-Jewish incidents in the 12 months to September 2024, with a dramatic spike following October 7. Online Hate Prevention Institute research showed a similar imbalance: in the immediate aftermath of October 7, there were nearly 2,900 antisemitic incidents visible from Australia compared to around 1,100 Islamophobic ones. Studies do show Islamophobia rising, particularly in-person abuse targeting Muslim women, and this should not be minimised. But the scale is not comparable. The evidence for widespread Islamophobia in Australia is far thinner, while the evidence for a national antisemitism crisis is overwhelming.

The greatest danger is political. When the antisemitism plan was released, Education Minister Jason Clare and others suggested that the government’s full response would be linked to the later delivery of the Islamophobia report. Jewish leaders, including the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, expressed deep disappointment at this linkage, warning that one community’s protection should not be made contingent on another’s timetable. In effect, this means urgent and enforceable measures to protect Jewish Australians are stalled until the less defined Islamophobia recommendations are considered. This approach risks leaving both communities unprotected: the Jewish community because the antisemitism plan is delayed, and the Muslim community because the Islamophobia report lacks the structural force to deliver.

Australia is not alone in facing these challenges. Democracies worldwide are trying to balance protections for minorities while keeping polarising global conflicts from distorting domestic policy. The test should be simple: do the measures strengthen equal protection under law, and can they be implemented in practice? If universities are held to their duty of care through funding consequences, all students are safer. If police and courts are trained to prosecute hate crimes consistently, every targeted community gains. If religion is added to anti-discrimination law, all faith groups acquire protection. But when standards are uneven, or when action on one community is made dependent on another’s, nobody wins.

Australia has the chance to model how democracies can respond fairly to rising hate. That means acting on both reports publicly and, on their merits, not according to political sequencing. Legislate to protect religion, enforce duty of care on campuses, and standardise hate-crime data and training nationwide. Above all, apply one consistent standard: if Palestinian Australians are named, Israeli Australians must be too.

Antisemitism and Islamophobia both deserve scrutiny. But only one is supported by overwhelming, consistent data. Unless governments treat these reports with equal urgency, equal credibility, and equal enforceability, neither community will get the protection it needs. Democracies everywhere should take note: rights must never be traded on a political calendar.