Chapter 3Issues raised by submitters and witnesses

3.1This chapter outlines the key issues raised by submitters and witnesses during the inquiry.

3.2Submitters and witnesses universally agreed that antisemitism is unlawful and unconscionable, and that its manifestation in the community and at universities must be addressed. Submitters expressed some differing views as to the extent of antisemitism in Australian universities in practice, and the most appropriate responses to such conduct or sentiment.

Prevalence of antisemitism on campuses

3.3The committee heard a range of evidence regarding complaints of, or concerns regarding, the existence of antisemitism and/or instances of antisemitism, on university campuses, and in Australian society more broadly.[1]

3.4The Legal and Constitutional Affairs, inquiry into the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) report outlined a range of evidence received from university students expressing concern of antisemitism on campus.[2] For example, the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) submitted that ‘Jewish students face an unprecedented increase in fear, intimidation, and harassment from both members of the university community and non-student external actors entering campus’.[3] Mr Noah Loven, President of AUJS further stated that since that inquiry, ‘the types of incidents we are seeing have become increasingly extreme’ on university campuses.[4]

3.5Both Mr Hugh de Kretser, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), and Race Discrimination Commissioner Mr Giridharan Sivaraman agreed that there is a rise in antisemitism, which is intensifying.[5] Mr de Kretser stated that the AHRC has seen a rise in the number of complaints about antisemitism, as well as Islamophobia ‘and other forms of racism connected to the violence in the Middle East’. He also noted that complaints numbers to the AHRC ‘will only be a tiny subset of the broader antisemitism’, stating that law enforcement data also provides information as to hate crimes being committed.[6]

3.6The Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Ms Jillian Segal, stated that antisemitism has become an embedded part of the culture of universities.[7] The Zionist Federation of Australia stated that there has been ‘an explosion of antisemitic incidents’ since 7 October 2023.[8] AUJS provided examples of rises in extremism on university campuses:

the display of posters advocating for the release of 24 Palestinian prisoners, many identified as members of terrorist organisations, at the University of Sydney; and

a protest at Western Sydney University organised by the WSU 4 Palestine Collective, during which participants displayed a banner stating ‘Haniyeh's Building’, referencing former Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.[9]

3.7It stated that these incidents raise serious concerns about the explicit support for terrorist organisations on Australian university campuses, contributing to a hostile climate that threatens the safety of all students and creates a particularly uncomfortable environment for Jewish students, and which reflects a disturbing rise in extremism on campus.[10]

3.8Dr David Slucki, Director of the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation at Monash University, stated that, while antisemitism has always been present in Australia, it appears to be ‘the most public and visible it’s been’.[11] He also noted that increases in antisemitism appear to be linked with increases in other racial prejudice:

We do see the phenomena of antisemitism and Islamophobia as somehow interlinked, and that partly goes to the fact that they've both spiked at the same time, when there's been violence and conflict in the Middle East. We're trying to better understand why that's the case and how we can create a university environment that mitigates some of that tension and makes students—all students—feel safer. All this work won't benefit only Jewish, Muslim and Palestinian students. This work will benefit all students across all campuses.[12]

3.9The Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council noted that the Australian Jewish University Experience Survey, published in July 2023, indicated that two-thirds of Jewish students had experienced antisemitism on campus:

According to the survey, 85% of Jewish students didn’t submit a complaint after the most impactful incident of antisemitism in the previous 12 months. Asked why they didn’t submit a complaint, 61% responded that it wouldn’t make a difference, and 48% said that the university wouldn’t take it seriously. Smaller numbers reflected worries about confidentiality (13%), that they wouldn’t be believed (12%) or concerns their grades would be affected (10%).[13]

3.10However, it argued that complaints data should not solely be relied on given the reasons why students may not wish to submit formal complaints. In this regard, Mr Zachary Morris, Vice-President of AUJS, stated that students had approached AUJS representatives after their appearance before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in October 2024 to disclose further stories which had affected them.[14]

3.11Group of Eight Australia (which represents eight of Australia’s research-intensive universities) submitted that research undertaken by the Scanlon Foundation Research Institute notes that, while social cohesion has remained steady over the last 12 months, it is sitting around six points lower than its average during the 2010s and at its equal lowest since the first such survey in 2007.[15] The National Tertiary Education Union, similarly, highlighted the results of that research:

34% of Australians have a somewhat or very negative attitude to Muslims, an increase from 27% before the October attacks on Israel but still better than in the period 2018-2020. Negative attitudes to Jewish people also increased in the past year from 9% to 13% with positive views declining by 8%. In the same period positive attitudes to Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs also declined by 6-8%. The percentage of people having a negative view of religions other than their own rose by 10% to 48% leading to the observation that “while attitudes to Australia’s Muslim and Jewish communities is a particular area of concern, relations towards and across all faiths appear to be under pressure”.[16]

3.12Universities Australia commented that, more broadly, there have been many reports ‘that university campuses are places of protest, intensively in the last 12 months, that we haven’t seen really since the Vietnam War protests’.[17]

3.13Numerous universities gave evidence regarding incidents of and complaints of antisemitism on their campuses. The Australian National University stated:

In 2024 there were 34 disclosures of racism through the online disclosure tool, 10 of which were determined to be related to antisemitism. This does not necessarily mean there have been 10 separate incidents of antisemitic behaviour, as a single incident may receive multiple disclosures, as bystanders and those directly impacted can make a disclosure and access support.

A separate reporting tool (Figtree) is available for ANU staff to report workplace safety incidents and hazards. Since October 2023, there have been four total incidents of antisemitism lodged in Figtree, by two staff members…

Since October 2023, ANU has received and investigated 11 discipline cases related to the Middle East protests and encampment. There have been findings of misconduct in three of these cases, which resulted in two exclusions (one subsequently overturned at appeal), and one reprimand/partial denial of access to ANU facilities.[18]

3.14Monash University stated that prior to 2024, there were no recorded reports by students regarding antisemitic behaviour by university staff. It stated that during an on-campus encampment protest, three reports about staff conduct were raised.[19] It noted that formal reports do not capture the full extent of the prevalence of nature of antisemitic behaviour, stating that discussions with student leaders and Jewish staff had been an important source of information for the university. It further stated that during these protests, university regulations were invoked to temporary exclude members of the public (who were not associated with the university) from the premises, permanently withdraw permission to be on campus for a small number of people, and then to issue a general directive to withdraw the permission of all members of the public to be on Monash premises ‘if their purpose [was] to engage in protest activity’.[20] As to the prevalence of antisemitism more broadly, Professor Sharon Pickering (Vice Chancellor and President) posited, ‘I believe antisemitism is systemic in Australian society, of which universities are a part. It is impossible we would have seen a synagogue burned and cars burned in the past week if it was not systemic’.[21]

3.15The University of Melbourne stated that since 1 January 2024, it has received a total of 479 formal complaints about all matters relating to student experience, of which 39 related to the conflict in the Middle East, and 12 related directly to allegations of antisemitism.[22] It stated that most of the 12 formal complaints related to posters and stickers on campus. For the same period, the University has a total of 112 reports related to the Middle East conflict, of which 24 related directly to allegations of antisemitism. It stated that complaints and reports alleging antisemitism also related to complaints of bias in the curriculum, as well as feelings of being excluded from participating in university life ‘because of the presence of protest activity, or what they felt was anti-Israeli and/or antisemitic sentiment’.[23] Professor Roberts, Provost and Interim Vice Chancellor, stated that the university is seeing a reduction in the number of incidents being reported by staff on campus.[24]

3.16Professor Mark Scott AO, Vice Chancellor and President of the University of Sydney, stated:

Since October 7 we have seen a significant increase in reports of antisemitism in the broader community and certainly on campus, but there have been incidents prior to that. I would say if you're looking at the trend line—and we've been reflecting on this significantly—complaints around antisemitism at the university were significantly higher in the first semester, significantly higher while the encampment was taking place and immediately in the aftermath of that, but significantly reduced in the second semester—around 10 per cent of the volume of complaints.[25]

3.17He further stated that the kinds of issues which gave rise to those earlier complaints in the first semester were largely driven by activities in and around an on-campus encampment, namely ‘concern at the encampment's presence, concern at some protests and chants that happened on the back of the encampment and other activities in and around the encampment’.[26] He stated that many were ‘generalised environmental kinds of complaints rather than specific personal experiences’. In this regard, one submitter described the encampment as a ‘hostile space’, in which they observed the use of derogatory language including ‘descriptions of Israel as a genocidal colonial apartheid’.[27] They stated that this made them feel alienated and anxious, and expressed concern regarding the lock down of campus buildings posed by the encampment to the university Chancellor, which meant that students were locked out of campus buildings and unable to access their personal belongings.[28]

3.18Mr Amit Chakma, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia, stated that the university has received 44 formal complaints, the majority of which related to positions taken and statements made during debate at a special general meeting of the student guild in October 2024.[29]

3.19The University of Newcastle stated that in 2023, more than 9,700 students responded to the Student Feedback on the University of Newcastle Survey, with 92.8 per cent indicating that they felt safe in the campus environment. The University of Queensland indicated that during a period where an encampment was present on campus, the university received 43 complaints relating to 31 separate incidents, 15 of which involved allegations of antisemitism and six of which related to protests on campus, with the remaining concerns relating to a range of issues associated with the encampments.[30] Western Sydney University noted that in 2024 it had received 62 complaints relating to a range of matters, of which ‘12 were substantiated with regard to antisemitism’.[31]

3.20Queensland University of Technology advised that from October 2023 until 29 November 2024, the university had received 27 complaints regarding behaviour on campus, none of which related specifically to antisemitism.[32] Professor Margaret Sheil, Vice Chancellor and President, also noted complaints regarding a set of slides which had been shown at a National Symposium on Unifying Anti-Racist Research And Action organised by a research institute from the university (but not held on university campus) in January 2025.[33] The Vice Chancellor apologies for the hurt and concern that this had caused, and expressed sadness that this had overshadowed the symposium. She noted that the university has commissioned an independent review to establish the facts of those events and the extent to which they may have aligned with the university’s policies and code of conduct.[34] She also advised that the university had received a large volume of written correspondence regarding the symposium expressing a range of views.[35]

3.21Professor S. Bruce Dowton, Vice Chancellor and President of Macquarie University, stated that complaints of antisemitism and related activities at Macquarie University were limited:

We have received a limited number of complaints about antisemitism within our community. We have had no attempts at encampment. We had a small number of small, peaceful pro-Palestinian protests in 2023 and 2024. We had one student complaint about a classroom statement, which was addressed. We had an antisemitic graffiti campaign in February 2024 on the campus, which was swiftly dealt with in collaboration with the New South Wales police leading to successful prosecution. An Israeli flag was removed from a student's stall during orientation week and discarded by a Jewish student opposing the Israeli government's actions. This matter was managed by the dean of students. One academic staff member's activity has attracted significant attention and complaint to the university.[36]

3.22With respect to complaints regarding the conduct of an individual research fellow associated with the university (but not involved in regular teaching activities), Professor Dowton stated that the university did not endorse the person’s comments, and the matter had been addressed through the worker’s supervisor:

The university maintains its position in solidarity with statements I've already made around racism, vilification and discrimination. We are beholden to, as you pointed out, our policy framework and ultimately contractual obligations with that staff member, as embodied in the enterprise agreement. This is the dilemma and the conundrum that my university and every university in Australia finds itself in: the intersection between a range of things which are essentially about social norms and social values—stopping short of the law and what the law demands—and our employment and contractual arrangements.[37]

3.23He stated that the university’s enterprise agreement prescribes steps that must be taken to address accusations that have a reasonable level of concern:

Those steps include putting the allegation to the academic staff member in writing and having them have a chance to respond to that. The university then has available to it a range of steps beyond that that it can go through under the enterprise agreement. Those include impanelling a so-called misconduct investigation committee, which has one member appointed by the university, one member appointed by the union and a third member agreed to by both parties. That misconduct investigation committee proceeds forward with its investigation and reports back to the university. Then, based upon the findings of that misconduct investigation committee, the university can decide to sanction the individual in a variety of different ways…[38]

3.24Professor Andrew Parfitt, Vice Chancellor and President of University of Technology Sydney, stated that the university has received a small number of complaints from Jewish staff and students ‘who’ve felt unsafe or unwelcome on our campus’.[39]

3.25The University of Adelaide stated that it is not aware of Jewish students or staff being directly targeted by protesters since 7 October 2023, but ‘we are aware that protest activity may have likely caused distress and discomfort to a number of staff and students, including Jewish studentsc’.[40] The university advised that since November 2022, it had received 18 complaints referring to allegations of antisemitism (including eight complaints made while the encampment was present), none of which were substantiated following investigation by the university’s Integrity Unit.[41] It stated that during the encampment in May 2024, the University received reports relating to the use of contested phrases and disruption, however ‘there were no reports of activity that the University found to be discriminatory, inciting hatred or engaging in racial vilification’.[42] It stated that ‘misconduct matters related to the encampment period’ led to two members of the public being indefinitely excluded from the University, and one student was issued an interim exclusion with a referral made to the Student Misconduct Tribunal to consider their conduct.[43] Professor Peter Hoj AC, Vice Chancellor and President of the university, stated that, to his knowledge, in the complaints that have been made to the university, no direct findings of antisemitic behaviour were found.[44]

3.26Several submitters expressed concern that complaints of antisemitism (or responses to alleged antisemitism) may misidentify legitimate statements and/or protests regarding activity in the Middle East as being antisemitic.[45] For example, a group of 15 academic and honorary staff from the University of Melbourne submitted that while attempts to quantify instances of antisemitism typically rely on the numbers of complaints from different groups, many such complaints ‘arise from a misapprehension that criticism of Israel and Zionism, and in turn recognition of Palestinian self-determination and sovereignty, is antisemitic’.[46] Similarly, the Australian Jewish Democratic Society submitted that, while ethnic racial or political stereotyping is unacceptable:

it is unavoidable that public debate and protest will disturb and challenge supporters of Israel but policing this debate cannot be put onto universities and simply classified as “antisemitism” or “hate speech.

For example, the use of the term “genocide” to label Israeli actions in Gaza is considered by many Jews as reprehensible. Likewise, the slogan “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” is considered as calling for the destruction of Israel or the genocide of Jews. These issues are fought out daily in the letters pages of the dailies and in other media. Debate over all these issues is also current in Israel.

The International Court of Justice…is also considering whether genocide has been committed in Gaza. Whether or not one thinks the case has merit, the question of genocide and related issues is one that is part of public and legal debate in a free society, disturbing as it may be.[47]

3.27Jews Against the Occupation ’48 denied that students and staff at universities are subject to ‘an objectively significant level of antisemitic attacks’, arguing that ‘the overwhelming majority of allegedly antisemitic incidents are in fact legitimate critique of Israel and Zionism’.[48] It stated that ‘Pro-Palestine activism may be uncomfortable for Jews whose identity is enmeshed with Israel and Zionism, but they are not objectively unsafe’.[49]

3.28Dr Noam Peleg argued that ‘there is no compelling, independently verified, evidence to suggest that antisemitism is prevailing over other forms of racism on campuses, especially not when it comes to racism against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and staff’.[50] He argued that some data gathered by ‘biased groups’ such as the Executive Council of Australian Jewry include statements that Israel is committing war crimes as antisemitic, which he said are not accurate examples of antisemitism.[51] He argued that, while racism is a problem in Australia and is not acceptable:

[A]nti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are not antisemitic events or speech, but rather it is the opposite; it is an anti-racist and anti-colonial stand. Speaking for human rights and Palestinian liberation, against Zionism and Israeli settler colonialism, apartheid, and genocide is not antisemitic. None of these views make anyone inherently unsafe; at most, it can make someone uncomfortable. The two are not the same, and their intentional conflation is dangerous. Feeling discomfort, being challenged, and facing opinions that you don’t agree with are all part of democratic life and public debate, of being in an education setting like a university campus.[52]

The legal and regulatory framework

3.29As set out in Chapter 2, Australian universities are subject to a legal and regulatory framework governing their operations, as well as being subject to general anti-discrimination laws.

3.30The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), the national higher education regulator, noted that it ensures that registered universities meet their obligations under the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (the Threshold Standards):

TEQSA’s response to the recent rise in antisemitism in the context of student protests and encampments has focused on directly engaging providers and offering guidance to ensure they are meeting their obligations under the Threshold Standards. We have also directly engaged students and other stakeholders to better understand their experiences and inform our future guidance.[53]

3.31It noted that TEQSA’s regulatory approach is determined by legislation and ‘the legislated principles of necessity, risk and proportionality’:

Providers are responsible for managing their own risk and are expected to demonstrate self-assurance consistent with the expectations set out in the Threshold Standards. In addition to cyclical re-registration assessments, TEQSA monitors providers based on insights from the providers’ assessed risk profile, environmental scanning of providers’ activities, complaints and emerging sector risks.

TEQSA’s regulatory approach focuses on ensuring providers meet their obligations under the Threshold Standards, which set minimum requirements for entering and operating within Australia’s higher education sector. Recognising the diversity of providers across the sector, these standards emphasise high-level principles over detailed prescriptive measures.[54]

3.32It noted that the Threshold Standards relevantly require providers to comply with all legislation relevant to their operations, and to ensure that institutional policies and procedures appropriately enact those obligations. In the context of antisemitism, it stated that ‘providers must adhere to relevant equal opportunity, anti-discrimination, and anti-vilification legislation while fostering an environment free from all forms of racism and discrimination’, as well as fostering the wellbeing of staff and students while protecting academic freedom and freedom of speech.[55] It noted that it does not have the authority to make a legal determination about a provider’s compliance with anti-vilification laws, or to make findings about an individual person’s compliance with anti-discrimination laws.

3.33TEQSA explained that where it is concerned that a provider may not be meeting the Threshold Standards, it may request relevant information from the provider, and may then seek assurance from the provider that they are responding adequately to an issue, taking corrective action, or undertaking review and improvement activities to better manage the risks.[56] Should TEQSA consider that the provider’s response is insufficient, or if there is a lack of corrective action, it may impose administrative sanctions on the provider, including: conditions on their registration; shortening their registration period; or cancelling their registration. It stated that TEQSA may apply for financial penalties if a provider breaches a condition of registration.[57]

3.34As to its actions concerning instances of antisemitism after 7 October 2023, TEQSA advised that it has: collected complaints data from universities; established a regulatory group to coordinate monitoring activities; directly engaged with providers experiencing heightened risks and sought assurances from those providers about how they are managing those risks; directly engaged with students; issued sector alerts and interim advice; and engaged with the Australian Human rights Commission’s ‘Respect at Uni study’.[58] It stated that its work during and following student protests and encampments led to preliminary findings, including:

some universities’ Acts of establishment, statutes and by-laws appeared to constrain their ability to respond to protests and encampments, limit access to campus, and respond to unacceptable behaviour, including antisemitism;

some universities’ policies and procedures were not fit for purpose;

universities that maintained a close operational liaison with state police were better able to prepare for protests, manage escalations and respond effectively when issues arose; and

universities that established timely processes to determine unacceptable behaviour appear to have had the most success in maintaining a safe environment for students and staff.[59]

3.35The Commonwealth Ombudsman noted that the National Student Ombudsman (which took effect from 1 February 2025) would ‘aim to work constructively with universities with respect to any complaints to the NSO or investigations by the NSO about how universities are addressing antisemitism on campuses’.[60] It noted that it will have the power to: investigate complaints regarding the way in which universities have engaged with a student’s complaint (including on its own motion);[61] collect and analyse complaints data; make public statements about the findings of an investigation; and provide reports to the Minister for Education.[62] Mr Iain Anderson, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, stated that ombudsmen drive a strong improvement culture in institutions and leads to those institutions taking complaints more seriously.[63]

3.36As to the complaints function of the National Student Ombudsman, Mr Anderson stated:

It's not merits review as such. We're not trying to second-guess the decision. We do actually still have to have regard to whether the student's concern has been properly addressed. One of the things I'll be looking at, and that the power to make a recommendation is conditioned by, is whether I think that the student has been treated unjustly, improperly, in a discriminatory way, unlawfully or in a way that's otherwise wrong in all the circumstances. While we're not doing merits review, we're still concerned with whether the university has properly engaged with the underlying concern of the student, and not just the process by which they've done it.[64]

3.37Further, Dr Terri Macdonald, Director of Public Policy and Strategic Research with the National Tertiary Education Union, noted that many university enterprise agreements contain clauses related to ensuring academic freedom:

[W]hile universities have in place robust protections for academic freedom via NTEU negotiated collective agreements, responses by university managements to discourse around the war in Gaza has varied…[A]ll NTEU negotiated agreements have clauses around expressions of academic freedom and…every one of those agreements expressly states that vilification [is] not protected by academic freedom.[65]

University policies and processes, and views as to responses to antisemitism

3.38The committee heard a range of evidence regarding the processes and policies which universities have in place relating to complaints of antisemitism and student/staff safety more generally, and views as to the sufficiency of universities’ responses to complaints of antisemitism. The evidence largely raised concerns as to the extent to which those policies, processes and frameworks were responding effectively to an escalation in antisemitism and decline in social cohesion more generally.

3.39The committee received submissions from 15 universities regarding complaints of antisemitism on their campuses (particularly since 7 October 2023), and the processes they have in place for complaints handling, campus safety and academic freedom. These universities universally condemned antisemitism and many highlighted the operation of their various student codes of conduct and other related policies.[66]

3.40Monash University stated that its actions to respond to and prevent antisemitism has been based on: deep listening and open dialogue; clear communication about the expectations of rights and responsibilities in the university; an effective working relationship with police; and the consistent and timely application of policies and regulations.[67] It stated that Monash University has existing consultation mechanisms between senior staff and students, including the Vice-Chancellor’s Student Presidents’ Advisory Forum, which meets three times a year and reports annually to the University Council.[68] It also noted that the university models a trauma-informed approach to safe learning environments, including by providing sensitive content warnings when discussing subjects in the classroom that ‘might produce strong emotions’.

3.41It noted that the university is supporting the ‘Monash Initiative for Rapid Research into Antisemitism’, a project involving a series of discrete research projects designed to establish best practices in how to identify, counteract and prevent antisemitism.[69] It also highlighted a ‘Campus Cohesion Project’ announced in May 2024, which would be an action-based research program to develop practical solutions to support campus cohesion and student/staff safety.[70]

3.42As to the response to an encampment on the university campus from 1 to 17 May, Professor Sharon Pickering (Vice Chancellor and President) noted:

[W]e did not dismantle the encampment; the students who were encamped there decided to pack up. I think it's important to note that none of our registered student societies were engaged in the encampment at Monash; they were different configurations of students that were there. We were very clear that the first few days of that encampment were deeply unpleasant and we saw some unacceptable and unpleasant behaviour. We took a series of steps in relation to that, and that included two key groups: student actors, so students of Monash that were involved in behaviour that we believe crossed the line, and then non-student actors, so members that weren't part of our community.

For members that weren't part of our community, we formally excluded seven of those people from our campus and they are not permitted to ever come back onto our campus. We temporarily excluded at least another 20 actors that came onto our campus during that period. In addition to that, 11 students were subject to misconduct proceedings. While those proceedings were underway, they were not permitted to return to the encampment site of the university without further penalty.[71]

3.43TEQSA identified Monash University as ‘a leader in the way they deal with student concerns and trauma informed approaches’.[72]

3.44The Australian National University (ANU) stated that its policies are designed to facilitate an inclusive, respectful, and diverse campus and community, and prohibit all forms of discrimination, vilification, intimidation, violence, and other oppressive and disrespectful behaviour towards anyone, regardless of cultural background, religion, or political conviction’.[73] It stated that senior staff meet regularly with Jewish students to understand their concerns, and noted that senior staff have met a number of times with AUJS representatives since 7 October 2023. It noted that pursuant to this engagement it has implemented additional supports for students, such as academic special consideration, the removal of ‘inappropriate posters and graffiti’, and provision of a confidential safe space for Jewish students to study and practice religious activities.[74] Vice Chancellor and President, Professor Geneveive Bell, stated

Our policies and procedures prohibit all forms of discrimination, vilification, intimidation, violence and other repressive and disrespectful behaviours towards anyone, regardless of cultural background, religion or political conviction. When people fall short of these expectations, we will and do act. We know these experiences have profound impacts on individuals. We have created multiple mechanisms and pathways for disclosures and reporting inappropriate conduct.[75]

3.45The ANU also stated that since managing on-campus encampments in 2024, it has reviewed several policies, including those related to physical security (to ban sleeping on campus other than in a residence), and posters (to establish a process for addressing content that ‘may impact people’s wellbeing’).[76]

3.46The University of Melbourne provided an overview of its policies and procedures in addressing antisemitism and other forms of racism:

The University is committed to addressing these issues through comprehensive policies and actions. This commitment is part of our broader Anti-Racism Action Plan, which was developed in consultation with staff and students to ensure it addresses the specific needs and experiences of our community. The plan, which builds on the Anti-Racism Commitment published in January 2023, is structured around four pillars – acknowledging, understanding, preventing and responding to racism. The Commitment also included the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. The University is working with Go8 counterparts on the development of a sector definition of antisemitism in line with the work of the Special Envoy.

The University is bound by the law and its obligations under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) in shaping its policies and its responses.[77]

3.47It stated that it has proactively addressed reports of racism including antisemitism, noting that it has developed a system for transparent reporting on the action it will take in response, as well as complaints data.[78] It also indicated that it has updated guidance documents to assist teachers in managing issues in the classroom (including managing difficult and polarising conversations).[79] In addition, the University of Melbourne has provided a range of specific supports to Jewish and Palestinian Students.[80]

3.48Professor Nicola Phillips, Provost and Interim Vice Chancellor, stated that the university would conduct a comprehensive review of its policies and procedures in 2025.[81] With respect to protest activities in campus, Professor Phillips advised that the university had received four complaints regarding four incursions into university classrooms, as well as an encampment which then ‘translated into the occupation of a building’, lasting ten days.[82] She stated that the occupation of a university building ‘had crossed the line’, stating that ‘this kind of protest was unacceptable’.[83]

3.49The University of Melbourne also noted that:

The University is required to comply with the Charter of Human Rights under Victorian law. Accordingly, any actions of the University that limit rights to peaceful assembly need to be proportionate, reasonably necessary and justified in the circumstances. The University is also bound by a requirement to observe due process and comply with its relevant privacy and confidentiality obligations at all times.[84]

3.50As to how the university had responded to the occupation of a university building (and associated occupation of one employee’s office), the university noted that it is currently being investigated by the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner for the way it collected or used some evidence as part of its response to this encampment and occupation.[85] Specifically, Professor Roberts stated that this relates to the steps the university had taken to identify a person involved in the protest.[86]

3.51However, a group of 15 academic and honorary staff from the University of Melbourne expressed concern regarding this response to student encampments, stating:

When staff and students peacefully camped inside a building at the University of Melbourne drawing attention to the actions of the Israeli state, it was their actions that were identified as presenting a danger. Staff and students were advised that safety concerns meant they should avoid the area. To characterize a peaceful demonstration in this way perpetuated racist Palestinian/Arab/Islamophobic tropes.[87]

3.52The University of New South Wales (UNSW) stated that, in recognition of the rise of antisemitism across Australia, it has taken a range of measures to ensure Jewish students and staff feel safe on campus. It highlighted: an increase in and promotion of pathways to make complaints; increased resourcing of staff to handle complaints; improved risk assessments of all UNSW events; additional physical security measures on campus; consultation to update and extent the university’s anti-racism policy; as well as regular communications from senior leaders.[88] It stated that in November 2024 it introduced online training for all staff, which aims to cover all forms of discrimination, and links to resources that deal with antisemitism and islamophobia. Professor the Hon Verity Firth AM, (Vice President of Societal Impact, Equity and Engagement) stated that UNSW has revised its code of conduct to ‘better spell out what sort of behaviour we expect in the context of free speech and how free speech should actually be exercised at the university’.[89]

3.53Mr Mark Sheldon and Mr Daniel Szekely submitted that UNSW had failed to respond appropriately to one example of alleged misconduct by a then-staff member of the university.[90] UNSW noted that it produces an annual report on student conduct and complaints, and has done so since 2021.[91]

3.54However, Dr Noam Peleg, a UNSW staff member, argued that some UNSW frameworks were used to bully staff and students:

Frameworks such as cultural safety and psychosocial safety are also used to attack, harass and bully staff and students, Palestinians and their allies, including Jewish staff who oppose Israel’s actions. This is done in the name of combating antisemitism. I was personally subject to complaints, threats and bullying attempts, including by colleagues, who have tried to undermine my Jewish identity because I oppose the actions of the state of Israel. They either accused me of being antisemitic or of putting Jewish staff and students at risk, due to my academic activities about the human rights of children in Palestine.[92]

3.55The University of Sydney noted that in July 2024, it engaged Mr Bruce Hodgkinson AM SC, to conduct an independent review of the university’s processes and policies to ensure they are ‘appropriate and accord with applicable standards’.[93] It noted that the university Senate has resolved to accept the report’s recommendations in principle. As to the recommendation in that review relating to ‘civility’, and how such a rule may operate, Vice Chancellor and President Professor Mark Scott AO stated that context would be important in terms of the use of ‘contested terms’.[94]

3.56It noted that the university is delivering a number of community programs and activities encouraging respectful discourse and cultural competency, including an ‘Engaging with Civility module’, and a series of seminars designed to equip student leaders to navigate difficult conversations with empathy and civility.[95] It also noted that the university has introduced a ‘Campus Access Policy’, specifying activities that require prior approval or notification and those that are unacceptable at any time, and providing for the safe and orderly conduct of demonstrations.[96]

3.57Dr David Kearns and Associate Professor Ryan Walter of the University of Queensland argued that the University of Sydney’s handling of complaints regarding antisemitism demonstrated that ‘the leading issue is not university policy but the judgement of Vice Chancellors and other senior university authorities’.[97] They argued that the introduction of the university’s Campus Access Policy is ‘an overreaction that neglects the role of judgement and instead seeks to suppress the very activities of public debate that [Vice Chancellor] Mark Scott had formerly invoked as a defining value of the University of Sydney’.[98]

3.58The National Tertiary Education Union similarly criticised the University of Sydney’s adoption of recommendations by Mr Hodgkinson:

[B]y adopting the recommendations of the University of Sydney External Review Report authored by Bruce Hodgkinson SC AM, the University of Sydney has engaged in significant over-reach that has the potential to undermine both free speech and academic freedom on their campuses. Some of the proposals they adopted run directly counter to the recommendations of the Walker Review of the Model Code.[99]

3.59Dr Terri Macdonald, Director of Public Policy and Strategic Research with the National Tertiary Education Union, stated:

[W]e have an understanding that it's going to be very problematic, because essentially any lecture, tutorial or seminar, or anything which is conducted, which is not in accordance with the civility rule could potentially be taken as misconduct, so there are actually industrial ramifications there. It's very difficult, though, to determine how the civility rule applies and what is contextually fine and what isn't. That's a very subjective thing. So we are deeply concerned about this.[100]

3.60The University of Sydney also indicated that it had met with, or otherwise contacted or corresponded directly or indirectly, with Jewish student organisation and Jewish representative bodies, on numerous occasions since 9 October 2023.[101]

3.61The Swinburne University of Technology stated that since the events of 7 October 2023, it has offered a range of services and supports to students and staff.[102] It noted, for example, that the university provides a ‘Safer Community’ team to offer advice, support, intervention and risk management for students who have experienced or witnessed inappropriate, concerning or threatening behaviour. It stated that the university had contacted AUJS after the events of 7 October 2023, offering support for the members and special consideration for that upcoming assessment period.[103]

3.62Western Sydney University stated that the university leadership has taken a ‘principled, non-partisan, clear and consistent approach’ to the issue of antisemitism on university campuses:

As a leading university, we support freedom of speech but draw the line at hate speech. Our campuses are no place for antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, hate speech, intimidation, or violence. We are guided by our Freedom of Speech Policy, which is based on the Model Code for Protection of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in Australian Higher Education Providers.[104]

3.63It stated that it provides a range of support services including free counselling and welfare services for students, and access to professional counselling for staff. It further noted that in November 2024, Western Sydney University announced that it would expand its humanitarian efforts to support people fleeing conflict and seeking refuge in Australia, including: providing personalised support to develop education plans; help to build the skills to transition to university life and Australian society successfully; wrap-around supports including assistance with employment, accommodation and resettlement resources; and scholarship increases.[105] Vice Chancellor and President, Professor George Williams, also noted that the university has hosted a major national social cohesion conference.[106]

3.64However, Dr Lana Tatour and Dr Andrew Brooks characterised aspects of the response by the Western Sydney University to protests as inappropriate:

Western Sydney University called-in police and riot police to dismantle a student sit-in in solidarity with Palestine resulting in the use of undue force on students and staff and in the arrest and suspension of several students. Western Sydney University placed police, campus security, private security, and metal detectors at a recent graduation ceremony in a move that turned students, their families and the community in Western Sydney – many of whom are Arabs, Muslims, and people of colour – into a threat.[107]

3.65Professor Dowton of Macquarie University indicated that the university had taken several steps in response to rising antisemitic incidents, including ‘reviewing and amending our policies as needed, enhancing communication with our students and staff along with the support available to them, maintaining close collaboration with the New South Wales police as we need it, ensuring adherence to our policies around academic gatherings and conferences and enhancing our security services where that is indicated’.[108]

3.66The University of Newcastle highlighted the presence of physical security services on campuses, monitoring of social media channels to remove inappropriate content, and the monitoring of the effectiveness of these and other measures through student surveys.[109]Deakin University, similarly, noted that when a student encampment arose on campus, it erected a barrier and provided alternative pathways for students to take.[110]

3.67RMIT University outlined a number of steps it has taken to protect the health and wellbeing of staff and students, including: executive staff discussions with Jewish staff members and engagement with AUJS; promotion of support services; reinforcement of behavioural expectations; enhancement of security measures; and implementation of a new complaints system.[111]

3.68The University of Adelaide outlined the operation of its codes of conduct regarding misconduct by students, and behaviours on campus more generally.[112] It noted that these codes of conduct operate in conjunction with the university’s enterprise agreement, and related policies, procedures, consultancy or services contracts, and the relevant legislation.[113] It noted that complaints are assessed by the university ‘Integrity Unit’, which will then typically manage complaints about complex and sensitive issues including antisemitism. It stated that staff in this unit have specialist expertise, including regarding issues of discrimination.

3.69The University of the Sunshine Coast similarly stated that it has a comprehensive suite of policies addressing staff and student conduct and supporting diversity and inclusion.[114] It stated that in 2025, staff will also have access to the Australian Human Rights Commission Anti-Racism Training e-module, and noted that it is developing a ‘Student Political Activity Procedure’ to outline the university’s expectations should such an event be planned.[115]

3.70Queensland University of Technology highlighted its spiritual support and inclusion plan as part of its response to the attach on 7 October 2023:

The University’s response to the attacks and the ongoing conflict that has followed was greatly aided by the QUT Spiritual Support and Inclusion Action Plan, an existing framework established in February 2023 that renewed the University’s commitment to diversity and inclusion for students and staff from all faiths, spiritual beliefs and traditions, including those with no religious affiliation. The Action Plan ensures that all QUT services, culture, and facilities embrace, respect and make room for religious and spiritual beliefs and observances for all, including the recognition of holy days. With the Action Plan already in place, QUT staff were better able to support Jewish and Islamic colleagues and students when the acute need arose, and to continue to do so as the ensuing conflict has deepened and expanded.[116]

3.71Professor Margaret Sheil of Queensland University of Technology stated that the independent review commissioned to establish the facts relating to a recent symposium held at the university would provide a learning opportunity and will inform any amendments required to relevant processes or procedures.[117]

3.72The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) stated that it has a strong track record in addressing racism and promoting inclusion, including through awareness raising campaigns, a complaints mechanism, and the provision of support services.[118] It noted that since 7 October 2023, it has met with leaders of AUJS, the Palestinian Society and representative students, and stated that it has continued to reach out to such groups since antisemitic attacks in the community.[119] It also noted that the university has engaged with the Race Discrimination Commissioner Mr Giridharan Sivaraman regarding the current study of the prevalence of racism at universities.[120]

3.73University of Queensland stated that it has reviewed its existing policies and process frameworks, and implemented measures to help prevent antisemitism on campus, including: providing that encampments are not permitted on university land and that permission is needed for events suchas public forums and film screenings; engaging with the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism and other community groups; and nominating staff to participate in the Group of Eight working groups examining international best practices for addressing antisemitism.[121] Professor Deborah Terry, Vice Chancellor and President, stated:

The University of Queensland does not tolerate any form of racism, including antisemitism, discrimination or hate speech. And I have been very clear with staff and students that there is no place for these behaviours on any of our campuses. I have repeatedly communicated that the core principles of freedom of speech and academic freedom come with both limitations and responsibilities. We have also been clear that discourse and debate must be civil and respectful so that our campuses remain inclusive and cohesive places where all members of the community feel supported and safe to engage in their studies, research, work or other activities.[122]

3.74The Australian Catholic University stated that it remains vigilant in ensuring its campuses are inclusive for all, and stated that it will ‘act swiftly and decisively against any threats to student or staff safety or welfare’.[123] It also stated that it has examined its policies to ensure effective responses to any incidents of alleged antisemitism. It further noted that, while the ACU is a catholic institution, it actively promotes respectful interfaith dialogue.[124]

3.75Peak bodies in the university sector also provided evidence as to the operation of existing policies and processes in response to increases of incidents involving antisemitism, and additional efforts to address the issue. Universities Australia stated that since 7 October 2023, it has worked with its members and student groups to address antisemitism on campuses:

Our members have cooperated with the Government, keeping the Minister for Education and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency informed about steps taken to protect students and staff in the wake of this event, and we are fully supportive of recent government actions.[125]

3.76In summarising the responses by universities to antisemitism, Mr Luke Sheehy, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Universities Australia, argued ‘Mistakes, of course, have been made, but the response has been excellent from our universities’.[126] He stated that overall, university campus experiences in Australia have been ‘relatively safe’ when compared with other jurisdictions such as the United States of America.[127] Universities Australia also noted that it has worked closely with Special Envoy Segal, including establishing a ‘sector-wide working group of experts, co-convened by Ms Segal, to support her important work’.

3.77Group of Eight Australia stated that, while the universities it represents ‘have long had policies, procedures and other instruments in place to make clear our values and manage incidents of discrimination, vilification, racism and other unacceptable behaviours’, ‘the context in which these instruments operate has shifted’.[128] It disagreed with evidence suggesting that ‘universities have not taken any or only minimal action to address incidents of antisemitism on campus’, stating that ‘this is not to say that we consider it job done – we recognise this to be a complex issue that will take ongoing effort to address – but do not believe this to be an accurate representation’.[129]

3.78The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) stated that the October 2024 Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) had led to changes in the way in which universities respond to ‘increased levels of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish activism’.[130] However, AUJS argued that there are still significant deficiencies within the current regime when it comes to addressing antisemitism,[131] and that the types of incidents have been increasingly extreme on campuses.[132] Mr Noah Loven, AUJS President, stated that in his experience, meetings with senior university leadership had been broadly positive:

There are differences in how universities engage with this issue. I would say that overall, in my experience in many meetings with vice-chancellors and senior university administrations, those who have taken proactive steps and have generally dealt with the situation better than other universities, from a relative point of view, have seen Jewish students as an active part of the solution to fighting antisemitism and other forms of hate on campus, instead of just viewing Jewish students as another stakeholder to manage and to make the most politically expedient choices and decisions when it comes to antisemitism on campus. I can talk about my own experience at my campus, Monash University, where I have a very proactive and robust relationship with the administration. And I think it comes down to listening. We feel that we are respected when we go into those conversations and that our concerns are taken seriously.[133]

3.79AUJS also raised particular concerns regarding student unions, stating:

Universities frequently cite the autonomy of student unions as a barrier to addressing problematic antisemitic incidents. Most universities have expressed reluctance to intervene when confronted with antisemitic behaviour due to the unions' independence. This hands-off approach creates a vacuum in accountability, leaving antisemitic incidents insufficiently addressed and Jewish students vulnerable to discrimination and hostility.

While we appreciate student union independence, universities must ensure that all campus-affiliated organisations, including student unions, are held accountable for undermining safety, respect, and inclusion on campus.[134]

Academic freedom and freedom of speech obligations

3.80Several universities highlighted their obligations to uphold and protect academic freedom and freedom of speech. Some witnesses and submitters argued that universities had failed to achieve the appropriate balance between protecting staff and students and upholding academic freedom and freedom of speech.

3.81The Queensland University of Technology stated that, while unlawful speech and ‘speech that violates the duty to foster wellbeing of staff and students’ are not protected, its policy framework ‘supports academic freedom and freedom of expression as central values of an open, modern, curiosity-driven, evidence-based educational and research institution’.[135] It stated that, as a result, ‘there is a place for peaceful and respectful student activism on QUT campuses’. It emphasised the challenge associated with attempting to anticipate what may be said at a public event on campus while still seeking to ensure an event is safe for all attendees.[136] Ms Leanne Harvey, Vice President of Administration and University Registrar, stated that she had not felt it would be appropriate to un-invite certain speaks to its recent National Symposium on the basis of what they may say because of concerns about this potentially impacting on freedom of expression.[137] In this regard, Professor Sheil (Vice Chancellor and President) stated that the university was complying with the academic freedom of speech policy introduced in 2019.[138]

3.82Monash University noted that its policies regarding the protection of academic freedom and freedom of speech were consistent with the Model Code on Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom.[139]It stated that the policy ‘supports reasonable and proportionate measures to prevent any person from using lawful speech which a reasonable person would regard, in the circumstances, as likely to humiliate or intimidate other persons and which is intended to have either or both of those effects’.[140]

3.83The ANU stated that while it has been clear ‘freedom of speech [does] not necessarily equal freedom from consequences’, academic freedom and freedom of speech policies, ‘reflect the legislative requirements enacted by the Parliament through the Higher Education Support Act, as well as the Higher Education Standards Framework.[141] Similarly, Universities Australia highlighted that to be recognised as a university under the Higher Education Threshold Standards, ‘institutions must be committed to academic freedom and freedom of speech – freedoms that do not, and must not, extend to hate speech’.[142]

3.84Dr Lana Tatour and Andrew Brooks, both academics at UNSW, stated that academic freedom is guaranteed in Australia and is protected in legislation and some collective enterprise bargaining agreements, as well as being a core principle of higher education.[143] They highlighted its importance in universities, stating:

It encompasses the rights of scholars, researchers and students to engage in the pursuit of knowledge, research, teaching and dissemination of knowledge without undue interference, censorship or reprisal. Academic freedom ensures that individuals have the autonomy to explore diverse perspectives, challenge established paradigms, and contribute to the advancement of society through critical inquiry and scholarship. This fundamental freedom is not only integral to the flourishing of intellectual environments but is also deeply inter- twined with broader human rights principles.[144]

3.85They argued there has been ‘a sharp rise in misconduct charges being brought against students and staff critical of Israel and Zionism’, stating that academics have also been called to meetings with their Deans, Heads of Schools, and line managers over their involvement with Palestine activism:

Other limitations placed on academic freedom include altering law exam questions on International Court of Justice rulings and advisory opinions on Palestine in the name of psychosocial safety, scrutinising or censoring reading groups, cancelling academic events featuring Palestinians or that are critical of Israel, subjecting events on Palestine to extensive risk assessment procedures, and instructing students not to speak about Palestine in classrooms.[145]

3.86The University of Sydney stated that it is providing guidance and training to students and staff ‘on the appropriate exercise of their rights to free speech and academic freedom’, as well as the university’s expectations regarding behaviour and policies regarding bullying, harassment and discrimination.[146] However, Dr Kearns and Associate Professor Walter (of the University of Queensland) argued that the University of Sydney had failed to operate consistently with its Charter of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom:

[T]he Charter states that maintaining safety on campus and the proper functioning of the University supplies the justification for regulating protests without regard to the balancing of rights. Indicative of the University’s misrepresentation of its own policy is the 26 March statement that the Charter “balances the right to free speech with the need for reasonable limits to allow teaching, research and other University activities to continue safely…

The attempted fix – CAP – looks to manage future protests by enhancing the power of proscription. Under CAP, staff and students have “freedom to disagree and to protest, within the limits set out in this policy and the Charter.” These limits are extensive: all protest activities must be declared to the University in advance, and a wide range of activities, including using stalls, projectors, and heaters, require prior approval. Along with increasing University authority over protests, CAP replicates and confuses the Charter. Under the Charter, reasonable and proportionate regulation of protest is justified to ensure safety on campus. Under CAP, demonstrations cannot interfere with safety. It is unclear what addition CAP provides here.

CAP further states that protests cannot “unreasonably disrupt” University operations nor “unreasonably impede” people and vehicles. It is not specified how this intersects with the Charter’s requirement that protests are subject to “reasonable and proportionate regulation of conduct necessary to the discharge of the University's education and research activities.” “Unreasonable,” “reasonable”, and “proportionate” are all undefined, and are to be applied in different ways. Under the Charter, the scale of regulation is to be assessed by the standards of reasonability and proportionality; under CAP, the disruption and impedance caused by protest is subject to scrutiny in terms of whether it is “unreasonable”.[147]

3.87The University of Sydney’s proposed policies regarding protests on campus has also been subject to broader criticisms, including arguments that the proposed limits on such forms of expression would exceed permissible limits under existing Australian laws.[148]

3.88The Australian Catholic University noted that from May-June 2024, TEQSA sought fortnightly reports from all Australian universities on complaints concerning student or staff conduct relating to academic freedom and freedom of speech or protest action, or related allegations of misconduct concerning the Middle East conflict on university campuses.[149] It stated that while the university participated, it received no report of any such harassment or threats occurring towards students or staff, nor any encampments related to the conflict on its campuses.

3.89RMIT University stated that ‘as a public institution, it is not RMIT’s role to make political statements that favour one perspective over another, but rather to provide an environment where respectful debate and discussion of complex and sensitive issues is supported’.[150] It stated that it will continue to work proactively with state and federal governments as it seeks ‘greater clarify on the definition of hate speech and measures under the relevant laws’.[151]

3.90The University of Melbourne, similarly stated:

[T]here is no doubt that at times we have been challenged in balancing our legal and ethical responsibilities to protect freedom of speech, the right to peaceful protest and the values of academic freedom with the duty of care that we have to all students and staff to provide a safe and welcoming environment for them. We will continue learning, but our resolve is firm: the University of Melbourne will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to eradicate antisemitism and all forms of racism from our campuses.[152]

3.91A group of 15 academic and honorary staff from the University of Melbourne expressed concern regarding a lack of consultation by the university regarding the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism without any open consultation process.[153] They argued that this led to a chilling effect on campus:

While assurances of academic freedom were given, the adoption of the IHRA definition had an immediate chilling effect at the University of Melbourne as staff felt unclear as to the extent to which their writings and actions would be scrutinised. Subsequently staff have been asked to take down posters which included a Palestinian Flag, events have been surveilled or overly securitised, and colleagues report that they are nervous to speak up for fear of the repercussions they will face. When coupled with the problem of employment precarity, this is a significant concern across universities.[154]

3.92The University of Queensland stated that:

While the University is committed to upholding the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech, the Vice-Chancellor has also clearly stated in communication that discourse must be civil so that our campuses remain respectful and inclusive places – where all members of our community are safe to engage in their studies, research, work or other activities, and to access buildings and other facilities.[155]

3.93It noted that during encampments on campus in 2024, there were some incidents ‘that crossed a line’, and stated that the university sought advice from a freedom of speech expert regarding contested slogans and images.[156] It stated that the university will adopt a definition of antisemitism, ‘which will be considered in conjunction with our free speech and academic freedom policy and our staff and student conduct policies’.[157]

3.94University of Adelaide stated that

To date, where concerns have been raised with the University about conduct that may amount to antisemitism, the University is guided by the legal bounds to freedom of speech, as reflected in a range of legislation, including the Race Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and the Racial Vilification Act 1996 (SA). The University has also looked to case law to inform its interpretation of relevant legislation.Where appropriate and instructive the University has considered, and will continue to consider, emerging and established definitions of antisemitism.[158]

3.95For example, it stated that notices which were placed at entrances to the university campus in November 2024 (which remain in force) state:

The University of Adelaide supports lawful freedom of expression and allows peaceful protests by its students that do not reasonably cause others to feel threatened.

Any member of the public who engages or intends to engage in demonstration or protest activities is directed not to enter, access or otherwise be present on University grounds. Any contravention of this direction may be referred to the South Australian Police.

Any demonstration or protest activity undertaken on campus by students must not:

• occur inside buildings

• cause unreasonable disruption

• involve camping

Students engaging in this conduct while demonstrating or protesting will be in breach of this direction and the University’sStudent Code of Conduct, and their actions will be managed in accordance with the Student Misconduct Policy.[159]

3.96Universities Australia stated that most universities ‘are considered public space by the Australian community’ and noted that ‘[w]e have an obligation to uphold freedom of speech, and we have to make sure that that doesn’t turn into hate speech’.[160] CEO, Mr Luke Sheehy, also stated that ‘a healthy democracy has healthy universities which have healthy and peaceful protests’, being ones which do not turn into hate speech or vilification, and which are conducted in accordance with the law.[161]

3.97Students of Palestine expressed concern about freedom of speech, arguing that much of this was occurring under the guise of combatting antisemitism:

Multiple other students and student groups expressed that they had been subject to serious threats from their universities regarding campus speech, but had been told that if they revealed the content of these threats to any other party, including to the media or a lawyer, they could be suspended or expelled.[162]

3.98Liberty Victoria emphasised that universities ‘are places of particular importance as crucibles of learning’.[163] It stated that students should be encouraged to be highly critical and to question the world around them in both safety and freedom:

Universities have a unique challenge in helping students learn to understand and embrace respectful, if impassioned, debate and difference of views without accepting discrimination or vilification.

Universities may also be the first true “immersion” in broader society for many students. In particular, students will often be drawn from communities that may be internally homogeneous – where most people look, speak, think and behave like them or in a way that is predictable and familiar. That may include students that have grown up in communities with significant racial and religious conformity.

We need to be able to have robust debate at our universities, including about topics that may be difficult, uncomfortable and challenging. Of course that should not extend to people having to endure vilification or hate speech. However, when done in good faith, people should be free to express themselves robustly and critically without fear of allegations of racism being made against them.[164]

Defining antisemitism

3.99Several witnesses and submitters expressed views as to how the term ‘antisemitism’ should be defined, or otherwise noted the ways in which antisemitism was already defined for the purposes of university regulations.

3.100Dr David Slucki, Director of the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, stated that defining antisemitism will always be a challenge because ‘definitions are imperfect, imprecise and change over time’.[165]

3.101A number of witnesses and submitters made reference to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This non-legally binding working definition provides that ‘Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities’.[166]It includes several examples which it states ‘may serve as illustrations’ to guide the IHRA in its work.[167] It also states that ‘Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic’.

3.102The Commonwealth Ombudsman noted that it has adopted the IHRA working definition of antisemitism ‘in line with the position of the Australian government’.[168] However, Mr Iain Anderson (the Commonwealth Ombudsman) stated that if Australian universities were to develop a slightly different version of that definition ‘we would be very willing to consider that as well’.[169]

3.103AUJS argued in favour of the adoption of IHRA in its present form.[170] AUJS President, Mr Noah Loven, stated that AUJS recommends ‘the IHRA definition of antisemitism, but it must be noted that, at this point, the priority must be to adopt a definition of antisemitism rather than none at all…many university senates and other bodies have already rejected IHRA which is very disappointing.’[171] The Executive Council of Australian Jewry stated that the IHRA definition ‘deals specifically with the denial of the collective right of the Jewish people to self-determination, which is a very different thing from Israeli government policies and actions’.[172] Ms Jillian Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, similarly endorsed the IHRA definition.[173]

3.104Several submitters and witnesses argued that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is not an appropriate definition.[174] A group of 15 academic and honorary staff from the University of Melbourne argued that the IHRA definition (which the university adopted in January 2023) raised concerns because it ‘has arguably encouraged additional complaints as it implies that statements might be considered antisemitic when expressing legitimate concerns about the actions of the Israeli state’.[175] They stated that a contribution to the drafting of the definition, Mr Kenneth Stern, had previously cautioned against its widespread use on university campuses on the basis that it has been used to suppress pro-Palestinian political speech, and argued that:

[F]rameworks that rely on definitions of specific forms of racism or vilification do little to raise awareness of racism, and arguably exacerbate tensions through prompting debate as to the legitimacy of the definitions.[176]

3.105Dr Noam Peleg similarly cautioned against the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, arguing that it poses a threat to academic freedom and freedom of speech on campuses.[177] Dr Lana Tatour and Andrew Brooks also expressed concern regarding ‘political pressures on universities to adopt’ the IHRA definition.[178]They argued that, ‘[w]hile presenting itself as an antiracist instrument that aims to protect Jewish academics and students on campuses from antisemitism, in practice the IHRA is a political tool leveraged to censor critical voices and knowledge on Palestine’.[179]

3.106Loud Jew Collective, a group which includes members who work and study at various universities, posited the IHRA working definition of antisemitism as being used ‘primarily to shut down legitimate and necessary criticism of Israel and Zionism’.[180] This position is echoed similarly by Students for Palestine.[181] Both organisations have raised concerns over the pressures faced by universities to adopt the IHRA definition, in a university context in part to ‘stifle speech and political expression critical of Israel’.[182]

3.107Liberty Victoria stated that ‘a definition of antisemitism should not include any reference to the State of Israel or conflate criticism or even condemnation of the actions taken by Israel with antisemitism’.[183] It stated that criticism of the State of Israel, or the actions of its government, are not inherently antisemitic, and cautioned that there is ‘a real danger that accusations of antisemitism are being weaponised by supporters of the current government to attempt to invalidate legitimate criticism and shame critics into silence’.[184]

3.108The Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Ms Jillian Segal, stated that universities have previously considered the IHRA definition of antisemitism and rejected it:

The issue of the definition of antisemitism is a fraught one. I endorse the IHRA definition of antisemitism as the gold standard…It is the internationally accepted definition adopted by the government and the opposition, by 45 other countries, by the European Commission and by hundreds of tertiary institutions around the world et cetera. We are, unfortunately, in a difficult situation in Australia where many universities, in response to a letter from the previous government encouraging all universities to adopt the IHRA definition, took the IHRA definition through their academic boards—academic boards are, by definition, made up of the academics in a university—and in most cases those boards specifically rejected the definition. It was not as if they hadn't thought about it; there was strong debate and that definition was rejected. I worked with the universities before I was appointed envoy, and I have certainly worked with them since. In my opinion, that definition is just not going to easily fly with universities.[185]

3.109Dr David Slucki stated:

That's where we have this challenge in taking a definition and applying it writ large. The IHRA definition is a useful guide. We had this challenge in, 'How do you take that and apply it to a university context?' There was certainly a feeling, talking to members of the Group of Eight, that it wasn't actionable because there were areas where it was vague or it would be difficult to implement. The Group of Eight—and I worked on this as well—developed a working definition that they could encourage universities to use in a guide that aimed to be a bit more precise for the context in which it was operating and to recognise the ways in which antisemitism was manifesting at campuses specifically. Like all definitions, it's imperfect—and that's where that's inevitably going to be a challenge in defining a really difficult, complex and contested concept like antisemitism.[186]

3.110Monash University stated that the university’s ‘anti-racism statement’ affirms the university’s commitment to rejecting all forms of racism, and ‘incorporates the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a guide to understanding antisemitism, noting the clarifications recommended by the UK Home Affairs Select Committee’.[187]

3.111The ANU noted that there is no international consensus on the definition internationally, nor does a formally enshrined definition exist in Australia.[188] It stated that ‘Historically Australia’s general criminal, antidiscrimination and anti-vilification laws have been considered sufficiently effective in prohibiting and punishing acts of ethnically, racially, or religiously oriented violence and harm, including antisemitic acts’. It stated that the ANU’s Academic Freedom Expert Reference Group considered this issue in 2023 and found that:

Adopting a specific definition of antisemitism, and enshrining it in ANU policy and procedures would be complex, and potentially divisive.

Existing arrangements were consistent with Commonwealth law and policy and struck the right balance between supporting student and staff wellbeing, and academic freedom and freedom of speech.

Were ANU to explicitly reference antisemitism in policy and procedures, it would likely also be necessary to define and enshrine other forms of discriminatory behaviours (e.g. other race or ethnicity-based discrimination, misogyny, homophobia etc).

This process and outcome could negatively impact individual students and staff –including Jewish students – as well as undermine broader social cohesion within the University community.[189]

3.112It advised that Jewish students were not consulted regarding the decision to not adopt the IHRA definition.[190]

3.113Universities Australia, similarly, stated that there are ‘some legal complications’ around the adoption of the IHRA definition in the Australian context.[191] Professor Dowton of Macquarie University likewise posited that ‘at the moment we have inadequate help from the law in defining what antisemitism really is’.[192]

3.114Group of Eight Australia stated that by establishing a definition of antisemitism ‘that can be adopted across our membership, supported by targeted training, we can increase awareness and strategies to manage antisemitism when it occurs on campus’.[193] It stated that, as part of this process, it consulted with a range of community groups and leaders, including the Jewish Council of Australia, AUJS, and the Australian Palestinian Advocacy Network.[194] It advised that the Group of Eight Board has endorsed a ‘working definition’ of antisemitism that is ‘potentially suitable for use in an Australian University context’,[195] which may then be progressed by member universities through their own approvals processes.[196]

3.115With respect to the adoption of that working definition, it stated:

The development of this working definition has been challenging and complex. We recognise there are a diversity of views across the community. Any definition – in and of itself – can only work as a tool to assist in developing a shared and common understanding of how antisemitism can manifest on a 21st century Australian campus, and as such, will need to be flexible to accommodate changing circumstances. This is why we are calling it a working definition – it is not a case of ‘set and forget’.

We acknowledge that the preferred position of the Special Envoy is for universities to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition; however, a number of our members raised concerns regarding the implications of IHRA for academic freedom. Instead, we have taken the approach…of consulting widely with experts in hate speech and discrimination law, and with select eminent members of the Jewish community. The definition we have crafted is both guided by the IHRA definition and captures the essence of IHRA while addressing the practical concerns of our member universities. We have heard the calls from our Jewish students and staff for urgent action, and have chosen to take an approach of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The Go8 working definition represents our best efforts to achieve the delicate balance between adopting a definition that captures the essence of IHRA and can be operationalised in a university setting, while upholding academic freedom and associated obligations.[197]

3.116Group of Eight Australia further stated that this definition has been developed ‘to provide guidance in education and training within a university setting’.[198] Ms Vicki Thomson, CEO, clarified that ‘criticism of policies and practices of the Israeli government or state is not in and of itself antisemitic’, but stated that ‘criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes and stereotypes or assumptions’.[199]

3.117The University of Adelaide advised that it is working on a definition of antisemitism in collaboration with Group of Eight and Special Envoy Segal, stating:

Our goal is to create a working definition of antisemitism that is suitable for use at Australian universities drawing on existing published definitions. The Go8 in its work has considered the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and recommendations of Antisemitism Taskforces at Columbia University, Stanford University, Harvard University and New York University. The definition being developed will reflect language and considerations relevant to Australian universities, while also respecting lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom.

When a working definition of antisemitism has been established, it will be put to the University Council for its consideration.[200]

3.118In this regard, Ms Segal described this work as an attempt to ‘come up with an acceptable, shortened, Australianised, 'university-ised' IHRA version, our Australian IHRA, where the essence of IHRA is in the definition—it's much shorter, it doesn't have the case studies and it deals specifically, obviously, with antisemitism’.[201]

3.119Academics for Palestine (WA) submitted that existing statutory definitions regarding racism, hate speech and discrimination should be relied on.[202]

3.120Mr Robert French AC (Chancellor of the University of Western Australia and formerly Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia) argued that consensus regarding a definition of antisemitism which could be then operationalised would be of assistance:

When it comes to operationalising constraints based antisemitism, it would help if we could have a consensus around the nation of what constitutes antisemitism, which we can put into a rule of conduct, perhaps a specific higher education standard directed against antisemitism or even a law which is a specific application of section 18C. You always have to be careful, of course, with those definitions. It's a bit of a minefield. If it's fuzzy at the edges, then you start running into the area of implied freedom of political communication and so forth. But I do think that a rigorous look at a operationalisable definition by government would assist.[203]

3.121In this regard, Mr French stated:

The expression of hostility towards Jewish people may take many manifestations, including the sorts of examples that are set out in the definition I mentioned earlier, that can be readily categorised as a species of harm, not just because of the effect on individuals but because of the wider societal effects. It unleashes what I call 'the coiled snake,' which we've found being unleashed in recent times. Then you get into the question of what's antisemitic at the boundaries. There may be boundaries where you get people wanting to characterise as antisemitic that which can also be characterised as, for example, legitimate criticism of state policies

There are judgement calls there, and sometimes the two things get mixed up. I think the only way that that can be dealt with is to have a rule which allows case-by-case determination, because you'll never nail it all down in words. And with the more words you write—I've often said this about laws—every new word is an argument waiting to be had… I would prefer a simple, inclusive definition, perhaps derived from the traditional definition, which has a clear, core meaning but can then be unpacked, case by case, on individual meanings.[204]

3.122Mr French stated that an example of an operational definition of antisemitic conduct which may be of use in a law, or an enforcement rule of conduct, could be:

‘Antisemitic conduct’ is conduct which by speech or action expresses hostility towards Jewish persons or groups of persons or Jewish people generally because they are Jewish or otherwise discriminates against them.[205]

3.123As to the relevance of the Model Code to these considerations, Mr French stated:

[T]he code does not set out a code of conduct itself. What it sets out are the categories of constraint that can legitimately be imposed on freedom of speech and academic freedom. I can't comment on the extent to which it has been relied upon by universities in framing their codes of conduct insofar as they relate to antisemitic conduct. The impression I get…is that they are relying upon existing codes of conduct which target things like racial vilification and discriminatory, insulting, intimidating, harassing and threatening conduct and so forth, all of which can be accommodated within the model code on freedom of speech and academic freedom.[206]

3.124Mr French stated that if there is to be a rule which universities are required to incorporate into their codes of conduct, then a legally ‘workable’ definition of the term antisemitism would be required, arguing that ‘[t]he easier thing is just to make a law which covers antisemitism right across the board, and then it applies to universities and everybody else in the community’.[207]

International experiences and best practices

3.125Some witnesses and submitters noted international practices to which they had had regard.

3.126Group of Eight Australia stated that it is a member of the Global Research-Intensive Universities Network (GRIUN), a collaboration between leading research-intensive universities from the United Kingdom, United States of America, Japan, Germany, Canada and across Europe. It advised that when the GRIUN met in Germany in June 2024, ‘it was clear that the issues confronting Australian campuses in 2024 have not occurred in isolation’.[208] Following this meeting, 168 research bodies associated with GRIUN signed the ‘Berlin Statement’, which ‘confirms the commitment of global research-intensive universities…to be places where the principles of freedom of speech and academic freedom are cherished and upheld, but where racism in any of its forms, including antisemitism, are never tolerated’.[209]

3.127The Executive Council of Australian Jewry cited the Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism as a useful guide to its application.[210] The Zionist Federation of Australia highlighted responses by New York University in response to antisemitism as being effective.[211]

3.128However, Professor Katharine Gelber, an expert in vilification law, cautioned that:

There is an important caveat on drawing from international practices. One of Australia's strengths, in my opinion, is the vilification laws that operate in Australia, in particular the way the civil vilification laws operate in Australia. They're almost unique internationally. There are only some provinces in Canada that have something similar. Those laws allow us to intervene at a lower level of vilification than the types of things that you can intervene against with the criminal laws. For example, in the United Kingdom, their racial hatred provisions are in the criminal law only, and in the United States, of course, they have the first amendment. The context is very different in those other countries. There's no other country that has the experience of the civil vilification provisions and the commensurate expectations and responsibilities on universities to comply with those provisions. No-one else has those, and, therefore, drawing from international best practice needs to take that context into account.[212]

Views as to necessary policy or regulatory changes

3.129Several witnesses and submitters offered suggestions as to whether, and in what respect, policy or regulatory changes are required to better address and prevent antisemitism at universities.

3.130TEQSA made a number of preliminary recommendations, including:

(a)state and territory ministers engage universities to review and amend legislation and bylaws ‘to ensure future protest activities can be managed effectively’;

(b)universities review and where necessary amend their policies and procedures relevant to responding to protest activities, encampments and occupation of buildings, as well as their misconduct policies;

(c)universities develop mechanisms and expertise to enable timely and effective decision making about conduct, statements, images and slogans that may be unacceptable. Effective decision making needs to be considered in relation to definitions of antisemitism, policies, such as civility and freedom of speech policies, staff and student codes of conduct and, misconduct procedures;

(d)universities publicly report aggregate complaints data, analysis and outcomes;

(e)senior and front-line staff receive training and support in trauma-informed and student-centred engagement to effectively respond to antisemitic conduct and its impact.[213]

3.131Ms Segal stated that universities need to revise and strengthen their complaints processes; provide for complaints resolutions to be made public in a de-identified way; and provide for training about antisemitism.[214] With regards to complaints mechanisms, she argued:

The head of the complaint scheme should sit down with vice-chancellors every month and take the vice-chancellor through the complaints. That's important governance, and it will be a way to ensure that people know that the vice-chancellor is aware. There should be deidentified reports, as mentioned, about the complaints and how they were resolved. It is a matter of saying not just that student was satisfied but also what discipline was applied, so that it becomes a learning experience of the boundaries. Those reports should come to TEQSA and to my office. They shouldn't just be made internally; there should be transparency and we should see that the universities are lodging those reports.[215]

3.132Monash University submitted that, for the most part, its regulations and policies were ‘found to be sufficient to manage the tensions and conflict on campus, to enforce legal behaviours and take action against behaviours that were considered likely to be unlawful or to contravene conduct policies’.[216] It stated that, regulations and policies ‘provide important legal requirements and moral norms to promote good behaviour and respond to bad behaviour, but they can only do so much’. It argued that culture, relationships and trust are essential foundations of social cohesion, and require clear leadership.[217]

3.133Professor Mark Scott AO, Vice Chancellor and President of The University of Sydney noted advice from Special Envoy Segal regarding how complaints to the university could be classified:

Another important piece of feedback we had from Jillian Segal was that we have a lot to learn about how the university system has dealt with complaints of sexual assault and sexual harm. One of the things that I think has been a frustration in the complaints system is that some of the complaints that are made are quite general. They're not often about a specific incident. They're not often about a specific person. They are notifications of broad concern. But they aren't complaint processes per se that can work their way through and find that somebody misbehaved or something specifically wrong happened in a circumstance. One of the things that the envoy said…was whether we need different classifications where issues are brought to the university's attention so that we are aware of something that someone wants to notify us of but that are perhaps separate to going through a pathway around a complaints process…[218]

3.134Professor George Williams from Western Sydney University expressed hope the establishment of a National Student Ombudsman would assist in developing benchmarks for university complaints management and some standardisation.[219]

3.135Dr David Slucki, Director of the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation at Monash University, emphasised the importance of research to inform efforts to combat antisemitism:

I cannot overemphasise the need for a robust evidence base to inform laws, public policies, institutional policies and education and training initiatives designed to counter antisemitism. Without a detailed understanding of the causes, nature, extent and impact of antisemitism, we cannot confidently design measures intended to prevent it. The fact is that, at the moment, we do not have a sufficient understanding of the recent and shocking increase in antisemitism in Australia. We need to better understand why it's so persistent in Australian society. We need to understand where it fits in the global proliferation of antisemitism. We need to understand the impact of online antisemitism and how best to deal with that. We need to examine further the relationship between antisemitism and other forms of racism, prejudice, hate and unjust discrimination. We need to understand what the best ways to combat these pernicious phenomena are and develop methods that are sustainable to make this country a safer and more just place to live, not only for Jews but for people of all backgrounds. Rigorous research is needed to develop an evidence base upon which policymakers and organisational leaders can rely. Centres of excellence such as ours have the knowledge and the expertise to design effective and efficient research projects to build the evidence base.[220]

3.136He stated that the federal government can ‘supercharge’ research initiatives underway by making a substantial investment in the research and in scaling up the associated programs across the country.[221]

3.137The Zionist Federation of Australia argue that the establishment of a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campuses ‘remains the most comprehensive mechanism to address the root causes and systemic issues enabling this crisis’.[222] It also recommended:

mandatory racial vilification for all university staff and students;

prohibiting encampments and protest activities within university buildings;

the creation of an ‘emergency power’ for universities by which they can ‘require students to identify themselves in order to participate in protests and restrict protest participation to enrolled students’;

requiring protest organisations to register with student bodies; and

address ‘coded antisemitism’ (by updating university policies to prevent ‘Zionist’ being used as a substitute or codeword).[223]

3.138The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council made several recommendations, including that the remit of the National Student Ombudsman should be expanded, a uniform complaints policy should be adopted by all universities, and that such complaints processes should include antisemitism as an example of banned discriminatory behaviour.[224]

3.139The Executive Council of Australian Jewry noted that it has long advocated for a national database and hotline for racist incidents and discourse, noting that other models already operate in the United Kingdom, United States of America and Canada.[225]

3.140Professor Philip Mendes stated that anti-racist education and training may assist in educating students and academics regarding the history of antisemitism, the persistence of antisemitic tropes, the traumatic impact of antisemitism; and ‘the differences between legitimate criticism of Israeli government actions and the essentialising of all Israeli and other pro-Israel Jews as an evil collective’.[226]

3.141The Archdiocese of Brisbane stated that universities must implement ‘robust and multifaceted support systems’ to address the challenges of antisemitism, including accessible mental health resources, pastoral care, and effective reporting mechanisms.[227] It also highlighted the importance of ‘visible leadership’ from university administrators, and outlined the importance of building trust and understanding across religious and cultural groups in order to combat discrimination.[228]

3.142Dr Kearns and Associate Professor Walter posited that the ‘underspecification’ of the duties of the office of Vice Chancellor contributed to a misunderstanding and misapplication of policies by office holders.[229] They stated that, alternatively, legislation could be amended ‘to make Vice Chancellors answerable to Ministers for Education, thereby subordinating the judgement of university officers to that of politicians’.

3.143Dr Noam Peleg argued that potential responses such as the introduction of a national complaint mechanism, or adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism should not occur, including because they ‘are not pedagogical solutions to an issue that ought to be handled via education, and not by sanctions or political intervention’.[230]

3.144The Australian Jewish Democratic Society argued that a change in culture is required:

Collegiality, tolerance and pluralism appear to have gone missing in student political activity in the era of polarization. Faculty also need to be reminded of the principles of collegiality, tolerance and pluralism when touching on sensitive political issues. Permission for holding events should be tied to written commitment by student organizations to behavioural standards and sanctions. Likewise, it needs to be made clear to students that being at university also involves challenges to core beliefs and assumption and at times, discomfort, whether in the classroom or in on-campus encounters.[231]

3.145It also posited that high level, independent research such as that being conducted at Monash University into the nature of antisemitism and Islamophobia and subsequent strategies ‘could be a model for other universities’, but such work requires ongoing funding by government.[232]

3.146The National Union of Students emphasised the importance of universities consulting with students in responding to antisemitism and other forms of discrimination:

[U]niversities have consistently demonstrated that they are unable to properly handle antisemitism and other forms of discrimination in any regard. We believe that universities should instead adopt an approach where they consider what is appropriate for that university in consultation with students, where they do not violate academic freedom or free speech, where they encourage students to speak out strongly and promptly against bigotry including antisemitism, where they punish racist and antisemitic conduct according to procedures developed transparently which do not overstep the principles of our liberal democracy, and where they engage more proactively with students regarding their perception of the culture on campus. We believe that student voices should be at the centre of university policymaking in order to ensure that our campuses can be a safe space for all to learn and express their views freely.[233]

3.147The Australian Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Law Centre recommended the enactment of a federal Human Rights Act (which the committee recommended in 2024).[234] The Human Rights Law Centre also recommended that Australia’s anti-discrimination legislative framework be consolidated and amended.[235]

Footnotes

[1]See, for example, Northern Rivers Jewish Community Association, Submission 31.

[2]Legal and Constitutional Affairs, inquiry into the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) report, pp. 7–10.

[3]Australasian Union of Jewish Students, Submission 134, p. 4, Submission 664, p. 1, (submission to Legal and Constitutional Affairs, inquiry into the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2), October 2024).

[4]Mr Noah Loven, Australasian Union of Jewish Students, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p.34.

[5]Mr Hugh de Kretser, President, Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 33.

[6]Mr Hugh de Kretser, President, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 33.

[7]Ms Jillian Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p.41.

[8]Zionist Federation of Australia, Submission 15, p. 2.

[9]AUJS, Submission 2, p. 2.

[10]AUJS, Submission 2, p. 2.

[11]Dr David Slucki, Director, Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 28.

[12]Dr David Slucki, Director, Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 27.

[13]Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Submission 16, p. 3.

[14]Mr Zachary Morris, Vice-President, AUJS, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 36.

[15]Group of Eight Australia, Submission 19, p. 2. In reference to James O’Donnell, Qing Guan and Trish Prentice, Mapping Social Cohesion, Scanlon Foundation Research Institute (2024).

[16]National Tertiary Education Union, Submission 17, p. 2.

[17]Mr Luke Sheehy, Chief Executive Officer, Universities Australia, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 7.

[18]The Australian National University, Submission 33, p. 5.

[19]Monash University, Submission 21, p. 3.

[20]Monash University, Submission 21, p. 5.

[21]Professor Sharon Pickering, Vice Chancellor and President, Monash University, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 19.

[22]University of Melbourne, Submission 37, p. 3.

[23]University of Melbourne, Submission 37, p. 3.

[24]Professor Nicola Phillips, Provost and Interim Vice Chancellor, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 10.

[25]Professor Mark Scott AO, Vice Chancellor and President, University of Sydney, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 14.

[26]Professor Mark Scott AO, Vice Chancellor and President, University of Sydney, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 23.

[27]Name Withheld, Submission 47, p. 1.

[28]Name Withheld, Submission 47, p. 2.

[29]Mr Amit Chakma, Vice-Chancellor, University of Western Australia, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 25.

[30]Professor Deborah Tery, Vice Chancellor and President, University of Queensland, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 8.

[31]Professor George Williams, Vice Chancellor and President, Western Sydney University, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 9.

[32]Queensland University of Technology, Submission 12, p. 1.

[33]Professor Margaret Sheil, Vice Chancellor and President, Queensland University of Technology, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2025, pp. 10, 14.

[34]Professor Margaret Sheil, Vice Chancellor and President, Queensland University of Technology, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2025, p. 11.

[35]Queensland University of Technology, answer to question on notice (received 7 February 2025).

[36]Professor S. Bruce Dowton, Vice Chancellor and President, Macquarie University, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2025, p. 1.

[37]Professor S. Bruce Dowton, Vice Chancellor and President, Macquarie University, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2025, p. 3.

[38]Professor S. Bruce Dowton, Vice Chancellor and President, Macquarie University, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2025, p. 7.

[39]Professor Andrew Parfitt, Vice Chancellor and President, University of Technology Sydney, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 12.

[40]University of Adelaide, Submission 32, p. 5.

[41]University of Adelaide, answer to question on notice (received 20 December 2024).

[42]University of Adelaide, Submission 32, p. 5.

[43]University of Adelaide, Submission 32, p. 7.

[44]Professor Peter Hoj AC, Vice Chancellor and President, University of Adelaide, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 21.

[45]See, for example, Name Withheld, Submission 8, p. 1; Academics for Palestine (WA), Submission 34 p. 3; Amnesty International, Submission 39.

[46]Group of academic staff and honorary faculty at the University of Melbourne, Submission 24, p. 2.

[47]Australian Jewish Democratic Society, Submission 18, p. 2.

[48]Jews Against the Occupation ’48, Submission 41, p. 1.

[49]Jews Against the Occupation ’48, Submission 41, p. 2.

[50]Dr Noam Peleg, Submission 48, p. 2.

[51]Dr Noam Peleg, Submission 48, p. 3.

[52]Dr Noam Peleg, Submission 48, p. 4. Similar concerns were raised by Dr Lana Tatour and Dr Andrew Brooks, Submission 49.

[53]Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), Submission 20, p. 1.

[54]TEQSA, Submission 20, p. 1.

[55]TEQSA, Submission 20, p. 2.

[56]TEQSA, Submission 20, p. 2.

[57]TEQSA, Submission 20, p. 2.

[58]TEQSA, Submission 20, p. 3.

[59]TEQSA, Submission 20, p. 7.

[60]Commonwealth Ombudsman, Submission 14, p. 1.

[61]This aspect of the National Student Ombudsman’s remit was clarified by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who stated ‘we’re not necessarily looking at the student’s complaint itself’. Mr Iain Anderson, Commonwealth Ombudsman, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 49.

[62]Commonwealth Ombudsman, Submission 14, pp. 3-4.

[63]Mr Iain Anderson, Commonwealth Ombudsman, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 48.

[64]Mr Iain Anderson, Commonwealth Ombudsman, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 52.

[65]Dr Terri Macdonald, Director of Public Policy and Strategic Research, National Tertiary Education Union, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 19.

[66]See, for example, University of Melbourne, Submission 37, p. 4.

[67]Monash University, Submission 21, p. 1.

[68]Monash University, Submission 21, p. 4.

[69]Monash University, Submission 21, p. 2.

[70]Monash University, Submission 21, p. 3.

[71]Professor Sharon Pickering, Vice Chancellor and President, Monash University, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 12.

[72]Dr Mary Russell, Chief Executive Officer, TEQSA, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 32.

[73]The Australian National University, Submission 33, p. 2.

[74]The Australian National University, Submission 33, p. 3.

[75]Professor Geneveive Bell, Vice Chancellor and President, Australian National University, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 7.

[76]The Australian National University, Submission 33, p. 4.

[77]University of Melbourne, Submission 37, p. 2.

[78]University of Melbourne, Submission 37, p. 3.

[79]University of Melbourne, Submission 37, p. 6.

[80]University of Melbourne, Submission 37, p. 7.

[81]Professor Nicola Phillips, Provost and Interim Vice Chancellor, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 4.

[82]Professor Nicola Phillips, Provost and Interim Vice Chancellor, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, pp. 6-7.

[83]Professor Nicola Phillips, Provost and Interim Vice Chancellor, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 7.

[84]University of Melbourne, Submission 37, p. 5.

[85]University of Melbourne, Submission 37, p. 5. Amnesty International expressed concern regarding the alleged use of CCTV footage and Wi-Fi location data by the university as evidence in misconduct hearings (Submission 39, p. 2).

[86]Professor Nicola Phillips, Provost and Interim Vice Chancellor, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 9.

[87]Group of academic staff and honorary faculty at the University of Melbourne, Submission 24, p. 3.

[88]University of New South Wales, Submission 22 pp. 1-2.

[89]Professor the Hon. Verity Firth AM, Vice President, Societal Impact, Equity and Engagement, University of New South Wales, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 13.

[90]Mr Mark Sheldon and Mr Daniel Szekely, Submission 46.

[91]University of New South Wales, answer to question on notice, 12 December 2024 (received 19 December 2024).

[92]Dr Noam Peleg, Submission 48, p. 5.

[93]University of Sydney, Submission 36, p. 2.

[94]Professor Mark Scott AO, Vice Chancellor and President, University of Sydney, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 19.

[95]University of Sydney, Submission 36, pp. 3-4.

[96]University of Sydney, Submission 36, p. 2.

[97]Dr David Kearns and Associate Professor Ryan Walter, Submission 38, p. 1.

[98]Dr David Kearns and Associate Professor Ryan Walter, Submission 38, p. 2.

[99]National Tertiary Education Union, Submission 17, p. 4. See also, Academics for Palestine (WA), Submission 34, p. 3.

[100]Dr Terri Macdonald, Director of Public Policy and Strategic Research, National Tertiary Education Union, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 23.

[101]University of Sydney, answer to question on notice (received 13 December 2024).

[102]Swinburne University of Technology, Submission 3, p. 1.

[103]Swinburne University of Technology, Submission 3, p. 2.

[104]Western Sydney University, Submission 5, p. 1.

[105]Western Sydney University, Submission 5, pp. 1-2.

[106]Professor George Williams, Vice Chancellor and President, Western Sydney University, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 9.

[107]Dr Lana Tatour and Dr Andrew Brooks, Submission 49, p. 7.

[108]Professor S. Bruce Dowton, Vice Chancellor and President, Macquarie University, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2025, p. 1.

[109]University of Newcastle, Submission 11, pp. 2-3.

[110]Professor Iain Martin, Vice Chancellor, Deakin University, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 22.

[111]RMIT University, Submission 25, p. 2.

[112]University of Adelaide, Submission 32, p. 4.

[113]University of Adelaide, Submission 32, p. 5.

[114]University of the Sunshine Coast, Submission 28, p. 1.

[115]University of the Sunshine Coast, Submission 28, pp. 1-2.

[116]Queensland University of Technology, Submission 12, p. 2.

[117]Professor Margaret Sheil, Vice Chancellor and President, Queensland University of Technology, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2025, p. 11.

[118]University of Technology Sydney, Submission 13, p. 3.

[119]University of Technology Sydney, Submission 13, p. 3.

[120]University of Technology Sydney, Submission 13, p. 3.

[121]University of Queensland, Submission 26, p. 2.

[122]Professor Deborah Tery, Vice Chancellor and President, University of Queensland, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 8.

[123]Australian Catholic University, Submission 23, p. 2.

[124]Australian Catholic University, Submission 23, p. 3.

[125]Universities Australia, Submission 10, p. 1.

[126]Mr Luke Sheehy, Chief Executive Officer, Universities Australia, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 3.

[127]Mr Luke Sheehy, Chief Executive Officer, Universities Australia, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 3.

[128]Group of Eight Australia, Submission 19, p. 3.

[129]Group of Eight Australia, Submission 19, p. 3.

[130]Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), Submission 1, p. 2.

[131]AUJS, Submission 2, p. 3.

[132]Mr Noah Loven, President, AUJS, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 34.

[133]Mr Noah Loven, President, AUJS, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 34.

[134]AUJS, Submission 2, p. 3.

[135]Queensland University of Technology, Submission 12, p. 2.

[136]Ms Leanne Harvey, Vice President of Administration and University Registrar, Queensland University of Technology, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2025, p. 12.

[137]Ms Leanne Harvey, Vice President of Administration and University Registrar, Queensland University of Technology, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2025, p. 12.

[138]Professor Margaret Sheil, Vice Chancellor and President, Queensland University of Technology, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2025, p. 12.

[139]Monash University, Submission 21, p. 1.

[140]Monash University, Submission 21, p. 6.

[141]The Australian National University, Submission 33, p. 6.

[142]Universities Australia, Submission 10, p. 2.

[143]Dr Lana Tatour and Dr Andrew Brooks, Submission 49, p. 1.

[144]Dr Lana Tatour and Dr Andrew Brooks, Submission 49, p. 1.

[145]Dr Lana Tatour and Dr Andrew Brooks, Submission 49, p. 6.

[146]University of Sydney, Submission 36, p. 1.

[147]Dr David Kearns and Associate Professor Ryan Walter, Submission 38, pp. 2-3.

[148]Caitlin Cassidy, University of Sydney criticised for plan to ban protest banners being displayed without permission, The Guardian (21 January 2025).

[149]Australian Catholic University, Submission 23, p. 2.

[150]RMIT University, Submission 25, p. 1.

[151]RMIT University, Submission 25, p. 2.

[152]Professor Nicola Phillips, Provost and Interim Vice Chancellor, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 4.

[153]Group of academic staff and honorary faculty at the University of Melbourne, Submission 24, p. 3.

[154]Group of academic staff and honorary faculty at the University of Melbourne, Submission 24, p. 3.

[155]University of Queensland, Submission 26, p. 1.

[156]University of Queensland, Submission 26, p. 1.

[157]University of Queensland, Submission 26, p. 2.

[158]University of Adelaide, Submission 32, p. 4.

[159]University of Adelaide, Submission 32, p. 6.

[160]Mr Luke Sheehy, Chief Executive Officer, Universities Australia, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 3.

[161]Mr Luke Sheehy, Chief Executive Officer, Universities Australia, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 9.

[162]Students for Palestine, Submission 42, p. 5.

[163]Liberty Victoria, Submission 29, p. 4.

[164]Liberty Victoria, Submission 29, p. 4.

[165]Dr David Slucki, Director, Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 28.

[166]International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, working definition of antisemitism (26 May 2016).

[167]These examples include: accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews; drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

[168]Commonwealth Ombudsman, Submission 14, p. 1.

[169]Mr Iain Anderson, Commonwealth Ombudsman, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 49.

[170]AUJS, Submission 2, p. 5. See also, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, Submission 16, p. 1; and Name Withheld, Submission 9, p. 2; Mr Alon Cassuto, Chief Executive Officer, Zionist Federation of Australia, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 28. See further, Youth HEAR, Submission 111, p. 4, (submission to Legal and Constitutional Affairs, inquiry into the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No 2) October 2024).

[171]Mr Noah Loven, Australasian Union of Jewish Students, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p.34; AUJS, Submission 2, p. 5.

[172]Mr Peter Wertheim, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 28.

[173]Ms Jillian Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p.42.

[174]The National Tertiary Education Union indicated that it does not support the IHRA definition because it does not regard criticism of the state of Israel and its leaders is itself antisemitic (Submission 17, p. 3). The Australian Jewish Democratic Society argued that it is wrong to apply the IHRA Guidelines to universities (Submission 18, p. 2). See also, Academics for Palestine (WA), Submission 34, and Jews Against the Occupation ’48, Submission 41, Ms Ashlyn Horton, National President, National Union of Students, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 19, and Tzedek Collective, Submission 127, p. 2, (submission to Legal and Constitutional Affairs, inquiry into the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No 2) October 2024. The UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has cautioned that the IHRA definition does not meet the international legal standards for restriction or prohibition of speech laid out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Global threats to freedom of expression arising from the conflict in Gaza (23 August 2024) A/79/319 [80]).

[175]Group of academic staff and honorary faculty at the University of Melbourne, Submission 24, p. 2.

[176]Group of academic staff and honorary faculty at the University of Melbourne, Submission 24, pp. 3-4.

[177]Dr Noam Peleg, Submission 48, p. 1.

[178]Dr Lana Tatour and Andrew Brooks, Submission 49, p. 2.

[179]Dr Lana Tatour and Andrew Brooks, Submission 49, p. 2.

[180]Loud Jew Collective, Submission 96, p. 1, (submission to Legal and Constitutional Affairs, inquiry into the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) October 2024.

[181]Students for Palestine, Submission 42, p. 3–4.

[182]Students for Palestine, Submission 42, p. 4, and Loud Jew Collective, Submission 96, p. 1, (submission to Legal and Constitutional Affairs, inquiry into the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) October 2024.

[183]Liberty Victoria, Submission 29, p. 3. See also, Academics for Palestine (WA), Submission 34, p. 2.

[184]Liberty Victoria, Submission 29, p. 3.

[185]Ms Jillian Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p.42.

[186]Dr David Slucki, Director, Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 29.

[187]Monash University, Submission 21, p. 1.

[188]The Australian National University, Submission 33, p. 5.

[189]The Australian National University, Submission 33, pp. 5-6.

[190]Professor Anthony Connolly, Chair, Academic Board, Australian National University, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 13.

[191]Mr Luke Sheehy, Chief Executive Officer, Universities Australia, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 4.

[192]Professor S. Bruce Dowton, Vice Chancellor and President, Macquarie University, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2025, p. 6.

[193]Group of Eight Australia, Submission 19, p. 3.

[194]Group of Eight Australia, answer to question on notice (received 21 January 2025).

[195]Group of Eight Australia, answer to question on notice (received 21 January 2025).

[196]Group of Eight Australia, Submission 19, p. 4.

[197]Group of Eight Australia, Submission 19, pp. 4-5.

[198]Group of Eight Australia, Submission 19, p. 5.

[199]Ms Vicki Thomson, CEO, Group of Eight Australia, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 8.

[200]University of Adelaide, Submission 32, p. 4.

[201]Ms Jillian Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p.42.

[202]Academics for Palestine (WA), Submission 34, p. 1.

[203]Mr Robert French AC, Chancellor, University of Western Australia, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 29.

[204]Mr Robert French AC, Chancellor, University of Western Australia, Committee Hansard, 12December 2024, p. 26.

[205]Mr Robert French AC, Chancellor, University of Western Australia, correspondence received 13December 2024.

[206]Mr Robert French AC, Chancellor, University of Western Australia, Committee Hansard, 12December 2024, p. 28.

[207]Mr Robert French AC, Chancellor, University of Western Australia, Committee Hansard, 12December 2024, p. 29-30.

[208]Group of Eight Australia, Submission 19, p. 8.

[209]Group of Eight Australia, Submission 19, p. 6.

[210]Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Submission 1, p. 8.

[211]Mr Alon Cassuto, Chief Executive Officer, Zionist Federation of Australia, Committee Hansard, 29November 2024, p. 26.

[212]Professor Katharine Gelber, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 3.

[213]TEQSA, Submission 20, pp. 7-8.

[214]Ms Jillian Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p.43.

[215]Ms Jillian Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p.44.

[216]Monash University, Submission 21, p. 8.

[217]Monash University, Submission 21, p. 8.

[218]Professor Mark Scott AO, Vice Chancellor and President, University of Sydney, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, pp. 15-16.

[219]Professor George Williams, Vice Chancellor and President, Western Sydney University, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 18.

[220]Dr David Slucki, Director, Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 26.

[221]Dr David Slucki, Director, Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 27.

[222]Zionist Federation of Australia, Submission 15, p. 1. See also Ms Simone Abel, Head of Legal, Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 30.

[223]Zionist Federation of Australia, Submission 15, pp. 1-2.

[224]Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, Submission 16, p. 1.

[225]Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Submission 1, p. 17.

[226]Professor Philip Mendes, Submission 45, p. 10.

[227]Archdiocese of Brisbane, Submission 27, p. 6.

[228]The Zionist Federation of Australia similarly highlighted the importance of university leadership. See, Mr Alon Cassuto, Chief Executive Officer, Zionist Federation of Australia, Committee Hansard, 29 November 2024, p. 26.

[229]Dr David Kearns and Associate Professor Ryan Walter, Submission 38, p. 3.

[230]Dr Noam Peleg, Submission 48, p. 5.

[231]Australian Jewish Democratic Society, Submission 18, p. 3.

[232]Australian Jewish Democratic Society, Submission 18, p. 4.

[233]Ms Ashlyn Horton, National President, National Union of Students, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, pp. 19-20.

[234]See, Mr Hugh de Kretser, President, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 38; and Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 40, p. 5. See further, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework (30 May 2024).

[235]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 40.