Australia's antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, has proposed creating a new oversight body to monitor how the ABC and SBS report on the conflict in the Middle East. She made the suggestion in testimony before a royal commission on 9 July 2026. The Guardian

The royal commission was set up after the Bondi Beach attack in December 2024, when 15 people were killed at a Hanukkah celebration. Segal told the commissioners that many people in the Jewish community felt the ABC and SBS weren't covering the Middle East war fairly. She was careful to say this was what she'd heard from the community, not her own opinion.

Segal pointed to how Britain regulates its BBC as a possible model. In the UK, a body called Ofcom can investigate the BBC's reporting, tell it to remove content, and issue fines. Segal also singled out SBS for using the Gaza Health Ministry as a source — she said that gave too much credibility to an organisation controlled by Hamas. Sydney Morning Herald

One of the commissioners, Virginia Bell, a former judge, asked a direct question: if you put an outside body in charge of checking what the ABC reports, won't that make people worry the government is controlling the broadcaster? Segal said the oversight committee wouldn't need Jewish members, as long as they understood antisemitism — essentially trying to head off the obvious objection that this would be letting one group control the airwaves.

Underlying the whole dispute is something called the IHRA definition. This is a set of guidelines that says some types of criticism of Israel can count as antisemitic. The royal commission has accepted this definition, but the ABC and SBS have refused to use it in their own editorial rules. That's a big deal: much of Segal's argument rests on this definition, while the broadcasters say it blurs the line between criticising what a country does and hating a people.

The ABC and SBS were scheduled to give their own evidence to the commission later the same day. This meant Segal's claims went on record hours before the broadcasters could respond. The Australian

The commission began hearings in February 2026 and has held sessions since. The Prime Minister has mentioned Segal's reports in the context of the commission's work, and the government has indicated it takes the inquiry seriously.

There's a fundamental problem with the proposal if you care about whether the ABC and SBS can operate without government pressure. A new committee with power to direct what gets reported on a particular conflict — staffed by people chosen for their views on antisemitism rather than their experience in journalism — is very different from a complaints service. Britain's system works the way it does because it's been built up carefully over decades, with courts able to review decisions and appeals available. Bolting a similar power onto the ABC through a royal commission recommendation, aimed specifically at one conflict and one broadcaster's choice of sources, would be a much narrower and more heavy-handed move than the British comparison suggests.

The commission's decision to let ABC and SBS respond on the same day suggests it wants to test Segal's claims properly rather than take them as gospel. That's what a fair inquiry should do. What happens next — whether the final report recommends something like Segal's oversight committee, or just notes where the broadcasters differ from each other — will show how far the commission is willing to go in trying to reshape how the ABC and SBS operate.