ABC and SBS need ‘oversight’ committee to vet Israel coverage, Jillian Segal tells royal commission | Royal commission on antisemitism and social cohesion

Antisemitism ambassador Jillian Segal told the royal commission on Thursday morning that the ABC and SBS wanted a new “oversight” committee to review Israel news.

Both the ABC and SBS have an independent ombudsman to handle complaints.

Segal said there should be oversight by a committee outside the organization and that there is a “common and widespread perception” in the Jewish community that public broadcasters’ coverage of the war in the Middle East “lacks balance,” that there is an overemphasis on Gaza compared to other conflicts, and that the coverage gives disproportionate voice to anti-Israel perspectives.

He said that anti-Israel perspectives are perspectives that criticize Israel’s actions.

ABC editor-in-chief Gavin Fang told the inquiry that the national broadcaster had covered the rise in antisemitism and had a set of editorial policies outlining “a set of principles or higher standards to which public media are often committed and which we accept”.

The policies stated that the ABC must not unduly favor one point of view over another and must meet standards for impartiality, accuracy and fairness.

Fang said ABC always takes feedback from viewers into consideration and will do the same for Segal’s.

Segal outlined how an independent regulator could give “signal” or “guidance” to news broadcasters and spoke positively about media watchdog Ofcom’s role in the UK.

“[Ofcom] has the authority to launch its own investigations. They can look at a story and direct the BBC to remove it, to look at things differently. They may fine the BBC” he said.

Ofcom’s website states: It said it had a new responsibility from this month to “assess and comment on whether the BBC’s online material complies with relevant editorial guidelines”, but said it had “no enforcement authority” over that material.

Segal said Australian Jews were almost more disappointed with the current media watchdog, the Australian Media and Communications Authority (Acma), than with the ABC.

The ABC said this week that its Middle East coverage generated more complaints than any other topic and that no complaints of bias at ABC News had been upheld by the ombudsman or investigated by ACMA.

“In the six months from July to December 2025, 51 percent of complaints claimed that ABC’s Israel-Gaza coverage was generally pro-Palestinian, while 47 percent claimed it was generally pro-Israel,” the statement said.

“This suggests that perceptions of bias arise from strongly held views across the community rather than systematic editorial favoritism.”

Five breaches of editorial standards were found by the Ombudsman.

Commissioner Virginia Bell asked Segal how a committee of people with a certain “majority” would affect people’s confidence in ABC’s independence. Segal said the committee could be appointed without a Jewish representative as long as members understand anti-Semitism.

The royal commission into antisemitism and social cohesion was set up in response to the terror attack on Bondi beach, where 15 people were killed at a Hanukkah event.

One of the themes of the sessions so far has been how to define antisemitism and how to avoid confusing it with criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza, which a recent UN commission of inquiry described as genocide (a finding that Israel categorically rejects).

This block of hearings has so far focused on social media, how quickly anti-Semitic material can circulate across platforms, the difficulties of detecting and stopping it, and how some platforms are barely trying.

Both the ABC and SBS referred to the investigation.

Both chose not to use the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition that the royal commission used. Critics argue that the definition conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, would have a chilling effect on debates about the Middle East and could be “weaponised”.

Counsel assisting Richard Lancaster SC said some submissions early in the inquiry were “extremely critical” of public broadcasters’ reporting on the Middle East conflict.

“There are complaints that the ABC and SBS broadcast inaccurately or unbalanced coverage, both in the selection and focus of news and the interviews they produce,” he said.

As an example of problematic news, Segal pointed out an error in ABC’s report that said “14,000 babies will die in the next 48 hours” in Gaza unless aid arrives. This report was based on a UN spokesperson speaking to the BBC and was supposed to be that 14,000 babies will die next year.

The BBC had issued a correction to this story before ABC went on air. ABC corrected its own report.

Segal said that the correction took too long, that the correction was of less importance than the original story, and that it had to be checked before publication.

Fang said the ABC was very careful to weigh the public interest with potentially damaging stories.

“Part of the role of a public media organization is to do compelling stories, to do bold journalism that allows the public to be informed and make their own decisions about issues,” he said.

Fang said people who associate individuals with the state of Israel can see if there is “unfairly negative coverage” that could lead to antisemitism, and that the ABC’s role is to “provide accurate and unbiased information for Australians to make their own decisions about events”.

Another example of Segal’s problematic reporting was SBS’s use of the Gaza health ministry as its official source of statistics. He said those statistics were “grossly inflated.”

Israel accepted the ministry’s estimates that the death toll was more than 70,000 as generally accurate.

“It’s the perception of the Jewish community that they feel like they’re constantly exposed to news about the Middle East, about Gaza, about Israel that consistently portrays Israel in a negative light,” Segal said.

He said the focus was on Israeli behavior rather than Hamas, and that coverage of Israel’s actions in Gaza had led to antisemitism in Australia.

“If Israel has abused itself, then that is correct reporting. But if the reporting is not correct, then I think the broadcaster has some responsibility, and that’s what I’m dealing with.”.”

Broadcasters can also run positive stories about other things Israel is doing, Segal said.