Albanese government terminates Islamic media group’s $308,000 taxpayer grant after it claimed Sydney’s antisemitic attacks were ‘all a sham’
Australia’s federal government is moving to revoke a $308,000 grant awarded to OnePath Network after videos published by the Islamic media group described several antisemitic attacks in Sydney as fabricated. The funding was intended to support social cohesion and understanding, so the videos have raised questions about whether the grant’s purpose and the group’s conduct are compatible.
Multicultural Affairs Minister Anne Aly told parliament that Home Affairs had issued a notice of intention to terminate the grant and was working to revoke it. OnePath videos called incidents including a January 2025 firebombing at a Jewish childcare centre, swastikas on cars and graffiti at synagogues “fake”; another featured scholar Ovamir Anjum describing Zionists as enemies of Islam. Aly has also asked the department to bring forward tools to screen applicants’ public statements, while a Jewish community leader urged a review of grants to independent media outlets.
- Government is moving to revoke OnePath Network’s $308,000 grant.
- Videos from the group called Sydney antisemitic attacks fabricated.
- Minister wants public statement screening for future grant applicants.
New here? Start with this
OnePath Network is an Islamic media group based in Australia. The federal grant was awarded to support social cohesion and understanding, and Multicultural Affairs Minister Anne Aly is responsible for the policy area.
The dispute centres on videos in which OnePath described reported antisemitic incidents in Sydney as fabricated. These included a firebombing at a Jewish childcare centre and antisemitic graffiti; another video featured a scholar speaking about Zionists.
The case raises questions about how public grants are assessed and whether an organisation’s public statements fit the purpose of its funding. The government has also raised the possibility of screening applicants’ public statements, while a Jewish community leader has called for a review of grants to independent media outlets.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The grant was intended to promote social cohesion, and public claims that antisemitic attacks were fabricated could undermine trust and deepen the harm experienced by Jewish communities. The government can reasonably argue that public funding should support the grant’s stated purpose, and that reviewing whether the recipient’s conduct meets its terms is responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money.
The case against
Terminating a grant over a recipient’s published speech risks making public funding conditional on political or reputational acceptability, which may chill lawful expression and disproportionately affect independent or minority media. A fair decision should rest on clear grant conditions and evidence of breach, with consistent standards and a chance for the recipient to respond, rather than on the offensiveness of its views alone.