Josh Burns
Macnamara · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“It could go a bit rogue, I'm not exactly sure what's about to happen, but we're going to go through it anyway. I wanted to speak this afternoon at the end of a long sitting period before the winter break about the changes that came in yesterday for paid parental leave.”
“My family came to this country as a mix of migrants and refugees. Some spoke English; some didn't. Some held citizenships; some were stateless. But all of my family understood that the rights, freedoms and opportunities that Australia afforded were precious.”
“It is why we need to make sure that they have access to the basics so they can give everything back to our country—like access to buy their family a home, access to see a doctor and access to world-class education. We don't need to imagine what a monocultural Australia is.”
“Deputy Speaker Claydon, the Manager of Opposition Business is new here; He's still learning the ropes here! We have just passed tax reform through the House of Representatives that will make housing more affordable for younger Australians.”
“Of course, I was quite surprise to open the Australian Fin Review last night and see this headline: 'Greens and Liberals in fresh talks to delay legislation'. The Liberals and the Greens are teaming up together to block tax reform. They're teaming up together to stop young people being able to buy their first home.”
“There is this amazing garden, and I've brought ministers and colleagues there to go and see just how incredible it is. What is really special about the Windsor Community Children's Centre is that it's a community-run early education centre, and the parents and the community of Windsor have really galvanised and gotten behind this campaign…”
The complete record
Every one of 292 lines we hold for Josh Burns, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 6.
“They were going to give it all to the states, and what we know is that the states and territories have different standards on environmental approvals. The amazing thing about it all was that the Leader of the Opposition, who was the environment minister, commissioned Professor Samuel to do a review into the environmental laws, and he said that the key problem was that this chamber needs to have federal environmental standards in order to ensure that there are national environmental standards that are adhered to and implemented. That was the key recommendation of the Samuel review. What did the Leader of the Opposition do at the time? She ignored her own review, brought in Tony Abbott's legislation, rammed it through this place and then had to walk back home to her own electorate without a bill, because the Senate rejected it.”
“I was one of the few members of the opposition at the time who actually had the privilege of speaking on her reintroduction of Tony Abbott's environment laws before she decided to completely scrap all debate. She wasn't willing to debate it at all in the House of Representatives. They rammed the bill through the House of Representatives and then pulled it in the Senate, thankfully, because they didn't have the numbers in the previous iteration of their own government. That was the legacy of the Leader of the Opposition when she was the environment minister. It wasn't to have a constructive debate on the environment; it was to ram through Tony Abbott's environmental laws, which would have completely removed the federal government from environmental approvals.”
“You'd think, 'Well, goodness!' While those opposite—the Nationals especially—are still working out whether the planet is a sphere or completely flat, you'd think that maybe today is not the day to be bringing in an MPI about the environment. But, alas, life is good in the opposition. They are not burdened by self-doubt in this place. You would think: 'Okay, fine. Let's look at what they actually did in the environment and energy portfolio and anything that affects our amazing country and all of the natural wonders that we have to protect.' When they were in government, there were a couple of highlights. You may want to take a walk down memory lane on their record on the environment. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition was the environment minister when they were last in government. I remember sitting in this chamber.”
“It's about the environment, energy and the climate around us.' No-one in that room decided to say, 'Maybe today's not the day.' I'm very pleased that the member for Riverina is in the chamber, because I'm very fond of the member for Riverina. He's a very smiley guy, but he was really smiling in the papers this week. He had a grin from ear to ear, talking about his campaign to take down net zero. I've never seen anybody enjoy himself that much. He was standing next to his old friend the member for New England. They were thick as thieves. The member for New England and the member for Riverina were both absolutely delighted with themselves at getting that sort of coverage and attacking the net zero policies.”
“You are not aware of the fact that your environmental record is completely shambolic and, frankly, an embarrassment, nor are you aware, if you are in the Liberal party room, of the fact that your own coalition partner is tearing itself apart on national television on the very day that you come in and bring a matter of public importance about the environment to this chamber. Can you imagine the tactics meeting of those opposite this morning, Deputy Speaker, where they were all discussing what they should put forward for the MPI? The member for Moncrieff—who clearly is so passionate about this MPI that she stayed for some of it—as well as the hordes of coalition members who have come here to support her came in and had a tactics meeting: 'What should we bowl up for the MPI?' Then the member for Moncrieff says: 'I've got one.”
“Deputy Speaker Claydon, can I start my contribution by congratulating you on your return to the deputy speakership. You are a very fine deputy speaker and a great friend, and I congratulate you. I know you'll do a wonderful job this term, as you did last term. But, as enjoyable as it must be sitting up there being the Deputy Speaker, goodness, it must be nice being in opposition. If you are the opposition right now, you are not burdened by self-doubt or anything, frankly, that is going on in the world around you. You are not aware of the fact that you've just had a catastrophic election loss.”
“The state government of Victoria have already contributed significant amounts to it. This is an idea and a concept that will bring together the Jewish Museum, the Kadimah and a number of other Jewish institutions right next to the Melbourne Holocaust Museum in Elsternwick and hopefully be a place where people can come and experience Jewish life and Jewish culture, learn about the history and learn about all the things that make our community so vibrant. With that, I again give my condolences to the Goldberg family. Cesia was a truly wonderful person.”
“We were celebrating the In One Voice Festival. It is a festival that is all about celebrating Jewish music, culture, food and art. It was a wonderful gathering. There was rain, but it didn't dampen anyone's spirits. Community groups were on display, and thousands of people came to experience the festival. And that's what we want in Australia. We want people to be able to feel proud, to feel open to express themselves and to express their culture, and to have a rich and vibrant life in our wonderful community, especially, for me, in my home in Macnamara. I've also been involved in a project which is all about the future of Jewish life and what project we can pass on to the next generation. The one that I'm working on, which I'm very proud of, is the Jewish Arts Quarter.”
“They fled the concentration camps to be here in Australia and helped set up this vibrant Yiddish and Jewish life that I was speaking about before. Cesia used to run the Wednesday club at the Kadimah, which was a group of people that came to the Kadimah for community, gatherings and food, and Cesia was the driving force behind it. She will be remembered as one of the finest, one of the kindest, one of the bubbliest and one of the most wonderful people that we have in our community that help make the Jewish community in my electorate so wonderful. I again pass on my best wishes to the entire Goldberg family and to Abram, who I know will be devastated by the death of his beautiful wife, Cesia, who was with him for, I believe, 70 years or more. I stood in the Kadimah in Elsternwick only a couple of weeks ago with the Deputy Prime Minister.”
“It is, I believe, the only Skif left in the world. The Kadimah library and cultural centre is still around, and it has supported Yiddish literature, language, theatre and music in Melbourne for over a century. I wasn't planning on mentioning this, but, just in the last few moments, I got news that one of the Holocaust survivors in Melbourne, an amazing woman by the name of Cesia Goldberg, passed away this afternoon. Her husband, Abram, is 100 years old, and Cesia, I believe, was 95. She passed away peacefully today. I want to send my condolences and my best wishes to Helen and Charlie and the entire Goldberg family. Cesia was only a small person, but she had a very big heart. I grew up knowing Cesia and Abram. They are truly remarkable people. They came fleeing the Holocaust.”
“The year 1909 marked the beginning of Yiddish theatre in Melbourne, and in 1911 the Kadimah library and cultural centre was opened as a home for Yiddish theatre, art and music. After World War II and the decades that followed, Melbourne became home to top Yiddish actors and artists dedicated to re-creating the Jewish world they left behind in Europe. But it wasn't just theatre. St Kilda was home to cake shops filled with kugelhopfs and rugelach which were opened in the 1930s. In the 1950s, Sholem Aleichem College opened up, and it is today one of the only secular Yiddish-speaking schools in the world. In Europe in the late 19th century the Jewish labour bund, a union movement, was established, and the Melbourne bund is one of the few that still exist in the world today, including its youth organisation, Skif.”
“As everyone in this place will know, I have stood up countless times over the past 18 months to share some of the difficult days that my community, the Jewish community of Australia, have faced. But today I don't want to mention the bad things. I want to talk about positive things, the things that make me proud and the people who make our community wonderful. Macnamara is beautifully diverse, and one part of our history that people may not know is that Melbourne is home to Yiddish culture, Yiddish theatre and a vibrant Jewish life. Australia became home to the largest per capita percentage of Holocaust survivors after the war, many of whom spoke mame lushen, the mother tongue of Yiddish. But, before World War II, Melbourne also had the highest Jewish population in Australia. The community was proud.”
“I also want to particularly mention the current deputy chair, the member for Bowman, for the way in which he has engaged on a number of difficult and dense policy issues but he has done so with great collaboration and professionalism, and I thank him for that. I thank all the members of the committee for their participation and I commend the reports to the House.”
“They are outstanding public servants who have, like always, prepared a huge amount of work for the committee and done so diligently, respectfully and thoughtfully, and I'm very grateful for all of their support. As the chair of the committee, it's been a great honour to be the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is one of the finest and most important committees in this place. It is a work in progress. There are improvements that the committee itself has made recommendations on about the functioning of the committee but it is one that is essential to the checks and balances and the thoughtfulness of the way in which the chamber operates. It's been a great honour. I have really enjoyed working with the deputy chairs from the other side of parliament.”
“We also completed our first review of compulsory enhanced income management and compulsory income management compatibility with human rights. We received 31 submissions and held two public hearings. The committee tabled its report on 3 September 2024, which made seven recommendations, including that the government amend the Social Security (Administration) Act to make income management voluntary over a period of time and to establish more pathways out of compulsory income management. We have not yet received a formal government response to this report and to our recommendations. On that note, let me just say that, with what is likely to be the last report of the Human Rights Committee this parliament, I want to thank the secretariat and the whole team in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.”
“As part of our report, the committee prepared an example draft of a human rights bill to promote understanding of its proposed model for a statutory federal human rights act. As overwhelmingly supported by submitters, Australia needs a statutory human rights act to make rights real in everyday decision-making. A key benefit of a federal human rights act will be to drive human rights culture within the Public Service so that those who serve us have a clear framework to consider and balance the rights and freedoms of everyday people when making decisions and developing laws and policies that affect us all. The committee is yet to receive a formal response from government on this report and to our recommendations.”
“The committee tabled its report on 30 May 2024, which made 17 detailed recommendations including that the government re-establish and significantly improve Australia's human rights framework and that that framework should include a comprehensive and effective protection of human rights in legislation through a human rights act, a significant and ongoing commitment to national human rights education, requirements for public servants to fully consider human rights in the development of legislation and policies, enhancements to human rights parliamentary scrutiny and the role of the Human Rights Commission, a review of Australia's legislation policies and practices for compliance with human rights, and measures to monitor progress on human rights.”
“Such safeguards should be complementary to the broader safeguards contained in the Privacy Act and the Australian Privacy Principles, both of which contain numerous exemptions. In addition to the committee's usual scrutiny work, the committee also undertook three inquiries, two of which were concluded in 2024. I want to start with the inquiry into Australia's human rights framework. The committee received 335 public submissions, over 4,000 formal campaign letters and held six public hearings. It heard evidence from a range of community groups, religious organisations, government bodies and experts.”
“However, the committee considered that many of the measures, such as age verification measures and measures requiring internet providers to collect, use and share personal information and monitor communications, were not sufficiently circumscribed or accompanied by sufficient safeguards and were therefore not proportionate limits on the right to privacy. Strong safeguards to protect the right to privacy in the digital age, especially where information is highly sensitive, have great importance. Given the expanding scope of personal information being collected and the rising number of major data breaches in Australia, it is critical robust safeguards are embedded within the specific legislation that deals with such personal information.”
“In 2024, the committee continued to comment on numerous bills and legislative instruments that engaged and limited the right to privacy, including measures that collected, used and shared personal information measures that interfere with individuals' right to a private life. For example, legislation relating to online safety frequently engaged the right to privacy. The committee considered that much of this legislation was directed towards the important objective of protecting people, particularly children, from exposure to harms online.”
“The more frequent collection of personal information and the fusion of personal data from various sources makes it increasingly difficult for an individual to keep track of what personal information is collected about them and control the many ways in which that information is used and shared. Depending on how the information is used and shared, it may result in further human rights violations. For example, personal information could be shared with foreign governments, and that information could lead to the arrest and prosecution of an individual for a crime that carries the death penalty. The right to life and the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment may be violated in that instance.”
“It also includes the right to control the dissemination of information about one's private life and prohibits arbitrary and unlawful interferences with an individual privacy, family, correspondence or home. The right to a private life is linked to notions of personal autonomy and human dignity. It includes the rights of individuals to enjoy a private sphere free from government intervention and excessive unsolicited intervention by others. Over the years, the committee has observed an expansion in the scope of personal information that is collected by government agencies and private corporations. Such information is often highly sensitive, is increasingly being shared with a broad range of third parties and is often used for an array of purposes, many of which were nit envisaged at the time the information or data was collected.”
“Obviously, we would put limits on that so that, if the government felt there were national security requirements or something that meant the passage of the bill was extremely important for the interests of the country, that would supersede the capabilities and powers of committee. But it is worth considering for future parliaments as well. During the reporting period, the right to privacy continued to be the human right which the committee most frequently considered and commented on. The right to privacy includes the right to respect for private and confidential information, particularly the storing, use and sharing of such information.”
“While the committee's scrutiny reports continue to be timely in 2024, there was decline in the timeliness of ministerial responses to requests for information, and in 2024 only 43 per cent of requests for information were received within the requested timeframe. I want to make this point: I understand how difficult it can be to compile such detailed responses to the committee, and we do ask for a lot of detail. One of the things we looked at as part of one of our inquiries, which I will talk about in a second, is how the committee can better engage with the legislative process. Also, are there are ways in which the committee can be involved in the legislative process that would delay the passage of bills, at least ensure the committee is involved in the considerations of the passage of bills or potentially have greater powers to postpone?”
“Such a review should closely consider committee's comments and be made publicly available on completion. I also table the committee's 2024 annual report, which details the work of the committee for the 2024 calendar year. In 2024, our committee tabled 11 scrutiny reports examining 175 bills and around 1,300 legislative instruments. The committee substantively commented on approximately 23 per cent of the bills and three per cent of instruments. During this reporting period, the committee concluded its consideration on the vast majority of bills prior to their passage. A human rights analysis was available to inform members of parliament prior to the passage of 93 per cent of bills. This took a lot of work. The committee concluded its examination of all legislative instruments subject to disallowance within the disallowance timeframe.”
“In 2024, the committee recommended that, in the event that the code was enforced, the committee's concerns and human rights implications be considered. The committee also recommended that a statement of compatibility with human rights be prepared in relation to this instrument. The committee expects that legislative instruments that are exempt from disallowance include a statement of compatibility where the measure engages and limits human rights, particularly where the committee has previously raised concerns in relation to the measure. The committee reiterates those recommendations in this report and recommends that the code of behaviour be reviewed, including an evaluation of the effectiveness of the code in achieving the stated objective.”
“The committee would again stress that the government take these on board and consider them in the future. In particular, the committee considers that it is not clear that the code satisfies the quality of law test or pursues a legitimate objective, noting that the code is drafted in vague terms and it has not yet been demonstrated that the visa holders subject to the code present a particular risk to community safety. It is not yet clear to the committee that the code remains necessary, having regard to the numerous powers under the Migration Act to cancel visas and monitor the behaviour of visa holders and the fact that the migration legislation framework has undergone significant amendments since the code was introduced in 2013.”
“In 2024, the committee recommended that a review of the code, which was noted as the reason for its extension, should closely consider the committee's previous comments. However, the committee notes with concern that this instrument replicates the 2024 code without any consultation or apparent review, contrary to the government's prior commitment. Further, the explanatory statement accompanying the instrument makes no reference to the committee's previous human rights concerns. As such, the committee reiterates our prior comments on the code of behaviour as they remain relevant to this instrument. The committee does make recommendations based on legal advice and the human rights considerations of this instrument, and we hope that they are taken seriously.”
“The committee reiterates its previous recommendation to amend the Extradition Act to improve human rights compatibility. In our third scrutiny report, the committee commented on the Migration (Public Interest Criterion 4022—Code of Behaviour) Instrument 2025, and this requires certain visa holders to sign an enforceable code of behaviour, where breach of the code could lead to visa cancellation, immigration detention or reduction in income support. The code of behaviour was introduced in 2013 and then extended in 2024. This code of behaviour replicates the 2024 version of the code. The committee raised human rights concerns in relation to the code of behaviour when it was introduced in 2013 and again in 2024 when its operation was extended pending consultation and review.”
“In particular, the committee is concerned that many of the safeguards in the Extradition Act are discretionary, relying on the Attorney-General to exercise their general discretion not to surrender a person for extradition in various circumstances where there is a risk of human rights violations. The committee is concerned that discretionary safeguards in these circumstances are insufficient to adequately protect human rights. The committee also considers that the presumption against bail in the Extradition Act and the lack of any ability to challenge the lawfulness of such continued detention is incompatible with the rights to liberty and effective remedy. As such, the committee considers that the regulations also risk incompatibility with these rights.”
“The committee has considered the human rights capability of the Extradition Act and related legislative instruments on a number of previous occasions. The committee has concluded that such legislation risks being incompatible with multiple rights, including the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the rights to a fair hearing, equality and nondiscrimination, liberty and effective remedy. The committee has previously recommended amendments to the Extradition Act to improve its human rights capability. However, noting these recommendations have not yet been implemented, the committee's previous human rights concerns in relation to the Extradition Act remain applicable to these regulations.”
“These regulations amend the definition of an 'extradition country' in the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Regulations 2010. The effect is to establish new extradition relationships with Cameroon, Gabon, Mozambique, Rwanda and Togo and continue extradition relationships with all other Commonwealth countries and British overseas territories that were previously listed in extradition regulations. The regulations also amend requirements relating to documents that must be produced by the Commonwealth country seeking extradition. The committee notes that facilitating the extradition of persons in Australia to various Commonwealth countries and British overseas territories to face proceedings pursuant to the Extradition Act engages and may limit multiple human rights.”
“On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Human rights scrutiny report: report 2 of 2025 ; Human rights scrutiny report: report 3 of 2025 , incorporating a dissenting report; and the annual report 2024. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). by leave—I'm pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights's second scrutiny report of 2025 and table its third scrutiny report of 2025 and the annual report for 2024. In our second and third scrutiny reports, the committee has considered 26 new bills and 477 new legislative instruments, commenting on one bill and five instruments. In our second scrutiny report, the committee commented on the Extradition Legislation Amendment (Commonwealth Countries) Regulations 2024.”
“Now, you'd think they'd all get around him and back him in: 'Let's get around the boss and back him in.' So it was quite surprising when the shadow Treasurer did all the media runs and had something else to say; he said that a referendum to deport dual-citizen criminals is 'not coalition policy'. Now that's really backing in the boss over there! On this side of the House, we're united. We're focused. And we're going to deliver renewables for all Australians.”
“Obviously the election is almost upon us, and the Liberal ad machine is in full swing. They've got 24 ads running all around the country; 24 of their finest bits of material are running on social media. You'd think, if they've got 24 ads, one of them would have their largest policy offering. You'd think that, out of 24, they could sneak in one of their largest policy offerings. But not one of their 24 social-media ads even mentions the word 'nuclear'. It's like these people don't want to talk about the fact that they want to spend $600 billion on a crazy energy plan. But it doesn't end there. It seems like the head isn't talking to the mouth over there, because the Leader of the Opposition famously came out a week ago and said he wants another referendum; he wants a referendum, to be able to strip citizenship off Australians.”
“It's why we hold Higgins, Reid and so many other seats that have changed hands because those opposite have this absolute ideological desire to fight renewable energy. The markets aren't doing that; the markets are fighting to invest in renewable energy. But those opposite have this climate denial. When the Leader of the Opposition had a quiet little moment with a couple of former prime ministers over a little—”
“They just want to cut government services, and you have to think, 'Why on earth do they want to do that?' It's because they've got some crazy ideas they want to fund. They've got some big, expensive toys that they want to buy that make absolutely no sense. We've been listening to the Leader of the Nationals talk about how they want to come in and reduce costs for Australians and how Australians can't afford all of these different things. When Australia can't afford a whole range of different things, what's the answer? I'll tell you what the answer isn't: $600 billion for a nuclear energy program. Those opposite have been fighting renewable energy because that is in their DNA. Fighting renewable energy is part of the reason they don't hold many of the seats that now belong to the crossbench.”
“We had huge queues in our immigration department. Those opposite wanted to cut child care. They wanted to cut all the services that Australians rely on. If you think they've changed their stripes, they haven't. While we've been in government, those opposite have voted against tax cuts. They've voted against cheaper medicines. They've voted against free TAFE. They've voted against Medicare Urgent Care Clinics. They've voted against reducing HECS debts. They've voted against increasing the minimum wage. Today, they voted against cheaper child care; they voted against the three-day guarantee. There hasn't been a policy to take the edge off and help Australians that they haven't opposed.”
“I think everyone just needs to take a big, deep breath after that contribution. Let's get back to some facts, shall we? Let's get back to living in the real world, after the diatribe we just heard from the Leader of the Nationals. Those opposite come into this place and talk about taking Australia back. I'll tell you where they're going to take us. They're going to take us back to cuts, culture wars and climate denial. You only have to look at what their record was when they last had a chance to sit on the treasury bench. When the Leader of the Opposition was last in government, he tried to cut the pension. In 2014, when the Leader of the Opposition was the health minister, he tried to cut billions from Medicare. He tried to rip money out of our hospitals and make Australians pay each and every time they go to the GP.”
“I also want to acknowledge the work that the universities are doing engaging with the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism as well as through the Group of Eight; however, significant reform is still needed so that Jewish students and staff are safe on campus. Our report outlines the policies needed to achieve exactly that. It is now up to the universities. We are watching, and we will continue to ensure that our Jewish students and staff are safe, just as everyone deserves to be. I commend the committee's inquiry report to the House.”
“I want to thank and acknowledge the committee secretariat, who spent much of their summer compiling this report and the evidence given in it. I want to thank them for their tireless work in supporting me and all of the committee members. Most importantly, I want to thank the Jewish students and staff who shared their experiences with both our committees. The advocacy that you provided on behalf of the Jewish students and the entire Jewish community as well as all minorities who attend university means that change is coming. For that, you should be proud. For that, we are grateful. Universities must act now. There has been progress. We are seeing an improvement in attitudes by some university leaders, and I have no doubt of the role our committee has played in that.”
“Right now, we are at a pivotal point where universities must implement significant changes to ensure that Jewish students and staff go back to campus for 2025 knowing their safety is taken seriously and, if there are incidents on campus, they will be addressed in a timely and transparent way. I want to thank all of the committee members for working together on this report. I especially want to make note of the deputy chair, who was a very fine colleague throughout this inquiry and who brought great intent and effort to this inquiry and was firm and fair and very easy to work with. I thank you, Deputy Chair. The recommendations in this report were bipartisan, and I'm proud of that, and they should be monitored and implemented regardless of what happens at the election.”
“Over the summer, we worked tirelessly to be able to table this report today because immediate action is what is required. It should not have taken a national antisemitism crisis and a parliamentary inquiry for universities and vice-chancellors to take the concerns of Jewish students and staff seriously, concerns that they have been sharing for years. It shouldn't have taken this moment for universities to take accountability and consider their own duty of care. It shouldn't have taken our committee's work for universities to stand up and proactively, with firmness, reject antisemitism on campus.”
“The committee has made 10 recommendations, most of which relate to policies that universities can put into place for the beginning of this academic year, including direct engagement with Jewish students and staff by the vice-chancellors; adopting a definition of antisemitism; introducing antisemitism training; simplifying the complaints process to encourage students to report any incidents; and publishing de-identified complaints reports to improve transparency and trust in the system. Importantly, the implementation of these recommendations must be monitored, and there must be an improvement in accountability across our country. Within 12 months of tabling this report, the National Student Ombudsman should review university practices to reduce antisemitism on campus.”
“They felt they were let down by an institution that was meant to be welcoming and safe, and our inquiry highlighted the importance of listening to the lived experiences of Jewish students and staff. There was a stark difference between the universities who engaged proactively with the Jewish community and let their experiences guide the university's response and those who did not.”
“That inquiry received over 600 submissions, many from Jewish students and staff detailing their own personal experiences. What became evident was not only were there brazen incidents of antisemitism that went without consequence or leadership by some of the university vice-chancellors but there was a serious lack of consistency across our university sector. Some universities had clear policies on antisemitism, and others were without an adequate understanding or commitment to combating incidents of antisemitism. We heard from Jewish students and staff who did not have faith in university reporting procedures to keep them safe. They didn't feel that their experiences were being acknowledged or taken seriously, nor did they feel they were being acted upon.”
“On 29 October 2024, the Attorney-General requested that the committee inquire into and report on antisemitism at Australian universities and consider not only the prevalence, nature and experience of antisemitic activities at universities but also the effectiveness of university frameworks to prevent and respond to antisemitism, as well as the support provided to Jewish students and staff. We received 47 public submissions and held four public hearings during which we heard evidence from numerous universities, community groups, peak bodies, the Department of Education, and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. The committee also had close regard to the public evidence provided to the legal and constitutional affairs committee inquiry into the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024.”
“We have seen students glorify terrorism, alleged Nazi salutes, staff offices occupied, academics doxxed and students' requests for support ignored. For too long, Jewish students have been vilified, intimidated, excluded from societies and clubs, ostracised in student union meetings and fundamentally let down by the university procedures that are meant to look after their safety and their wellbeing. The status quo is not good enough. The status quo must change before students return to campus in a few weeks' time, and that was the purpose of our inquiry.”
“On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities . Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). by leave—In August 2023, the Social Research Centre released a report on the experiences of Jewish students on our university campuses. It found that almost two in every three students had experienced antisemitism on campus. Over half the Jewish students were hiding their identity on campus, and almost a quarter of all Jewish students that took part in the survey were avoiding campus altogether. And yet, as many of the vice-chancellors gave evidence in our inquiry, the situation for Jewish students and staff since October 7 2023 has only gotten worse.”
“My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to build a better and fairer school education system, and what alternative approaches to education would leave Australians worse off?”