Too narrow
Critics said the bill would investigate antisemitism on campuses but not Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, First Nations experiences or other forms of discrimination that were being considered through broader anti-racism work.
Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities
Current status
This bill is currently before Parliament.
Policy area
Education & skills
What does this bill do?
The bill would require the responsible minister to appoint a current or former judge to conduct a Commission of InquiryA formal inquiry established by legislation. In this bill it would investigate antisemitism at Australian universities and make recommendations to the minister. into antisemitism at Australian universities and report by a date set in the appointment instrument.
Why was it introduced?
The bill was introduced because Senator Sarah Henderson argued that antisemitism at Australian universities had been a long-running problem and had intensified after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks in Israel. The explanatory memorandum said an August 2023 survey found almost two-thirds of Jewish university students had experienced antisemitism, and the sponsor argued universities had failed to respond adequately. The bill responds by proposing a judge-led inquiry with Royal Commission-style powersStrong inquiry powers modelled on the Royal Commissions Act, including powers to gather evidence and conduct hearings. focused on antisemitism on university campuses.
Broader context
The bill sits in a wider dispute about antisemitism, protest, racism and university safety after 7 October 2023. Supporters argued that Jewish students and staff needed a judge-led inquiry with strong powers and confidential evidence processes. Critics accepted that antisemitism was serious, but argued the proposed inquiry was too narrow, too slow, or politically framed, and pointed instead to broader anti-racism and human-rights inquiries already under way.
Key criticism
The main criticisms were about the design of the inquiry, not about whether antisemitism was a serious problem. Labor and Greens speakers said the bill was too narrow because it focused only on antisemitism and not Islamophobia or other racism linked to the same campus conflict. Greens speakers also argued it could be used to attack pro-Palestinian student protest and academic freedom. Labor speakers and the Senate committee chair argued a commission with Royal Commission-style powersStrong inquiry powers modelled on the Royal Commissions Act, including powers to gather evidence and conduct hearings. would be too slow, and that faster human-rights and parliamentary inquiries were already under way.
Who supported it?
Senator Sarah Henderson introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Liberal Party, Jacqui Lambie Network, CLP.
Introduced in Senate 25 June 2024
Before Senate 02 Sept 2025
Not yet reached House —
Not yet law —
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
Recorded vote so far
1 recorded amendment or procedural vote was found, but no counted vote on the bill itself was recorded.
Days since introduction
715 days
Updated 10 June 2026.
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
The bill would require the responsible minister to appoint a current or former judge to conduct a Commission of InquiryA formal inquiry established by legislation. In this bill it would investigate antisemitism at Australian universities and make recommendations to the minister. into antisemitism at Australian universities and report by a date set in the appointment instrument.
-
The inquiry would examine antisemitic activity on university campuses before and after the 7 October 2023 terrorist attacks in Israel, including harassment, intimidation, violence, advocacy or glorification of violence, and support for listed terrorist organisations.
-
The Commission would review whether university regulators, university leaders, student and staff representative bodies, student clubs and other relevant bodies had done enough to protect Jewish students, academics, staff and visitors.
-
The inquiry would look at practical university responses, including definitions of antisemitism, complaints processes, disciplinary rules, campus safety, cultural and religious symbols, course materials, and support for people experiencing antisemitism.
-
The Commissioner would consider whether policy, legislative or regulatory changes were needed, including powers to bar or expel people from campus, sanctions for antisemitic conduct, sanctions for universities that fail to act, education measures and possible ministerial intervention powers.
-
The Commission would have powers similar to a Royal Commission: it could hold hearings, would not be bound by the rules of evidence, and the Royal Commissions Act 1902 would apply as if the inquiry were a Royal Commission.
-
If passed, the bill would commence the day after Royal AssentThe final formal approval a bill needs before it becomes an Act.. At collection time it was still before the Senate, with no final Act recorded and no proposed amendments collected.
Show source excerpts
-
The Minister must, by notifiable instrument, appoint a Judge to conduct a Commission of inquiry into the matters in subsections 6(1) to (3).
Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities introduced bill text -
The Commissioner is to inquire into the incidence of antisemitic activity on Australian university campuses including instances involving but not limited to harassment, intimidation or violence; advocacy for or the glorification of violence; or support for listed terrorist organisations; both before and after the 7 October 2023 terrorist attacks in Israel.
Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities introduced bill text -
whether the actions taken by regulators of Australian universities; leaders of Australian universities; student, academic or staff representative bodies; student clubs or organisations have been adequate.
Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities introduced bill text -
the adequacy of their policies and rules, and the nature and extent of their enforcement; disciplinary procedures and complaints-handling processes; security and safety of Jewish students, academics, staff and visitors; and course and teaching materials.
Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities introduced bill text -
any legislative or regulatory changes are necessary or appropriate to better protect Jewish students, academics, staff and visitors on Australian university campuses from antisemitism, including clarifying the powers of universities to bar or expel people from campus.
Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities introduced bill text -
The commission of inquiry will have similar powers to a Royal Commission. The Royal Commissions Act 1902 applies in relation to the Commission of inquiry, and to the Commissioner conducting it, as if the Commission of inquiry were a Royal Commission.
Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities introduced bill text -
The whole Act will commence on the day after the Act receives the Royal Assent. The bill will have no financial impact.
Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities explanatory memorandum
Context
Broader context for this bill
The bill sits in a wider dispute about antisemitism, protest, racism and university safety after 7 October 2023. Supporters argued that Jewish students and staff needed a judge-led inquiry with strong powers and confidential evidence processes. Critics accepted that antisemitism was serious, but argued the proposed inquiry was too narrow, too slow, or politically framed, and pointed instead to broader anti-racism and human-rights inquiries already under way.
- Aug 2023
Survey reports campus antisemitism before 7 October
The explanatory memorandum cited the Australian Jewish University Experience Survey, saying almost two-thirds of Jewish university students had experienced antisemitism and 19 per cent had stayed away from campus at some point because of antisemitism.
Explanatory memorandum ↗ - 07 Oct 2023
Hamas attacks reshape campus-safety debate
The bill and second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill. speech framed the period after the Hamas attacks in Israel as a major escalation in antisemitism on Australian university campuses.
Second reading speech ↗ - 03 May 2024
Prime Minister pledges more antisemitism action
The Australian Financial Review reported that Anthony Albanese promised to do more to protect Jewish Australians after crisis talks with rabbis amid rising antisemitism and pro-Palestinian campus protests.
Australian Financial Review ↗ - 25 June 2024
Judicial inquiry bill introduced
Senator Sarah Henderson introduced the bill in the Senate to establish a judge-led Commission of InquiryA formal inquiry established by legislation. In this bill it would investigate antisemitism at Australian universities and make recommendations to the minister. into antisemitism at Australian universities.
Parliament of Australia ↗ - 04 July 2024
Senate committee inquiry begins
The APH bill page records that the bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, with a report due on 1 October 2024.
APH bill page notes ↗ - 20 Sept 2024
Sydney University leader apologises to Jewish students
The Australian Financial Review reported that Sydney University vice-chancellor Mark Scott apologised to Jewish students and said the university had failed to keep them safe while appearing before the Senate inquiry.
Australian Financial Review ↗ - 19 Dec 2024
Human Rights Commission interim report finds wider racism
The Australian Financial Review reported that an Australian Human Rights Commission interim report said Jewish students described intimidation and exclusion, and believed some university administrations were unable or unwilling to address safety concerns.
Australian Financial Review ↗ - 06 Feb 2025
Senate rejects immediate second-reading vote
A procedural motion to put the second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill. question immediately was defeated 31 ayes to 33 noes, so the Senate did not bring debate to an immediate final vote at that point.
Senate division record ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 25 June 2024
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill. opened 25 June 2024
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill. moved
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill. debate 27 June 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill. debate 03 July 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs review 04 July 2024
The bill was referred for committee inquiry on 4 July 2024. The APH bill page records a committee report date of 1 October 2024.
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesSecond readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill. debate 06 Feb 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Lapsed at end of Parliament 21 July 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Restored to Notice Paper 02 Sept 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
The main criticisms were about the design of the inquiry, not about whether antisemitism was a serious problem. Labor and Greens speakers said the bill was too narrow because it focused only on antisemitism and not Islamophobia or other racism linked to the same campus conflict. Greens speakers also argued it could be used to attack pro-Palestinian student protest and academic freedom. Labor speakers and the Senate committee chair argued a commission with Royal Commission-style powersStrong inquiry powers modelled on the Royal Commissions Act, including powers to gather evidence and conduct hearings. would be too slow, and that faster human-rights and parliamentary inquiries were already under way.
Supporters disputed these criticisms and argued that a judicial inquiry was necessary because Jewish students and staff needed stronger powers, confidential evidence processes and a dedicated focus on antisemitism at universities.
Risk to protest and academic freedom
The Greens argued the bill was aimed at student encampments and would help impose a contested antisemitism definition in ways that could silence Palestinian voices and legitimate criticism of Israel.
Too slow for urgent campus safety
Nita Green said the Senate committee found university responses had been woefully inadequate, but concluded the bill was not the right mechanism because a commission of inquiryA formal inquiry established by legislation. In this bill it would investigate antisemitism at Australian universities and make recommendations to the minister. would be too slow and faster action was needed.
Politicising community tension
Labor speakers warned that the debate risked inflaming community tension, and argued the government had already referred antisemitism at universities to a parliamentary human-rights inquiry.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
Amendments at a glance
Other recorded votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Defeated Closure motion on second reading defeated
Defeated 31 to 33. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Closure motion on second reading defeated
Debate was not brought to an immediate final second-reading vote at that point.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 18
Liberal Party 18 / 0
Greens 0 / 11
Unknown 6 / 3
Nationals 4 / 0
One Nation 2 / 0
Independent 0 / 1
UAP 1 / 0
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
Sarah Henderson
Sarah Henderson introduced the bill and incorporated a second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill. speech arguing that universities had failed Jewish students and staff and that a judge-led inquiry with Royal Commission-style powersStrong inquiry powers modelled on the Royal Commissions Act, including powers to gather evidence and conduct hearings. was needed.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
Tony Sheldon
Tony Sheldon opposed the bill as too narrow, saying antisemitism was unacceptable but the response should also address Islamophobia, other racism, protest rights and existing government and university action.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
Jacqui Lambie
Jacqui Lambie again supported the bill, citing reports about Macquarie University and Sydney University and saying a commission of inquiryA formal inquiry established by legislation. In this bill it would investigate antisemitism at Australian universities and make recommendations to the minister. was needed.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead voice Supports
Dave Sharma
Dave Sharma supported the bill, saying a judicial inquiry would help give university vice-chancellors guidance to respond firmly to antisemitism.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
4 speakers · 2 oppose · 2 mixed
Labor
4 speakers · 2 oppose · 2 mixed
-
Tony Sheldon ★ Tony Sheldon opposed the bill as too narrow, saying antisemitism was unacceptable but the response should also address Islamophobia, other racism, protest rights and existing government and university action.
“This bill purports to investigate those experiences. But it is notable that the bill stops there and does not seek to investigate other forms of discrimination that are equally linked to the conflict in Gaza.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Deborah O'Neill Deborah O’Neill condemned antisemitism and indicated government support for referring the bill to committee, while placing the issue in the wider context of the Israel-Gaza conflict and social cohesion.
“I want to indicate that the government will be supporting the referral of this bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Nita Green Nita Green opposed the bill as the wrong mechanism, saying the committee found university responses inadequate but concluded a commission of inquiryA formal inquiry established by legislation. In this bill it would investigate antisemitism at Australian universities and make recommendations to the minister. would be too slow and that faster action was needed.
“The committee also found, though, that the bill itself is not the appropriate mechanism for addressing this type of issue.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Raff Ciccone Raff Ciccone condemned antisemitism and said the government was pursuing coordinated action, including a parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism at universities, while urging political leaders not to inflame tensions.
“Last October the government also referred antisemitism at Australian universities to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for inquiry.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Coalition
11 speakers · 13 contributions · 11 support
Coalition
11 speakers · 13 contributions · 11 support
-
Dave Sharma ★ Dave Sharma supported the bill, saying a judicial inquiry would help give university vice-chancellors guidance to respond firmly to antisemitism.
“I support this private senator’s bill because I believe it will give the guidance to university vice-chancellors that they need to deal with this issue resolutely.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Sarah Henderson ★ 2 contributions Sarah Henderson supported the bill, citing Jewish community concern about university responses and arguing that stronger action was needed to protect Jewish students.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Sarah Henderson on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Sarah Henderson introduced the bill and incorporated a second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill. speech arguing that universities had failed Jewish students and staff and that a judge-led inquiry with Royal Commission-style powersStrong inquiry powers modelled on the Royal Commissions Act, including powers to gather evidence and conduct hearings. was needed.
“This Bill provides for the establishment of a Commission of inquiry with Royal Commission powers led by a current or former Judge to inquire into antisemitism on university campuses.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Sarah Henderson supported the bill, citing Jewish community concern about university responses and arguing that stronger action was needed to protect Jewish students.
“Much more work needs to be done, which is why the passing of this bill is so important.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗ -
Hollie Hughes Hollie Hughes supported stronger action on antisemitism and criticised the government for not calling out conduct she described as inciting hatred and supporting recognised terror organisations.
“When you are talking about support for recognised terror organisations whose sole mission is the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, that is antisemitic.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Linda Reynolds Linda Reynolds supported the bill and framed the debate around Holocaust remembrance, campus safety and the need to confront antisemitism.
“I, too, rise to speak on the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024, and I do so with a very heavy heart.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Julian Leeser Julian Leeser supported a judicial inquiry, arguing that antisemitism on university campuses threatened Australian multiculturalism and that the proposal had Jewish community support.
“This bill by contrast has the support of the Jewish community.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Michaelia Cash Michaelia Cash supported the bill, arguing that the government response to campus antisemitism was inadequate and that a stronger judicial inquiry was needed.
“The bill is needed because the only response by the Albanese Labor government to the rampant antisemitism on campus has been to commission an inquiry by the Australian Human Rights Commission.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Maria Kovacic Maria Kovacic supported the bill and criticised the government for not publicly backing what she described as a commonsense proposal.
“It is regrettable that, despite multiple invitations to endorse this commonsense bill, this government has provided no public acknowledgment of or support for the proposal.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Matt O'Sullivan Matt O’Sullivan supported the bill, arguing that free speech does not protect antisemitism and that the inquiry would help address campus safety concerns.
“I rise to speak on and support the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Paul Scarr Paul Scarr supported the bill, saying the Jewish community had asked for a judicial inquiry and that confidential evidence processes were important for students and staff fearing reprisals.
“Our Australian Jewish community is asking us, the Australian parliament, to convene this inquiry.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price 2 contributions Jacinta Nampijinpa Price supported the bill, saying the government had not done enough to combat antisemitism and that a judicial inquiry was the most authoritative form of inquiry.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Jacinta Nampijinpa Price on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price supported the bill, arguing that Australia needed to respond firmly to antisemitism and terrorism-linked hatred.
“I stand to support the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2).”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price supported the bill, saying the government had not done enough to combat antisemitism and that a judicial inquiry was the most authoritative form of inquiry.
“The Albanese government has not done enough to combat antisemitism in this country, and that is why I wholeheartedly support this bill.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗ -
Andrew Bragg Andrew Bragg supported the bill, arguing that antisemitism on campuses was a major problem and linking the issue to wider concerns about Australia’s foreign-policy debate.
“This bill, of course, deals with a judicial inquiry into antisemitism in our university campuses.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Greens
1 speaker · 1 oppose
Greens
1 speaker · 1 oppose
-
Mehreen Faruqi Mehreen Faruqi said the Greens would not support the bill, arguing that a broader Race Discrimination Commissioner review was more appropriate and that the bill targeted pro-Palestinian campus protest.
“The Greens will not be supporting the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2).”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Minor parties and independents
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 support
Minor parties and independents
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 support
-
Jacqui Lambie ★ 2 contributions Jacqui Lambie again supported the bill, citing reports about Macquarie University and Sydney University and saying a commission of inquiryA formal inquiry established by legislation. In this bill it would investigate antisemitism at Australian universities and make recommendations to the minister. was needed.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Jacqui Lambie on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Jacqui Lambie supported the bill, arguing that university encampments and alleged extremist activity showed a need for a commission of inquiryA formal inquiry established by legislation. In this bill it would investigate antisemitism at Australian universities and make recommendations to the minister..
“I rise to speak in support of the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Jacqui Lambie again supported the bill, citing reports about Macquarie University and Sydney University and saying a commission of inquiryA formal inquiry established by legislation. In this bill it would investigate antisemitism at Australian universities and make recommendations to the minister. was needed.
“We do need a commission of inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Status
- Before Senate -- Collected from the APH bill page.
- Originating house
- Senate
- 25 June 2024
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 25 June 2024
Senate · Second reading moved
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 27 June 2024
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 03 July 2024
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 06 Feb 2025
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where senators debate the main purpose and principles of a bill. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 21 July 2025
Senate · Lapsed at end of Parliament
Lapsed at end of Parliament
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 02 Sept 2025
Senate · Restored to Notice Paper
Restored to Notice Paper
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Referred to committee
The bill was referred for committee inquiry on 4 July 2024. The APH bill page records a committee report date of 1 October 2024.
The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, with a committee report recorded for 1 October 2024.
APH bill page notes