A strategic briefing for directors on compliance, risk, and national policy expectations
🏛 Executive Summary
Gender-based violence (GBV) is no longer a peripheral HR matter. In Australia, it is now firmly positioned as a governance, compliance, and reputational issue — one that demands active oversight by boards and governing bodies.
The upcoming National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence (2025) (the National Code) sets out clear expectations for university leadership and governance to address GBV through structured prevention, response, and reporting mechanisms.
For boards, this represents both a legal obligation and a strategic opportunity to lead cultural change, mitigate risk, and strengthen trust.
This briefing outlines the policy context, board responsibilities, and practical actions that Directors can take to ensure their organisations meet — and ideally exceed — these expectations.
📌 1. Strategic Context: Why GBV Is a Governance Issue
🧠 A WHS and Legal Duty
Under Australian Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws, organisations have a duty to eliminate or minimise psychosocial risks, including sexual harassment and other forms of GBV, as far as is reasonably practicable.
Boards hold ultimate responsibility for ensuring that appropriate systems of control are in place. This duty is non-delegable.
📜 Regulatory Expectations
The National Code (2025), developed by the Department of Education, will set minimum enforceable standards for higher education providers, including:
- Prevention education and cultural change initiatives.
- Robust response and reporting systems.
- Leadership and governance oversight structures.
- Transparent data reporting and continuous improvement mechanisms.
While the Code is sector-specific, its governance principles are directly relevant to other industries — particularly those covered by the Respect@Work legislative reforms.
🌐 Reputation and Social Licence
Public, media, and community expectations have shifted dramatically. Poor handling of GBV incidents can lead to Senate inquiries, Royal Commission scrutiny, media exposés, student and staff protests, and long-term reputational harm.
Boards that demonstrate transparent leadership on GBV position their organisations as trusted, future-focused institutions.
🧭 2. The National Code: Governance Implications for Boards
The National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence (2025) is designed to embed GBV prevention and response into core governance structures.
Key governance-related elements include:
| Area | Expectation |
| Leadership Accountability | Councils/Senates must formally endorse GBV prevention strategies and receive regular updates on implementation and risk. |
| Governance Frameworks | GBV must be integrated into WHS, risk management, and compliance frameworks, with clear oversight pathways to the board. |
| Transparency | Providers must publicly report on GBV data, initiatives, and outcomes on an annual basis. |
| Continuous Improvement | Boards must ensure mechanisms exist to evaluate and improve prevention and response strategies over time. |
| Survivor-Centred Governance | Survivor-informed perspectives should be embedded in governance structures and decision-making. |
For boards, this means moving beyond passive receipt of reports. Active governance involves setting expectations, monitoring performance, and holding leadership to account.
📊 3. Risk Landscape for Boards
Boards must treat GBV as a material organisational risk, on par with financial, cyber, or safety risks. The following categories provide a useful framework for board discussion:
| Risk Category | Examples |
| Legal & Compliance | Breach of WHS psychosocial hazard duties; failure to meet National Code standards; non-compliance with anti-discrimination law. |
| Reputational | Media scandals, public campaigns, Senate inquiries, student/staff unrest. |
| Cultural | Entrenched tolerance of harmful behaviours, low reporting due to distrust, leadership inaction. |
| Operational | Disruption to programs, staff attrition, increased claims or complaints, insurance implications. |
| Governance | Failure to exercise due diligence, lack of oversight, inadequate reporting to the board. |
🧱 4. Board Responsibilities: A Governance Checklist
The following checklist is adapted for Boards and Councils, drawing on the National Code, WHS law, and best practice governance principles.
🧭 1. Strategic Oversight
- ☐ GBV prevention and response is explicitly included in the organisation’s strategic plan.
- ☐ The board has endorsed a formal GBV prevention strategy or framework.
- ☐ GBV is discussed as a standing agenda item at relevant committees (e.g. Risk, Safety, People & Culture).
📈 2. Risk & Compliance Integration
- ☐ GBV is included in the organisation’s risk register as a psychosocial hazard.
- ☐ Controls and mitigations are documented, monitored, and regularly reviewed.
- ☐ Internal audit or assurance functions periodically review GBV systems.
🧠 3. Capability & Culture
- ☐ Directors have received governance training on GBV, WHS psychosocial duties, and the National Code.
- ☐ The board sets expectations for leadership culture and behaviour.
- ☐ Survivor-informed perspectives are incorporated into governance deliberations.
📝 4. Data & Transparency
- ☐ The board receives regular, disaggregated data on GBV incidents, prevention activities, and cultural indicators.
- ☐ Public reporting meets National Code transparency standards.
- ☐ Feedback loops ensure survivor and community input informs governance decisions.
🧩 5. Continuous Improvement
- ☐ The board oversees evaluation of GBV initiatives and demands evidence of impact.
- ☐ Lessons from incidents are systematically captured and acted upon.
- ☐ Governance frameworks evolve as expectations and risks change.
🧠 5. Questions for Board Discussion
Board conversations about GBV often stall because Directors lack structured questions. Here’s a suggested set of governance prompts to catalyse discussion:
- Strategy & Vision
- How does GBV prevention align with our organisational purpose and strategic goals?
- Is our leadership visibly modelling a culture of respect and safety?
- How does GBV prevention align with our organisational purpose and strategic goals?
- Risk & Assurance
- How is GBV reflected in our risk register and assurance framework?
- What controls are in place to manage psychosocial hazards, and how effective are they?
- How is GBV reflected in our risk register and assurance framework?
- Governance & Accountability
- How often does the board receive updates on GBV?
- Are governance structures clear about who is accountable for implementation?
- How often does the board receive updates on GBV?
- Data & Transparency
- What data do we receive — and is it meaningful?
- How are we ensuring transparency with our community?
- What data do we receive — and is it meaningful?
- Community & Survivor Voice
- How are survivor perspectives influencing our governance and decision-making?
- Do we have mechanisms for regular consultation and feedback?
- How are survivor perspectives influencing our governance and decision-making?
🛠 6. Practical Steps for Boards: An Action Roadmap
This Board Action Roadmap provides a staged approach for governing bodies to strengthen their GBV oversight and compliance with the National Code.
| Stage | Focus | Key Board Actions |
| Stage 1: Awareness (0–3 months) | Build understanding | – Undertake GBV governance training.- Receive a strategic briefing on WHS psychosocial duties and National Code obligations. |
| Stage 2: Integration (3–6 months) | Embed into governance | – Endorse a GBV strategy.- Include GBV in risk and assurance frameworks.- Establish regular board reporting. |
| Stage 3: Oversight (6–12 months) | Strengthen monitoring | – Demand data-driven reporting.- Monitor leadership performance on GBV initiatives.- Oversee compliance and audit reviews. |
| Stage 4: Leadership (12+ months) | Champion cultural change | – Embed survivor voice in governance.- Lead sectoral collaboration and public transparency.- Position the organisation as a leader in prevention. |
🧠 7. Case Example: Board Leadership in Action
At one major Australian university, the Council recognised GBV as a critical governance risk following a series of student-led protests. Rather than delegating to HR, the Council Chair convened a special governance workshop to understand the National Code implications.
Key steps included:
- Appointing a Council-level GBV champion to maintain focus.
- Integrating GBV into the Safety and Risk Committee agenda.
- Commissioning an independent review of policies, reporting pathways, and culture.
- Publicly committing to annual GBV performance reporting, including leadership KPIs.
- Establishing a Survivor Advisory Reference Group, which now reports annually to Council.
Within 18 months, the university moved from reactive posture to proactive governance leadership. Student trust improved, incident response times shortened, and external regulators commended their governance model.
📝 8. Key Takeaways for Directors
- GBV is a governance and WHS issue, not just HR. Boards are legally and morally responsible for ensuring safe environments.
- The National Code sets clear expectations for leadership, governance, and transparency.
- Boards must actively oversee GBV risk, integrating it into strategic planning, risk frameworks, and assurance processes.
- Survivor and community engagement is both an ethical imperative and a compliance expectation.
- Proactive governance can mitigate legal and reputational risk while driving meaningful cultural change.
Board Leadership Sets the Tone
Boards play a pivotal role in shaping organisational culture. When Directors take gender-based violence seriously, they send a powerful signal to executives, staff, students, and the wider community.
As governance leaders, this is your moment to move from passive oversight to active leadership — embedding GBV prevention into the fabric of governance, not leaving it at the margins.
The question for every board is not whether this is your responsibility.
It’s how well you will lead.
