After he resigned from the Coalition frontbench to support the Voice, Leeser was featured in dozens of news stories on the ABC and the Labor Party couldn’t stop talking about him.

On the day of his resignation Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney said, “Julian Leeser has shown strength today in putting his principles ahead of politics”.

In the end while his involvement in the Yes campaign was relatively inconsequential, his leaving the shadow cabinet was not.

Leeser’s departure gave Dutton the opportunity to appoint Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as the Coalition’s spokesperson on the referendum – and the rest is history.

A few months on, now that Leeser is no longer useful to the left they’ve forgotten about him.

And because he’s not attacking his own side the media ignore him. Which is a pity because what Leeser said to a conference at the Robert Menzies Institute a fortnight ago deserves a lot more attention than it’s so far received.

Of course the ABC has made no mention of his comments. Part of the explanation for this might be that Leeser punctured a number of comfortable certitudes of the left.

He spoke about antisemitism.

“It doesn’t appear to be an accident that the epicentres of antisemitic rhetoric and action appears to be in areas where there is political jostling between Labor and the Greens.

The inner suburbs of our major cities.

We have seen from October 7 that the Greens are treating the horrors of the war on Israel as an opportunity to whip up antisemitic hate.

The Greens behaviour online and in parliament since 7 October on these matters has been nothing less than disgraceful.

In doing so, they join a long list of opportunists who have targeted Jewish people since time began.”

No sooner had Leeser said that than Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi circulated on social media a photo of her at a “student protest for Palestine” in front of a placard with the words “Keep the world clean” with a drawing of an Israeli flag in a rubbish bin.

Faruqi subsequently deleted the photo.

Leeser continued, “…antisemitism is now a full-blown feature of the extremists-Greens political ideology.

It represents a danger to Jewish Australians and all Australians who value freedom. It’s why I believe that from here on, the major parties of Australia must preference the Greens last.

I am calling on the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party to put the Greens last in every seat at the next election.”

That’s unlikely to happen – but it should.

Preferencing the Greens last will be easier for the Coalition, but it will mean nonetheless them handing a huge campaign advantage to the ALP.

With guaranteed Coalition preferences Labor won’t need to devote the same level of resources as in the past to Labor-Greens contests.

At last year’s Victorian state election the Liberals preferences the Greens ahead of Labor in a number of seats.

As Antony Green pointed out in 2010 it was Liberal preferences that elected Greens leader Adam Bandt to the seat of Melbourne.

For a myriad of reasons it would be impossible for the ALP to ever preference the Coalition ahead of the Greens.

But that shouldn’t stop thoughtful Australians asking thoughtful Labor MPs why a Greens MP in parliament is preferable to a Liberal being elected.

The leaders of this country’s Jewish community should also ponder the consequences of Labor’s support for the Greens.

The Australian Jewish community has traditionally leaned left, and it must ask itself to what extent its support for the Labor Party has indirectly encouraged and enabled the Greens.

Jews across the world are now seeing what side the left is taking at this “civilisational moment”.

Just as the Liberal and Labor parties have done, Australia’s elites in big business, the media, universities, and our cultural institutions have for too long humoured the Greens.

Gay’s reticence to take a moral stance was called out by Bill Ackman, an American hedge fund manager who has long donated to liberal groups, including Human Rights Watch.

“The president’s answers reflect the profound educational, moral and ethical failures that pervade certain of our elite educational institutions due in large part to their failed leadership,” he wrote on X.

As a fellow Harvard graduate, I agree.

Attending the Boston campus was a life highlight.

I learnt a lot and met interesting people. Harvard’s then president, Lawrence Summers, helped me prepare a presentation on the 1997 Asian economic crisis. He had been the deputy secretary of the US Treasury at the time.

Out of affection for the institution, I served on the council of the Harvard Club of Australia for several years. I helped promote its work in Australia, including a scholarship program for public servants. I still host student singers when they tour through Sydney.

Last month I was asked to help organise the 20th-anniversary reunion of my class. I declined because of campus antisemitism.

I’m not Jewish, but am horrified by the hostility towards Jews in Australia and elsewhere.

Some Australian Jews are afraid to wear yarmulkes in public. Security guards man school gates in Sydney and Melbourne. Jewish leaders have hired bodyguards.

Last month Gay wrote to all Harvard alumni: “Antisemitism has no place at Harvard.”

Strong words, which are not supported by evidence.

Harvard was ranked last out of 248 US universities for free speech this year by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

After the October 7 attack by Hamas, more than 30 Harvard student groups declared Israel “entirely responsible”.

In the US, Australia and elsewhere, university administrators and academics have allowed a cult of anti-Jewish activism to flourish under the banner of anti-colonialism.

Fearful of students, they ignore calls for the destruction of Israel and its inhabitants.

Notwithstanding the Jewish state’s often brutal treatment of Palestinians, how can a wish for its end be anything other than antisemitic? Even elements of the left acknowledge this.

It confirms that Ms Higgins legal team raised a range of potential legal claims including sexual harassment and victimisation during her employment.

It accuses Senator Cash of breaching the duty of care owed to the claimant and knowing about the allegation for years, a claim she has repeatedly denied.

Both Senator Cash and her then chief of staff Daniel Try have denied, under oath during the criminal trial, Ms Higgins’ version of events — insisting they only found out shortly before the story broke.

However, no reference was made to these denials in the settlement deed that consists only of Ms Higgins’ version of events in a legal claim and a compensation agreement.

Senator Cash told Canberra radio on Friday that she was barred from attending the mediation if she wanted to retain taxpayer-funded legal advice from the Commonwealth and was never asked for her version of disputed events.

“Let me be very, very clear. It is now up to the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to explain why his government paid out $2.4 million while relying only on one side of the story,’’ she said.

“I was directed by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus not to participate in the mediation.

“Not only was I or any of my staff not allowed to participate in the mediation, we were never asked for our version of events.

“And my understanding is that the settlement was made after one day of mediation

“That is highly unusual when you are stepping on the basis of one person’s versions of the day. The Commonwealth did not admit liability.

“It’s a $2.4 million payout. And I was directed by the Attorney-General of Australia not to participate in the mediation.

There are serious questions for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to explain to the Australian people and why his government denied me and Linda the right to defend ourselves.”

Mr Lehrmann launched proceedings in the Federal Court this year against Network 10 and journalist Lisa Wilkinson over Ms Higgins’ The Project interview in February 2021 in which she alleged she was sexually assaulted by her former colleague.

Mr Lehrmann has consistently denied the allegations and has told the court he had no sexual contact with Ms Higgins in Senator Linda Reynolds’ office in the early hours of March 23, 2019.

His criminal trial in the ACT Supreme Court last year was aborted due to juror misconduct and a re-trial was abandoned. No findings have been made against him.

Ms Higgins had hopes to enter politics herself according to documents outlining her $2.445 million compo deal.

For the first time, the documents reveal that the total amount paid by taxpayers was $2.445 million – not the $2.3 million Ms Higgins mentioned in Court.

Ms Higgins gave evidence that after taxes and legal fees were paid she received closer to $1.9 million net.

“The claimant was successful and progressing in her career,” the document states.

“The claimant had a reasonable expectation of being promoted regularly and to eventually pursue her own political career, before suffering from the injuries and disabilities.”

It states she will need fortnightly psychiatric appointments at an estimated rate of $285 a session and requests compensation for friends and family who have to provide domestic support.

The new documents make clear that the payout was based entirely on her evidence of disputed claims that Liberal frontbenchers Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash and her chief of staff Fiona Brown handled the matter poorly.

Ms Brown is expected to give evidence and contest these accounts.

She has previously told the ACT Supreme Court she strongly urged her to report the matter to police and later took her to speak to the AFP.

The document claims that Ms Higgins was dissuaded from going to police – an idea strongly rejected by Ms Brown and Senators Cash and Reynolds who will not be giving evidence.

The documents prepared by Ms Higgins legal team also states that after the alleged rape that Scott Morrison’s political fixer Yaron Finkelstein was a regular presence in the office to deal with the fallout.

News.com.au understands that Mr Finkelstein was not in the office after the alleged rape and was also not aware of the allegation until years later.

Ms Higgins told news.com.au in January, 2021, that it was Mr Morrison’s chief of staff John Kunkel who was in the office, not Mr Finkelstein.

The statement gives effect to a number of the non-legislative recommendations contained in the independent review into the RBA, released in April.

The central bank is undergoing a period of significant change, including the appointments of Bank of England official Andrew Hauser as deputy governor and Treasury official Sarah Hunter as chief economist.

After considerable controversy over a recommendation for the RBA to give “equal consideration” to achieving both full employment and low inflation, Dr Chalmers and the RBA settled on a far less specific dual mandate that leaves the central bank with significant discretion.

“The appropriate timeframe for [achieving an inflation rate of 2.5 per cent] depends on economic circumstances and should, where necessary, balance the price stability and full employment objectives of monetary policy,” the agreement states

“The Reserve Bank board can best fulfil [economic prosperity and welfare of
the Australian people] by conducting monetary policy in a way that will best contribute to both price stability and full employment.”

Coalition MPs had warned the “equal consideration” wording would reduce the RBA’s focus on fighting inflation, while former treasurer Peter Costello said the clause would have watered down the inflation target. Mr Costello is chairman of Nine, publisher of The Australian Financial Review.

Former RBA governor Ian Macfarlane, a strong critic of the review, said it was unclear what equal consideration even meant.

But RBA reviewer Renee Fry-McKibbon said it was never the intention that “equal consideration” meant equal weight. She said the recommendation simply recognised that monetary policy also affects growth and the jobs market.

Dr Chalmers said the new agreement would ensure the RBA remained “world-class, with a monetary policy framework fit to meet current and future economic challenges”.

Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor said he wanted the government to be “razor focused on inflation and bringing down prices”.

IFM Investors chief economist Alex Joiner said the new wording made the prospect of a rate cut unlikely until late 2024, given the RBA’s current inflation forecasts do not show it achieving 2.5 per cent inflation at any point in the next couple of years.

The RBA expects annual inflation to fall to 2.9 per cent from 4.9 per cent by December 2025, which is the end of its forecast horizon.

The statement also for the first time defines the RBA’s full employment goal as the “maximum level of employment consistent with low and stable inflation”.

“The Reserve Bank board commits to regularly communicating its assessment of how conditions in the labour market stand relative to sustained full employment, drawing on a range of indicators and recognising that full employment is not directly measurable and changes over time,” it says.

The definition is a blow to the union movement, which wanted Dr Chalmers to enshrine a goal of “zero involuntary unemployment” in the statement, though it was unable to detail what this measure captured in practice.

When inflation is expected to be significantly higher or lower than the RBA’s 2 to 3 per cent target band, or unemployment is meant to deviate significantly from full employment, the RBA board will need to communicate how long it expects to take to meet its objectives.

The statement formalises the review’s recommendation that the Treasury secretary serves on the board in an independent capacity, rather than at the direction of the Treasurer.

It also flags a greater co-ordination between the RBA and the Treasury to ensure monetary and fiscal policies are aligned.

“The government recognises the role that sound fiscal management plays in achieving the Reserve Bank board’s objectives,” the statement says.

While the central bank has faced heavy criticism for its pandemic-era forward guidance and bond purchase program, the agreement acknowledges that interest rates alone may not always be sufficient to achieve the RBA’s goals.

“The Reserve Bank board will communicate a framework to guide the use of additional monetary tools, including the benefits, costs and risks associated with available tools,” the agreement states.

“It will draw on a range of inputs, including international experience, independent expert assessments and lessons from the Reserve Bank’s use of additional monetary tools.”

The central bank has also committed to a formal review of its monetary policy toolkit every five years.

Following the review’s sharp criticism of the RBA’s insular culture, the agreement also requires the central bank to “foster an open and dynamic culture that values constructive debate”.

The RBA has committed to bolstering its research capabilities and invest in its workforce.

But merely acknowledging this basic reality at an institution like the New York Times or Harvard University – much less researching or discussing its effects or how it might be prevented – is a one-way ticket to social ostracism and censure, with near-fatal career consequences.

Like most evils, censorship metastasizes. Universities now police even the smallest offenses against minority or self-declared marginalized groups.

The leading approach is sure to fail: doubling down on the ideologies and practices that led to the pro-Hamas fever in the first place.

Bill Ackman, the hedge-fund manager leading a Harvard donor revolt, told CNBC on Nov. 6 that he hadn’t previously read Harvard’s DEI statement.

Though he had assumed DEI was “for all marginalized groups,” once he read the statement, he realized that “the DEI program at Harvard is limited to specific groups and exploits others.”

Instead, Mr. Ackman suggested, DEI should cover all minorities, including Jews and Asians.

Jon Huntsman Jr. halted his contributions to the University of Pennsylvania on Oct. 15 to protest its leaders’ silence in the face of “hate,” which higher ed was “built to obviate.”

An open letter to Penn President Liz Magill initiated by alumnus Marc Rowan called for mandatory antisemitism awareness training across the university.

The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law has demanded that Penn add modules on antisemitism to the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion trainings.

College leaders are happy to oblige. As Ms. Magill told lawmakers Tuesday, Penn has created an Action Plan to Combat Antisemitism and a University Task Force on Antisemitism. Since antisemitism is “interconnected” to “other forms of hate,” Ms. Magill explained in a Nov. 1 message, Penn is also rolling out a presidential commission on Islamophobia. The university must do better to “reject hate in all its forms,” she said on Nov. 1.

Northwestern University President Michael Schill is establishing a committee to prevent antisemitism and “other forms of hate.” The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is creating a Standing Together Against Hate council. The University of Maryland, a self-described “proud multicultural community,” launched a task force to eliminate “antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate.” DEI bureaucrats are well-represented on all these commissions and task forces.

But a university has no capacity to eliminate “hate,” nor should that be its mission. In the name of rejecting hate, colleges built their DEI bureaucracies in the first place and allowed bureaucrats and their faculty sympathizers to put certain facts and ideas off-limits.

In the name of rejecting hate, colleges started requiring faculty—even in the hard sciences—to justify their research in the name of “inclusion” and “belonging.”

Protected identity categories have constantly expanded while the haters shrank to an ever smaller subset of white males.

The real issue on campuses isn’t antisemitism but the anti-Western ethos that has colonized large swaths of the curriculum.

Elite schools once disdained Jews because they were seen as outsiders to Western civilization.

Now they are reviled as that civilization’s very embodiment. Students explain that their hatreds come from what they learn in class—that the West is built on white supremacism and oppression.

Israel is cast as the Western settler-colonialist oppressor par excellence.

The Columbia University chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine explained that “our classes regularly discuss the inevitability of resistance as part of the struggle for decolonization.

We study under renowned scholars who denounce the fact that the media requires oppressed peoples to be ‘perfect victims’ ”—that is, not to commit acts of terrorism—“in order to deserve sympathy.”

During a sit-in, a law student at Penn announced: “It was here where I read texts about the history of colonial regimes and the importance of decolonization. . . . I just want the university to try to do part of what it tries to teach us in the classrooms.”

A Harvard student posted on social media: “how have i read frantz fanon in no less than four classes here (writing on the violent algerian decolonial movement!!!) and yet you all side with the colonizer?”

Another Harvard student: “what is WRONG with EVERYONE! This is literally a decolonization struggle before our eyes. like all of those places we learn about and have historicized and sympathize with now—algeria, south africa, haiti, more.”

Gerrymandering Jews into an “oppressed” class for DEI purposes wouldn’t do anything to prevent this classroom propaganda—which college leaders are at pains not to address.

Since Oct. 7, presidents and faculty have routinely spoken of the “interconnectedness” of antisemitism and Islamophobia. A Nov. 16 lecture at Cornell University by Ross Brann, a professor of Judeo-Islamic studies, was titled “The Intersectionality of Antisemitism, Islamophobia and Racism.”

Who is found at that intersection?

White supremacists, former Trump administration officials, evangelical Christians and white opponents of mass immigration from Muslim countries, to judge by Mr. Brann’s PowerPoint slides.

None of these supposed oppressors play a significant role in pro-Hamas campus protests.

The actual protesters—Muslims, Black Lives Matter activists, Queers for Palestine, socialist groups and proponents of the anti-Israel boycott, divest and sanctions movement—went unmentioned in the lecture. (Mr. Brann did briefly mention Louis Farrakhan as an antisemite.)

Mr. Ackman seems to be learning. In a Dec. 3 letter to Harvard President Claudine Gay, he described his conversations with faculty, who were willing to speak only confidentially. “The problems at Harvard are clearly not just about Jews and Israel,” Mr. Ackman wrote. Harvard also discriminates against Asians and “straight white males.”

Harvard’s diversity office “is an important culprit in this discrimination on campus as it sees the world in a framework of oppressors and the oppressed, where the oppressor class includes white males, Asians, Jews and other people perceived to be successful and powerful.”

Solving the problems of higher ed requires rejecting this victim ideology wholesale.

“Universities need to abandon the concept that they have a central role in moral education,” Lawrence Summers, a former Harvard president, told me.

Donors and alumni should demand changes in governance and curricula to counterbalance the anti-Western ideology that undergirds the anti-Israel coalition.

Every identity-based bureaucratic sinecure should be eliminated.

Trustees and presidents should be chosen based on their determination to support humanistic learning and academic excellence, not “inclusion.”