Australia’s antisemitism envoy selected Greg Craven to lead its controversial university report card process after receiving no response from five companies contacted during an open tender process.
Documents released under freedom of information laws showed Jillian Segal’s office initially approached three independent consulting firms and two law firms to potentially conduct an assessment of Australian universities and how well they were dealing with antisemitism on campuses, but all declined to participate in the tender.
It is understood that conflicts of interest prevented the companies from coming forward due to their links to the university sector.
Segal’s office subsequently developed a short list of five individual candidates for the position.
Craven, a constitutional lawyer and former vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University who writes regularly for News Corp’s The Australian, was at the top of that list. The documents suggest that he was the first to be contacted, and that others on the short list were contacted only if he said no.
Sign Up: AU Breaking News Email
The special envoy announced his appointment to the position last November.
Segal devised the report card system as part of a wide-ranging plan submitted to the federal government to combat anti-Semitism. He proposed withholding government funding from universities that “facilitate, allow or fail to act against anti-Semitism.”
According to the documents, an Interior Department undersecretary sent an email to Segal’s chief of staff last October. It asked for a “strong, well-documented business case” justifying how a “particular individual was identified… and justifying why they are… capable of providing the necessary skills.”
“From our previous conversation, I understand that you and Jillian had developed a short list of potential candidates. The thought process by which you arrived at that list and from there your preferred candidate would be extremely helpful,” the email said.
In response, Segal’s chief of staff confirmed that the original bidding, which lasted two weeks, received “no official offers” and that his office had subsequently “rethought the process.”
“We…believe the project could be equally well executed…by an eminent and credentialed Australian,” they said. “Typical people would be retired jurists or university presidents.”
They provided a list of five people, starting with Craven, and said that given the “nature of these individuals” it would be “inappropriate” to approach them all at the same time and have them “compete.”
“The most appropriate method, in our opinion, is to move down the list one individual at a time,” they said.
“We considered Greg Craven to be the first choice for this project, given his position as a former university administrator and as a respected jurist.”
Three weeks later, Craven was sent a Commonwealth contract for the $232,466 position, with his term lasting until June 30, 2027.
Criticized appointment
In 2023, Craven described Go8 universities in Australia as “elitist,” “selfish” in one column, and as “greedy” institutions that have “despised Western civilization, downplayed anti-Semitism and genuflected to Trotskyist student unions” in another.
After the Bondi shooting, he said universities had been an “important factor in making antisemitism respectful” and referred to protesters on campuses as “mutant radical groups”.
Dr Alison Barnes, of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), claims Craven had “spent years using his platform to attack the very institutions and people he is now supposed to impartially evaluate”.
“We completely agree with the undersecretary: there should be a strong and well-documented business case for this appointment.
Documents seen by Guardian Australia last month confirmed universities would be graded on how well they “handle” protests, encampments and flag displays as part of the grading system, which was adopted by the Albanian government after the Bondi terror attack.
Its criteria outline four “priority areas” that should be evaluated, including the requirement that policies “effectively address access to campus grounds and regulate outdoor protests.”
Universities will also be evaluated based on their responses to “all protests, encampments and displays of flags, images and promotional materials within university campuses and buildings.”
The first tranche of reports were expected to be delivered to universities in May.
Segal and Craven have been contacted for comment.
