Strategic insights for universities navigating the new governance landscape
The Governance Wake-Up Call
Fictional case study: In late 2024, a prominent Australian university faced a perfect storm. A Senate inquiry into gender-based violence in higher education released damning findings. Survivors alleged institutional failures. Students staged sit-ins demanding accountability. National media coverage dominated the headlines for weeks.
Behind closed doors, the university’s Council convened an emergency meeting. What emerged was a sobering realisation:
“We treated gender-based violence as a student wellbeing issue, not a governance issue. That has to change.”
This moment was not isolated. Across the sector, universities are grappling with the legal, governance, and reputational consequences of gender-based violence. And with the upcoming National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence (2025), expectations are about to become more explicit — and enforceable.
👉 MinterEllison’s insights highlight the scale of this shift. GBV is no longer just an HR matter. It is a boardroom and compliance priority.
Why This Matters: GBV as a Governance, Legal & Reputational Issue
For years, universities often treated gender-based violence as a student services or HR problem — handled by support teams, investigated internally, and rarely escalated beyond the executive level.
But this fragmented approach is no longer viable.
1. Legal Obligations Are Clearer Than Ever
Australian Work Health and Safety (WHS) law now recognises sexual harassment and other forms of gender-based violence as psychosocial hazards. Institutions have a legal duty to eliminate or minimise these risks so far as reasonably practicable.
- Failure to act can expose universities and their officers to significant penalties.
- Boards have non-delegable due diligence obligations to ensure psychosocial risks are managed effectively.
2. The National Code Is Transforming Expectations
The proposed National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence (2025) (the National Code) will introduce minimum enforceable standards for prevention, response, and governance.
Universities will need to demonstrate:
- Leadership and governance accountability.
- Comprehensive prevention education programs.
- Trauma-informed reporting and response mechanisms.
- Transparent data collection and public reporting.
- Survivor engagement in governance processes.
This is not optional. It’s a compliance baseline.
3. Reputation Is Now a Strategic Risk
Recent Senate inquiries, media exposés, and student activism have shown that institutional mishandling of GBV can cause:
- Significant reputational damage
- Loss of community trust
- Leadership turnover
- Regulatory intervention
Conversely, institutions that lead transparently and proactively are increasingly seen as trusted, modern, and values-driven.
Understanding the National Code: What Boards and Executives Need to Know
The National Code represents a fundamental shift from voluntary guidelines to structured accountability.
Key elements relevant to governance include:
| Area | Expectation |
| Leadership Accountability | Governing bodies must endorse GBV prevention strategies and receive regular reports. |
| Integration with Risk Frameworks | GBV must be treated as a WHS psychosocial hazard and appear in institutional risk registers. |
| Transparency & Reporting | Annual public reporting of GBV data, prevention activities, and outcomes is required. |
| Survivor Engagement | Governance structures must include survivor-informed perspectives. |
| Continuous Improvement | Boards must ensure mechanisms for ongoing evaluation and refinement. |
This means boards cannot remain passive. GBV oversight must become a standing governance matter, embedded in risk, culture, and compliance systems.
Building Governance Structures That Work
Universities are complex institutions. Effective governance of GBV requires clear structures, reporting lines, and responsibilities.
1. Board-Level Oversight
- Include GBV as a standing item on Council or Senate agendas.
- Establish dedicated committees (e.g., Safety & Wellbeing, Risk & Audit) to oversee prevention and response strategies.
- Require periodic briefings from senior executives and student leaders.
👉 Why it matters: Boards set the tone. If governance doesn’t prioritise GBV, the rest of the organisation won’t either.
2. Executive Accountability
- Nominate a senior executive lead for GBV prevention and response.
- Integrate GBV KPIs into leadership performance frameworks.
- Ensure regular reporting to Council and external stakeholders.
👉 Why it matters: Clear accountability prevents issues from falling through organisational cracks.
3. Risk Management Integration
- Include GBV in the institutional risk register as a psychosocial hazard.
- Identify controls (e.g., training, reporting systems, prevention programs) and assign ownership.
- Monitor and review regularly through WHS and compliance frameworks.
👉 Why it matters: Treating GBV like any other material risk brings rigour, resources, and board attention.
4. Data, Transparency & Continuous Improvement
- Develop robust data collection on incidents, reporting pathways, and cultural indicators.
- Publish annual reports with clear, accessible data.
- Establish feedback loops with students, staff, and survivors to evaluate impact.
👉 Why it matters: Transparency builds trust. Data drives strategy.
A Board Checklist for GBV Governance
For boards and executives wanting to align with best practice and the forthcoming National Code, here’s a practical governance checklist:
Strategic Oversight
- ☐ GBV prevention and response is explicitly included in the institutional strategic plan.
- ☐ Council/Senate has endorsed a GBV framework or strategy.
- ☐ Regular board reporting on GBV prevention, incidents, and response occurs.
Risk & Compliance Integration
- ☐ GBV appears in the risk register with clear controls and monitoring.
- ☐ WHS and legal obligations are mapped and understood.
- ☐ Internal audit includes GBV systems periodically.
Culture & Capability
- ☐ Directors and executives receive governance training on GBV and psychosocial hazards.
- ☐ Leadership models clear behavioural expectations.
- ☐ Survivor-informed perspectives shape governance decisions.
Data & Transparency
- ☐ Annual public reporting meets National Code requirements.
- ☐ Board receives disaggregated data on GBV incidents and prevention initiatives.
- ☐ Feedback mechanisms are in place for continuous improvement.
Continuous Improvement
- ☐ Evaluation frameworks assess the effectiveness of prevention programs.
- ☐ Lessons from incidents inform policy and governance updates.
- ☐ Boards stay abreast of legislative and sector developments.
Case Study: Governance in Action
In 2023, a mid-sized Australian university faced a critical turning point after several high-profile media stories about sexual harassment in residential colleges. Rather than adopting a purely reactive stance, the Council chair took decisive governance action:
- Established a Council-level GBV Taskforce chaired by an independent director with WHS expertise.
- Commissioned an external review of prevention and response frameworks, including student consultations.
- Integrated GBV into the institutional risk register as a psychosocial hazard, assigning ownership to the COO and Provost.
- Developed annual public reporting, including clear KPIs.
- Partnered with student groups to co-design prevention initiatives.
The result?
- Incidents began to be reported earlier and addressed more transparently.
- Staff and student trust increased.
- Regulators acknowledged the governance improvements during sector consultations.
- The university positioned itself as a sector leader, not a laggard.
Strategic Imperatives for Executives and Boards
The landscape is shifting rapidly. Here are five strategic imperatives for university leaders:
- Recognise GBV as a Core Governance Issue
Move beyond welfare framing. This is about legal duty, culture, and risk. - Embed GBV into Risk and Compliance Frameworks
Treat it with the same seriousness as financial, cyber, or safety risks. - Lead Transparently
Public reporting, survivor engagement, and cultural leadership build trust. - Invest in Capability
Directors and executives must understand their WHS obligations, cultural responsibilities, and the specifics of the National Code. - Stay Ahead of Regulatory Change
The National Code will set minimum standards — but leading institutions will go beyond compliance.
🚀 Practical Next Steps for Boards
For boards ready to take action, here’s a practical roadmap:
| Stage | Focus | Key Actions |
| Stage 1 (0–3 months) | Awareness | Board briefing on GBV legal duties and National Code; identify governance gaps |
| Stage 2 (3–6 months) | Integration | Add GBV to risk register; establish governance structures; appoint executive lead |
| Stage 3 (6–12 months) | Implementation | Endorse GBV strategy; embed reporting; launch public transparency initiatives |
| Stage 4 (12+ months) | Leadership | Lead sector collaboration; model best practice; refine through continuous evaluation |
The National Context: Universities Under Scrutiny
The Australian higher education sector is entering a new era of public and regulatory scrutiny. The combination of:
- Senate inquiries
- Regulatory reforms
- Activism by students and survivors
- Media attention
… means governance silence is no longer acceptable. Institutions must demonstrate leadership, accountability, and transparency.
As MinterEllison notes, “Boards should expect GBV to be a standing item on their agenda.” This is both a compliance imperative and an ethical responsibility.
Conclusion: Leadership Sets the Tone
Gender-based violence is not just a student wellbeing issue. It’s a strategic, legal, governance, and cultural issue that demands board-level attention.
The National Code is raising the bar — but the most successful institutions won’t stop at compliance. They’ll lead. They’ll model transparency, engage survivors in decision-making, and integrate GBV into core governance frameworks.
Boards have a unique power: they set the tone for the entire institution. When they treat GBV prevention and response as central to their mandate, the message cascades through every faculty, department, and student community.
The question isn’t whether boards are responsible. It’s whether they’re ready to lead.
