The proposed National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence (2025) marks a turning point. For years, Australian universities and TAFEs have faced mounting pressure to address harassment, assault, and coercive control on campus. Students have demanded safer environments, and governments have demanded accountability.
But for many leaders, the challenge isn’t knowing why action is needed, it’s knowing how to make it happen. That’s where the Action Plan on Gender-Based Violence comes in. It offers practical steps to translate the Code from high-level principles into daily practice.
This blog is a guide for higher education leaders: what the Code requires, where the risks lie, and how to meet obligations in a way that strengthens safety, compliance, and culture.
Part 1: The Stakes for Higher Education
Why action is urgent
- One in six Australian university students report sexual harassment in a university context (AHRC, 2021).
- International students (critical to the sector) are particularly vulnerable, often without family or social supports.
- Media scrutiny is intense; mishandling a case can dominate headlines and damage reputation for years.
The Legal lens
Beyond reputational risk, institutions face obligations under:
- WHS law (psychosocial hazards).
- The Fair Work Act (including FDV leave for staff).
- Anti-discrimination legislation.
The Code is not just about compliance, it’s about risk management, governance, and trust.
Part 2: What the National Code requires
Drawing from the Code and Action Plan, higher education organisations must:
- Develop a Whole-of-Institution Plan on prevention and response.
- Provide Multiple Reporting Pathways that are safe, trauma-informed, and accessible.
- Train Staff and Students in recognition, response, and referral.
- Collect and Publish Data on incidents, responses, and outcomes.
- Support Survivors through counselling, academic adjustments, and safety planning.
- Embed Governance Oversight at board and executive level.
Part 3: The “First 30, 60, 90 Days” Action Plan
First 30 Days: Laying the Groundwork
- Announce leadership commitment to the Code.
- Audit current policies, reporting systems, and gaps.
- Identify a senior executive sponsor.
- Map internal and external stakeholders (student unions, DFV services, unions).
Days 30–60: Building Capacity
- Draft or update the institutional GBV prevention plan.
- Train key contact officers and frontline staff.
- Establish safe, confidential reporting channels (including anonymous).
- Begin survivor consultation to inform policy.
Days 60–90: Embedding Practice
- Publicly launch resources and reporting systems.
- Provide campus-wide training and awareness campaigns.
- Formalise governance oversight with board-level reporting.
- Publish baseline data and outline commitments for transparency.
Part 4: Common pitfalls to avoid
- Over-relying on policy documents: Having a PDF isn’t enough if staff don’t know how to use it.
- Ignoring lived experience: Survivors must be part of design and review processes.
- One-off training: Culture change requires ongoing learning, not a single workshop.
- Silencing reputational fear: Attempts to suppress disclosures almost always backfire publicly.
Part 5: Case examples
The University That Waited Too Long
A large university delayed action, fearing reputational fallout. When media investigations exposed systemic failures, the fallout was worse: enrolments dipped, alumni donations fell, and leadership credibility evaporated.
The TAFE that took action early
A regional TAFE partnered with local DFV services, implemented clear reporting lines, and trained all student-facing staff. Disclosures increased — but so did trust. Surveys showed students felt safer and more supported, boosting retention.
Part 6: A Checklist for Leaders
- Do we have a written, whole-of-institution GBV prevention plan?
- Do we provide safe, trauma-informed reporting options?
- Is survivor input embedded in our processes?
- Are staff and students trained, not just informed?
- Do we collect and publish meaningful data?
- Is GBV risk on the board agenda?
If the answer is “no” to any of these, the institution is not ready for the Code.
Conclusion: Leadership is culture in action
Meeting the National Code isn’t about box-ticking. It’s about reshaping campus culture. It’s about creating places where students can learn and staff can work free from fear.
The Code gives leaders the framework. The Action Plan shows the steps. The question is whether institutions will embrace the moment, or wait until crisis forces their hand.
For leaders, the choice is clear: safety isn’t an add-on. It’s the foundation of education.
