Press conference - Brisbane

JASON CLARE, MINISTER FOR EDUCATION: Well, g’day, everyone. It’s great to be here in Brissie, and it’s great to be here with Giri, Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner to release the Respect at Uni report. This is a report that was a recommendation of the Universities Accord. The Universities Accord is a blueprint for how we reform our universities over the next decade and beyond. And the report that we’re releasing today is a very important one because it tells the story of some of the real challenges that we face in our universities. 

Now, universities are great institutions, but they’re not perfect. And Australia’s not a racist country, but racism exists, and if you look hard enough, you’ll find it. If you read through the pages of this report, you will see it. What this report tells us is that racism is not more prevalent in our universities than in any other part of Australia. That’s really not the point. Racism does exist in our universities, and our universities have to hold themselves to a high standard. And this report tells us that we’re not doing enough at the moment to stamp it out where we find it or to prevent it in the first place. And you can see that by the fact that 76,000 students and staff responded to the survey work that Giri and the team led, and by the answers that they gave and the statements that you’ll see published in this report. 

Now, I don't want to steal your thunder, mate, so over to you to set out for us in a bit of detail the work that you’ve found and the recommendations that you’ve got for us. 

GIRIDHARAN SIVARAMAN: Thanks very much everyone for coming today. And thank you very much, Minister Clare, for making the trip up to sunny Brisbane for this release. I just want to acknowledge that I’m here on the lands of the Jagera and the Turrbal and pay my respects to elders past and present and extend that to anyone that’s here today and to all of those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders that responded to this survey. So, I think the first thing to note is there’s never been a study like this. There’s never been a study of this scale at universities about racism at universities or at universities full stop. And I want to thank the Australian Government for commissioning this really vital work. And it comes at a critical juncture in our society where racism has been brought to the fore. We’ve had the worst violence, antisemitic violence, on our shores ever recently. And this is a landmark report, and what it shows is that racism is deeply embedded in our universities. It’s embedded within the systems and institutions of our universities, and it has a profound impact on staff and students. 

Racism is something that betrays a university’s duty of care – duty of care to provide a safe, inclusive environment for students and staff. As the Minister said, we had over 76,000 responses to our survey. That’s phenomenal. And when it comes down to it, we have nearly 15 per cent of staff across the board and 3 per cent of students, and we had a very high rate from international students as well as domestic students. 

If you look at that report, there are 1.4 million words of experiences that were shared with us. That is harrowing reading at times, but it is such a rich data source. And what it shows is that across all communities that are affected by racism, it is significant. For all communities it was at rates at over 70 per cent. That is really high. And it’s particularly high for Jewish and Palestinian students. It is particularly high for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, African, Asian, Māori, Middle Eastern, Muslim and Pasifika students. 

So, communities are affected across the board. And many talked about witnessing racism. Even if they didn’t experience it, nearly one in five respondents said that they’d witnessed it. But here’s the other problem – only 6 per cent of people who experienced it were willing to make a complaint. And that is a systemic issue. That is a structural issue, a lack of faith in the complaints processes at universities to report racism. A lack of trust and a belief that nothing will happen. 

And there was one story that stuck with me so powerfully, it was from an Aboriginal responding to the survey who said, “I made a complaint. Nothing happened for 12 months. Then I was told after 12 months, ‘We can’t proceed with your complaint because it’s been more than 12 months since the conduct occurred.” That’s almost Kafkaesque in its inefficiency and in the way in which it suppresses a complaint. 

So we make a series of recommendations in this report. And there are some universities that are doing good work. I just want to point that out. We found that there were a few that had specific anti-racism plans, and that’s to be commended. And that’s something that I hope others can look at as a way forward. And those particular universities that have confronted racism, that have engaged in truth-telling in some cases, that have specific anti-racism plans, they’re to be commended, because that is the way forward. 

You have to name the beast to slay it. You actually have to talk about racism if you want to confront it. You can’t use euphemisms like social cohesion. Social cohesion papers over the cracks. Anti-racism work tackles the problems in our structure. But the beauty of anti-racism work at universities is it’s a way of honouring the promise that is made to domestic and international students, that promise which is viscerally broken by racism. And it is a way of bringing us together. It is a way of having conversations about difficult topics. And it’s a way of doing that with dignity and with respect and in a way that brings us together and makes our institutions better for students and staff. 

And in our report, we talk about recommendations which strongly align with the National Anti-Racism Framework, which was tabled with the Federal Government in November 2024. And what this report and this study confirms is the critical importance of moving, implementing and funding the recommendations in the National Anti-Racism Framework, which is a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach, and which has specific recommendations about the education sector. And I’m very pleased to have been having constructive discussions with the Minister, who I know is deeply passionate about this issue. 

I just want to finish with this: the voices of the people that spoke to us, that trusted the commission, the 76,000 people that trusted in our institution and wanted to be heard, those voices need to be honoured. They need to be honoured by action. Action on the recommendations that we’ve put forward so that we can make universities a genuine place for respect and dignity and safety for all. 

Happy to open up to questions. 

JOURNALIST: Minister, just firstly, you talked about some of those challenges facing universities. Should academics like Randal Abdel-Fattah be removed from university campuses, considering 94 per cent of Jewish students say they are experiencing racism? 

CLARE: Well, just on Jewish students generally, I think Jewish students have made it very clear to me over the course of the last couple of years that they’ve felt unwelcome on campus, that they’ve been made to feel unwelcome. And that’s not on. And I’ve made that very clear to university vice-chancellors. 

They’ve also made the point to me that the complaint system in our universities is often not up to scratch. That might mean they don’t complain at all, or when they do complain, that the process is so difficult that they don’t get the outcome that they need. This report makes it very clear that that is a problem across the board. And TEQSA, the university regulator, is doing some important work in improving the complaint systems that our universities have. But there is obviously a lot more work that needs to be done. 

JOURNALIST: The report found rates of racism towards Jewish students and Palestinian students the highest at 90 per cent, which is very high. The government’s currently got an antisemitism taskforce and report card, but is there more that needs to be done to target action towards these other groups as well? 

SIVARAMAN: Well, I think that’s what this report says, and there’s a set of recommendations about how we address that. Today, we’re releasing the report; we’re not releasing the government’s response to it. But perhaps if I could make this point: another report from the Human Rights Commission was done a couple of years ago, and that was around sexual violence at universities. And that work was done by Kate Jenkins. What it exposed is one in six students being victims of sexual assault, one in 20 students being victims of sexual harassment. And, again, lots of students saying that when they complained, their complaints weren’t heard. That report led to action. That report led to the establishment for the first time of a national Student Ombudsman. That report led to – and it’s coming into effect on the 1st of January this year – a national code, a national legislative code, around gender-based violence in our universities. 

So I think I have demonstrated here that there is a need to act, whether it’s in that area or whether it’s in this area as well. I want to change the way our universities look, and I want to change the way our universities act. I want to change the way they look by helping more young people get to university, particularly more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. I also want to change the way our universities act so they are safe places for students wherever they come from. That’s why the ombudsman is important. That’s why changes to complaints handling are important. That’s why the other reforms that we’re implementing when it comes to university governance are important as well. That means lifting the standards that universities have to meet, but it also means empowering TEQSA, the university regulator, with the sort of powers they need to make sure that universities do act, and where they don’t act, the regulator has the power to take action. 

JOURNALIST: Just on safe spaces, so you don’t think academics like Randal Abdel-Fattah should be removed from universities? And just one other thing: do you think you should have implemented the recommendations of the Segal review sooner? And can you provide an update on where the government is up to? 

CLARE: Well, the latest on the antisemitism taskforce, the Antisemitism Education Taskforce, is that it met for the second time last week, and it’s chaired, as you know, by David Gonski, a person who is held in the highest regard by I think every single Australian in this country. And David will brief education ministers on the work that the taskforce is doing right now on Friday. Education ministers will meet for the first time this year on Friday. 

Jillian Segal, the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, will be at that meeting as well and update ministers on the work that she is leading, work that commenced before December of last year, work that involves changes to teacher training, and she’s doing that work with my department, but also with UNESCO. And she’ll give ministers an update on that, as well as the establishment of an online hub that will bring together all of the different antisemitism resources that exist in different states at the moment in one location for all schools across the country to be able to draw on. But also an update on the legislation that we will develop to give more powers to the university regulator. 

In the last question I just mentioned the work that we need to do to empower the university regulator to act when universities don’t. That work is being developed with the Antisemitism Education Taskforce. There’ll be an update on that when education ministers meet at the end of this week as well. 

JOURNALIST: I wanted to ask if there are examples of impacts on marks and results that there is bias, or examples of students failing or passing based on acts of racism? 

SIVARAMAN: Yes, there is. So – and it occurs in a multitude of ways. The thing about racism is it’s often death by a thousand cuts. It’s not just one particular thing; it can be a number of things. It can be that you’re not culturally safe when you go to university, you’re not physically safe. That affects the way in which you go in exams or assessments. It can be that the curriculum doesn’t recognise your experiences, or it doesn’t have the diversity of experiences, which disadvantages you based on your background and experiences. It could be that there are biases in the person that’s teaching you. 

And some of the quotes, some of the worst quotes, the most harrowing quotes in this report are from students that talk about things, horrifically racist things, said by tutors and academics. It can be that the way in which your work is assessed is that there’s an assumption that it’s not good enough. I remember a student telling me how they were an international student, and the academic, the person teaching them accused them of using AI because their answer was so good, rather than presuming or taking – assuming the best of the person and assuming they might actually be good at their subject. So it absolutely has an impact. And if you’re upset, depressed because of the way racism has impacted you, it is hardly surprising that that's going to affect your academic results. 

JOURNALIST: Should there be consequences for universities that fail to protect students and staff against racism? 

SIVARAMAN: That’s certainly something we can both speak to. But certainly in the report we recommend, for example, that the TEQSA standards be strengthened to specifically name racism. And we talk about universities taking better action. Here’s the thing: consequences come at the end. What you want to do is actually improve the institution from the beginning, for the lifespan of the student’s journey. Let’s try and build the institution to be even better, to be more respective, to have better curriculum, to be more responsive to complaints so that you don’t get to the point of consequences. 

CLARE: It’s probably a neat opportunity for me to mention that in December, we said that we would reform the university standards, sometimes referred to as the threshold standards, to require universities to demonstrate how they’re responding to racism in all its ugly and noxious forms, whether that’s antisemitism or racism against any individual at university. And that work is now underway. The Higher Education Standards Panel will give me advice very soon on how to structure that higher standard for our universities. And that will be presented to – well, firstly, to the Antisemitism Education Taskforce and then to education ministers as well, before we put that in place. I’m hoping that we’ll see that put in place around the middle of the year. 

JOURNALIST: Will the government accept the recommendations in the report in principle, and you said the government will have a response soon, but [indistinct]? 

CLARE: Well, we’re releasing it today. We’ll comb through it and respond in due course. But one of them is this: it’s to raise that standard that universities need to comply with. We’ve already said that we will do that, and that work is underway. 

JOURNALIST: One of the perhaps most contentious things the antisemitism envoy recommended, and this report doesn’t is for universities that don’t meet those standards to be defunded. Has the government decided [indistinct]? 

CLARE: Well, in a sense that power already exists. In a sense, TEQSA, that university regulator, already has the power to deregister a university and cut funding off. What that would mean in practice is that 50 or 60,000 students at a university would cease to have a university. And so what the head of TEQSA has said to me is we’ve got the sledgehammer, but we don’t have any other real powers that we can use to exercise where a university does the wrong thing other than a feather. So, between the sledgehammer and the feather, they say we need some better powers and some stronger powers to be able to act. 

Now, I think I said back in September that I agreed with that. We consulted in October and November with the sector about the structure and form that those powers need to take. The Prime Minister announced that we would do that in December, and now work is underway working with the Antisemitism Education Taskforce and education ministers on the design of that legislation. And so that will come, and I’ll introduce that legislation in the next few months. 

JOURNALIST: Minister, there is one recommendation in the report that states that all universities should develop a whole-of-organisation anti-racism plan with accountability mechanisms applying to vice-chancellors and chancellors. What would those accountability mechanisms look like? 

CLARE: I might get Giri to touch on that, but one of the things you point out in the report is that some universities do this already, and some do it better than others. 

SIVARAMAN: Yeah, so accountability measures would be for anti-racism would be systemic and institutional – that is, what exists in terms of the induction, what exists in terms of the curriculum, how effective and safe are the complaints mechanisms? what are the consequences for racism that is occurring? And, of course, critically, what role does leadership play? Because it’s very important that anti-racism work isn’t just left at lower levels, that it involves leadership, that leadership both have a say and a responsibility and an accountability for implementing it. 

And the important thing to remember in this is this is not just about the racism experienced by students. That’s significant, but it was the racism experienced by staff. And, in fact, staff responded at a higher rate than students. And staff reported significant levels of racism, including when it came to progressing to senior levels. We don’t see diversity at the leadership of universities. If you were to have a table with every vice-chancellor in Australia, you would see very little diversity, or chancellors, you would see very little diversity. 

What are the systemic issues that stop people from progressing to the top? That needs to be part of the accountability measure as well – a measure of diversity at leadership levels of universities. 

JOURNALIST: Why do we need a national human rights act? That’s one of your recommendations to create one. What do we need one? 

SIVARAMAN: We need - The Australian Human Rights Commission has been advocating for a national human rights act for over two decades. We believe that a national human rights act is a fundamental bedrock for recognising, educating and protecting about human rights in this country. People often talk about human rights, and they make assumptions. People say, “Oh, yeah, we’ve got a bill of rights.” And I go, “Oh, no, we don’t.” They go, “Yeah, we do. I can plead the fifth, can’t I?” And I go, “No, you can’t. that doesn’t actually exist in this country.” 

If you’re going to be a successful democracy that protects people’s rights, preserves natural justice and ensures that governments are accountable to people, then a fundamental tool of that is a national human rights act. That is what the commissioner has said. And particularly because where grey power and discretion is given to governments, then there needs to be checks and balances, and that’s what a human rights act does. 

And I should point out that some states and territories have actually an act of human rights legislation. It’s not an unheard-of thing within this country. Including this one, yes, that is right. So I could probably speak a lot more about that, but in a general sense, that’s why. 

JOURNALIST: Minister, are we going to create a national human rights act?  

CLARE: I thought that would be the next question. Do you know what the answer is? 

JOURNALIST: Tell me. 

CLARE: Well, that’s a matter for the Attorney-General. But what we will do – the report’s got a whole bunch of recommendations, some of which are for government and some of which are for universities. And so, there is a piece of work now for me as Education Minister to go through the recommendations in this report, the ones that apply particularly to me, but also consult with ministers that are responsible for other recommendations in this report and respond to it, which we’ll do. But in addition to that, there is a whole set of other recommendations there for universities to consider. And I’m sure that they’ll do that. 

JOURNALIST: Minister, it sounds like there’s some harrowing stories and reading in the report. What do you say to students and staff who have been impacted or who feel unsafe at university? 

CLARE: Well, it shouldn’t happen. And it shouldn’t happen in the future. Everybody should be safe at university, whether it’s safe from violence or safe from racism or safe from sexual assault. And as I said in my introductory comments, universities are great institutions who do great things, who help to tackle the problems of today and build the workforce of tomorrow, but they’re not perfect. And where we find that they’re falling down or they’re not doing enough, then we’ve got to make sure that we do more. And we’ve done that in the area of sexual assault, sexual violence, something that I think everyone who has been involved in those reforms should be very proud of. But there’s obviously an enormous piece of work we have to do here as well. 

JOURNALIST: I just have a couple of questions for the commissioner on the [indistinct]. This is just about the attempted bombing of the Invasion Day rally in Perth being declared an alleged terrorist attack. At the time, you said hate needed to be addressed urgently and comprehensively. Is that the response that we’ve seen from the government?

SIVARAMAN: The – I think it’s very important that it’s been classified as a terrorism incident. I think that we shouldn’t underestimate the impact of that event on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their feeling of safety. Of course, there’s a criminal investigation proceeding, and the presumption of innocence is a key plank in our criminal justice system. What I think would be significant – and it hasn’t happened yet – is that the government adopt and implement the National Anti-Racism Framework if we’re going to deal with racial hatred. And we’ve seen, of course, the most horrific of attacks at Bondi, and we’ve seen the attack in [indistinct], but we’ve seen other attacks as well. And I think sometimes people have short memories. We saw racial violence spike during COVID against people of Chinese origin, including Chinese students, which comes through very clearly in this report. During the Voice referendum a surge in racism towards First Peoples. After October 7, 2023, a surge in antisemitism, a surge in anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia. We saw recently a Muslim priest being run off the road and threatened. 

The problems keep surfacing. Just over the weekend, I was sent a video by an Indian media organisation, a horrifically racist video circulating here. The target keeps changing. The problem remains. The racism remains. That indicates we need a comprehensive approach. That approach is contained in the National Anti-Racism Framework. That is a significant step that needs to happen now. 

JOURNALIST: Many people were frustrated the alleged attack wasn’t labelled terrorism sooner. What message do you think it sends that it has now been deemed terrorism? 

SIVARAMAN: I think it sends a message that it’s really significant. People could have died. That’s a horrific thing. People that were peacefully gathering, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their allies, could have been killed as a result of this. And it’s sheer luck that that didn’t happen. And so we have to recognise that. And we have to recognise the impact, the ongoing impact, because it compounds the existing racist violence that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have been suffering for 237 years on these lands. So, we need racial justice, and we need a way forward, and part of that is recognising the seriousness of the racist violence that is directed towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. 

JOURNALIST: One of your recommendations is to establish a positive duty to prevent racial discrimination [indistinct] acts, which is a federal act. Should states also do so? 

SIVARAMAN: Yeah, some states do have a positive duty already. Some states and territories have a positive duty to eliminate –

JOURNALIST: Not this one. 

SIVARAMAN: No, no. The laws that were passed have been put on hold in Queensland, which is disappointing. I think they should proceed to implement the positive duty here. The thing is that at the moment, our system requires people to suffer harm before they seek redress. So, what we’re seeing is, “Okay, until you’ve been harmed, hurt, by racism, there’s nothing you can do about it.” We need to shift the onus. We need to put the obligation on employers and other entities to take measures to stop the harm from occurring. And in that way, we create a better society for everyone. So, we think that a positive duty is a far more effective, and a more trauma-informed and a harm minimisation way to deal with racism. 

JOURNALIST: Minister, is the government going to help the [indistinct] ISIS brides and children in homes across Australia? 

CLARE: I just refer you to the comments the Prime Minister made this morning. He was pretty clear. 

JOURNALIST: What happens when they get to Australia, though? What do you – do you monitor them? 

CLARE: Again, I’ve got nothing to add to what the boss said this morning. 

JOURNALIST: Minister, there’s reports that a leading Muslim Sydney doctor, Jamal Rifi, is believed to be in Syria helping coordinate the repatriation of those ISIS brides. If that is true, would that be appropriate for him to do? 

CLARE: I don’t have any detail on that, so it’s difficult for me to comment.