Everyone should feel safe when accessing care
In the wake of rising communal tensions following the October 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel's military campaign in Gaza, Australia's health regulator has adopted a contested international definition of antisemitism as a guide for professional oversight — a decision that sits at the intersection of safety, speech, and the enduring difficulty of drawing lines around legitimate dissent. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency's embrace of the IHRA definition has been welcomed by Jewish community leaders as a necessary safeguard, while Palestinian advocates and healthcare workers warn it may transform a tool of protection into an instrument of professional silencing. The question the decision leaves open is one democracies have long struggled to answer: how institutions distinguish between hatred and criticism when the two are claimed, by different communities, to occupy the same words.
- Australia's health regulator has formally adopted the IHRA antisemitism definition, placing professional consequences within reach of speech about Israel and Gaza for the country's registered doctors, nurses, and allied health workers.
- Palestinian advocacy groups and healthcare workers warn the move will embolden vexatious complaints — a pattern already documented, where social media posts opposing Israel's war in Gaza have triggered formal regulatory notifications designed to intimidate rather than adjudicate.
- The regulator's own chief executive has acknowledged the complaints process is being weaponized, and AHPRA is now reviewing its notifications framework while establishing an advisory panel — a concession that the safeguards do not yet match the risks the new policy creates.
- The decision places AHPRA in direct contrast with Australia's public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, which last month declined to adopt the same definition, citing editorial independence — raising the question of whether the health sector will become a test case for institutional adoption across the country.
- Behind the policy debate are human stakes: Palestinian healthcare workers in Australia who have watched Gaza's health system be destroyed and thousands of their colleagues killed now face the prospect that speaking about those losses publicly could cost them their professional registration.
Australia's health regulator, AHPRA, announced this week that it would adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism as a reference tool for its regulatory work — the body responsible for investigating complaints against doctors, nurses, and other registered health professionals nationwide. The announcement came jointly with Jillian Segal, the federal government's special envoy to combat antisemitism, whose appointment followed the Bondi terror attack last December in which fifteen people were killed at a Hanukkah celebration.
AHPRA chief executive Justin Untersteiner framed the decision in terms of safety and inclusion, stating that antisemitism has no place in healthcare and that the IHRA definition would help staff recognise its contemporary forms. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry welcomed the move, describing the definition as a practical, internationally recognised tool. The federal government and the antisemitism royal commission, established after the Bondi attack, have both endorsed the adoption.
But the decision has drawn sharp criticism from Palestinian advocacy groups and healthcare workers, who argue the IHRA definition is broad enough to suppress legitimate political speech. The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network warned it could expose practitioners to professional bans based on vexatious complaints targeting social media posts about Gaza and Lebanon. The concern has precedent: The Guardian previously reported that GPs had faced frivolous regulatory notifications over posts opposing Israel's war in Gaza, with the complaints process itself functioning as a form of intimidation regardless of outcome.
Untersteiner acknowledged the risk, confirming AHPRA is reviewing its notifications framework over concerns about weaponisation, and that an advisory panel of practitioners would be established to strengthen safeguards. The tension is sharpened by the human context: Palestinian healthcare workers in Australia have watched Gaza's health system be systematically destroyed and thousands of their colleagues killed, and many now face growing hostility at home for speaking about it publicly.
The IHRA definition remains contested internationally, with critics arguing its illustrative examples can conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israeli government policy or military conduct. AHPRA's adoption puts it at odds with the ABC and SBS, which last month declined to adopt the definition in order to preserve editorial independence. Whether the health regulator's decision sets a precedent for other Australian institutions — or whether the backlash reshapes how the definition is applied in high-stakes professional contexts — remains an open and consequential question.
Australia's health regulator has formally adopted a definition of antisemitism that has become a flashpoint in debates about free speech, Israel criticism, and professional accountability. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency announced on Wednesday that it would use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition as a guide for its regulatory work—the body that investigates complaints against doctors, nurses, and other registered health professionals across the country.
The move came in a joint statement with Jillian Segal, the federal government's special envoy to combat antisemitism. Segal has been pushing for broad institutional adoption of the IHRA definition since her appointment following the Bondi terror attack last December, in which 15 people were killed at a Hanukkah celebration. The definition itself describes antisemitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews," and it includes a set of illustrative examples meant to clarify what that means in practice.
Ahpra's chief executive, Justin Untersteiner, framed the adoption as a matter of safety and inclusion. "Antisemitism costs lives and has no place in healthcare," he said. "Everyone should feel safe when accessing care." The agency positioned the IHRA definition as a reference tool to help staff understand antisemitism in its contemporary forms. The move has been endorsed by the federal government and by the antisemitism royal commission that was established in the wake of the Bondi attack.
But the decision has triggered sharp criticism from Palestinian advocacy groups and healthcare workers who argue the definition is too broad and could be weaponized against legitimate political speech. The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network warned that the adoption could lead to suspensions or professional bans based on what it called "egregious and vexatious complaints"—complaints designed to silence healthcare workers who speak publicly about Israel's military actions in Gaza and Lebanon. Since October 2023, the group said, healthcare workers have reported fear of professional consequences simply for expressing views about Gaza and Palestine on social media.
The concern is not abstract. Last year, The Guardian reported that the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners had documented cases of GPs facing frivolous or vexatious complaints to Ahpra over social media posts opposing Israel's war in Gaza. The complaints process itself has become a tool of intimidation, critics argue, regardless of whether they ultimately succeed. Untersteiner acknowledged this risk, saying Ahpra was reviewing its framework for handling notifications due to concerns about "weaponisation of the notifications process." The agency said it would establish an advisory panel of practitioners to strengthen safeguards and improve the system.
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the nation's peak Jewish organization, welcomed Ahpra's decision. A spokesperson called the IHRA definition a "practical, internationally-recognised tool" for identifying and combating antisemitism. Segal, in her 2025 report on antisemitism, had argued that all levels of government, public institutions, and regulatory bodies should adopt the definition to create a unified framework for monitoring and responding to antisemitic incidents.
The definition itself remains contested. Opponents argue that its illustrative examples can blur the line between antisemitism and criticism of Israeli government policies or military conduct. The examples include statements that deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination, or that hold Israel to a double standard compared to other nations. Critics say these formulations can be used to label legitimate political speech as antisemitic.
The tension reflects a broader pattern in Australia since the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, and Israel's subsequent military invasion of Gaza. Reports of antisemitic, anti-Palestinian, and Islamophobic incidents have all risen. More than 75,000 Palestinians are estimated to have been killed in Gaza, and a United Nations commission of inquiry last year concluded that Israel's conduct amounted to genocide—a finding Israel has categorically rejected. Palestinian healthcare workers in Australia have witnessed the destruction of Gaza's health system and the killing of thousands of healthcare workers and patients, according to the advocacy network's statement, and many now face growing hostility in their own country for advocating for Palestinian rights.
Ahpra's adoption of the IHRA definition puts the health regulator at odds with Australia's public broadcasters. Last month, both the ABC and SBS announced they would not adopt the definition, citing the need to maintain editorial independence and apply their own standards for identifying antisemitism. The question now is whether Ahpra's move will set a precedent for other Australian institutions, or whether the backlash will prompt a reconsideration of how the definition is applied in regulatory contexts where the stakes for individuals are high.
Notable Quotes
Antisemitism costs lives and has no place in healthcare. Everyone should feel safe when accessing care.— Justin Untersteiner, Ahpra chief executive
Healthcare workers face risk of suspensions or bans due to egregious and vexatious complaints that silence political expression about Israel's actions in Gaza and Lebanon.— Australia Palestine Advocacy Network
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does a health regulator need to adopt a definition of antisemitism at all? Isn't that a matter for courts or civil society?
Because Ahpra investigates complaints against healthcare workers and can suspend or ban them from practice. If the definition is vague or contested, it becomes a tool that can be used against people for political speech rather than actual misconduct.
But the IHRA definition is endorsed by governments and Jewish organizations. Doesn't that give it legitimacy?
Legitimacy in one context doesn't mean it works the same way in a regulatory one. A government can endorse a definition for public education. A regulator uses it to make decisions that end careers. The stakes are completely different.
So the concern is that healthcare workers will self-censor?
Yes, and it's already happening. Workers have reported fear of speaking about Gaza publicly. Even frivolous complaints can damage a career, so people stay silent. That's the chilling effect.
What about the Palestinian healthcare workers mentioned in the story?
They've watched their health system destroyed, seen colleagues killed, and now face hostility in Australia for speaking about it. The definition could be used against them too, which adds another layer of silencing.
Is there a way to combat antisemitism without this risk?
Probably. You'd need a definition that's narrow enough to protect actual speech, clear enough that it can't be weaponized, and applied by people trained to distinguish between antisemitism and political criticism. Ahpra is trying to address that with an advisory panel, but it's a hard problem.