The bill creates the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities and requires the Minister to appoint a Judge to conduct that inquiry and report by a date set in the appointment instrument. The Commissioner will investigate incidents of harassment, intimidation, violence, advocacy or glorification of violence, and support for listed terrorist organisations on university campuses, both before and after 7 October 2023.
Beyond documenting incidents, the Commissioner must scrutinise how regulators, university leaders, representative bodies and student organisations responded; whether universities have adopted suitable definitions and policies (for example, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition); and whether institutions provide security, complaint-handling, disciplinary and education arrangements. The inquiry has Royal Commission–type powers, may compel evidence and operate with flexible procedures, and may recommend institutional, regulatory or legislative changes including new sanctioning or ministerial intervention powers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Minister to appoint a Judge as Commissioner to conduct an inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities, with powers and legal treatments aligned to the Royal Commissions Act 1902. The Commissioner may hold hearings (including overseas), is not bound by rules of evidence, and must report by a date fixed in the appointment instrument.
Who It Affects
All Australian universities (as defined in the Higher Education Support Act 2003), their governing bodies, regulators, student clubs and representative bodies, academics and students (including Jewish students and those collaborating with Israeli or Jewish institutions). Commonwealth Department staff will support the inquiry and may disclose personal information for that purpose.
Why It Matters
The measure elevates campus antisemitism to a national inquiry with coercive investigatory tools and a remit to recommend legal and regulatory change. It creates a mechanism that could reshape university policies on definitions of antisemitism, disciplinary practices, campus security and the limits of academic collaboration and protest.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act requires the Minister to appoint a current or former judge to run a standalone Commission of inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities. The appointment must be made by notifiable instrument and must specify the date by which the Commissioner must report.
The Commissioner’s remit covers incidents of harassment, intimidation, violence, advocacy or glorification of violence, and support for listed terrorist organisations on campuses, and explicitly includes events before and after 7 October 2023.
The Commissioner must examine institutional responses: regulators, university leadership (including governing bodies and vice-chancellors), representative bodies, student clubs and organisations. The inquiry tests whether universities have adopted and implemented an appropriate definition of antisemitism (the bill cites the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition as an example), whether policies, disciplinary systems and complaint-handling are adequate, and whether universities provide safety, security and support for Jewish students, staff and visitors.
The Commissioner is also instructed to investigate attempts to institute de facto boycotts of Jewish or Israeli academics and whether antisemitic material appears in teaching.Procedurally, the inquiry has flexible powers. The Royal Commissions Act 1902 applies to the Commission of inquiry so it can exercise similar compel-and-question powers, and the Commissioner is expressly not bound by the rules of evidence.
The Secretary of the Department may second APS staff to assist the inquiry and their disclosure of personal information for this purpose is taken to be authorised by law. The Archives Act and Freedom of Information Act apply in similar ways to how they apply to a Royal Commission; ordinary Commonwealth disclosure laws also apply as if the inquiry were a Royal Commission.Finally, the Commissioner must consider and recommend whether institution-specific or sector-wide policy changes are needed, whether legislative or regulatory changes (including clarifying powers to bar or expel, or mechanisms to impose sanctions on individuals or institutions) are appropriate, whether education for proponents of antisemitism is necessary, and whether ministerial intervention powers are required.
The Minister may make rules to support the Act but those rules cannot create offences, impose taxes, authorise arrest or detention, or directly change the Act’s text.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Minister must appoint a Judge (current or former) as Commissioner by a notifiable instrument that specifies the Commissioner’s report date.
The inquiry’s scope explicitly includes incidents occurring both before and after 7 October 2023 and covers harassment, intimidation, violence, advocacy or glorification of violence, and support for listed terrorist organisations.
The bill asks the Commissioner to examine whether universities have adopted an appropriate definition of antisemitism — naming the IHRA definition as an example — and whether policy, disciplinary and security arrangements are adequate.
The Royal Commissions Act 1902 applies to this inquiry, giving the Commissioner similar powers to a Royal Commission (including compulsion powers), while the Freedom of Information and Archives Acts apply in corresponding ways.
The Minister may make rules to operate the inquiry, but those rules cannot create offences or civil penalties, confer arrest/search powers, impose taxes, appropriate funds, or amend the Act itself.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Appointment of a Judge as Commissioner and reporting deadline
Section 5 requires the Minister to appoint a Judge by notifiable instrument to conduct the inquiry and to make recommendations. The instrument must state the day the appointment takes effect and set the date by which the Commissioner must report. Practically, the Minister controls the inquiry’s timeframe and the selection is constrained to persons with judicial experience, signaling an expectation of legal rigour and authority in evidence gathering and findings.
Scope of inquiry and specific matters to investigate
Section 6 lays out the inquiry’s substantive remit: the types of conduct to investigate (from harassment to support for listed terrorist organisations), actors whose responses must be reviewed (regulators, university leaders, representative bodies, student clubs) and institutional practices to be evaluated (definitions of antisemitism, policies, disciplinary systems, security arrangements and curriculum content). It also expressly tasks the Commissioner to consider whether institutions recognise the ‘specific and unique nature’ of antisemitism and to assess the adequacy of support for affected individuals.
Hearings, evidentiary flexibilities and operational support
These provisions let the Commissioner set hearing procedures, hold hearings anywhere (including outside Australia), and operate outside strict rules of evidence. The Secretary can make Department employees available to assist, and those employees act under the Commissioner’s direction while disclosures they make are treated as lawfully authorised. In practice this gives the Commissioner a staffed investigative capability and latitude in how evidence is taken and presented.
Treating the inquiry like a Royal Commission for legal effect
The Act applies the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and other Commonwealth laws on disclosure, archives and Freedom of Information ‘in a corresponding way’, effectively importing many Royal Commission tools and obligations. That alignment means compulsion powers, protections for witnesses, and specific disclosure treatments will generally apply, but the Act also clarifies some limits (for example, it does not make the Crown criminally liable).
Rulemaking powers and explicit limits
Section 15 authorises the Minister to make rules by legislative instrument to implement the Act but enumerates clear prohibitions: rules cannot create offences or civil penalties, confer powers of arrest/detention or search/seizure, impose taxes, appropriate funds, or alter the Act’s text. Those carve-outs signal where additional powers are off-limits and preserve certain separations of authority.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Jewish students and staff on campus — the inquiry’s investigation of incidents, security arrangements and support services could yield concrete recommendations for safer environments and targeted support mechanisms.
- University governing bodies and compliance teams — a clear, national inquiry report can provide standards and best-practice templates for definitions, policies and disciplinary procedures, reducing legal uncertainty.
- Regulators and education policymakers — the inquiry can identify systemic policy gaps and offer recommendations that inform regulatory frameworks and guidance across the sector.
- Victims and complainants generally — the Commissioner’s ability to compel evidence and the high-profile nature of a royal-style inquiry may surface cases and lead to redress or institutional change.
- Jewish community organisations and advocacy groups — formal findings and recommendations create authoritative material for advocacy, training and education programs.
Who Bears the Cost
- Universities — likely to face costs from policy reviews, security upgrades, disciplinary processes, training, potential sanctions and reputational management if the inquiry recommends stronger obligations or penalties.
- Student clubs and representative bodies — subject to scrutiny and potential sanctions or rules restricting boycotts and collaborations, they may face new compliance burdens or disciplinary exposure.
- Academics involved in contested research or collaborations — the inquiry’s focus on de facto boycotts and collaborations with Israeli/Jewish institutions raises compliance and reputational risk, and could prompt review of academic conduct rules.
- The Department and Commissioner’s office — seconding APS staff and running a national inquiry will create administrative and financial burdens on Commonwealth resources.
- Legal teams and advisers — universities, student organisations and individuals may incur increased legal costs defending disciplinary actions or responding to compulsory notices and hearings.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing a robust, coercive inquiry designed to protect Jewish students and stamp out antisemitism against preserving academic freedom, procedural fairness and university autonomy; the bill equips a powerful fact‑finder but leaves open who should translate findings into sanctions and how to respect open academic discourse while prohibiting discriminatory conduct.
Several implementation tensions arise. First, the bill pushes institutions toward adopting an ‘appropriate definition’ of antisemitism, naming the IHRA definition as an example; but it stops short of prescribing a single definition or detailing how competing free-speech protections should be reconciled.
That leaves the Commissioner to balance definitional clarity against academic freedom and contextual speech considerations — a judgment that will shape recommendations and downstream compliance obligations.
Second, the Act imports Royal Commission mechanisms, including compulsion, but pairs that with procedural flexibility and limited rulemaking checks. Those powers facilitate fact‑finding but raise procedural fairness questions for academics and students who may face disciplinary or reputational consequences based on inquiry findings.
The structure does not clearly map which body would carry out sanctions the Commissioner recommends, nor how federal recommendations would interact with state-based university governance and existing employment or academic freedom protections.
Third, practical constraints matter: the Minister sets the report deadline in the appointment instrument, and cross-jurisdictional hearings (including outside Australia) could complicate evidence gathering, witness protections and enforcement of notices. Costs borne by universities and the Department are not funded in the bill, and the interaction between FOI/Archives protections and confidentiality for individuals or sensitive security material will require careful administrative rules and likely legal challenge.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.