You may not agree with Jillian Segal. You may not like the report she delivered to the Albanese government on combating antisemitism. But if she’s going to be hounded out of her role, let it be for something she actually did — not for a donation made by her husband.
Calls for Segal to resign as Australia’s antisemitism envoy over a $50,000 donation from a trust linked to her husband to Advance Australia are not only absurd, but dangerously steeped in misogyny.
Advance is a conservative lobby group with inflammatory messaging and a track record of controversial campaigns — including a leading role in the No campaign during last year’s Voice to Parliament referendum. That doesn’t mean Segal should be punished for its existence.
The donation came from a discretionary trust connected to her husband, John Roth. Segal herself had nothing to do with the donation and is not listed as a director or shareholder. She made that clear in a public statement: “No one would tolerate or accept my husband dictating my politics, and I certainly won’t dictate his.” That should be the end of it.
But it isn’t. Because when it comes to women in public life — especially those who challenge the loudest voices on the fringes of the left and right — the rules are different. Women must answer not only for their own actions, but also for those of their husbands, children, and anyone who’s ever been in the same postcode. It’s a standard never applied to men.
Add that misogyny to the naked antisemitism – I’m sure Segal, like every Jew I know, is exhausted by wannabe progressives demanding we explain and apologise for Netenyahu’s actions – and this is just sickening.
Let’s not pretend this is about ethics. Advance Australia has plenty of donors with Liberal Party links. Are we now demanding every Liberal MP resign? Are we demanding due diligence investigations into the spouses of every government appointee? If so, someone had better tell the government to hire a few hundred more staff — they’re going to be very busy.
Instead, it’s about politics. The Greens, in particular, have seized on this opportunity with trademark performative outrage. Senator Mehreen Faruqi issued a statement claiming the Prime Minister must answer for Segal’s appointment, and that her position is “fast becoming untenable”. Her concern, she claims, is over the antisemitism report “stifling free speech”.
This is rich coming from a Senator who herself – not her husband – has refused to denounce Hamas, supported extremist figures at public events, and consistently downplayed antisemitism while wrapping herself in the language of anti-racism. (She doesn’t even seem to notice that Jewishness is not a race, and antisemitism is not racism.) The irony is so thick it could be cut with a knife.
There’s a bigger story here that no one seems willing to tell: the growing acceptability of antisemitism in progressive spaces. Swap out “Jewish” for any other minority and the measures in Segal’s report — which include things like better education, online hate monitoring, and protections in schools — would barely raise an eyebrow. But when it’s about Jews, suddenly we hear cries about censorship, overreach, and “free speech”.
There’s a whole book about this, if you’re interested. It’s not just me noticing that Jews don’t count.
The Guardian’s (and other outlets) decision to treat this as news is another low point. The notion that a woman can be discredited for the political donations of her spouse is a narrative straight from the 1950s — and yet here it is, published in 2025 under the byline of the normally credible Josh Butler, with no apparent reflection from editorial leadership.
And while you might think Minister Tony Bourke has done the right thing in defending her, saying that he ‘believes’ her that she had no knowledge of the donation, or Jim Chalmers saying ‘it’s a matter for her’, it’s hardly a robust denouncement of the question even being raised in the first place one would expect from a genuinely progressive leader.
There’s a problem with antisemitism in Australia. That’s why Segal was appointed. If her report is flawed, critique it. If she makes a misstep, hold her to account. But don’t try to remove her from the role for the crime of being married to a man with his own political opinions.
Because if this is the standard we’re setting, then let’s apply it equally — to Faruqi, to every parliamentarian and every appointee, and to their families too.
Or better yet, let’s stop pretending that this witch hunt is about integrity, and admit what it really is: an attempt to silence a (Jewish) woman trying to do her job, and a willingness to stoop to any low to achieve it.
Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.