An Australian state MP has formally asked the federal government to investigate whether Israel has breached Australia’s foreign influence and interference laws, after a report authored by an Israeli government ministry named him and other politicians as promoters of antisemitic and anti-Zionist content.
Anthony D’Adam, a New South Wales upper house Labor MP and a convener of Labor Friends of Palestine, wrote to Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke earlier this week, raising concerns about a dossier produced by Israel’s Ministry for Diaspora Affairs. The document, published in September, was recently cited by The Australian newspaper in a report scrutinising the activities of Australian politicians and pro-Palestinian advocacy groups.
The dossier identifies 25 individuals and organisations, describing its purpose as analysing “key influencers and groups promoting antisemitic and anti-Zionist content”. Elsewhere, it refers to monitoring those generating “antisemitic/anti-Israel” material, language critics argue blurs the line between racism against Jewish people and political criticism of the Israeli state.
Among the politicians named are D’Adam, former federal Greens leader Adam Bandt, Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi, and independents Fatima Payman and Lidia Thorpe. Bandt and Faruqi are listed among what the report describes as the top 10 generators of antisemitic and anti-Israel content. Several activist organisations are also identified, including the Palestine Action Group, Free Palestine Melbourne, Disrupt Wars, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, Students for Palestine at the University of Sydney, and University of Melbourne for Palestine.
D’Adam said he was alarmed by both the substance of the dossier and its apparent intent. While he acknowledged being a longstanding critic of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and a supporter of Palestinian statehood, he strongly rejected any suggestion that he had engaged in antisemitism.
“I reject any assertion that I have engaged in antisemitism,” D’Adam wrote in his letter to Burke. “The Israeli government, through the publication of this dossier, is seeking to interfere in Australian political discourse by attempting to intimidate and discredit critics of the Israeli government.”
He argued that the report conflated legitimate political criticism with hatred of Jewish people, a distinction he said was fundamental to democratic debate. According to D’Adam, the document labels him and other elected representatives as “political figures in office who promote antisemitism, whether online or through their official duties”, without providing evidence of antisemitic statements.
D’Adam said he was particularly disturbed by the personal nature of the material included in the dossier. “To be targeted by a foreign power, it’s concerning,” he told Guardian Australia. “This document includes a photo of me and my partner. It’s clearly designed to intimidate.”
In his correspondence with Burke, D’Adam pointed to guidance published by the Department of Home Affairs on countering foreign interference. That guidance notes that foreign influence can take many forms, including attempts to suppress or control critical views expressed in Australian media, or efforts to harass, stigmatise or discredit journalists, activists and politicians.
“How would we react if it was China or Iran producing this sort of material?” D’Adam asked. “It’s clearly designed to intervene in Australian political discourse. It’s aimed at denigrating and stigmatising individuals and discouraging them from criticising Israel.”
While much of the information in the report appears to have been drawn from public sources, D’Adam said there were unanswered questions about how the dossier was compiled and whether people inside Australia were involved in assisting a foreign government. He urged Burke to examine whether Australian citizens or residents may have acted on behalf of Israel, potentially triggering obligations under foreign influence transparency or interference laws.
He also drew attention to the Israeli ministry’s regular publication of what it calls “Anti-Israel Protest Forecasts”, documents that predict upcoming demonstrations around the world. D’Adam said these forecasts often categorised protests as posing a risk of violence without clear evidence, raising concerns about surveillance and the portrayal of lawful political activism as a security threat.
“It appears likely that in collecting this information, the Israeli government has relied on sources within Australia,” D’Adam wrote, “giving rise to the possibility that Australian citizens or residents are involved in foreign interference.”
The Israeli report outlines a methodology that includes monitoring social media, analysing traditional media coverage, using proprietary databases tracking hate speech and political sentiment, and direct observation of online activity by individuals named in the document.
A spokesperson for Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said the department treats such matters seriously. “Correspondence which contains allegations of unlawful conduct is passed on to relevant agencies as a matter of course,” the spokesperson said in response to questions.
Those named in the dossier, including Bandt, Faruqi, Payman and Thorpe, have been contacted for comment, as has the Israeli ambassador to Australia. The controversy is likely to intensify debate in Australia about the boundary between combating antisemitism and protecting the right of politicians and citizens to criticise the policies of a foreign government without fear of intimidation or reprisal.
