Chapter 2Key Issues

2.1A majority of submitters and witnesses expressed support for the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) (the Bill). Many considered this mechanism to be the most appropriate for addressing antisemitism on university campuses and bringing about cultural change although some considered the scope of the Bill to be too narrow. Other submitters and witnesses expressed that there were other mechanisms better suited to addressing the issue.

2.2This chapter sets out the key issues raised by submitters and witnesses to the inquiry, such as:

the experience on campus;

university responses;

the purpose and scope of the Bill;

the commission of inquiry mechanism;

matters for inquiry by a commission;

actions of regulators;

alternative mechanisms for addressing antisemitism; and

other responses.

Experience on campus

2.3Throughout the inquiry many submitters and witnesses shared their personal experiences of antisemitism with the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee (the committee). Such testimony came from a wide range of students and staff across many universities which conveyed an extreme depth of feeling.

2.4The Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) expressed the current feeling of many Jewish students on campus. It stated:

Jewish students have reported feeling unsafe, ostracised, and targeted for their identity. The pervasive nature of these incidents, including verbal abuse, hostile rhetoric, physical threats, and discriminatory actions, has led to a significant decline in their sense of belonging and safety on campus. Many students have expressed a loss of motivation to attend classes, participate in university activities or even openly express their Jewish identity. The constant exposure to antisemitism both on campus and in the wider world has created an environment where Jewish students feel marginalised and fearful.[1]

2.5Submitters expressed that the environment on campus has, at times, affected the mental health of many staff and students.

2.6Several submitters expressed disappointment at the lack of support they received from their university when reporting antisemitic incidents; some to the point that they changed universities.[4]

2.7For example, a submitter made a complaint to their university about an incident that occurred at their graduation ceremony which they considered to be antisemitic. While acknowledging the university responded, the submitter was not fully satisfied with the response:

…I do not believe they have understood the gravity of my complaint and was disappointed that the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor and the other senior academics at the University did not take my complaint seriously enough to respond themselves. I also believe that the response, while sympathetic, highlights that there is a lack of understanding at a policy and procedure level about what antisemitism is and its detrimental effect on its Jewish students. I felt that my concerns were brushed off and that the University does not intend to take any steps to better uphold its own rules and terms and conditions at ceremonies in the future.[5]

2.8The conduct of pro-Palestine encampments varied from university to university. It was reported that some were respectful protests while others felt they created an environment which was unwelcoming to those with opposing views.

2.9An overwhelming number of submitters spoke about being afraid of wearing symbols of that identify them as Jewish.

2.10Submitters and witnesses also conveyed that the environments on university campuses are having vast and detrimental effects on students’ enjoyment of university life.

2.11The committee also heard that high school students consider the levels of antisemitism at universities when considering which university they will apply to attend.

Rise in antisemitism

2.12Both submitters and witnesses put forward that these campus experiences are due to a rise in antisemitism in recent times, particularly since 7 October 2023. However, many expressed that antisemitism has been present on campuses for some time.

2.13There have been multiple studies into antisemitism over the last 15 years that document the experiences of Jewish university students and young people. A 2007-08 study found that those aged 18 to 24 were the most likely to experience antisemitism with 71 per cent of that age group having experienced antisemitism, compared to 58 per cent of all respondents.[12]

2.14The Australian Jewish University Student Experience Survey (the Survey), published in August 2023, reported that 64 per cent of Jewish students had experienced antisemitism on campus; this ranged from 48 per cent (Deakin University), to 84 per cent (the Australian National University).[13]

2.15The Survey further reported that 57 per cent of students hid their Jewish identity to avoid antisemitism and 19 per cent had avoided campus in order to avoid antisemitism.[14] The Survey also showed that many Jewish university students did not make complaints about incidents of antisemitism because they believed making a complaint would not make a difference or the university would not take the complaint seriously.[15]

2.16The Survey found that on 29 per cent of occasions university staff were participants in antisemitic incidents and, in 70 per cent of incidents where university staff were present, participants stated that the antisemitic behaviour was ignored by the staff.[16]

2.17Another survey conducted by Adina Bankier-Karp and David Graham from10–17 November 2023 found that 60 per cent of university students considered antisemitism to be a problem on university campuses.[17]

2.18Most recently, the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism (5A) conducted a survey from April to July 2024 regarding the extent of antisemitism at Australian universities. While analysis of the survey results is still being undertaken, a preliminary analysis of raw data indicated that only one third of Jewish students surveyed felt a sense of safety on campus with results being lower among women and at some universities.[18] 5A stated that this result should be contrasted with the result from the 2021 National Student Safety Survey which found that 84 per cent of all students agreed with the statement ‘I feel safe on campus’.[19]

2.19Furthermore, the Executive Council of Australia Jewry (ECAJ) reported that:

In October and November 2023 there was a 738% increase in the number of reported antisemitic incidents in Australia compared to the same two months one year earlier, and dramatically elevated levels of antisemitism show every sign of continuing.[20]

2.20StandWithUs Australia submitted that the events that occurred on 7October 2023, were a ‘catalyst’ which exacerbated ‘an already dangerous environment’. It also submitted that the increase in antisemitism ‘has not been limited to online platforms but has manifested physically on campuses’.[21]

2.21The Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation (ACJC) at Monash University commented on the nature and motivations behind incidents of antisemitism:

Antisemitism is a problem that has been festering in Australia and exists across the political spectrum. It takes different forms depending on context and often stems from a range of different motivations. It is difficult to quantify the extent of antisemitism and there is much work to be done to create systemic mechanisms to effectively collect and analyse data on its causes, effects, and solutions.[22]

2.22The impacts of antisemitism on Jewish people are wide ranging. The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) submitted that antisemitism:

…harms individuals and communities – affecting personal security, belonging, inclusion, participation in public life and social cohesion. Extremist racist behaviour including antisemitism remains a serious public safety concern. The widespread reporting of a rise in incidents of antisemitism and the recorded concern of Jewish communities around its effects are evidence of this.[23]

2.23The Zionist Council of NSW submitted that both students’ and teachers’ ability to operate on campus has ‘been negatively and significantly affected by antisemitism on campus’:

Since October 7, 2023, the level of intimidation and harassment for Jewish students and staff on Australian university campuses has risen exponentially. We know that certain staff and students are too frightened to come to campus. We heard about teachers being harassed as they walk to lecture halls to teach, we heard about students being silenced in class because of their Jewish identity. The experiences for the Jewish community of campus have become untenable for many…[24]

2.24Never Again is Now commented that this situation has negatively affected Jewish staff and students' mental health and academic performance, community cohesion leading to a more ‘divisive atmosphere, undermining the principles of diversity and inclusion that universities should uphold’ and ‘Australia’s reputation as an inclusive and safe educational destination’.[25]

2.25Mr Noah Loven, President of the AUJS, shared an incident where a building on a university campus was unusable for a few days in the lead-up to final exams because of tensions on campus resulting from protests. He highlighted that, as a result, it has become an all-student issue, not just a Jewish student issue, to ensure students’ safety on campus.[26]

2.26While the focus of the Bill is on university campuses, submitters also raised the broader societal impacts of antisemitism. The Zionist Council of NSW further advised in relation to rising antisemitism:

It is worth noting that this unfortunate trend will only lead to less tolerance and less harmony for multicultural groups in general. Antisemitism is the canary in the coal mine, a harbinger of future societal discord.[27]

2.27The Sydney Jewish Museum reflected that ‘antisemitism flourishes in times of political or social upheaval, while at other times it has sat apparently dormant’ and that currently ‘[e]ven some of the most seemingly liberal and inclusive societies such as Australia are now showing significant spikes in both antisemitic attitudes and incidents’.[28]

2.28In contrast, Dr Matthew Brown, Deputy Chief Executive of Group of Eight (Go8), considered that antisemitism has not become endemic at universities.[29]

2.29Muslim Votes Matter (MVM) commented on a comparable level of Islamophobia and submitted:

There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that antisemitic incidents within academic settings are more prevalent or severe than incidents of Islamophobia or anti-Palestinian racism.…These issues merit equal attention and action from lawmakers to ensure that all forms of discrimination are being addressed with equal seriousness and commitment.[30]

2.30The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) also submitted that in its view, there are some ‘subjective feelings of discomfort or unease being wrongly equated with objective threats to physical safety, often leading to false accusation of antisemitism’.[31] It further observed that ‘[t]he fear of being accused of antisemitism has led to self-censorship and a reluctance to engage in critical discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’.[32]

2.31A submitter commented that:

While I don’t doubt that antisemitism exists and that it has increased in the past year, including on university campuses, it is critical not to confuse antizionism and criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Universities should be a safe, supportive and racism-free environment. But they should also be spaces where students and staff may be challenged, even to the point of feeling uncomfortable, by different views, ideas and politics. It is important that students and staff at universities can express difficult ideas freely, can protest injustices freely, and can teach and learn in an environment that promotes critical thinking.[33]

2.32Ms Jillian Segal AO, Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, submitted that:

Antisemitic behaviour is not only present on many campuses but is an embedded part of the culture. Universities have not taken appropriate action to denounce and supress it: it has become systemic. The Jewish students are traumatised and feel isolated and unsafe. They are not participating as they should in university life. They have been told by their university administration to stay home for their own safety. This normalised antisemitism is incredibly dangerous to our society as it is an attitude and behaviour that eats away at the fabric of the mission of the tertiary sector. To date university leadership is either in denial about how serious and normalised antisemitism has become on their campuses or has not received information as to the seriousness of the situation (bad news does not travel upwards) or has failed to truly understand what constitutes antisemitism and has responded by placating activist forces.[34]

2.33Ms Segal stated that embedded antisemitism has occurred over a period of time and that universities ‘do not understand or appreciate the unique, embedded and normalised extent of this particular type of racism’. She agreed that ‘cultural change is therefore incredibly important and needed’.[35]

University responses

2.34Submitters and witnesses discussed at length the responses of universities in Australia to incidents of antisemitism on campus. The committee heard that some responses by universities were more effective than others.

2.35Universities Australia reflected that:

University campuses are places where ideas are openly discussed and debated, no matter how popular or unpopular they may be. A commitment to academic freedom and freedom of speech are criteria for being recognised as a university under the Higher Education Threshold Standards.[36]

2.36The University of Sydney (UTS) highlighted the role that universities play in fostering robust debate:

Universities are often places where robust debate and protest activity occurs, and our mission is to be a space where ideas are explored, debated, contested and reimagined. Our Charter of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom explicitly protects the right of our staff and students to protest, subject to certain limits recommended by former High Court Chief Justice Robert French AC in 2019. We are required by the law and relevant registration standards to be a place that can host multiple perspectives, and hold courageous conversations, even if they may sometimes be challenging for some members of our community.[37]

2.37On the particular point of university responses, the AUJS commented:

Across these past 11 months, we’ve seen a range of responses to antisemitism by universities. Some have stepped up, but others have allowed this hate to fester, excusing antisemitic chants, deferring responsibility and letting Jewish students fend for themselves. There is no justification for this inconsistency. Jewish students should not have to choose between their education and their safety. We recognise the challenges that universities face, but we refuse to accept the false dichotomy between freedom of speech and protection. We can hold two truths.[38]

2.38The AUJS argued the problem currently is how universities have responded, rather than the experiences of students.[39]

2.39Universities advised that they have implemented a range of measures to address students’ concerns and improve safety on campus.

2.40UTS advised that senior UTS staff have met regularly with UTS student leaders from the AUJS, the Palestinian Society and the Student Representative Council which provides an opportunity for students to raise any areas of concern, in addition to a safe space for Jewish students being established on campus.[40]

2.41UTS also advised that there are mechanisms for reporting incidents of racism, discrimination and harassment at UTS which are currently being reviewed to ensure they comply with regulations.[41]

2.42The University of Melbourne submitted that, given the recent protest action on campus in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict, the university ‘re‑communicated relevant policies and expectations to staff and student communities to ensure clarity on acceptable and appropriate behaviours’ through staff and students emails and a dedicated website.[42] It advised that antisemitism is managed through these policies, as well as other forms of racist behaviour.[43]

2.43Like UTS, the University of Melbourne advised that it has provided a room as a private safe space for Melbourne University Jewish Students’ Society members and permission was sought from the Academic Registrar for a letter from the AUJS to be taken as evidence of eligibility for Special Consideration.[44] The university has also maintained regular contact with representatives of Jewish students and those participating in peaceful protest.[45]

2.44The University of Melbourne also told the committee it has implemented a ‘fast-track response (via the SafeZone App) for removing offensive, stickers and graffiti on campus that have been reported to University Security’ and that management of complaints still follows the University’s standard operating procedures.[46]

2.45UNSW Sydney (UNSW) submitted that, in response to the current Israel/Palestine conflict, its Anti-Racism Policy was updated to include Anti‍‍-‍Religious Vilification which commenced in February 2024, in compliance with changes to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).[47]

2.46UNSW also advised that it has established a task force that considers and implements actions aimed at ensuring students and staff feel safe on campus, which meets regularly with key leaders across UNSW.[48] In addition, UNSW said it has instituteda range of other actions including: regular communications from the Vice-Chancellor highlighting support mechanisms, increasing physical security, expanding counselling services, revising protocols in relation to posters and notices, and improving processes and additional resources for complaints.[49]

2.47Deakin University advised that it has received a small number of allegations of student misconduct and/or student complaints in regard to antisemitism. Where the allegation or complaint involves students, action is taken under Deakin’s Student Misconduct procedure.[50]

2.48Deakin University also submitted it has implemented a range of other initiatives and procedures including anti-racism and cultural competency being part of the staff and student training suite and, where there is a critical incident, a Critical Incident Management Team is stood up to deliver the University’s strategic response.[51]

2.49Monash University advised that it is supporting initiatives ‘to build social cohesion, strengthen dialogue and help to reduce tensions on campus’. One such initiative is a research program led by Associate Professor David Slucki and DrSusan Carland which will investigate antisemitism, Islamophobia and related prejudice, and develop programs to support campus cohesion and classroom safety for all.[52]

2.50The University of Sydney submitted that it is:

Providing guidance and training to students and staff on the appropriate exercise of their rights to free speech and academic freedom, the University’s expectations of them with respect to their behaviour, and our policies in relation to wellbeing, bullying, harassment and discrimination.[53]

2.51The University of Sydney also advised that it provides channels for complaints or concerns to be raised by staff, students and members of the community as well as significant resources for safety and wellbeing of both staff and students, and the security of its campuses.[54]

2.52Throughout the encampment, the University of Sydney advised it was in constant contact with NSW Police and communicated to students and staff regularly the University’s expectations in relation to respectful, civil and lawful behaviour in accordance with the code of conduct and other polices and guidelines.[55]

2.53In response to reports of antisemitic conduct on campus related to protest activity, the University of Adelaide stated:

There was no evidence of Jewish students or staff being directly targeted by protestors. The University found that while this activity may have caused distress and discomfort, it was lawful. In all cases, the context in which words or phrases are used is instrumental in determining whether an offence can reasonably be expected to be deemed harmful. Where some speech may be considered antisemitic in certain contexts, we determined this was not the case when the phrases were used on campus as part of peaceful protest activity.[56]

2.54The University of Adelaide further submitted that:

It should also be noted that the majority of those involved in protest activity conducted themselves respectfully and within the boundaries set by the University. We are confident that the processes and procedures the University has in place have been appropriate and proportionate in managing these issues as they arise.[57]

2.55The University of Adelaide advised that its Student Charter and Student Misconduct Rules set out the relevant behavioural standards with which students and visitors must comply. Reports of antisemitism related to the protest activity were assessed against these polices and guidelines and the University found that it ‘could not substantiate that contested phrases were beyond the bounds of lawful freedom of speech’. Instead, it was understood as antisocial speech and protesters were counselled against using these phrases.[58]

2.56Universities Australia explained that universities’ responses have been framed by their legal obligations to uphold freedom of speech as well as local laws regarding peaceful protests which can be different depending on the jurisdiction (particularly, for example, in Victoria as the Charter of Human Rights and responsibilities change the nature of some responses).[59]

2.57While universities explained the range of actions they have been implementing to address antisemitism on campus and ensure student and staff behaviour is in line with their codes of conduct, many submitters and witnesses agreed that the responses were inadequate or did not reflect the level and nature of antisemitism experienced on campus.

2.58Dr David Slucki, Director of the ACJC at Monash University, advised that:

Jewish students and staff feel that it is not only their peers but their institutions that have not taken their concerns seriously enough and have not been effective in listening to their experiences. University campuses are places where inquiring minds come together to grapple with the challenges of our time, where young people navigate complex ideas and learn to become leaders. The role of universities is to create an environment in which all our students can thrive and grow.[60]

2.59The ACT Jewish Community submitted that staff and students have been distressed at universities' initial responses to antisemitism on their campuses, notably the Australian National University (ANU):

Students from the Australasian Union of Jewish Students were unable to get a meeting with ANU’s Vice Chancellor for months, despite repeated requests to meet with her to discuss the proliferation of antisemitism on campus. Even when they did eventually get a meeting, their request for a public statement from the ANU Executive condemning antisemitism was denied.

…

That said, I want to acknowledge that, over the last few months, the Deputy Vice Chancellor at ANU has met with Jewish students and Jewish academics. I believe this is expected to continue so that the staff and students can share their ongoing experiences with the [Deputy Vice Chancellor].[61]

2.60The Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) agreed that the response by universities to antisemitism since 7 October 2023 has been inadequate as ‘[u]niversities typically relied on the existence of supposed strong anti-racism policies and denied that significant levels of antisemitism existed on their campuses’.[62]

2.61As Dr Colin Rubenstein, Executive Director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) said the responses from universities have ‘been lackadaisical, ineffective, a lack in duty of care’.[63]

2.62The ZFA advised that Jewish students and staff have a complete lack of trust in their universities that their safety is a priority.[64]

2.63ECAJ submitted there has been weak leadership at many universities in response to this issue:

Which has been characterised by a failure of several universities to take a public and meaningful stand against specific manifestations of antisemitism or to hold those responsible to account. At times, some university administrations have appeared to be passively complicit in the rise of antisemitism on campus. Consequently, many Jewish students and academics have reported that they feel marginalised and dehumanised, and, in some instances, verbally abused, harassed or intimidated on campus.[65]

2.64AIJAC was similarly critical of the responses of university leadership:

University administrators might claim that they were forced to choose between campus safety and academic freedom and freedom of expression. However in many cases, the respective vice-chancellors failed to design, adopt and implement appropriate policies. They failed to acknowledge or to condemn the breaches of academic freedom and campus safety. In each case, they failed to implement existing student and staff codes of conduct by means of disciplinary proceedings and failed to follow up with remedial action.[66]

2.65The NSW Jewish Board of Deputies remarked that the responses by universities to antisemitism on campuses, particular since 7 October 2023, has been mixed:

Whilst some universities in NSW have responded appropriately to reported incidents of antisemitism and have worked to ensure that their campuses are free from racial and religious discrimination, others have failed to do so and have instead engaged with Jewish students, staff and representative bodies in a duplicitous, self-serving and condescending manner. These latter universities have often failed to adequately respond to documented and clear incidents of antisemitism as a result of suboptimal incident management procedures, inadequate policies and procedures and, in some cases, a fundamental lack of will or leadership to act effectively against antisemitism. In essence, certain universities have failed to provide a safe educational environment for their Jewish students and staff.[67]

2.66Ms Segal commented that the universities’ policies have not been adequate to deal with antisemitism on campus:

…we have policies that each university has put in place and procedures for dealing with complaints that I could describe as hotchpotch—there is no consistency. Each university believes what they’ve put in place is good practice, and I question that, from the accounts of students and academics that I’ve met with, or that my office has met with, that have found that the procedures in place are really not adequate.[68]

2.67Regarding the conduct of university leadership and their responses to incidents of antisemitism on campuses, Ms Segal explained that, based on her contact with university leadership:

There are some vice-chancellors who are very concerned and who have, clearly, engaged university students and Jewish university student representatives to discuss what they need.

…

But, in most cases, the vice-chancellors or the chancellors, respectively, that I’ve spoken to believe that what they are doing is appropriate. That is the nub of the problem. There is a degree of self-denial as to how bad the situation is on their campuses, and it’s a recognition that there is a problem but they don’t understand how bad the problem is and how much needs to change.[69]

2.68On the effects that universities’ responses have had on students, AUJS submitted:

As a direct consequence of some universities’ failure to meaningfully address these concerns, Jewish students are changing their behaviour to adapt to what has become a new reality. No students should be forced to choose between their education and their own safety.[70]

2.69In relation to the encampments on campuses, the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) and Community Security Group (Victoria) (CSG) submitted that, based on consultations with Jewish staff and students, ‘[t]here was a broad feeling that university leadership seemingly relied on a supposed commitment to the freedom of speech of demonstrators above the rights and freedoms of others’.[71]

2.70JCCV and CSG reported that students have expressed frustration at ‘the inability of university leadership to uphold their own codes of conduct’.[72] Further, they submitted that police intervention has been necessary in some cases, and Jewish staff and students have been in ‘culturally and physically unsafe situations’ due to antisemitism on university campuses not being adequately addressed by university leadership.[73]

2.71The ZFA submitted that universities were not aware of the levels of antisemitism on campus because they were relying on complaints data. The Jewish Student Experience Survey found that students were often not making complaints due to limited trust in the complaints systems of universities.[74] Despite this, the ZFA considered the universities have made no changes to their policies in response.[75]

2.72The Union for Progressive Judaism (UPJ) similarly stated that students who experience antisemitism at university often do not report the incidents due to fears their complaint will not be taken seriously or because they feel the university will not take action.[76] It further advised that:

A significant frustration among Jewish university students is the lack of seriousness or concern with which their peers, academic, and university staff respond when they share experiences of antisemitism. This generates a feeling of helplessness and sense of personal or Jewish devaluation within the university culture and Australian society.[77]

2.73Mr Alon Cassuto, Chief Executive Officer of the ZFA, agreed that universities have been unable to address systemic antisemitism and a different approach is needed. He recommended:

This actually needs to be dealt with at the highest levels of government and to have a real clarity not only about the expectation of university leadership when it comes to antisemitism but also about modes of best practice that can set the standard for how to deal with antisemitism across Australia, because we have seen a difference between universities.[78]

Purpose and scope of the Bill

2.74As discussed in Chapter 1, the Bill proposes to establish a commission of inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities. Many submitters supported the establishment of the inquiry as proposed by the Bill.[79]

2.75The Zionist Council of NSW was supportive of the Bill as it considered ‘the establishment of a commission of inquiry into antisemitism on university campuses as an essential step towards curbing the spread of the virus that is antisemitism'.[80]

2.76The ZFA submitted that ‘grouping antisemitism together with all other forms of racial discrimination is in our view doomed to fail’ and instead ‘antisemitism requires a robust and targeted policy framework’.[81]

2.77The ZFA argued that:

No other minority would be expected to put up with the sheer scale of hatred that we have witnessed on our campuses…Jewish students and academics are simply asking for the same protections as every other minority.[82]

2.78The UPJ submitted the:

…experiences of Jewish students in our communities reveal a troubling pattern of harassment, discrimination, and exclusion that not only undermines their safety and well‑being but the integrity and credibility of Australia’s academic institutions.[83]

2.79The UPJ, while supportive of a commission of inquiry, did, however, caution that ‘further inquiry is mindful not to alienate Palestinian voices, as such an approach would only deepen the divide between Jewish students and their peers’.[84]

2.80Ms Segal considered that ‘[a]ntisemitism has always been stubborn and shape‑shifting, and it is not sufficiently responsive to policies instituted to deal with racism more broadly’.[85] She submitted that the focus on antisemitism for the commission of inquiry is not a ‘special measure’ but rather:

…what is being sought is the same level of awareness and accountability with regard to antisemitic discourse and incidents in tertiary settings as exists with respect to manifestations of other types of racism.[86]

2.81Ms Segal further agreed that antisemitism ‘is a special form of racism’ and thus ‘a generalised approach to tackling racism doesn’t really deal with antisemitism’.[87] She opined that universities do not appreciate the extent of the problem and ‘serious change across the board’ is needed.[88]

2.82In contrast, other submitters and witnesses expressed the view that antisemitism is best addressed as part of a comprehensive effort to address all forms of racism and should not be separated out as the Bill proposes.[89]

2.83The ACJC considered that antisemitism cannot be addressed in isolation as it is ‘closely tied to other forms of hate and prejudice’.[90]

2.84Jews Against the Occupation ’48 submitted that ‘to exceptionalise antisemitism is divisive’. It suggested that an inclusive approach would include antisemitism under a broader definition of racism, allowing for consideration of numerous groups subjected to racism including Muslims, Jews and people with Asian, Arabic and African heritage.[91] As such, it argued that the commission of inquiry ‘would be detrimental to efforts to address antisemitism and indeed all racist prejudice’.[92]

2.85The Tzedek Collective similarly suggested that antisemitism should not be addressed in isolation:

…the most effective way of dealing with the very real antisemitism that does exist in society is through a broader anti-racism approach, which sees antisemitism as both historically specific but as deeply interlinked with other forms of discrimination and racism.[93]

2.86The Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) submitted that the focus of the Bill ‘achieves neither the objective of preventing antisemitism, nor the objective of addressing racism more broadly’.[94] It stated:

Tackling racism in our universities requires a very clear distinction between discrimination, hatred or animosity against a person or group based on legal protected attributes, and legitimate political speech.

Regarding antisemitism, this means distinguishing between hatred, animosity and discrimination against Jewish people for being Jewish, and critique of Israel and Zionism.[95]

2.87Various other organisations were also opposed to the Bill and “exceptionalising” antisemitism. For example, the Loud Jew Collective considered a commission of inquiry would ‘produce and exacerbate existing racism in our communities and will cause great harm to many peoples, including Jews’.[96] The Academic Alliance against Settler Colonialism, Racism and Censorship in Australia argued that antisemitism should not be considered in isolation and the proposed commission of inquiry ‘risks privileging certain students and staff that may be facing racism at Australian universities over other students and staff’ and thus ‘will do more harm than good’.[97]

2.88Muslim Women Australia considered that:

If adopted, the [Bill], will undermine the capacity of staff and students affiliated with Australian universities to advocate for Palestinian human rights and will silence legitimate dissent and criticism of the government of Israel.[98]

2.89MVM suggested that the Bill’s scope should be broadened to include all forms of discrimination, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive strategy that ‘safeguards all university community members from discrimination and harassment, regardless of their background or the nature of their political expressions’.[99]

2.90Mr Ghaith Krayem, National Spokesperson for MVM, considered that ‘introducing legislation that addresses only one form of racism, we risk further marginalising other communities which face daily discrimination’:[100]

It’s a terrible time for all parties on this issue, and I guess that’s part of the reason why we’re saying a broad one that looks at all of these issues is probably better than one which singles out just one particular aspect.[101]

2.91The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) opposed the Bill in its current form, arguing that it ‘[c]onflicts with other government initiatives aimed at preventing antisemitism and islamophobia’.[102] The NTEU submitted that the narrow focus of the Bill would not allow the investigation of ‘instances of religious bias or extremism, that may occur concurrently or be linked to actions on campuses’ which would limit the ability for university processes to be assessed in their totality.[103]

2.92The NTEU further argued that the Bill ‘does not adequately recognise the existing instruments that regulate behaviour at universities, nor the centrality of institutional autonomy, freedom of speech, free intellectual inquiry and academic freedom to those institution’.[104]

Commission of inquiry mechanism

2.93The Bill proposes to establish a commission of inquiry that would have royal commission-like powers. Clause 11 states that the Royal Commissions Act 1902 would apply as if the commission of inquiry were a royal commission and as if the commissioner were a member of a royal commission.[105]

2.94Many submitters considered that the mechanism of a judicial inquiry was the only mechanism that would be able to effectively address the issue of antisemitism at universities and bring about the cultural changed needed.[106]

2.95The AUJS stated that a commission of inquiry would be trusted, independent and allow evidence to be taken in confidence, which it considered crucial to getting to the root causes of the issue. Mr Zachary Morris, Vice-President of AUJS, argued given the current situation, ‘we are at a point where we need to be doing everything that we can’.[107]

2.96Mr Loven opined that a commission of inquiry can ‘provide solutions so Jewish students start coming back onto campus and start feeling like they’re welcomed again and to contribute adequately to university life and then to broader society’.[108]

2.97The Australian Association for Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Descendants Inc believed a commission of inquiry is necessary and the only effective way to address antisemitism because:

It appears that the Australian Human Rights Commission has done little, if anything to combat antisemitism in particular since the atrocities of 7 October 2023. Despite having been notified of antisemitic acts and the massive surge of antisemitism over the past ten months, the Commission has made few, if any public statement upon this issue nor proposed any effective strategy to combat it in the public sphere.[109]

2.98Several submitters highlighted the ability of a commission of inquiry to compel the production of documents and witnesses to give evidence as key advantages.

2.99The JCCV and CSG outlined the following benefits of a specific commission of inquiry: the commissioner as a judge would be an ‘independent and unaligned figure’; it would specifically focus on antisemitism which they considered to be ‘a growing and unique challenge’; and the commission would make practical recommendations.[110]

2.100The ZFA considered the power to compel witnesses essential. The ZFA pointed to examples where universities have ‘egregiously failed to deal with antisemitism manifesting on their campus’ and the ‘increasing severity and prevalence of antisemitism at universities’[111] as reasons for royal commission-‍like powers, to reliably inquire into the full extent of antisemitism on campus and universities’ action or inaction in response.[112]

2.101AIJAC held a similar view, arguing that no alternative mechanisms would satisfactorily assess antisemitism on campuses, university responses, the regulatory environment in which universities operate, and whether any changes are needed.[113] The advantages of a commission of inquiry, both AIJAC and 5A submitted, would be its independence, powers to compel, ability to take evidence in camera and provide immunity from defamation, under the leadership of an independent judge with relevant experience.[114] 5A also considered that a commission of inquiry could compel the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) to ‘take regulatory leadership’[115] as well as examine the extent to which foreign actors are involved in antisemitic activities on campus.[116]

2.102ECAJ told the committee that a commission of inquiry:

…is the only effective way to establish the truth about the nature and extent of antisemitic incidents and discourses at universities across Australia while preserving the confidentiality of Jewish students’, academics’ and professional staff’s personal data and protecting their security.[117]

2.103Mr Jack Pinczewski supported the establishment of a commission of inquiry on the basis that, without powers to compel, it is very difficult to obtain information from universities about their responses to antisemitism on campus. MrPinczewski reflected on his own efforts to obtain information under freedom of information laws, stating:

The literally hundreds of hours I have spent in this task says to me that accountability and transparency simply cannot be left to those without compellable powers to seek this information.[118]

2.104Mr Pinczewski further submitted that a commission of inquiry is required to ensure adequate levels of accountability from the university sector:

I have raised reasonable concerns about specific conduct which has prima facie violated university policies and discipline rules only to be met with obfuscation, delay and denial.

Given the limitations of my personal inquiries – that they are not a comprehensive, systemic examination of the issues with the ability to compel evidence, cross-examine witnesses or obtain unredacted copies of documents – there is an innate difficulty in receiving any meaningful information and hence any accountability from Australian universities regarding their actions to identify, discourage and eliminate antisemitism from their institutions.[119]

2.105Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Ms Segal, similarly highlighted difficulties obtaining information from universities regarding antisemitism at their institutions. She commented that ‘[s]uch requests to universities tend to face very significant delays and are returned with swathes of sought-after information caveated, redacted or withheld’. Consequently, MsSegal considered that seeking meaningful information from universities ‘is unlikely to be fruitful’ without the establishment of a commission of inquiry which has the power to compel the release of relevant information.[120]

2.106Ms Segal submitted that Jewish students and staff have indicated to her that they will only discuss their experiences with trusted advocates like herself or with a forum such as a commission of inquiry. Jewish staff and students do not currently have confidence in the AHRC ‘to approach their evidence with impartiality and appropriate respect’.[121] Ms Segal suggested that a commission of inquiry would be a ‘trusted source’ where those impacted could give evidence and have the ‘confidence to be able to give their testimony’. Further, Ms Segal argued that it would give the community the confidence that ‘one could get to the bottom of what is driving some of this anti-Semitism’.[122]

2.107Overall, Ms Segal considered a commission of inquiry would allow for a ‘much deeper interrogation of the nature and scale of antisemitism at Australian universities’[123] and ‘bring about exposure of the situation and a revelation to those who lead our universities as to the extent of the problem’.[124]

2.108While supportive of a commission of inquiry, some submitters and witnesses argued that it would be part of the solution, not the only solution. For example, Ms Segal remarked that a commission of inquiry would be part of the solution for cultural change but ‘not the only solution by itself’. She stated that ‘[u]niversities also have to work to change attitudes and change procedures’.[125]

2.109ECAJ considered that a commission of inquiry would ‘create the right cultural environment’ for the issue of antisemitism to be addressed and solutions considered.[126] Mr Peter Wertheim AO, Co-CEO, ECAJ also suggested it would ‘act as a spur to putting forward some of the interim measures that we’ve been talking about, in terms of expanded powers of the ombudsman and improved complaints procedures, and a better understanding of what antisemitism is’.[127]

2.110Other submitters and witnesses raised concerns about a commission of inquiry, arguing it is not the most appropriate approach to address antisemitism on campuses.

2.111The JCA submitted that a commission of inquiry would be a ‘blunt and ill-‍equipped instrument’ for addressing antisemitism on campus. It suggested that such a mechanism ‘is more likely to alienate, divide, polarise and chill debate rather than effectively address forms of racism on our campuses’.[128]

2.112The ACJC considered that a challenge in this space and for a commission of inquiry, would be avoiding duplication of work and ensuring that stakeholders are working together.[129] Dr Slucki cautioned against focusing on only one solution, arguing that could be counterproductive to finding rapid solutions. Instead, Dr Slucki recommended a ‘multifaceted approach’.[130]

2.113Dr Scott Prasser highlighted several risks to establishing a commission, for example, it ‘may probe into unexpected areas, take too long and produce a poor report’.[131]

2.114With regard to the amount of time for a commission of inquiry to be conducted, Ms Anne Sheehan, First Assistant Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) explained that ‘each commission of inquiry or royal commission is unique in terms of the issue that it’s examining and how long it would take to conduct the inquiry’.[132] She advised that it would be up to the government, when establishing a royal commission, to determine how much time the inquiry would be given.[133] Ms Sheehan outlined the amount of time recent royal commissions have taken:

Aged Care royal commission – 29 months;

Disability royal commission – 54 months;

Bushfires royal commission – 8 months;

Defence and veteran suicide royal commission – 38 months;

Robodebt royal commission – 10 months.[134]

Matters for inquiry

2.115Clause 6 of the Bill proposes a wide range of matters that the commissioner would inquire into when assessing the responses of universities to antisemitism.

2.116Some submitters commented on these matters. For example, one submitter stated that the matters for inquiry set out in clause 6 are ‘expressed at an appropriate level of generality, making clear what ought to be investigated, whilst allowing for an appropriate level of inquiry by the Commissioner’.[135]

2.117Mr Allan Potts argued that the matters for inquiry articulated in the Bill would variously:

provide necessary data to enable a clear and factual understanding of what is occurring on university campuses currently;

allow for a full understanding of the events on campus which would be vital for informing public policy moving forward; and

assess whether universities’ responses are ‘just, legal and adequate’ given ‘universities should be places of quality learning and rigorous intellectual debate not the propagation of bigoted racial views and hatred such as antisemitism’.[136]

2.118Dr Prasser raised concerns regarding paragraph 6(3)(f), which relates to considering whether universities have taken steps to ensure antisemitic material is not included in course and teaching materials. He was concerned where that examination might end, stating ‘[m]any courses at universities offend someone because of their breadth of topics and that universities are sometimes ahead of public opinion and values’. Dr Prasser further stated, ‘[t]his does not make them right, but it does highlight the need for care’.[137]

2.119Muslim Women Australia considered that the Bill’s matters for inquiry would duplicate the work being undertaken by the AHRC and thus waste federal resources and unnecessarily burden universities who would need to engage with several processes.[138]

Definition of antisemitism

2.120Throughout the course of the inquiry, there was much debate about definitions of antisemitism and the definitions of antisemitism on which universities rely in their policies and practices. As set out in paragraph 6(3)(b), the Bill would ask the commissioner to inquire into whether universities have ‘adopted and implemented an appropriate definition of antisemitism for all purposes such as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition’.[139]

2.121Many submitters supported the inclusion of a definition of antisemitism in the matters for inquiry, with particular reference to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism (IHRA definition).

2.122Youth HEAR supported the inclusion of the IHRA definition in the Bill, stating:

The IHRA definition and its associated examples reflect the ongoing evolution of antisemitism. While the nation state of Israel has existed as a political entity since 1948, the Jewish people as a nation has existed for centuries.

The examples pointed to in the IHRA definition which refer to Israel reflect the ways in which hatred toward Jews as a nation have been expressed in reference to the Jewish nation state.[140]

2.123The AUJS considered the IHRA to be ‘particularly well-suited for use in the university context’ and considered that:

Whilst some may contend that the IHRA definition conflates legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, it only does so when otherwise legitimate criticism is levied through the use of antisemitic tropes, assumptions, and stereotypes. Insofar as otherwise legitimate criticism can be reformulated to avoid vilifying its target in the same manner as Jewish people, practices, and communities have been historically vilified, it cannot be caught within the IHRA definition.[141]

2.124The ZFA supported use of the IHRA definition, emphasising that it is ‘the best representation of modern antisemitism’ and:

The definition is accompanied by 11 examples that provide context to help a user understand what might constitute antisemitism. These examples are claimed by some…as conflating criticism of or activism against Israel with antisemitism. We do not believe this is the case, as a simple reading of the examples proves.[142]

2.125The ZFA considered that a key outcome of the proposed commission of inquiry ‘would be exploring the line between legitimate political debate and unacceptable racial discrimination and, in so doing, providing guidance for universities’.[143]

2.126Other organisations, such as AIJAC and 5A, also supported adoption of the IHRA definition.[144] The Australian Jewish Association (AJA) submitted that the IHRA definition, whilst non-binding, ‘is a useful tool for identifying and combatting antisemitism’. It recognised that the definition has only been accepted by a minority of Australian universities and rejected by some others.[145]

2.127Youth HEAR argued that the IHRA definition:

…does not limit what academics can or cannot say within an academic environment. Instead, it assists those who develop and enforce policies to prevent hate speech on campus, to draft effective policy and to determine whether discrimination complaints have a genuine foundation.[146]

2.128In contrast, other submitters objected to the IHRA definition.

2.129One of the main arguments proffered in opposition to the IHRA definition was the potential negative impact on academic freedom and freedom of speech.

2.130For example, Dr Leia Greenslade argued that the IHRA definition of antisemitism could erode academic freedom and suppress political speech. She suggested that universities should instead ‘focus on strengthening existing antiracism and anti-discrimination policies’ and commit to protect free speech.[147]

2.131The NTEU opposed the IHRA definition of antisemitism because, in the NTEU’s view:

…it has a chilling effect on free speech and advocacy and it blurs the boundary between criticism of the State of Israel and the actions of the state and criticism of people on the basis of their religion, which we don’t support.[148]

2.132The Academic Alliance against Settler Colonialism, Racism and Censorship in Australia raised particular concerns with the illustrative examples that accompany the IHRA definition, which in its view, ‘aim to shield Israel from criticism by narrowing the space of what constitutes permissible speech’.[149] Instead, it submitted that racism and antisemitism should be addressed pursuant to the legal framework of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, particularly section 18C, which provides an objective test for whether an act is ‘reasonably likely’ to offend, insult humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people.[150]

2.133MVM was concerned about the IHRA definition’s broad scope and the impact on pro-Palestinian students and academics, where the definition could potentially label engagement in activities including ‘criticism of Israeli policies towards Palestinians, discussions on human rights abuses, and advocacy for Palestinian statehood’ as antisemitic.[151] MVM argued that adoption of the IHRA definition could have concerning effects on academic censorship, student activism and classroom discussion.[152]

2.134Further, MVM suggested that the IHRA definition was ‘never intended for the purposes of legislation’ and that the definition’s creator has not been supportive of the definition’s use for legislative purposes.[153]

2.135Muslim Women Australia supported the inclusion of two qualifications to any definition of antisemitism, these being:

It is not antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

It is not antisemitic to hold the government of Israel to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli government’s policies or action, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.[154]

2.136MVM proposed an alternative definition of antisemitism, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), which it submitted provides a detailed definition with guidelines that explicitly distinguish legitimate political speech from antisemitic actions.[155]

2.137Mr Krayem argued that the JDA definition ‘better protects the principles of free expression, academic inquiry and human rights advocacy’.[156] However, MrKrayem acknowledged that the adoption of any definition would be contentious.[157]

2.138The JCA also discussed the Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism;[158] as did another submitter who recommended that the committee compare the JDA guidelines against the IHRA definition.[159]

2.139Mr George Vardas stated that the JDA is, in his view, ‘more appropriate and practical’.[160] The JDA ‘provides examples that help distinguish anti-Israel statements and actions from antisemitic ones’.[161]

2.140The Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism supported the IHRA definition, observing that the Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism, to which Australia is a signatory, support adoption of this definition.[162]

2.141Ms Segal stated that ‘one cannot counter antisemitism without an understanding of what it means’ and submitted that, regardless of the definition adopted, adoption of a definition alone will not remedy the cultural issues universities currently have with regard to antisemitism. She suggested that an Australianised version of the IHRA definition could be developed in collaboration with universities. She remarked:

It is important that a definition of antisemitism is agreed and adopted to provide a bright line for policies, disciplinary procedures, reporting of the database and action of the database. One cannot expect to reduce or combat antisemitism if it is not defined.[163]

Universities’ adoption of a definition

2.142While the Australian government has adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, it is the purview of universities—as independent, autonomous institutions—whether they similarly adopt the definition.[164]

2.143The University of Melbourne publicly adopted the IHRA working definition of antisemitism in January 2023, after stakeholder consultation.[165] Professor Nicola Phillips, Acting Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, advised that the adoption of the definition was included in the university’s antiracism commitment. As part of that commitment, the university introduced an antiracism action plan in August 2024 ‘designed to prevent and respond effectively to racism, particularly and including antisemitism’.[166]

2.144Monash University advised that its anti-racism statement incorporates the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which was adopted by its academic board in February 2023.[167]

2.145Deakin University has resolved, through the Chancellor and the University Chancellors Council, to have ‘close regard to the working definition of antisemitism by the IHRA’. It submitted that:

This decision was informed by the original intent of the definition, as stated by its lead drafter Kenneth Stern, that it was not intended to silence anti‑Israel discourse and speakers. It was not intended as the basis for law or policy, but to be used as a framework for assessing allegations of antisemitism, in the way Deakin is now considering it.[168]

2.146The University of Adelaide advised that the University of Adelaide Council considered, but ultimately decided against, the adoption of the IHRA definition in April 2023.[169] The university submitted that where concerns about antisemitic conduct are raised, it is guided by ‘the legal bounds to freedom of speech’, including the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Racial Vilification Act 1996 (SA).[170]

2.147Ms Segal urged universities to adopt definitions of antisemitism:

It’s incredibly important that they come together, in good faith, and agree to adopt a definition of anti-Semitism, which I’m happy to work with them on. Only then can their processes actually deal with the issues of helping students who have suffered anti-Semitic incidents.[171]

2.148The ZFA similarly considered that adoption of a definition of antisemitism, in particular the IHRA definition, is action that universities can take immediately.[172]

Boycott provision

2.149Subparagraph 6(3)(e)(i) would require the commissioner to consider whether universities have adopted policies and procedures to prevent staff and students from engaging in ‘de facto boycotts against collaborations with Jewish or Israeli academics, institutions or staff’.[173]

2.1505A described the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its impact on Jewish students and staff. 5A considered that the ‘ferocity of the BDS campaign, and its accusations of racism, colonialism, apartheid, ongoing crimes, ethnic cleansing, massacres, and expulsions are extreme and one-sided’.[174]

2.151Muslim Votes Matter recommended that the boycott provision in paragraph 6(3)(e) be removed because:

Boycotts, divestments, and sanctions (BDS) are recognised globally as legitimate forms of non-violent protest used to advocate for human rights and social justice. Including such actions under the umbrella of antisemitism unfairly targets and criminalises legitimate political expression and activism.[175]

2.152The JCA opposed the inclusion of the boycott provision at paragraph 6(3)(e) of the Bill, arguing that:

…boycotting of an institution on the basis of its conduct in assisting, aiding, or supporting human rights violations, war crimes, genocide or the crime of apartheid, however, is a legitimate and time-honoured form of political action.[176]

2.153The JCA further submitted:

The conflation of ‘Jewish or Israeli’ is highly problematic. To our knowledge, there is no evidence of any Australian university ever having considered a boycott – de facto or de jure – against individuals or institutions on the basis of their being ‘Jewish’. Clearly, a boycott which targets individuals because of their ethnic or religious identify would be abhorrent. It would also be illegal in Australian law, and a breach of every university’s Code of Conduct. One can only assume that this conflation in the drafting of the provision results from an assumption that Israeli institutions are somehow essentially ‘Jewish’ in their character by virtue of their state of incorporation…[177]

2.154Another submitter argued that putting pressure on universities to prevent boycotts of Israeli institutions would be ‘an outrageous curtailment of the academic freedom and the right to protest’. They argued that the goal of boycotting institutions is to bring about Israel’s compliance with international law and is thus justifiable.[178]

Academic freedom and freedom of speech

2.155Some submitters and witnesses voiced concerns about the Bill’s implications for academic freedom and freedom of speech.

2.156The NTEU suggested that the Bill ‘cuts across the protections of freedom of speech and academic freedom that are required at universities via the Higher Education Support Act’.[179]

2.157The Palestinian Cultural Society of UWA submitted that the matters for inquiry in the Bill do not recognise universities’ principles and legal obligations with regard to freedom of speech and academic freedom. The cultural society suggested that addressing such requirements would strengthen the Bill.[180]

2.158The APAN submitted:

Academic freedom is a cornerstone of intellectual progress and societal development. It guarantees the right of academics to conduct research, express their findings, and engage in open dialogue without fear of censorship or reprisal.[181]

2.159The Institute of Public Affairs recommended that the remit of the commission of inquiry ‘be expanded to consider freedom of speech on university campuses more broadly’.[182] It submitted that there has been an increase in universities’ hostility towards free speech in recent years and the Free Speech on Campus Audit in 2023 ‘found only one-third of Australia’s 42 universities adopted the six essential pro-free speech criteria’ developed by the Honourable Robert French AC in his review of freedom of speech on university campuses (the French Model Code for freedom of speech and academic freedom).[183]

2.160Ms Adrienne Nieuwenhuis, Acting Chief Commissioner of TEQSA, explained that the French Model Code is itself voluntary, but:

…the universities, under the standards and the Higher Education Support Act, have an obligation to have policies and procedures that meet the requirements of the Higher Education Support Act definition and the Higher Education Standards Framework with regard to academic freedom and freedom of speech. Most universities have adopted the model code in various shapes and forms, but they have fundamentally adopted the model code.[184]

2.161Professor Mark Scott AO, Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Sydney, commented on the boundaries of the French Model Code, noting that ‘[o]ne of the things that the French code says is that freedom of speech cannot ‘protect any person from feeling offended, shocked or insulted by the lawful freedom of speech of others’’.[185]

2.162However, the Go8 noted that the freedom is not absolute: universities do have to protect freedom of speech as per the French Model Code, except where it crosses the line into illegal or hate speech.[186]

2.163Universities Australia noted that, in response to the current situation on campuses, universities sought to balance providing a safe environment and supporting the right to freedom of speech, while meeting their obligations under the Higher Education Support Act 2003.[187]

2.164The ACJC also commented on the balance between protest and freedom of speech on the one hand and student safety on the other, with particular reference to encampments on campuses:

…student protests are a unique feature of campus life and protected under the principles of academic freedom. But we must take seriously the concerns of any students who report feeling unsafe as a result of such protests and address the causes of that lack of safety. Academic freedom is a right but we, as institutions, also have a responsibility to provide a space for robust, respectful dialogue.[188]

2.165Professor Genevieve Bell AO, Vice-Chancellor and President of the ANU, acknowledged the tension between having psychologically safe environments and allowing robust free speech:

…we have also found that the limits of legislation, our own rules, how freedom of speech arose as a set of rights and as a set of policysettings—and you’re right from the French review—manifests itself is often attributed to an individual’s act. But the notion of how someone experiences that can be a collective thing, and the tension at law between a rule and a legislation that adheres to an individual, and notions about harm—which are often collective—don’t harmonise well.[189]

2.166Ms Segal stated that:

Freedom of speech exists to allow on university campuses vibrant debate, helping young people and academics engage in the best of what democracy has to offer. But the outside influences are determined to skew that debate only in one direction, and that is a focus very much on anti-Jewish or Jewish hatred. That is what we are talking about, trying to stop that embedded anti-‍Semitism.[190]

2.167Mrs Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner at the AHRC, stated that a balance does need to be struck between free speech and protecting people from forms of racism, but that ‘we also need to recognise antisemitism is not free speech, and that students and staff have a right to be safe on campus’.[191]

Related legal obligations

2.168In addition to universities’ obligations under the French Model Code, they also have legal obligations under Commonwealth, state and territory legislation.

2.169The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 makes it unlawful to do a public act that is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origins.[192] A person can make a complaint to the AHRC regarding an alleged breach of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.[193]

2.170Criminal offences in the Criminal Code Act 1995 entered into force in January2024 that criminalise:

…the public display and trade of prohibited Nazi and terrorist organisation symbols, the making of a gesture that is the Nazi salute, using a carriage service for violent extremist material, and possessing or controlling violent extremist material obtained or accessed using a carriage service.[194]

2.1715A submitted that ‘several Australian universities have failed to utilise the powers available to them in order to comply with the required standards set out by federal, state and territory legislation’. Of particular concern to 5A was the failure of some universities to provide a safe environment to teach and learn, protect academic freedom and restrain racial vilification.[195]

2.172AIJAC commented:

Australian universities are usually constituted under state laws, other than those universities located within Australian federal territories…Other state laws are generally applicable to universities, including legislation on racial discrimination, racial vilification and equal opportunity, as well as criminal laws.

Under their constitutive legislation, Australian parliaments have delegated sufficient powers to university administrations to enable them to adopt regulatory and policy frameworks to implement each university’s academic mission.

University chancellors and councils have statutory and fiduciary duties to oversee key performance indicators and put in place strategies to remedy failures to meet them.

In AIJAC’s view, this framework has failed in the wake of the wave of the antisemitism crisis which has impacted universities since October 7, 2023.[196]

Additional matters for determination by the commissioner

2.173Some submitters suggested additional topics for inclusion in the matters for inquiry listed in the Bill.

2.174Macquarie University argued that the matters for inquiry in the Bill are ‘vague, too broad and incorporate assumptions that may not be universally held’. Macquarie University suggested that these matters should themselves be determined by any commission of inquiry.[197]

2.175Macquarie University also submitted that the Bill fails to recognise that discrimination and harassment are dealt with by Commonwealth and state anti‑discrimination legislation, nor does it refer to principles and legal obligations of freedom of speech and academic freedom.[198]

2.176The Palestinian Cultural Society of UWA also highlighted that the Bill does not address the role of Commonwealth and state anti-discrimination legislation, arguing that as antisemitism is a society-wide issue, consideration of that legislation should be undertaken.[199]

2.177Youth HEAR argued that a commission of inquiry should consider how to address historical revisionist and holocaust denial narratives that have been seen on campus. Specifically, it recommended that the incidence of Holocaust minimisation and denial, and university policies directed at this, be included as a matter for inquiry in clause 6 of the Bill.[200]

2.178The Australian Association of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Descendants Inc similarly recommended the inclusion of Holocaust denial and minimisation in the matters for inquiry in the Bill.[201]

Actions of regulators

2.179Higher Education (HE) providers are regulated by TEQSA which regulates compliance with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (Threshold Standards) made under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act).[202]

2.180HE providers, such as universities, are responsible for the management of their own risk under the TEQSA regulatory arrangements. This also means that HE providers must demonstrate self-assurance that is consistent with the Threshold Standards.[203]

2.181The Threshold Standards require HE providers to ‘demonstrate and assure themselves of compliance with all relevant legislation under which they are established, recognised or incorporated’ and any other legislation that applies to them; this includes Commonwealth state and territory laws regarding vilification, discrimination and safety.[204]

2.182TEQSA acknowledged that it:

…does not have the authority to make a legal determination about whether HE providers are operating in accordance with anti-vilification laws. Similarly, TEQSA does not have the authority to make findings about individuals’ compliance with discrimination or public safety laws. TEQSA’s responsibility is to seek evidence-based assurances from HE providers that they have appropriate governance structures, policies and procedures in place to meet the Threshold Standards…[205]

2.183TEQSA can impose administrative sanctions on HE providers where the provider has failed to take corrective action or to adequately respond to concerns they are not meeting the Threshold Standards. Sanctions can include imposing registration conditions, shortening the registration period or cancelling the registration. Only where a HE provider has failed to comply with the TEQSA Actcan financial penalties be imposed.[206]

2.184Since 7 October 2023, TEQSA established a Regulatory Response Group to coordinate its response to protest activities and other risks on university campuses. Through the response group, TEQSA has communicated to providers about their obligations regarding student wellbeing and freedom of speech; met with affected groups (such as the AUJS, the National Union of Students and the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations); and sought information from universities in response to concerns raised.[207]

2.185TEQSA submitted it was ‘largely satisfied that most institutions had in place appropriate response mechanisms, however, institutions need to ensure that their policies and procedures are reviewed and learnings applied’.[208]

2.186TEQSA advised that its approach with universities has been to engage:

…directly and quickly with universities and ensure that, on issues and departures from the standards, the responses that are needed are affected immediately, we’ve chosen to do that, because we think that’s in the best interest of students.[209]

2.187TEQSA has also requested complaints data from universities which resulted in the following observations:

Complaints received were concentrated in the major urban centres, particularly Sydney and Melbourne, which reflects demographic data and feedback from relevant student bodies.

Encampments were not always correlated with number of complaints at a university.

The volume of complaints received by universities slowed from June2024. This is consistent with protest camps closing and many universities commencing the mid-year break.[210]

2.188Ms Segal raised the limitations of TEQSA’s powers, that is TEQSA can only impose administrative sanctions for non-compliance, and is unable to make legal determinations about whether HE providers are operating in compliance with the law. She acknowledged the establishment of the regulatory response group but submitted ‘it has not been able to inquire beyond whether universities had appropriate response mechanisms in place’.[211]

2.189Ms Segal recommended that the Australian government ‘consider whether TEQSA needs greater powers to ensure that tertiary institutions comply with Threshold Standards and the law’.[212]

Alternative mechanisms for addressing antisemitism

2.190Submitters and witnesses discussed several alternative mechanisms that could address antisemitism at Australian universities, particularly those that could be implemented immediately, instead of establishing a commission of inquiry. Many advised against actions that would duplicate existing work in this space.

2.191The ACJC considered that a commission of inquiry could politicise antisemitism ‘with a focus on recrimination rather than on solutions’ and may replicate existing work. As such, the ACJC recommended that existing mechanisms and initiatives directed towards addressing antisemitism be supported by the government.[213]

2.192APAN recommended that government resources be directed to enhancing anti-‍racism mechanisms at universities and submitted that:

Anti-discrimination frameworks and policies that understand the systemic, intersectional nature of racism offer better approaches to addressing and mitigating antisemitism, and indeed, all other forms of racism, effectively.[214]

2.193Ms Sarah Schwartz, Executive Officer of the JCA, advocated for work to be undertaken by independent bodies who are focused on addressing racism ‘holistically and systemically’ such as an ombudsman or the AHRC.[215]

Australian Human Rights Commission Study

2.194The main alternative mechanism discussed throughout the course of the inquiry was the study into racism being conducted by the AHRC.

2.195The Commonwealth funded the AHRC to undertake a study into the prevalence and impact of racism in Australian universities which will examine all forms of racism including antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Palestine, anti-Arab and First Nations racism experienced at universities.[216] The Respect at Uni: Study into Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Racism and the experience of First Nations people (the Study) is being led by the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Mr Giridharan Sivaraman.[217]

2.196The Study will look at:

the prevalence, nature and experiences of racism including antisemitism and Islamophobia

the cohorts of staff and students who experience racism

the contexts and circumstances of racism for different group including Jewish staff and students

frameworks for prevention

the effectiveness of universities’ rules, policies and other arrangements at preventing and addressing racism

ways to increase university transparency and accountability regarding actions taken to prevent and respond to racism and discrimination

benchmarks to measure sectoral performance

whether the legislation and regulatory mechanism that support universities are adequate.[218]

2.197The Study will include a national online survey, engagement through focus groups, consultations and meetings, literature review and the establishment of a 10–15 person Advisory Group of ‘respected leaders and academics from racialized backgrounds’.[219] An interim report will be provided to Government in December 2024 and a final report in June 2025.[220]

2.198Muslim Women Australia expressed its support the Study[221] as did the JCA:

The AHRC promises to conduct a robust, independent, intersectional trauma-informed inquiry, drawing on its extensive expertise and experience. This sort of study is a prerequisite to any effective tackling of antisemitism on our campuses.[222]

2.199The Academic Alliance against Settler Colonialism, Racism and Censorship in Australia argued that establishing the proposed commission of inquiry would undermine the Study, as well as work counter to the recommendations from the Universities Accord, which recommended a comprehensive approach to developing anti-racism strategies at universities.[223]

2.200Muslim Women Australia considered that the Bill would duplicate the work of the AHRC.[224]

2.201Other submitters opined that the study being conducted by the AHRC is not a viable alternative to the proposed commission of inquiry. This was mainly due to concerns around the ability to compel witnesses and the lack of specific focus on antisemitism.

2.202ECAJ ‘strongly disagreed that the AHRC is the appropriate body at the present time to conduct a study into antisemitism at universities’. It raised concerns that the Study will not strongly focus on antisemitism as it has a broader anti-racism focus.[225]

2.203The ZFA suggested that the Study’s ‘terms of reference are too broad, the AHRC doesn’t have the power to compel witnesses, and the study does not reflect the urgency of the situation’.[226] It also submitted that the AHRC lacks the necessary focus on issues facing Jewish students given the ‘unique and pervasive nature of antisemitism in academic environments’.[227]

2.204AIJAC submitted that the Study is no substitute for a commission of inquiry and will not appropriately address the ‘unique aspects of antisemitism’ given its broad focus on all forms of racism, nor will the AHRC have the power to compel witnesses to provide evidence.[228]

2.205The Jewish community’s lack of confidence in the AHRC was also raised as a reason for supporting a commission of inquiry over the Study.

2.206The AUJS observed that Jewish students may not be comfortable giving evidence to the AHRC ‘given the poor response of the AHRC to the rise of antisemitism on Australian campuses’ and thus the commission of inquiry is needed so that students can provide confidential evidence.[229]

2.207Ms Segal raised concerns about the efficacy of the AHRC’s study ‘given the lack of trust in its processes by impacted Jewish students, academics and staff’ as well as ‘concerns about a general report on multiple forms of racism’.[230]

2.208The AHRC advised that its enabling legislation includes strong protections for confidential information shared with the AHRC, including a criminal offence for breaching that confidentiality.[231]

2.209AGD explained that there are comparable powers in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 and the Royal Commissions Act 1902. These include:

the power to make findings and recommendations

compel the production of document

compel witnesses to make a statement (although there is a difference regarding when it would be a reasonable excuse not to make a statement)

the ability to hold private hearing to protect vulnerable witnesses

protecting information in terms of preventing its publication

offences dealing with false and misleading evidence, bribery and deception of witnesses and the prevention of witnesses from attending.[232]

2.210AGD further explained that, with regard to the Study, it is up to the AHRC how it undertakes its study and it does have broad discretion to use any of the powers listed above.[233]

2.211Mr Hugh de Kretser, President of the AHRC, expressed his intention to regain the confidence of the Jewish community and his hope that ‘Jewish students and Jewish organisations engage with our important study into racism on university campuses and work with us to address antisemitism and racism more broadly’.[234]

2.212Mrs Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner, remarked that everyone including the AHRC needs to be playing an important role in addressing antisemitism, ‘not just in relation to one project or one study but across the board in everything that we do, to make sure the issues are addressed’.[235]

National Student Ombudsman

2.213The Department of Education and AGD highlighted that the Australian Government is establishing a National Student Ombudsman (NSO), to commence from 1 February 2025. The NSO will be established under the Commonwealth Ombudsman and will provide an avenue for students to escalate complaints regarding their HE provider’s actions.[236] It will have the power to:

handle and investigate student complaints about the administrative actions of their providers, including in relation to student safety, welfare, course and student loan administration, and reasonable adjustments for students;

make recommendations to providers about administrative actions that should be taken to resolve a complaint; and

work cooperatively with regulators to identify and respond to systemic issues and promote best practice complaints handing in the sector.[237]

2.214TEQSA welcomed the establishment of the NSO, submitting ‘it will help to simplify and clarify the complex environment students face in seeking support to resolve disputes with their provider’.[238]

2.215In relation to the NSO, Professor Steven Prawer, Co-Director of 5A, stated:

…it’s crucially important that students be able to report their experiences without fear of being identified and fear of being victimised. They should be able to report those cases even if they’re not making a formal complaint that needs to be actioned, so to speak, where they’re forced to identify themselves and give evidence.[239]

2.216Ms Madonna Morton, First Assistant Secretary, Department of Education explained the process of taking a complaint to the new NSO:

If the NSO received a complaint and investigated a provider about that complaint, the ombudsman would form a view as to whether or not the provider had followed the appropriate legislative requirements and the appropriate policies that were in place, and then would make recommendations to the provider in terms of how they could improve that service.[240]

2.217Ms Segal recommended that the NSO ‘be given an expanded remit and qualified resources to manage complaints about antisemitism specifically or an independent Ombudsman for racism with expertise in addressing antisemitism be established’.[241]

2.218Ms Segal also recommended the establishment of a national database of, and hotline for reporting, racist incidents as a national ‘repository for standardised consistent report of hate incidents and hate crimes occurring in Australia’. MsSegal suggested the system could be operated by the government or police like in the UK, US and Canada and, as a national system, could deliver uniformity of data collection.[242]

2.219Ms Segal acknowledged that establishing such a national database would take time, and in the interim suggested that a national hotline for university staff and students be set up to begin capturing the instances of racist incidents at universities and allow those impacted to report those incidents.[243]

Other action to address antisemitism

2.220Other action to address antisemitism, such as research being undertaken at Monash University and other initiatives at the AHRC, were discussed as alternative or additional mechanisms for addressing antisemitism at universities.

2.221Monash University is currently conducting a research program to investigate antisemitism and Islamophobia on campus, bringing together multidisciplinary teams to conduct studies into Jewish and Muslim student experiences and work with students to design solutions.[244] The ACJC recommended increased investment is projects such as this would be the most effective way to combat antisemitism without politicising it.[245]

2.222The Australian Jewish Democratic Society was supportive of the research currently being conducted at Monash University, led by Dr David Slucki and Dr Susan Carland.[246]

2.223This research, the campus cohesion project, has $1 million of funding to investigate antisemitism, Islamophobia and related prejudices. Dr Slucki, who is leading the project, explained that the:

…remit is to understand what has been happening in our campuses that has led to the ruse of such a tense atmosphere and to identify student-centred solutions that we can design and test over the next two years.[247]

2.224Dr Slucki also advised that the ACJC is launching a rapid research initiative into antisemitism to examine antisemitism across Australian society.[248]

2.225Professor Sharon Pickering, Vice-Chancellor and President of Monash University, expanded, advising that this body of work ‘is designed to include recommendations for university settings and the development of education programs and training programs for staff and students as well as other actions’.[249]

2.226Mr Giridharan Sivaraman, Race Discrimination Commissioner at the AHRC, explained that the AHRC is also undertaking work on a National Anti-Racism Framework, to be launched in November 2024. The framework, amongst other things, seeks to build ‘racial literacy within institutions and understanding how certain communities are structurally disadvantaged…and how we collect data on racism’.[250]

Other responses

2.227In addition to mechanisms specifically directed at investigating and responding to incidents of antisemitism on university campuses, submitters and witnesses advocated for other responses such as improved complaints procedures and education. Many recognised that improving complaints procedures and education programs could commence immediately.

Complaints policies and procedures

2.228The need for improved complaints policies and procedures was discussed at length by many witnesses. It was argued that there needs to be greater awareness of, and simpler complaints mechanisms, as well as improved consistency across the sector in the handling and resolution of complaints.

2.229UPJ advocated for more awareness of reporting mechanisms for those on campus, greater transparency in these processes as well as reviewing the reporting of complaints to ensure that complaint mechanisms deliver more efficient and effective outcomes.[251]

2.230The JCCV and CSG submitted that, in their view, there has been significant underreporting of antisemitism due to limited understanding of how and where to report incidents, as well as limited confidence in the processes.[252] The JCCV and CSG also highlighted that each university has different reporting processes, some of which are arduous or require students to report the same incident multiple times due to the absence of information sharing or central data collection.[253]

2.231According to AIJAC, when students have submitted complaints to universities, they have found the process ‘difficult and time consuming’ often resulting in unsatisfactory outcomes that would not deter future antisemitic conduct.[254]

2.232The AUJS also considered there to be underreporting of antisemitic incidents particularly as many students ‘feel disempowered or fear retribution’ due in part to universities’ lack of action or inadequate responses.[255]

2.2335A remarked:

The reported instances of antisemitic discourse and incidents are a drastic under-representation of the true pervasiveness of the problem on Australian campuses. We believe that antisemitism is a light sleeper and has been awakened and emboldened by the events in the Middle East, and that many students, academics and professional staff at universities across Australia are not reporting antisemitic discourse and incidents when these occur.[256]

2.234Furthermore, Associate Professor Efrat Eilam, Co-Director of 5A, argued that some of the university processes are ‘designed to ensure justice and ethical conduct are used to discrimination against’ Jewish people, failing to protect them.[257] 5A elaborated:

…one common form of harassment is conducted through the weaponizing of the Disciplinary Complaint system to silence Jews. One particularly insidious expression of this comes about through a ping-pong exchange where the aggressors perform an aggressive act against Jews, and when the victims respond, the aggressors turn the tables around, accusing the initial victim and instead claiming to be the victim. Consequently, Jewish students or staff are attacked twice, first through microaggression, and secondly by the aggressors presenting themselves as the victims of the Jewish students or staff, accusing them of aggression. The next stage in this scenario is when Jewish persons try to defend themselves, either by answering back or asking to remove some posts. This is usually followed by a herd reaction of accusing the Jewish student(s). Often, these exchanges end with the aggressors submitting a complaint against Jewish student(s) for being “aggressive.” University disciplinary processes tend to side with the provocateurs, so that the pro-Palestinians are free to condemn Israel without fear of challenge.[258]

2.235Ms Segal submitted that staff and student policies at many universities ‘are a patchwork quilt of at times conflicting ideas which depart from domestic and international legal obligations or misstate the boundaries between academic freedom and hate speech’. Ms Segal recommended that best practice policies are introduced at universities to ‘give them the ability to discipline people whose conduct is antisemitic’.[259]

2.236Ms Segal emphasised the need for training and fit for purpose complaints procedures, stating:

You need to train staff. You need to have an ombudsman for complaints that is integrated into thinking about how complaints are dealt with; to have procedures for broader learnings about antisemitism; to look at how complaints are dealt with and who is dealing with those complaints, ensuring they are properly considered and they reach the senior levels of the university hierarchy; and to create opportunities for students to actually assess academics.[260]

2.237ECAJ observed that:

Universities have tended to insist on complaints proving a legal standard of discrimination or vilification, even when their codes of conduct plainly do not require this. While telling Jewish students and staff they have not been vilified, they have suggested that they drop specific subjects and do their studies or work remotely because it’s unsafe for them to be on campus.[261]

2.238The AUJS similarly observed that:

…if an incident is significant enough to be reported to police, then in that case universities will be reluctant to investigate because they don’t want to compromise a police investigation. But, if the police don’t follow up because they don’t perceive it as serious enough, then you almost have this issue where the higher the gravity of the incident, the less likely it is to get reported on or followed up.[262]

2.239In relation to complaints mechanisms, TEQSA stated:

We are particularly concerned about complaint mechanisms, because we saw through some of the data that we were receiving from providers that once again we weren’t able to interrogate that data deeply. We’re also concerned that the learnings of providers with regard to sexual harassment, sexual assault and trauma-informed policies and procedures and grievance procedures have not moved across to exactly the same situation here and should be equally as trauma-informed.[263]

2.240The ZFA stressed the need to review university complaints procedures and to restore confidence in them:

There should be a national model to standardise how complaints about discrimination against Jewish students are handled. In some universities, antisemitism is not even one of the options that can [be] ticked when you’re putting forward a complaint around discrimination.[264]

2.241The AHRC recommended that universities should be taking action now and adopting best practice policies.[265]

Education and training

2.242Several submitters indicated there is a need for further education about Judaism and antisemitism.

2.243The UPJ advocated for greater education about Judaism including: ‘understandings of Judaism as a People and culture’, ‘the significance of Israel in Jewish history, culture and religious practice’, and ‘diverse conceptions of Zionism within the Jewish community’.[266]

2.244UPJ also advocated for further education about antisemitism including antisemitic tropes, examples of antisemitism, how to distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitic rhetoric, and greater awareness of the impact of antisemitic rhetoric on Jewish students.[267]

2.245Never Again is Now also recommended mandatory training on antisemitism for all staff and students as well as awareness campaigns ‘to educate the broader student body about Jewish culture, history, and the realities of antisemitism’.[268]

2.246ECAJ highlighted the need for university administrators to receive training. MrWertheim recommended that universities develop educational programs for administrators ‘so that they understand not just the need to adopt a definition but what it means and what it doesn’t mean’.[269]

2.247Due to its expertise delivering holocaust education programs, the Sydney Jewish Museum considered that university leaders should reach out to educational institutions, such as the Sydney Jewish Museum, to develop educational programs around understanding and tolerance.[270]

2.248Professor Prawer drew parallels with universities’ responses to sexual harassment and violence. He pointed out that universities have implemented compulsory education programs for staff and students on this issue, commenting that universities can act when they want to. Professor Prawer questioned why antisemitism is being tolerated by universities when sexual harassment is not.[271]

2.249Professor Prawer remarked that universities have an opportunity to educate staff and students, and to ‘take this problem seriously and combat it in the same way we have combated other serious cultural issues such as sexual harassment or child abuse in our community’.[272]

2.250Ms Segal also highlighted the work universities have undertaken to train staff and students in relation to sexual violence and suggested that similar training initiatives about how to report and respond to racism, including antisemitism, should be implemented.[273]

Committee view

2.251The Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) would establish a commission of inquiry, with royal commission-‍like powers, to inquire into antisemitism on Australian university campuses. The Bill is a response to a rise in antisemitism in Australia, including on Australian university campuses.

2.252Antisemitism is abhorrent and has no place in Australian society. The committee is deeply troubled by the experiences of Jewish students and staff at Australian universities. Those who described the experiences of Jewish students and staff asmerely occasions of ‘discomfort’ or ‘offense’ when challenged with differing opinions, or as an unfortunate consequence of the “stupid” or “idiotic” actions of other students, fail to recognise the fear many Jewish students and staff have experienced at university, and the very real harm done to those who have been victims of antisemitism. No one should feel unsafe to attend their place of education or work.

2.253It is clear to the committee that university responses to incidents of antisemitism, and the fears of Jewish students and staff, have been woefully inadequate. The committee considers that the universities’ responses to this issue are remarkably similar to their historically poor responses to sexual assault and harassment. Staff and student safety is paramount; the committee is disappointed that universities have not implemented more of their learnings in relation to sexual assault and harassment on campuses and applied them in this context. It is a sad indictment on Australian universities that it is only once in crisis that they feel compelled to address serious safety issues on campus, and even then, reluctantly.

2.254Clearly, further action is required to address the current tensions on university campuses and protect the safety of students and staff. However, the committee does not consider this Bill the most appropriate mechanism for doing so. The committee is concerned that a commission of inquiry would be too slow. As the committee heard from the Attorney-General's Department, the shortest Commonwealth royal commission in recent years was eight months in duration.

2.255The committee considers that actions that produce results more quickly and are more agile and responsive to the situation on the ground are required. To that end, the committee asks all Australian universities to respond with urgency to the issues raised by Jewish students and staff, and do everything within their power to provide a safe environment for all students and staff. It is entirely within the power of Australian universities to take action to address antisemitism now.

2.256For example, evidence to the committee indicates that university complaints procedures do not have the confidence of staff and students. These complaints processes are variously not well known, difficult to navigate, opaque and/or deliver unsatisfactory outcomes that fail to eliminate unacceptable behaviour.

2.257Known, consistent, navigable and effective complaints processes are an essential component in universities’ responses to antisemitism on campus. For this reason, the committee calls on all Australian universities to review their complaints processes and urgently give effect to any and all changes necessary to ensure that these processes are well-known to and understood by students and staff, and deliver real and meaningful outcomes for complainants.

2.258The committee recommends that, in collaboration with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, all Australian universities urgently review their complaints processes and give effect to any and all changes necessary to ensure these processes are known to and understood by students and staff, and deliver real and meaningful outcomes for complainants.

2.259The committee believes that parliamentary inquiries can be powerful tools in bringing about lasting cultural change in far shorter time than the proposed commission of inquiry. Indeed, witnesses to this inquiry observed that the inquiry, in and of itself, has led to action from universities. It is in this context that the committee considers that a broad parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism at universities should be established.

2.260The committee recommends that the Attorney-General immediately refers an inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

2.261The committee also considers that the establishment of a National Student Ombudsman, to commence operations by 1 February 2025, is another mechanism by which universities and their responses to antisemitism on campuses can be held to account. The committee welcomes the establishment of the NSO, and expects that its implementation will have a positive impact in reducing antisemitism at Australian universities.

2.262The committee recommends that the Senate does not pass the Bill.

Senator Nita Green

Chair

Footnotes

[1]Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS), Submission 134, p. 12.

[2]Name Withheld, Submission 456, p. 1.

[3]Adelaide University Jewish Students Society, Submission 606, p. [4].

[4]Name Withheld, Submission 50, p. 3.

[5]Name Withheld, Submission 369, p. 2.

[6]Name Withheld, Submission 71, p. 1.

[7]Name Withheld, Submission 260, p. 1.

[8]Name Withheld, Submission 279, p. [1].

[9]Name Withheld, Submission 337, p. [1].

[10]Name Withheld, Submission 275, p. 1.

[11]Name Withheld, Submission 372, p. 1.

[12]Emeritus Professor Andrew Markus AO, Submission 95, p. 1.

[13]Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA), Submission 114, p. 4.

[14]ZFA, Submission 114, p. 5.

[15]ZFA, Submission 114, p. 6.

[16]Emeritus Professor Andrew Markus AO, Submission 95, pp. 2–3.

[17]Emeritus Professor Andrew Markus AO, Submission 95, p. 3.

[18]Emeritus Professor Andrew Markus AO, Submission 95, p. 4.

[19]Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism (5A), Submission 603, p. 6.

[20]Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), Submission 97, p. 2.

[21]StandWithUs Australia, Submission 61, p. [1].

[22]Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation (ACJC), Monash University, Submission 124, p. 1.

[23]Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Submission 142, p. 3.

[24]Zionist Council of NSW, Submission 23, p. [1].

[25]Never Again is Now, Submission 138, p. [2].

[26]Mr Noah Loven, President, AUJS, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 5.

[27]Zionist Council of NSW, Submission 23, pp. [1]–[2].

[28]Sydney Jewish Museum, Submission 250, p. [1].

[29]Dr Matthew Brown, Deputy Chief Executive, Group of Eight, Committee Hansard, 20September2024, p. 29.

[30]Muslim Votes Matter (MVM), Submission 141, p. 10.

[31]Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), Submission 131, p. [10].

[32]APAN, Submission 131, p. [11].

[33]Name Withheld, Submission 323, p. [1].

[34]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 1.

[35]Ms Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 17 September 2024, p. 1.

[36]Universities Australia, Submission 112, p. 1.

[37]University of Sydney, Submission 130, p. 3.

[38]Mr Loven, President, AUJS, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 1.

[39]Mr Zachary Morris, Vice-President, AUJS, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 3.

[40]University of Technology Sydney, Submission 120, p. [2].

[41]University of Technology Sydney, Submission 120, p. [2].

[42]University of Melbourne, Submission 139, p. 5.

[43]University of Melbourne, Submission 139, p. 5.

[44]University of Melbourne, Submission 139, p. 5.

[45]University of Melbourne, Submission 139, p. 3.

[46]University of Melbourne, Submission 139, p. 6.

[47]UNSW Sydney, Submission 129, p. 1.

[48]UNSW Sydney, Submission 129, p. 2.

[49]UNSW Sydney, Submission 129, p. 2.

[50]Deakin University, Submission 25, p. [4].

[51]Deakin University, Submission 25, pp. [4]–[5].

[52]Monash University, Submission 175, p. [1].

[53]University of Sydney, Submission 130, p. 2.

[54]University of Sydney, Submission 130, p. 2.

[55]University of Sydney, Submission 130, p. 3.

[56]University of Adelaide, Submission 150, p. 3.

[57]University of Adelaide, Submission 150, p. 6.

[58]University of Adelaide, Submission 150, p. 6.

[59]Mr Luke Sheehy, CEO, Universities Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 33.

[60]Dr David Slucki, Director, ACJC, Monash University, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 24.

[61]ACT Jewish Community, Submission 103, p. [2].

[62]ZFA, Submission 114, p. [1].

[63]Dr Colin Rubenstein, Executive Director, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 12.

[64]Mr Alon Cassuto, CEO, ZFA, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 10.

[65]ECAJ, Submission 97, p. 5.

[66]AIJAC, Submission 136, p. 10.

[67]NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Submission 147, pp. [1]–[2].

[68]Ms Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 17 September 2024, p. 4.

[69]Ms Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 17 September 2024, p. 5.

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

[71]Jewish Community Council of Victoria and Community Security Group (Victoria), Submission 116, p. [2].

[72]Jewish Community Council of Victoria and Community Security Group (Victoria), Submission 116, p. [3].

[73]Jewish Community Council of Victoria and Community Security Group (Victoria), Submission 116, p. [5].

[74]ZFA, Submission 114, p. 11.

[75]ZFA, Submission 114, p. 14.

[76]Union for Progressive Judaism (UPJ), Submission 105, p. [3].

[77]UPJ, Submission 105, p. [4].

[78]Mr Cassuto, CEO, ZFA, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 12.

[79]See: Jewish Community Council of Victoria and Community Security Gorp (Victoria), Submission 116; Online Hate Prevention Institute, Submission 605.

[80]Zionist Council of NSW, Submission 23, p. [2].

[81]ZFA, Submission 114, p. 12.

[82]Mr Cassuto, CEO, ZFA, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 10.

[83]UPJ, Submission 105, p. [5].

[84]UPJ, Submission 105, p. [5].

[85]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 4.

[86]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 5.

[87]Ms Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 17 September 2024, p. 2.

[88]Ms Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 17 September 2024, p. 2.

[89]See: Loud Jew Collective, Submission 96; Institute for Collaborative Race Research, Submission 121; Name Withheld, Submission 323.

[90]ACJC, Monash University, Submission 124, p. 3.

[91]Jews Against the Occupation ’48, Submission 159, p. 1.

[92]Jews Against the Occupation ’48, Submission 159, p. 1.

[93]Tzedek Collective, Submission 127, p. [3].

[94]Jewish Council of Australia (JCA), Submission 181, p. 4.

[95]JCA, Submission 181, p. 5.

[96]Loud Jew Collective, Submission 96, p. [2].

[97]Academic Alliance against Settler Colonialism, Racism and Censorship, Submission 169, p. 4.

[98]Muslim Women Australian, Submission 162, p. 4.

[99]MVM, Submission 141, p. 11.

[100]Mr Ghaith Krayem, National Spokesperson, MVM, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 47.

[101]Mr Krayem, National Spokesperson, MVM, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 50.

[102]National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), Submission 122, p. 2.

[103]NTEU, Submission 122, p. 2.

[104]NTEU, Submission 122, p. 4.

[105]Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2), clause 11.

[106]See: StandWithUS Australia, Submission 61; Zionist Council of NSW, Submission 23; Australian Friends of Tel Aviv University, Submission 53; ACT Jewish Community, Submission 103; Australian Jewish Association, Submission 102; NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Submission 147.

[107]Mr Morris, Vice-President, AUJS, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 2.

[108]Mr Loven, President, AUJS, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 3.

[109]Australian Association of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Descendants Inc, Submission 158, p. [2].

[110]Jewish Community Council of Victoria and Community Security Group (Victoria), Submission 116, p. [5].

[111]ZFA, Submission 114, pp. 2–3.

[112]ZFA, Submission 114, p. 15.

[113]AIJAC, Submission 136, p. 10.

[114]AIJAC, Submission 136, pp. 11–12 and 5A, Submission 603, pp. 13–14.

[115]5A, Submission 603, p. 17.

[116]5A, Submission 603, pp. 19–20.

[117]ECAJ, Submission 97, p. 21.

[118]Mr Jack Pinczewski, Submission 168, p. [11].

[119]Mr Jack Pinczewski, Submission 168, pp. [2]–[3].

[120]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 7.

[121]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 2.

[122]Ms Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 17 September 2024, p. 3.

[123]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 6.

[124]Ms Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 17 September 2024, p. 2.

[125]Ms Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 17 September 2024, p. 6.

[126]Mr Peter Wertheim, Co-CEO, ECAJ, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 14.

[127]Mr Wertheim, Co-CEO, ECAJ, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 15.

[128]JCA, Submission 181, p. 14.

[129]Dr Slucki, Director, ACJC, Monash University, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, pp. 26–27.

[130]Dr Slucki, Director, ACJC, Monash University, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 27.

[131]Dr Scott Prasser, Submission 373, p. 8.

[132]Ms Anne Sheehan, First Assistant Secretary, International Law and Human Rights Division, Attorney-General’s Department (AGD), Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 75.

[133]Ms Sheehan, First Assistant Secretary, AGD, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 75.

[134]Ms Sheehan, First Assistant Secretary, AGD, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 75.

[135]Name Withheld, Submission 84, p. [4].

[136]Mr Allan Potts, Submission 327, p. [2].

[137]Dr Scott Prasser, Submission 373, p. 10.

[138]Muslim Women Australia, Submission 162, p. 8.

[139]Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2), para. 6(3)(b).

[140]Youth HEAR, Submission 111, p. [1].

[141]AUJS, Submission 134, p. 6.

[142]ZFA, Submission 114, p. 8.

[143]ZFA, Submission 114, p. 8.

[144]AIJAC, Submission 136, p. 10 and 5A, Submission 603, p. 17.

[145]Australian Jewish Association, Submission 102, p. [1].

[146]Youth HEAR, Submission 111, p. [2].

[147]Dr Leia Greenslade, Submission 21, p. 1.

[148]Ms Gabrielle Gooding, National Assistant Secretary, NTEU, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 57.

[149]Academic Alliance against Settler Colonialism, Racism and Censorship in Australia, Submission 169, p. 6.

[150]Academic Alliance against Settler Colonialism, Racism and Censorship in Australia, Submission 169, p. 5.

[151]MVM, Submission 141, p. 8.

[152]MVM, Submission 141, p. 8.

[153]Mr Krayem, National Spokesperson, MVM, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 49.

[154]Muslim Women Australia, Submission 162, p. 4.

[155]MVM, Submission 141, pp. 9–10.

[156]Mr Krayem, National Spokesperson, MVM, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 47.

[157]Mr Krayem, National Spokesperson, MVM, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 49.

[158]JCA, Submission 181, p. 8.

[159]Name Withheld, Submission 323, p. [3].

[160]Mr George Vardas, Submission 313, p. 4.

[161]Mr George Vardas, Submission 313, p. 4.

[162]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 13.

[163]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 14.

[164]Department of Education and AGD, Submission 286, pp. 7–8.

[165]University of Melbourne, Submission 139, p. 4.

[166]Professor Nicola Phillips, Acting Vice-Chancellor, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 20September 2024, p. 38.

[167]Monash University, Submission 175, p. [1].

[168]Deakin University, Submission 25, p. [3].

[169]University of Adelaide, Submission 150, p. 5.

[170]University of Adelaide, Submission 150, p. 5.

[171]Ms Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 17 September 2024, p. 5.

[172]Ms Cassuto, CEO, ZFA, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 14.

[173]Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australia Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2), subpara. 6(3)(e)(i).

[174]5A, Submission 603, p. 11.

[175]MVM, Submission 141, p. 12.

[176]JCA, Submission 181, p. 6.

[177]JCA, Submission 181, p. 6.

[178]Name Withheld, Submission 323, pp. [1]–[2].

[179]Ms Gooding, National Assistant Secretary, NTEU, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 54.

[180]Palestinian Cultural Society of UWA, Submission 149, p. [3].

[181]APAN, Submission 131, p. [5].

[182]Institute of Public Affairs, Submission 98, p. 2.

[183]Institute of Public Affairs, Submission 98, p. 2.

[184]Ms Adrienne Nieuwenhuis, Acting Chief Commissioner, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 74.

[185]Professor Mark Scott, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Sydney, Committee Hansard, 20September 2024, p. 45.

[186]Dr Brown, Deputy Chief Executive, Group of Eight, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 34.

[187]Mr Sheehy, CEO, Universities Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 28.

[188]ACJC, Monash University, Submission 124, p. 2.

[189]Dr Genevieve Bell, Vice-Chancellor and President, Australian National University, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 45.

[190]Ms Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 17 September 2024, p. 4.

[191]Mrs Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 64.

[192]Racial Discrimination Act 1975, s. 18C.

[193]Department of Education and AGD, Submission 286, p. 10.

[194]Department of Education and AGD, Submission 286, p. 11.

[195]5A, Submission 603, p. 3

[196]AIJAC, Submission 136, p. 9.

[197]Macquarie University, Submission 128, p. [1].

[198]Macquarie University, Submission 128, pp. [1]–[2].

[199]Palestinian Cultural Society of UWA, Submission 149, p. [2].

[200]Youth HEAR, Submission 111, pp. [3]–[4].

[201]Australian Association of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Descendants Inc, Submission 158, p. [2].

[202]TEQSA, Submission 153, p. 1.

[203]TEQSA, Submission 153, p. 2.

[204]TEQSA, Submission 153, p. 2.

[205]TEQSA, Submission 153, p. 2.

[206]TEQSA, Submission 153, p. 4.

[207]TEQSA, Submission 153, p. 4.

[208]TEQSA, Submission 153, p. 4.

[209]Dr Mary Russel, CEO, TEQSA, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 69.

[210]TEQSA, Submission 153, p. 5.

[211]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 10.

[212]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 56.

[213]ACJC, Monash University, Submission 124, p. 3.

[214]APAN, Submission 131, pp. [3]–[4].

[215]Ms Sarah Schwartz, Executive Officer, JCA, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 19.

[216]AHRC, Submission 142, p. 4.

[217]Department of Education and AGD, Submission 286, p. 11.

[218]Department of Education and AGD, Submission 286, p. 12.

[219]AHRC, Submission 142, p. 5.

[220]Department of Education and AGD, Submission 286, p. 13.

[221]Muslim Women Australia, Submission 162, p. 6.

[222]JCA, Submission 181, p. 5.

[223]Academic Alliance against Settler Colonialism, Racism and Censorship in Australia, Submission 169, p. 1.

[224]Muslim Women Australia, Submission 162, p. 8.

[225]ECAJ, Submission 97, p. 12.

[226]ZFA, Submission 114, p. 2.

[227]ZFA, Submission 114, p. 15.

[228]AIJAC, Submission 136, p. 11.

[229]AUJS, Submission 134, p. 13.

[230]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 10.

[231]Mr Hugh de Kretser, President, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 61.

[232]Ms Sheehan, First Assistant Secretary, AGD, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024. p. 75.

[233]Ms Sheehan, First Assistant Secretary, AGD, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 75.

[234]Mr de Kretser, President, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 65.

[235]Mrs Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 64.

[236]Department of Education and AGD, Submission 286, p. 8.

[237]Department of Education and AGD, Submission 286, p. 8.

[238]TEQSA, Submission 153, p. 6.

[239]Professor Steven Prawer, Co-Director, 5A, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 7.

[240]Ms Madonna Morton, First Assistant Secretary, Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 74.

[241]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 9.

[242]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 12.

[243]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 13.

[244]ACJC, Monash University, Submission 124, p. 3.

[245]ACJC, Monash University, Submission 124, p. 4.

[246]Australian Jewish Democratic Society, Submission 607, p. 6.

[247]Dr Slucki, Director, ACJC, Monash University, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 24.

[248]Dr Slucki, Director, ACJC, Monash University, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 25.

[249]Professor Sharon Pickering, Vice-Chancellor and President, Monash University, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 38.

[250]Mr Giridharan Sivaraman, Race Discrimination Commissioner, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 20September 2024, p. 63.

[251]UPJ, Submission 105, p. [4].

[252]Jewish Community Council of Victoria and Community Security Group, Submission 116, pp.[3]‍–[4].

[253]Jewish Community Council of Victoria and Community Security Group, Submission 116, pp. [4].

[254]AIJAC, Submission 136, p. 10.

[255]AUJS, Submission 134, pp. 12–13.

[256]5A, Submission 603, p. 18.

[257]Associate Professor Efrat Eilam, Co-Director, 5A, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 2.

[258]5A, Submission 603, pp. 8–9.

[259]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 8.

[260]Ms Segal, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Committee Hansard, 17 September 2024, p. 5.

[261]Ms Simone Abel, Head of Legal, ECAJ, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 9.

[262]Mr Loven, President, AUJS, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 6.

[263]Ms Nieuwenhuis, Acting Chief Commissioner, TEQSA, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p.72.

[264]Mr Cassuto, CEO, ZFA, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 14.

[265]Mr de Kretser, President, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 66.

[266]UPJ, Submission 105, p. [4].

[267]UPJ, Submission 105, p. [4].

[268]Never Again is Now, Submission 138, p. [3].

[269]Mr Wertheim, Co-CEO, ECAJ, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 15.

[270]Sydney Jewish Museum, Submission 250, p. [2].

[271]Professor Prawer, Co-Director, 5A, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 6.

[272]Professor Prawer, Co-Director, 5A, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 7.

[273]Jillian Segal AO, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Submission 422, p. 14.