Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 3:13:25 to 3:21:42
The regulator explains the requirement for universities to adopt definitions of antisemitism while maintaining academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
Topics: Education, Antisemitism
Speakers: Dr Mary Russell, Senator David Pocock, Professor Kerri-Lee Krause, Unknown Speaker, Senator Paul Scarr, Speaker 2
>> thank you for time late on a Thursday. Um and thanks again for all the work you've done at the uh A&U or issues related to A&U and and thanks for the comments in your opening statement relating to personal information containing final report and the obviously events at AU over the recent years I think it's fair to say have caused enormous amount of harm to staff and students and its reputation. there's a lot of repair work uh underway and a there's a feeling in the community that there's been a lack of accountability for the harm that's been caused. Um how would you respond to that, especially in regard to senior leadership?
>> I think that's very that's very difficult for us to speak to as a regulator. So um our um legislation as it's currently framed is um um directs our efforts to ensuring that um governance problems when identified are redressed are addressed so that um the conditions that we have put in place are designed to strengthen and remedy the governance failings. Um what we have done in those is to um call out some of the specific concerns about trust and confidence within the community to um require that a standing or a a a ways of consulting with the community and engaging more directly with the community and council are regularized um and and become part of normal practice. um and to really expect that there needs to be comprehensive sort of strengthening of governance. That doesn't really go to the question I think that you're putting though about um you know consequences for individuals but it is um the entity which is the council of the institution that is the focus of Texas regulatory powers. I would note though that TEXA um at all times has also had an eye to whether the A&U was using its um internal processes and um any relevant external referrals um to deal with matters that while not within our remit were relevant for them to deal with in relation to these matters.
>> Okay. Thank you. And um are you able to provide uh detail around the findings beyond the conditions um that TEXA has provided to ANU's council executive and and what assurances it can provide that the identified shortcomings will actually be addressed.
So if I can answer in two parts. I think before you came in Senator um I explained that we are um we are tableabling for the committee's consideration um minimally redacted reasons for decision which I think tell the entirety of the narrative um um from Texas point of view about the issues of concern the reasons for taking the the action that we have. Um from that it should be apparent to you why the conditions are quite extensive um because um it sets out the the nature the depth and the breadth of the governance problems that we um that we found. So we understand the interest of the committee in being able to see that and we we think that is reflected um in the conditions.
>> And sorry maybe I clumsily worded that. Um did you provide the unredacted report including the bridge report to the um council and the executive for them to sort of see what
>> the council have the full unredacted reasons for decision. In fact it's um at the request of the ANU that we've redacted some of that information because they still have live ongoing um internal processes in relation to some of those matters. Um so we've um ensured that in the redactions we've mitigated the risk that any of that could be prejudiced. >> Um with relation to the Briggs report um Chancellor Deborah has been um I've made sure that he's really comprehensively um briefed in relation to the cont um to the findings of Miss Briggs which of course was the early part of the matter and went to culture um and he has also spoken with Miss Briggs.
>> Okay. But they haven't seen the actual
Briggs report. No, Senator and that was not um that was not something that the commission relied upon um in um in the
>> and that will stay with Texa. What happens to the brief? >> Okay. Um I've just got a couple of questions about um the uh anti-semitism definition. Um it seems like there's been some confusion about the the text of guidelines which I understand were released in final form uh today where universities need to adopt a def a definition of anti-semitism by 1 Jan 2027 under amendments to the higher education standards um framework um is do I read that correctly that is what is required 1 Jan 2027 Every university has to have a definition.
>> That's correct.
and I just want to be be clear, Texas guidelines give two examples but don't require universities to adopt any particular definition of anti-semitism.
>> That's correct. So the um standards that were made by the minister require universities to have a definition but don't prescribe um uh which of the commonly used and commonly adopted definitions um must be um adopted. Um that I think is consistent with um uh the work that's already been done by some universities in this space um and the fact that they are autonomous institutions.
>> Mhm. So, it's mandatory for universities to have a definition of anti-semitism, but it's up to the university as to what that is.
>> That's correct. TEXA has provided exemplars um which are the university's Australia definition and the IRA definition. um the UA definition in particular because it was developed for Australian higher education contexts and with consideration of the need for it to work in conjunction with the their obligations for academic freedom. Um and it was felt that um by many um in the consultation feedback that that that was um um more easily and implemented um than the IRA definition in a context where scholarship um uh might still require debate around some of those
>> Okay. So the definition just needs to be compatible with academic freedom and and
are already obligations under the standards that are relevant in relation to academic freedom um freedom of speech and um uh well-being, student well and staff well-being. So we expect in effect adopting the definition is only the first step. It needs to be one that can be has enough specificity and clarity to be used to set expectations about conduct and behavior about what aspects of scholarship um are acceptable and what cross the line into anti-semitism. Um and that that um can also be applied in activities such as education, induction, um uh assessment criteria, complaints and grievance processes. So there's a level of um clarity that needs to be applied. um from the definition um to um conduct and implementation in real
>> If I could also add Senator just uh to augment that um TEXA doesn't create the standards. So uh we regulate against the standards that are determined by the minister. Uh so uh if there is no specification of a particular definition in the standards, it's not Texas's role to go beyond that. But it's certainly our role to support the providers in implementing good.
>> Thank you very much, Commissioner and Dr. Russell. Thanks again. Thanks to your your your team. That's all I have for now, but I'll I'll put a a few questions on notice about another matter. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Senator. >> I've got three minutes.
>> Senator Scott.