Ms Tink MP Additional Comments

1.1I thank all those who supplied evidence to this inquiry. The testimony from many witnesses was immensely powerful and the sincerity and frankness they brought to the discussion was invaluable. While I support the majority of the committee’s report and recommendations, I have some key concerns with particular recommendations, as set out below.

Definition of antisemitism

1.2The committee’s recommendation two states that the committee recommends that Australian universities adopt a clear definition of antisemitism ‘that aligns closely with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition’.

1.3I support the adoption of a definition of antisemitism to identify speech and conduct which constitutes antisemitism (having regard to permissible limits on the right to freedom of expression under international human rights law). Testimony from the Group of Eight indicated that such a definition is currently being developed. In that context, and given the substantial concern expressed to the Committee regarding the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, I do not agree that universities should be forced to adopt a definition of antisemitism that aligns closely with the IHRA definition.

1.4The IHRA definition provides that ‘Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities’.[1] It includes several examples which it states ‘may serve as illustrations’ to guide the IHRA in its work. These examples include:

accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;

drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; or

holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

1.5As the committee’s report notes, numerous witnesses and submitters expressed concern regarding the appropriateness of the IHRA definition of antisemitism particularly positing that it inappropriately captures expression, which is legitimate, and does not constitute antisemitism.[2]

1.6A group of 15 academic and honorary staff from the University of Melbourne argued that the IHRA definition (which the university adopted in January 2023) raised concerns because it ‘has arguably encouraged additional complaints as it implies that statements might be considered antisemitic when expressing legitimate concerns about the actions of the Israeli state’.[3]

1.7Dr Noam Peleg similarly cautioned against the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, arguing that it poses a threat to academic freedom and freedom of speech on campuses.[4] Dr Lana Tatour and Andrew Brooks also expressed concern regarding ‘political pressures on universities to adopt’ the IHRA definition.[5]They argued that, ‘[w]hile presenting itself as an antiracist instrument that aims to protect Jewish academics and students on campuses from antisemitism, in practice the IHRA is a political tool leveraged to censor critical voices and knowledge on Palestine’.[6]

1.8Loud Jew Collective, a group which includes members who work and study at various universities, posited the IHRA working definition of antisemitism as being used ‘primarily to shut down legitimate and necessary criticism of Israel and Zionism’.[7] This position was echoed similarly by Students for Palestine.[8] Both organisations have raised concerns over the pressures faced by universities to adopt the IHRA definition, in a university context in part to ‘stifle speech and political expression critical of Israel’.[9]

1.9Furthermore, several submitters raised concerns regarding the conflation of legitimate statements or protests as being antisemitic – including criticism of the Government of Israel and Zionism. In this regard, Jews Against the Occupation ’48 argued that:

the assertion that pro-Palestine activism on Australian University campuses is inherently antisemitic is fallacious, racist, and politically motivated. It is founded on the false conflation of an ancient religious and cultural identity, Judaism, and a modern political ideology.[10]

1.10They also posited that the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism ‘will inevitably lead to the denial and minimisation of real antisemitism’.[11] Students for Palestine stated that opposition to and critique of Zionism as an ideology is not opposition to Jewish people or their right to be treated as equals:

Jewish Voice for Peace defines opposition to Zionism thus:“Anti-Zionist means opposing the political ideology of Zionism, which resulted in the expulsion of 750,000 Indigenous Palestinians from their land and homes. It means standing against the creation of a nation-state with exclusive rights for Jews above others on the land. Anti-Zionism supports liberation and justice for the Palestinian people, including their right to return to their homes and land. Anti-Zionists believe in a future where all people on the land live in freedom, safety and equality”.[12]

1.11These are significant considerations. Liberty Victoria stated that ‘a definition of antisemitism should not include any reference to the State of Israel or conflate criticism or even condemnation of the actions taken by Israel with antisemitism’.[13] It stated that criticism of the State of Israel, or the actions of its government, are not inherently antisemitic, and cautioned that there is ‘a real danger that accusations of antisemitism are being weaponised by supporters of the current government to attempt to invalidate legitimate criticism and shame critics into silence’.[14] These concerns were also echoed by Amnesty International.[15] Further, Associate Professor David Slucki, Director of the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilization at Monash University, has stated that ‘Criticising Israel is not, in and of itself, anti-Semitic. Imagining different ways of Israel being organised politically … or a different form of self-determination is not, in and of itself, anti-Semitic’.[16]

1.12Of further significance, the IHRA definition has also been the subject of specific criticism by United Nations (UN) international human rights law mechanisms on the basis that it is incompatible with human rights. The UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has, in writing about the particular risks to freedom of expression associated with the conflict in Gaza, cautioned that the IHRA definition conflates antisemitic expression with legitimate political expression:

As noted by the European Court of Human Rights, antisemitism should be clearly distinguished from political expression. It is of serious concern that the “working definition” of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance contravenes this critical international standard of freedom of expression, and yet is being promoted heavily by various entities and Governments. It has been adopted by 43 States and is used in practice as a quasi-legal basis to restrict expression on the grounds of antisemitism. Its adoption across Europe has been a source of serious concern in relation to freedom of expression and other human rights. The previous Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance found the “working definition” to be “divisive” and “politically instrumentalized”. Counter-proposals to “the working definition” have been developed by Jewish scholars and experts on antisemitism.

The “working definition” was never intended to be used as a framework for regulating expression and does not meet the international legal standards for restriction or prohibition of speech laid out in the Covenant. First, it is overly broad, vague and equivocal, and fails the test of legal certainty, required under article 19 (3) of the Covenant. The overly broad and vague definition of antisemitism offered by the “working definition” is harmful because it can lead to wrongful accusations and damage reputations, distort statistics on antisemitic incidents and divert attention from addressing the real causes of antisemitism. Second, it does not include the element of incitement, as required for prohibition of speech under article 20 (2) of the Covenant. Third, its “illustrative examples” deal not only with the impact of speech on individuals but also on Israel, which contravenes international human rights law and in particular the right to freedom of expression, which permits criticism of all States. Fourth, it is unnecessary as there are universally accepted international standards to address racial and religious hatred, including antisemitism.

The central conceptual flaw of the “working definition” is the inherent conflation of Zionism, a political ideology, with antisemitism. The practical consequence is the suppression of legitimate criticism of Israel, not the enhancement of protection of Jews from racial and religious hatred and intolerance. Jewish groups and individuals who engage in anti-Zionist protests have been labelled as antisemitic. When Jews celebrating Jewish festivals in solidarity with Palestinians were attacked by pro-Israel supporters, the incident was not considered to be antisemitic.[17]

1.13The Special Rapporteur concluded that the IHRA definition is ‘incompatible with international standards on freedom of expression’ and recommended that states rescind their adoption and application of it, and refrain from promoting it.[18]

1.14In view of these concerns, I do not consider it appropriate to recommend its adoption in this context.

1.15Universities should, for the purposes of addressing complaints of antisemitism relating to students or staff, adopt a definition of antisemitism that recognises the distinction between antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli Government and Zionism.

Addressing racism more broadly

1.16Many submitters and witnesses highlighted that the increase in antisemitism in Australia and on university campuses has been accompanied by a rise in other forms of racism – particularly Islamophobia following the October 7 attacks.[19] Mr Hugh de Kretser, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) stated that the AHRC has seen a rise in the number of complaints about antisemitism, as well as Islamophobia ‘and other forms of racism connected to the violence in the Middle East’.[20] He also noted that complaints numbers to the AHRC ‘will only be a tiny subset of the broader antisemitism’, stating that law enforcement data also provides information as to hate crimes being committed.[21] In addition, the National Tertiary Education Union highlighted a recent Social Cohesion report, which indicated that 34 per cent of Australians have a ‘somewhat or very negative’ attitude to Muslims, an increase from 27per cent before the October attacks.[22] The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law likewise noted that, like instances of antisemitism, the experience of Islamophobia on campuses has also been high, with Research from the Islamophobia Register Australia finding in May 2024 that there had been a 39-fold increase in reported incidents on university campuses across the country in the period post 7 October 2023.[23]

1.17Submitters also argued that addressing antisemitism in a siloed fashion may not be the best way of addressing the issue, and that dealing with broader racism as a whole may be a better approach. In this regard, the Government recently committed to a study into antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism and the experience of First Nations people in the university sector.[24] This study, being undertaken by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), is being led by the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Mr Giridharan Sivaraman. An interim report was published in December 2024, and noted that:

Indigenous participants report enduring structural and interpersonal racism;

Jewish students and staff cited a rise in antisemitism since October 2023, including extremist propaganda, intimidation, and exclusion. Concerns over safety were compounded by insufficient university responses;

Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim Students and Staff described hostility, threats, and discriminatory practices, including restrictions on cultural expression and prayer spaces;

African students and staff frequently encountered severe racism and Asian participants reported being stereotyped; and

reports of exclusion, social isolation, and fears of visa repercussions were common among international students.[25]

1.18The next phrase of the study will include a comprehensive survey of students and staff, with the final report due in June 2025. Mr de Kretser described this as ‘a landmark national study on the prevalence, nature and impact of racism at universities and how to address it’.[26]

1.19The committee also heard from the student representative body, the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, at a public hearing, where it noted:

We live in a multicultural society, and that is the beauty of Australia. Unfortunately, we are just not having conversations between people anymore. When you are not having conversations, when people do not talk about issues, especially when it means so much to them, it has a detrimental effect on Australian society. We need to get people back in the room, talking with each other, and we need empathy for people who have, over these 13 or 14 months, experienced tremendous hardships, and that cannot be taken away from their personal lived experience.[27]

1.20In addition, the AHRC launched a national Anti-Racism Framework in November 2024, which ‘provides a roadmap for governments, business and community organisations to address all forms of racism in Australia’.[28] Mr de Kretser noted that this framework was developed following extensive consultation and engagement ‘to support safety in Jewish, Palestinian, Muslim and Arab communities in Australia’.[29] Mr Sivaraman likewise highlighted its significance in this context, noting in particular that it recommends the establishment of a positive duty to eliminate racism:

It's a very significant piece of work; it's the first time there's ever been a national road map to combat all forms of racism. Of course, that includes antisemitism. And there are certain aspects of that framework that I think are really important in terms of combating antisemitism and trying to inoculate and build in protection before the harm occurs.[30]

1.21Amnesty International recommended the use of this framework.[31] The Human Rights Law Centre likewise noted its significance, stating that this framework highlights the importance of recognising ‘both the interconnectedness and difference between various forms of racism and to adopt a coherent and principled anti-racism approach’.[32] It stated, in particular:

The Australian Human Rights Commission’s National Anti-Racism Framework, provides a whole of society roadmap for governments, non-government organisations, businesses and civil society organisations to address issues of racism across sectors. The approach recommended by the Commission is one grounded in an understanding of the systemic and structural nature of racism, as well as being intersectional and community-centric. It also recognises “racism as a complex and shifting phenomenon”.[33]

1.22The AHRC indicated that several of the whole of government recommendations proposed in the framework could address antisemitism:

Recommendations 12 and 49 deal with online racism and hate, recommendations 28 to 31 deal with building racial literacy and understanding of racism in schools and education, recommendation 10 recommends a positive duty to eliminate racism in various aspects of daily life including in workplaces and education settings.

Recommendation 59 calls for a National Data Plan to outline a national approach to collecting, using, and managing data on experiences, reports, and impacts of racism across states and territories and local jurisdictions. Implementation of these recommendations would help address antisemitism. In addition, work done under each these recommendations could be tailored where appropriate to the specific needs in combatting antisemitism.[34]

1.23In addition, several witnesses recommended that Australia’s existing suite of anti-discrimination legislation be amended.[35] The Human Rights Law Centre argue that these laws are no longer fit for purpose:

They are leaving many in our community at risk of the profound (and compounding) harms of discrimination, hate speech, and vilification.

The federal anti-discrimination framework is comprised of a patchwork of inconsistent, issue-specific laws, covering distinct grounds of discrimination such as race, sex, age, and disability. The complexity is compounded by overlapping and inconsistent state and territory regimes. The lack of overarching and cohesive protection under our existing anti-discrimination framework, coupled with a reported rise in discrimination, hate speech and vilification has left many in our community exposed.[36]

1.24The government should adopt the Australian Human Rights Commission National Anti-Racism Framework.

1.25Universities should address antisemitism as part of broader strategies to reduce racism in all its forms.

1.26The government should consolidate Australia’s anti-discrimination legislative framework into a single, uniform Anti-Discrimination Act.

Disciplinary action by universities

1.27The committee’s fourth recommendation recommends that the government give consideration as to whether it is necessary to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to enable disciplinary or other action to be taken in relation to an employee (or a grant recipient where the Australian Research Council Act 2001 and related legislation applies), where that person is 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. I do not support the recommendation.

1.28The committee heard evidence from several universities regarding their existing disciplinary processes, which may include the possibility of employment termination or exclusion from university premises.[37] The committee also heard that some universities are already in the process of reviewing the rules governing their response to reports of misconduct.[38]

1.29However, the legislative framework regulating conditions associated with employment in Australia is complex. While the committee heard some evidence regarding the obligations universities have pursuant to this legislative framework (and correspondingly, the rights of workers at universities), the committee did not receive any evidence proposing specific amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 or the Australian Research Council Act 2001. No witnesses or submitters raised specific concerns regarding either of these Acts. Furthermore, it appears that the proposal that consideration be given to amending the Australian Research Council Act 2001 appears to have been proposed solely because of one complaint regarding one worker associated with a single university.[39] This is not a sufficiently persuasive basis on which to base a broad-reaching recommendation.

1.30A broad recommendation to consider amending large and complex laws which apply to a wide range of workplaces because of a limited range of evidence received in a specific context would risk resulting in an overly punitive response, and would likely constitute government overreach.

A human rights approach to competing rights

1.31Many submitters raised the need for a Human Rights Framework, or human rights-based approach, in order to effectively navigate competing human rights such as the right to equity and non-discrimination with the rights to education and freedom of expression, and the obligation on states to have legal prohibitions on the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.[40]

1.32A number of submitters highlighted the direct relevance of the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. This plan, developed by the United Nations, sets out conclusions and recommendations which are intended to ‘guide all stakeholders in implementing the international prohibition of any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’.[41]

1.33The plan proposes a high threshold for defining restrictions on freedom of expression, incitement to hatred, and for the application of article 20 of the ICCPR. It recommends that, ‘in order to establish severity as the underlying consideration of the thresholds, incitement to hatred must refer to the most severe and deeply felt form of opprobrium’.[42]

1.34It outlines a six-part threshold test for assessing the severity of the hatred taking into account: the social and politicalcontext of the speech; the status of the speaker; intent (as opposed to recklessness or negligence)as to whether the speech incites the audience against a target group; the content and form of the speech (including the degree to which the speech was provocative or direct, and having regard to whether the speech was public, the size of the audience and means of its dissemination); and the likelihood of harm, including imminence.[43]

1.35The Human Rights Law Centre endorsed the application of this approach,[44]stating:

The Rabat Plan of Action on the Prohibition of Advocacy of National, Racial or Religious Hatred, developed through a series of expert workshops convened by the United Nations, provides a detailed framework for distinguishing hate speech from protected expression. It emphasises that restrictions on speech must target intentional advocacy of hatred that incites violence, discrimination, or hostility while safeguarding legitimate academic and political discourse.[45]

1.36The Human Rights Law Centre stated that the application of these criteria to an assessment of particular speech ‘safeguard against arbitrary or overly broad limitations on expression’, stating:

Protecting the freedom of expression, even for unpopular or dissenting views, is essential for fostering robust democratic debate and the exchange of ideas.

Combating antisemitism and other forms of racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is essential, and indeed mandated under Article 20(2) of the ICCPR. Such efforts, however, must not come at the cost of silencing critical or dissenting voices. This is particularly so given that suppressing legitimate political expression risks diluting the focus of combating hate speech. This, in turn, weakens broader efforts to address discrimination and hatred effectively and inclusively. [46]

1.37Universities should adopt the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence six-part threshold test to appropriately distinguish between hate speech and protected expression in practice.

1.38As noted in the committee’s report, human rights often conflict, in which case there is a need to balance human rights against each other. In the context of universities responding to antisemitic speech and conduct, the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law stated that:

Laws, policies, and practices addressing vilification do not breach freedoms of the individual and group who are vilifying another person or group. Laws, policies, and practices which appropriately define vilification, and which do not impose carte balance restrictions on such activity are likely to be human rights-compliant, given the significant social ill sought to be addressed by these laws. Responses seeking to address vilification and hate speech must be adequately balanced so as not to inadvertently or arbitrarily infringe the human rights of others. Broad or vague restrictions, for instance, are particularly at risk of violating human rights in a way which is neither proportionate nor legitimate. The issue of vilification and hate speech cannot be used to suppress expression and conduct which is not violent and does not incite others.[47]

1.39Mr Hugh de Kretser, President of the AHRC, stated:

Issues around the intersection between freedom from discrimination and vilification and freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are at the heart of this inquiry into antisemitism at universities. Human rights principles provide practical guidance on how to balance human rights when they intersect and how to maximise intersecting rights to the greatest extent possible. They require that any limitation on a human right must be for a legitimate purpose and must be no wider than is necessary to achieve that purpose. Applying these principles will help universities to address antisemitism and promote the human rights of all students and staff.[48]

1.40He stated further:

This issue is the hardest part of this inquiry. The issue that is playing out in universities is playing out to a different degree and with different dimensions in workplaces across the country…[H]uman rights principles can help. There is a plethora of opinion through courts and international bodies about how to draw that line between freedom from discrimination, safety for students and staff in the present context, and freedom of expression. In a sense, it is easy to say that freedom of expression can be lawfully restricted to prevent hate speech and incitement to violence. There are very clear examples of where things are controversial and unpopular but permissible and where things are clearly racist hate speech and incitement to violence, which should be prohibited. Then there are areas in the middle where it becomes much harder. When you look at the material that I am looking at that is before this committee, you see those examples coming up time and time again. A human rights approach would say: 'If you're trying to restrict speech, what is the purpose for it? Is it a legitimate purpose? Is the thing you are doing to restrict it connected rationally to that purpose? And is there a less restrictive means of achieving that purpose?' That simple test in human rights speak, or the proportionality test, is, I have found through my career when looking at difficult policy positions or issues, to be a powerful way of stepping through to check the reasonableness of action, in this case by a university administration or by a government or another policy maker.[49]

1.41In addition, a number of submitters argued in favour of the establishment of a federal Human Rights Act (in order to give effect to a human rights-based approach).[50] Mr de Kretser posited that legislation protecting human rights would assist in ensuring the comprehensive application of international human rights law principles in Australia:

You can take a practical example like: should protests be permitted on university campuses, and in what circumstances? If you're going to try and limit protests, you're going to engage the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. If you're saying you can't have protests in university buildings, for example, you ask: why are you doing that? The answer may be: because you don't [want] to disrupt classes and the work of academics and the like. I understand that this is an issue that Sydney uni has looked at in terms of its policies. You'd ask: is that limiting freedom of expression and peaceful assembly? Yes, it is. Is it a reasonable limitation? Sydney uni would say: yes, it is a reasonable limitation because people can protest outside in public spaces on the university campus. Is there a less restrictive way of achieving that attempt to minimise disruption to classes and things like that? I assume they would argue: no, there is isn't.

So there is a process that you step through in applying that obligation to properly consider an act compatibly with each of those relevant rights to arrive at a good, human-focused human rights outcome in terms of the policies that a university would be applying. If they get it wrong, people have the ability to complain about it and seek some kind of resolution. [51]

1.42Mr de Kretser argued that the application of a positive duty on public authorities to act in a manner which is compatible with human rights has a preventative function:

…you need that legal obligation taken seriously—you see the decision-makers, the public servants and the administrators thinking about the human impact of their actions. That is the benefit, or the power, if you like, of human rights legislation in the sense that it helps to get good, human focused laws, policies, decisions and actions, and it helps to prevent human rights abuses from occurring in the first place. In a situation like this, it helps people who are required to develop policies and laws to get the balance right between those issues when rights like freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination and racial vilification are intersecting.[52]

1.43In May 2024, the committee recommended that the government introduce legislation to establish a Human Rights Act.[53] It follows logically that the same recommendation should be reiterated in relation to the human rights issues raised in this inquiry.

1.44The government should introduce legislation to establish a Human Rights Act, as per the recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework

Judicial inquiry

1.45The committee’s tenth recommendation recommends that if, following a review of the implementation of these recommendations in consultation with the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, it is apparent that the response by universities has been insufficient, the government should give consideration to the establishment of a judicial inquiry.

1.46I do not support this recommendation, as it is overly speculative and was not supported by any compelling evidence to demonstrate that a judicial inquiry is either necessary, or of particular specific use in this context.

Other matters

1.47Finally, I note that the Criminal Code Act 1995 criminalises:

the urging of violence against groups or members of groups (which are distinguished by race, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin or political opinion);[54]

the advocacy of genocide;[55] and

the public display of a prohibited Nazi symbol or prohibited terrorist organisation symbol, or the making of a gesture that is the Nazi salute.[56]

1.48On Thursday, 6 February 2025, the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 (now Act) passed both Houses of Parliament. This Act expanded existing offences and introduced new offences for displaying prohibited hate symbols and urging or threatening violence against groups or members of groups with protected attributes. It also removed the existing defence of taking an action in good faith, and introduced mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for several offences, including:

public display of prohibited Nazi symbols or giving Nazi salute;[57]

public display of prohibited terrorist organisation symbols;[58] and

advocating force or violence through causing damage to property.[59]

1.49The committee commented on the human rights compatibility of the measures in the bill as introduced into the House of Representatives on 12 September 2024 in its scrutiny Report 9 of 2024(10 October 2024). The committee raised concerns regarding the compatibility of the measure with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

1.50However, the amendments which were made to the bill to impose mandatory minimum sentencing in relation to several offences also raises significant human rights concerns. As the committee has previously observed in relation to similar measures,[60] the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment engages and limits the right to liberty, which protects the right not to be arbitrarily detained. The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that 'arbitrariness' under international human rights law includes elements of inappropriateness, injustice and lack of predictability. In order for detention not to be considered arbitrary under international human rights law it must be reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the individual case. Detention may be considered arbitrary where it is disproportionate to the crime that has been committed (for example, as a result of a blanket policy). As mandatory sentencing removes judicial discretion to take into account all of the relevant circumstances of a particular case, it may lead to the imposition of disproportionate or unduly harsh sentences of imprisonment.

1.51I call attention to these human rights concerns within the context of this inquiry.

Ms Kylea TinkMP

Independent Member for North Sydney

Footnotes

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

[2]The National Tertiary Education Union indicated that it does not support the IHRA definition because it does not regard that criticism of the state of Israel and its leaders is itself antisemitic (Submission 17, p. 3). The Australian Jewish Democratic Society argued that it is wrong to apply the IHRA Guidelines to universities (Submission 18, p. 2). See also, Academics for Palestine (WA), Submission 34, and Jews Against the Occupation ’48, Submission 41, Ms Ashlyn Horton, National President, National Union of Students, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 19, and Tzedek Collective, Submission 127, p. 2, (submission to Legal and Constitutional Affairs, inquiry into the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) October 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[10]Jews Against the Occupation ’48, Submission 41, p. 1. See also, Dr Noam Peleg, Submission 48, p. 2, and Dr Lana Tatour and Dr Andrew Brooks, Submission 49.

[11]Jews Against the Occupation ’48, Submission 41, p. 4.

[12]Students for Palestine, Submission 42, p. 3.

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

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

[15]Amnesty International, Submission 39, p. 1.

[16]Siobhan Marin, ‘What is anti-Zionism? And is it the same thing as antisemitism? It’s a question many are debating’, ABC News (15 February 2024).

[17]UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Global threats to freedom of expression arising from the conflict in Gaza (23 August 2024) A/79/319 [79]-[82].

[18]UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Global threats to freedom of expression arising from the conflict in Gaza (23 August 2024) A/79/319 [97].

[19]See, for example, Sydney Jewish Museum, Submission 4, p. 1; National Tertiary Education Union, Submission 17, p. 2; Name Withheld, Submission 8, p. 2.

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

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

[22]National Tertiary Education Union, Submission 17, p. 2. In reference to Scanlon Institute, Mapping Social Cohesion Report 2024.

[23]Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Submission 35, p. 5.

[24]The Hon Jason Clare MP, Minister for Education, Responding to the Australian Universities Accord, Media Release, 15 May 2024.

[25]Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Interim Report on Racism at Australian Universities (December 2024).

[26]Mr Hugh de Kretser, President, Australian Human Rights Commission, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 32.

[27]Mr Noah Loven, President, Australasian Union of Jewish Students, Committee Hansard, 29November 2024, p. 39.

[28]AHRC, The National Anti-Racism Framework: A roadmap to eliminating racism in Australia (November2024).

[29]Mr Hugh de Kretser, President, Australian Human Rights Commission, Committee Hansard, 22January 2025, p. 32.

[30]Mr Giridharan Sivaraman, Race Discrimination Commissioner, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 22January 2025, p. 39.

[31]Amnesty International, Submission 39, p. 1.

[32]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 40, p. 4.

[33]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 40, p. 7.

[34]AHRC, answer to question on notice (received 31 January 2025).

[35]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 40, p. 5; Name Withheld, Submission 9, p. 1.

[36]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 40, p. 7.

[37]See, for example, Group of Eight Australia, Submission 19, p. 6; University of Newcastle, Submission11, p. 1; Queensland University of Technology, Submission 12, p. 1; Monash University, Submission 21, p. 14; University of Queensland, Submission 26, p. 3; and University of Melbourne, Submission 37, p. 3.

[38]See, Australian National University, Submission 33, p. 4.

[39]Committee Hansard, 5 February 2025, pp. 2-9.

[40]See, for example, Amnesty International, Submission 39, p. 1.

[41]Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, [13].

[42]Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, [29].

[43]Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, [29].

[44]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 40, p. 15. See also, Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 30, p. 11. The Rabat Plan of Action approach has also been endorsed by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. See, General recommendation No. 35: combating racist hate speech (26 September 2013) CERD/C/GC/35 [15].

[45]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 40, p. 4.

[46]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 40, p. 15.

[47]Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Submission 35, p. 6.

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

[49]Mr Hugh de Kretser, President, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 37.

[50]See, for example, Liberty Victoria, Submission 29, p. 5; Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Submission 35; Mr Hugh de Kretser, President, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 37; Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 40.

[51]Mr Hugh de Kretser, President, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 38.

[52]Mr Hugh de Kretser, President, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, pp. 38-39.

[53]Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework (May 2024) recommendation two.

[54]Criminal Code, sections 80.2A and 80.2B. Of note, the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Act2025 amends these provisions to provide that a person may be guilty of an offence where they are reckless as to whether the force or violence will occur. See further, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2024 (10 October 2024) pp. 93-102.

[55]Section 80.2D.

[56]Sections 80.2H and 80.2HA.

[57]Criminal Code, section 80.2H. Subject to a minimum sentence of 12 months imprisonment.

[58]Criminal Code, section 80.2HA. Subject to a minimum sentence of 12 months imprisonment.

[59]Criminal Code, section 80.2BE. Subject to a minimum sentence of 12 months imprisonment.

[60]See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023, Migration Amendment and Other Legislation (Bridging Visas, Serious Offenders and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and related instrument (Report 13 of 2023andReport 1 of 2024); Migration Amendment Bill 2024 and related instruments (Report 1 of 2025); and Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2022 (Report 2 of 2022).