Australian Greens Additional Comments

1.1The Greens strongly oppose antisemitism and fully support evidence-based measures that will keep members of the Jewish community safe. We will always do so.

1.2We have joined with other political players to implement hate speech laws that target harmful conduct in a principled and effective way. We will continue to critique laws and approaches that are unproductive, divisive and driven more by politics than principle.

1.3We are disappointed by the politicisation of this committee, including the addition to the final report of recommendations seeking to uncritically impose the IHRA definition, to restrict legitimate academic freedom of Australian Research Council (ARC) recipients, and for a putative judicial review. These were not the obvious conclusions from the evidence received in written form or the balance of the evidence presented in public hearings.

1.4What is also worth noting is that none of the evidence received, or indeed none of the recommendations of this report, recommended mandatory criminal sentencing as a way forward. Yet in the days before this report was delivered that is exactly what the Government and Opposition colluded on to ram through the Parliament.

1.5Mandatory sentencing is clearly contrary to human rights and, as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, it should be the subject of comment in this report. It would have been appropriate for the committee to highlight its continuing concerns about the human rights implications of mandatory sentencing.

1.6It would have also been appropriate for the committee, which is tasked with protecting human rights, to reference the large body of evidence that we have received demonstrating how mandatory sentencing fails even in its purported objective of providing deterrence and punishment. It does neither and indeed it makes prosecutions harder, convictions less likely and as a result, deterrence less effective. All the while undermining the independence of the judiciary; an institution that is an essential bulwark for human rights in our society.

1.7The recommendation that universities adopt ‘a clear definition of antisemitism that aligns closely with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition’ is divisive and does not reflect the balance of the evidence before the committee. It is a matter of public record that the author of the definition, Kenneth Stern, has publicly argued against its use for restricting what is said on campus. As he recently said in the Boston Globe:

There’s a desperate need for more classes and first-year orientations about both free speech and academic freedom. Too many students believe that ideas they find disturbing are indistinguishable from actual violence. They should absolutely be protected from harassment, threats, intimidation, and discrimination. But they should also know they are on campus to be disturbed by ideas, even ones that cut them to their core.[1]

1.8Multiple witnesses outlined how the definition was contested and confirmed that there were significant concerns with uncritically adopting the IHRA definition, especially concerning the examples used. Arguments have been made by both Jewish and Palestinian academics against the uncritical adoption of the definition particularly insofar as it is not grounded in contemporary anti-racism scholarship or practice.

1.9The committee, and ultimately this report, would have benefited from giving greater weight to those witnesses who told us that treating antisemitism as if it occurs in an isolated manner away from other forms of racism is ultimately counterproductive. Recommendations that linked the struggle against antisemitism with society wide moves against racism, exclusion and discrimination are sadly missing from this report.

1.10We also have serious concerns about the recommendation to the Government to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to allow disciplinary action to be taken against employees or ARC grant recipients who are found to have engaged in conduct which would breach Part 5.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, or section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

1.11Given there are already legal protections to ensure that ARC grant conditions are complied with, and in fact all persons are obliged to comply with the Criminal Code and the Racial Discrimination Act, the committee has not explained how this recommendation would work in practice, and it most certainly was not grounded in a cogent body of evidence or critical thought.

1.12Finally, the inclusion of a recommendation presuming that measures universities take after the delivery of this report will not be sufficient and will require a judicial review is highly speculative. It is not the task of this committee to speculate about future conduct but rather to respond to actual evidence.

Senator David Shoebridge

Australian Greens

Footnotes

[1] Kenneth S. Stern, ‘I wrote a definition of antisemitism. It was never meant to chill free speech on campus’, The Boston Globe, 15 February 2024,https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/02/15/opinion/kenneth-stern-antisemitism-ihra-free-speech/.