Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities. I want to start by thanking the chair of the committee, the member for Macnamara, because I think he did an excellent job in holding us all together and holding space for this really important inquiry. I also want to thank all my fellow committee members for their engagement with and participation in the inquiry and extend my heartfelt thanks to all of those who supplied evidence. The testimony of many witnesses was immensely powerful, and the sincerity and frankness they brought to the discussion was invaluable. I'd like to particularly thank the Jewish community, who spoke so eloquently and honestly about their experiences and fears, and, again, reiterate my deep concern and care for them. The testimony of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students in particular stayed with me throughout the hearings—thank you for your courage.

As a member of the 47th parliament, I feel the incredible weight that comes with participating in an inquiry like this one. To think our society has reached a point where we needed to hold this inquiry is a sad indictment on the direction we are headed in indeed. As a person the community from North Sydney sent to parliament to represent them during this term, hear me when I say that the people who surround me every day in my community share a common belief that all of us have the right to feel safe, be treated with respect and participate in our society without fear of vilification or discrimination based on our individual characteristics. We condemn all forms of racism and are horrified at the recent antisemitic attacks that we've witnessed across our country. We must do better. To this moment then, while I support the majority of the committee's recommendations and the report as a whole, I do have some concerns with particular recommendations, which I'd like to address.

Firstly, while I certainly support the adoption of a definition of antisemitism by universities, I do not agree with the committee's recommendation that this definition must align closely with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition. Rather, I believe we heard compelling and legitimate testimony from numerous witnesses and submitters that highlighted concerns regarding the appropriateness of this definition for the university sector. Many posited that it inappropriately captures expression which is legitimate and does not constitute antisemitism, that it poses a threat to academic freedom and freedom of speech on campuses, and that this could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of the government of Israel or the political ideology of Zionism. At the same time, I also believe we received compelling evidence, particularly from the Group of Eight, that there is already an active commitment to developing and mobilising behind a shared definition of antisemitism. In this context, I believe the most appropriate recommendation would have been that universities 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 the criticism of Israel, the Israeli government and Zionism.

Secondly, I disagree with the committee's fourth recommendation 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 a university employee, on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence or testimony on which to base such a broad-reaching recommendation. The committee did hear ample evidence from several universities regarding their existing disciplinary processes, including some universities that are already in the process of reviewing the rules governing their responses to reports of misconduct. The committee did not, however, 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, yet somehow this report recommends that course of action. Given this, I cannot in good faith let that recommendation go unchallenged.

Thirdly, I do not support recommendation 10:

… if, following a review of the implementation of these recommendations …it is apparent that the response by universities has been insufficient, the government should give consideration to the establishment of a judicial inquiry.

This is because I believe that not only is this recommendation overly speculative but also it was not supported by any compelling evidence to demonstrate that a judicial inquiry is either necessary or of specific use in this context.

With that said, I'd also like to make some brief additional comments. Firstly, many 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. Interestingly, it was the Australasian Union of Jewish Students who first raised this argument, as they identified that addressing antisemitism in a silo fashion may not be the best way of addressing the issue and that dealing with broader racism as a whole is a better approach. Many others pointed out that the Australian Human Rights Commission's National Anti-Racism Framework, which provides a whole-of-society road map for governments, non-government organisations, businesses and civil society organisations to address issues of racism across sectors, is a useful tool to combat antisemitism.

Additionally, several witnesses recommended that Australia's existing suite of antidiscrimination legislation be amended. In this regard, I have recommended that the government adopt the Australian Human Rights Commission's National Anti-Racism Framework; that universities address antisemitism as part of broader strategies to reduce racism in all its forms; and that the government consider consolidating Australia's antidiscrimination legislative framework into a single uniform antidiscrimination act.

Finally, I'd like to highlight that many submitters also raised the need for a human rights framework or a human rights based approach to effectively navigate competing human rights, such as the right to equity and nondiscrimination with the rights to education and freedom of expression.

A number of submitters highlighted the direct relevance of the United Nation's Rabat plan of action on the prohibition of the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. It's a detailed framework for distinguishing hate speech from protected expression. Given this, I've also recommended that universities adopt the Rabat plan of action and that the government 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.

During my valedictory speech on Monday I reflected on the fact that as a nation we faced significant challenges over the course of the last three years, including increasing global conflict, starting with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Iranian regime's crackdown on its citizens, the appalling Hamas attacks on October 7 in Israel and the ongoing war in Gaza. Every instance has left us shocked as we've witnessed the brutality that people have levelled against one another, with far too many lives caught in the crossfire.

Here at home the campaign around the Voice referendum unveiled a schism in our society that stunned many, while more recently the rise of all forms of racism, and in particular the completely incomprehensible instances of antisemitism, has created a sense that hate is boiling over. Surely in this context we must ask ourselves: what is it that we believe in today, and what are we prepared to do to fight for those beliefs?

Universities are undoubtedly a direct reflection of our broader society, and they play a pivotal role in shaping thinking and expectations. Given this, I believe they have a great responsibility when it comes to ensuring they are places that value respect and tolerance and foster an environment where everyone feels safe. We must all do better, and I thank them in advance for learning from the mistakes of the past two years and for not only committing to doing better but providing tangible evidence of their improvement in the years to come.

Again, I'd like to thank the chair of the committee, the member for Macnamara. You truly were an inspiration to work with through this process, so thank you.

See this speech in context