Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I want to begin by thanking my friend the Member for Newcastle for facilitating my participation in this debate on what is a busy day in the House. I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025 and the cognate Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2025, and I will be moving the amendment circulated in my name. The coalition supports these bills and, of course, their purpose, which is to establish a national code to prevent and respond to gender based violence in higher education. They affirm that everyone on a university campus, be they students or staff, and residents as well, has the absolute right to be safe.

I want to spend a few moments talking about the National Student Safety Survey conducted by Universities Australia in 2021. The survey reported some very alarming figures. The survey found that one in six students had been sexually harassed since starting university and, shockingly, one in 20 had been sexually assaulted. Around half of all students who had experienced sexual assault and sexual harassment knew nothing or very little about where to seek help or formal reporting processes. I encourage everyone in this chamber to read the National Student Safety Survey's qualitative report. The report is heavy reading. It includes composite case studies—stories which bring home the shocking failures in student safety from gender based violence on our campuses. It's worth recapping now some of these anonymised case studies, which have been published as composite case studies precisely to avoid further traumatising victims. They make for shocking reading, and they highlight the seriousness of what we're talking about. I want to talk about some of them now because they emphasise the weight of the matters that we're considering as legislators.

There are stories like that of Zara, who was repeatedly harassed by a non-academic university staff member during her time on campus. The staff member sent her unwanted text messages, commenting on her appearance and stereotypes about women from her country of origin. Zara had the courage to raise these issues with the head of department but was told to block the phone number of the accused and asked to no longer attend school seminars or social events as no-one could guarantee her safety from this person. For the next two years, she didn't attend an academic seminar on campus.

There are stories like that of Yasmin, whose friends were sexually assaulted by a residential advisor after drinking. When Yasmin and her friends reported the incident, they were cautioned against impacting the perpetrator's future at the student residence. The perpetrator was required to attend some educational seminars but largely faced no disciplinary consequences. There are stories like that of Monita, who was sexually assaulted on an off-campus first-year camp by another first-year student. A year later, Monita was put in a position of protecting other students from unwanted sexual advances. The onus for protecting other students should never have gone to her.

There are stories like that of Sonya, who was sexually assaulted by her same-sex partner on campus, triggering post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, but for whom the frameworks in place didn't allow her to report her experience. There are stories like that of Sarah, who was assaulted during her second week on campus—her second week—but was told that the report process may take months to be resolved and whose personal information was disclosed to the perpetrator by university authorities. Sarah moved towns and universities and continues to deal with the mental health impacts. She says that she will never feel safe again.

These are composite stories that have been deliberately released to the public as part of the qualitative report that was part of the National Student Safety Survey. They are shocking. They are serious. They underscore the failures of leadership that we've seen time and again at our universities, and they also underscore the significance of the matter we're dealing with today.

This bill is necessary because the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, has failed to hold universities accountable for their actions. TEQSA does have existing powers to highlight university failures but didn't act, and the minister didn't strengthen TEQSA's powers or hold the regulator to account. This bill will establish a specialist unit within the Department of Education to act as the new regulator. The coalition does have some concerns about placing regulatory responsibility within the department rather than strengthening the independent regulator, TEQSA. The coalition notes that embedding this function within the department risks politicising regulation and undermining confidence and impartial enforcement. The minister is granted broad powers to set and enforce the code via legislative instrument. However, we are committed to supporting new initiatives in the higher education sector that aim to prevent and respond more effectively to the pervasive issue of gender based violence at university campuses. The coalition, again, acknowledges the work of advocates like Fair Agenda, End Rape on Campus and the STOP campaign to improve the safety of students and staff on campus.

The central test for this bill is not whether we can write a worthy code but whether we can deliver practical safety and justice on the ground—on the walk home from a late lecture, in a college residence after hours and in the small moments where a student weighs up whether it's worth reporting it at all. This is why the coalition supports a strong, enforceable framework. But strength isn't measured only by the breadth of ministerial powers; it's measured by independence, transparency, due process and results.

I want to talk about a few considerations that I hope are taken into account in developing the code. First, there's independence, an issue that I referred to earlier. If the government insists on housing compliance inside the department, then parliament must build the guiderails. There must be confidence that this regulator, which would now sit inside the department and which works for the government of the day, is able to be effective. The regulator can't become a quiet clearing house for problems; it must be a lighthouse for standards.

Second, there needs to be prevention as well as response. The code should not just be a narrow rule book for postincident procedures; it must also look at the policy interventions that work to prevent gender based violence in the first place. These policies should be evidence led and subject to evaluation so that good practice spreads quickly and poor practice is retired.

Third, there needs to be consistency across the whole ecosystem. Many students live in accommodation operated by colleges, affiliates or private providers. We cannot allow a system to develop where every residence that markets itself through university channels or derives income from university students is subjected to a different standard.

Fourth is procedural fairness. A safe system must also be a fair system. In developing the code, the government will need to have regard to clear timeframes, natural justice and fairness to all parties. There should be clear expectations about record keeping and communication—no long silences or lost files. When matters are criminal, the pathway to police must be clear.

Fifth, we need to be considering the data that drives change. The 2021 survey told us things we couldn't ignore. The next phase must tell us whether we're improving. The code envisaged by this bill should allow us to identify risks and track progress over time.

Sixth, there should be alignment with our broader national effort. The coalition has been clear that it supports the 10-year National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032. This code should dovetail with the national plan and with the state and territory laws.

Finally, there needs to be accountability, specifically to this parliament. The code will be made by legislative instrument. That means it is subject to parliamentary oversight. It is for all of us, on all sides, to ensure that the code is a living standard that keeps pace with evidence and with the realities of student life. Again, our success will be measured not by the quality of the code but by the safety on the ground of those who live, work and study on our university campuses.

I started these remarks by commenting on the absolute right that everyone on a university campus has, be they students, staff or residents. No student should have to choose between their safety and their education. No staff member should have to choose between their safety and their employment. I started by recognising the Universities Australia survey on student safety and gender based violence, and there were some clear and disturbing parallels with another national survey on student safety. This is the subject of the amendments that I have put before the House.

In August 2023, a national survey found that 64 per cent of Jewish university students experienced antisemitism. The impacts are immediate: 57 per cent hid their identity and 19 per cent avoided campus due to safety fears. This was before the sickening events of October 7. Since October 7, the increase in antisemitic incidents across Australia, but particularly on campus, has been immediate and catastrophic. University campuses, as I said, must be safe for everyone, and that includes Jewish Australians.

We've been clear that more action must be taken by this government not only to respond to the terrible proliferation of gender based violence on university campuses but to deal with antisemitism as well. We've seen clear attempts to silence and intimidate Jewish academics, staff and students, and that's completely unacceptable. We have also been clear that more action must be taken by this government to address the rise of antisemitism on university campuses. That's why we 've circulated the second reading amendment to this bill, which is similar to an amendment that was moved in the last parliament, in the other place, on this bill's predecessor. The coalition's amendment seeks to establish an additional national higher education code to prevent and respond to antisemitism, because, just like the concerns about gender based violence on campus which have led so many to be and feel unsafe, there is also a real and highly damaging wave of antisemitic sentiment on our campuses which is impacting Jewish students, staff, residents and others. The antisemitism code responds to the real and urgent circumstances of antisemitism that students are facing at universities.

I have been arguing consistently about this issue for nearly two years now, and I've been arguing against the studied indifference to Jew hatred on our campuses, because the emergence of antisemitism, particularly on our campuses, is one of the most serious threats to our pluralist multicultural democracy. The situation on campus for Jewish students and staff is diabolical. They feel abandoned by those charged with creating a safe place to study, research, teach and work. This is a tragedy for Australia, particularly because, unlike almost anywhere else, Australia has always been welcoming to the Jewish people. From the days of the First Fleet, when a dozen Jewish convicts stumbled ashore at Sydney Cove, Jewish people have had the opportunity to thrive free from discrimination and hatred. Jewish Australians have used that freedom and opportunity to contribute to our country. All Australians have the right to enjoy their education, free of harassment and intimidation. Our job is to ensure that the next generation of Jewish students are not discouraged from entering any field of Australian life.

As I said in this chamber more than a year ago, there is a particular tragedy about antisemitism on campus which seeks to exclude Jews from the intellectual life of the nation, because Jewish tradition values education as one of the highest virtues. Jews are taught to have arguments for the sake of Heaven and to arrive at truth through debate and discussion. This is the essence of a university. At their best, universities are life-changing places where people get an education and improve their opportunities in life. It's where the next generation of leaders are formed. That's why it is so important that antisemitism doesn't take hold. It's why students need to be taught about the evils of antisemitism. This is why it's always important to reject antisemitism however it manifests. It's not okay to be a bystander. If we're not teaching this to the next generation then we are setting our society on a course for a future based on conspiracy, not fact, on othering, not personal responsibility, and on social discord, not social harmony.

We know, from the special envoy's report, that young people under 35 don't recognise the seriousness of antisemitism and don't treat it properly, and that is, in part, because of what is happening at our universities. There's a sad but necessary requirement to recap some of the horrific and highly targeted abuse that Jewish students and staff have been dealing with on a daily basis since 7 October 2023. We've seen encampments where students chant 'intifada' and 'river to the sea', which the Prime Minister himself acknowledged is a violent and antisemitic phrase. They're deciding who should be allowed access to university buildings based on their religion. We heard the story of a student who, living in on-campus accommodation, held a Shabbat dinner, inviting both Jewish and non-Jewish students to her college. It had nothing to do with Israel-Hamas war; it was simply an opportunity to gather for a meal and share her traditions. But the following morning that student woke up to find Palestinian flags shoved under her door. We heard the story of a Jewish student who wore a kippah while walking through campus and was approached by pro-Palestinian protesters asking, 'Do you support the murdering of babies and the genocide in the Middle East?' We've heard the distressingly frequent stories of Jewish students being spat on and taunted with swastikas. In one incident we heard the story of a Jewish academic whose working area was urinated on with the word 'resign' scribbled on their desk.

The consistent message in all these incidents is that Jews are not welcome on Australian campuses. And it's not just students and outside activists propagating this; it's professors and PhDs. We've seen academics say, 'Jews don't deserve cultural safety.' We've seen academics deny the rapes of October 7—an approach no different to that of Holocaust denial. It makes a mockery of the institutions designed to celebrate the truth of human testimony and history.

I met with representatives of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students just this morning. As we speak, the National Union of Students is running a referendum on Palestine. As I've said consistently, Australians have the right to advocate for a change in our foreign policy, but some of the rhetoric and campaign materials have actively supported Hamas, an organisation which we in this country list as a terrorist organisation. Speakers have stated that it is their duty to make Jews uncomfortable. Jews are shouted at. Jews are told to go back to Europe. The consequence of the way this referendum has been conducted has been clear and unequivocal for Jewish staff and students. They've seen an increase in discrimination, harassment and vilification based on their membership of the Jewish community. Why on earth should our campuses be a place where Hamas propaganda is handed out and actively supported? This is spineless leadership from our university administrators.

The weakness of their ineffectual response doesn't stop there. As we speak there are universities across the country which have failed to adopt any kind of definition of antisemitism, be it the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition or the Universities Australia definition. This ongoing failure has allowed antisemitic action to flourish, often under the guise that the abuse being hurled at Jewish Australians on campuses is somehow legitimate political commentary on Israel and its policies. The reality on the ground is different. It's abuse, it's discrimination, it's vilification and it's allowed through to the keeper on the basis of a nod and a wink from the quisling administrators.

What we're seeing on university campuses today is the next evolution of a hatred that has endured through human history. It's time for universities to act to stop the abuse, stop the hate and stop the vilification. Just as we're acting on the very real and current safety risks around gender based violence, this is an opportunity to act on the very real and current safety risks around antisemitism. The second reading amendment that I've circulated gives the government an opportunity to join with the coalition in addressing this issue.

Of course the best way the government can address this issue is to adopt our proposal for a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on Australian university campuses—something I brought to this parliament more than a year ago. Only a judicial inquiry presided over by a sitting or retired judge, with silks cross-examining university administrators, will be able to get to the bottom of this. Only a judicial inquiry can seize documents, provide immunities and ensure that we get to the bottom of a cultural issue that has been a feature of university campuses for decades and which has been turbocharged, sadly, since the tragic events of October7.

This second reading amendment envisages the creation of a code which has three clear objectives. First, it would make clear to all higher education students, staff and providers that everyone on a higher education campus has the right to feel safe. Second, it would impose on universities a range of obligations considering student and staff safety, which is very important given the alarming increase in antisemitic incidents on university campuses since 7 October 2023.Third, it would also ensure that higher education providers must comply with the National Student Ombudsman's recommendations concerning the national higher education code to prevent and respond to antisemitism. This is similar to the amendments the coalition moved earlier this year and in the other place.

Of course, the government have had years to act, along with universities, but unfortunately to date they have failed to provide protection, recourse or cultural change. The Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in Australia, Jillian Segal—

See this speech in context