Australian universities are now legally required to meet new anti-racism and antisemitism standards, with the Albanese government's threshold reforms coming into force on Monday — the same week vice chancellors from the country's most prominent institutions will be called before a royal commission to answer for their handling of hostility directed at Jewish students.
What the new antisemitism standards require
The new threshold standards place binding obligations on higher education providers to maintain safe and inclusive environments for students and staff. Under the reforms, universities must:
- Adopt recognised definitions of antisemitism, racism towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and Islamophobia
- Implement transparent and accessible complaints processes
- Respond appropriately when incidents of racism or antisemitism occur
- Provide clear guidance to students and staff about safety and security, both on campus and online
The government has stopped short of mandating any single existing definition of antisemitism, such as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition — which has attracted controversy globally. Instead, universities will be permitted to design their own definition or adopt a credible existing one. Sector peak body Universities Australia drafted its own definition last year, which was endorsed by 39 member institutions. Full compliance is not required until 1 January next year.
The reforms also introduce new governance principles requiring universities to report annually to their regulator on an "if not, why not" basis. Public universities will be required to publish governing body decisions, consultancy spending, external roles held by vice chancellors and senior executives, and annual remuneration reports — including details of vice chancellors' pay.
Education Minister Jason Clare said the government would go further still, announcing on Monday that the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency would be granted stronger enforcement powers, including the ability to fine universities directly.
Royal commission hearings to put university leaders in the spotlight
The new standards arrive as public hearings get under way in Melbourne, where senior leaders from the University of Sydney, the University of NSW, the University of Melbourne, Monash University and the Australian National University will face questioning about their response to antisemitism on campus following the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.
Clare said the hearings would expose the depth and severity of what Jewish students have experienced. "I think you're going to hear some pretty horrific evidence over the next few days, in particular from Jewish students about the abuse that they suffered, the intimidation and the harassment that they experienced at universities," he said.
He acknowledged that some institutions had made improvements in recent years, but said the response had fallen well short of what was needed. "In fairness to the universities, some of them have made important improvements over the course of the last few years, but not enough. There's a lot more to do," Clare said, adding that universities had been "caught flat-footed" by the rise in antisemitism.
No university met the bar — and a grading system is coming
The reforms follow an initial sector-wide assessment by Professor Greg Craven, the independent assessor for the national University Report Card on Antisemitism, which found that no Australian university had adequately adopted and applied a definition of antisemitism. Craven noted that measures such as complaint-handling and antisemitism training could not be effectively assessed without universities first having a recognised definition in place.
From next year, a formal university antisemitism report card regime will grade institutions from A to D — introducing a level of public accountability that has not previously existed in this space.
Not everyone has welcomed the package, however. Human rights advocates have raised concerns that some of the measures could conflict with academic freedom, freedom of speech and the rule of law, signalling that debate over the scope and implementation of the standards is far from settled.
