National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence explained

Australian universities and higher education providers are under increasing scrutiny for their handling of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and broader gender-based violence (GBV). Student surveys, advocacy reports, and media investigations have revealed systemic gaps: students often feel unsafe, disclosures are mishandled, and accountability is patchy across institutions.

In response, the Australian Government has proposed a National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence (2025). This landmark framework sets clear standards and expectations for prevention, response, and accountability across the sector.

For executives, HR leaders, and governance bodies, understanding the Code isn’t optional. It’s a compliance requirement, a reputational safeguard, and (most importantly) a moral responsibility to ensure that campuses are safe learning and working environments.

Part 1: What the Code covers

The proposed Code establishes a national baseline for higher education providers, covering:

• Prevention measures: embedding respect and equality into campus culture.
  
• Response protocols: clear pathways for disclosures, trauma-informed practices, and survivor support.
  
• Accountability mechanisms: governance oversight, reporting, and monitoring.
  
• Training and awareness: equipping staff and students with the skills to recognise and respond to GBV.
  

This is not a “tick-the-box” exercise. The Code is designed to transform culture, embedding prevention into everyday campus life.

Part 2: Why this matters for leadership

Legal and Compliance Risk

Under WHS legislation, providers already have a duty to protect staff and students from psychosocial hazards, including GBV. The Code makes these expectations explicit.

Reputational Risk

Universities that fail to comply face not only regulatory consequences but also public backlash. Media scrutiny around campus safety is intense, and students are vocal advocates for change.

Student Experience and Recruitment

Safety is central to student wellbeing and institutional reputation. International students, in particular, are increasingly weighing safety alongside academic reputation in their choice of universities.

Part 3: Lessons from Past Failures

The need for the Code is underscored by high-profile cases where institutions failed to act. Survivors reported being disbelieved, discouraged from pursuing complaints, or subjected to retraumatising processes.

These failures damaged institutional reputations for years. Alumni withheld donations. Prospective students reconsidered enrolment. Staff morale was shaken.

The Code seeks to ensure consistency and prevent such failures from recurring.

Part 4: What compliance looks like

For higher education providers, compliance with the Code involves:

1. Policies: Clear, accessible policies on GBV prevention and response, co-designed with students and staff.
   
2. Processes: Transparent reporting pathways, confidentiality protections, and trauma-informed investigation protocols.
   
3. People: Trained contact officers, first responders, and leadership accountability.
   
4. Partnerships: Collaborating with specialist GBV and DFV services for expertise and referrals.
   
5. Reporting: Publicly available reports on prevention initiatives, disclosures, and outcomes.
   

Part 5: Practical steps for leaders

Governance Boards

• Ensure GBV risk is embedded in risk registers.
  
• Monitor implementation of the Code through regular reporting.
  

HR and People Leaders

• Integrate Code requirements into staff training and induction.
  
• Review support structures for staff who disclose GBV.
  

Executives

• Lead visibly by acknowledging GBV as a priority.
  
• Resource prevention initiatives, not just response systems.
  

Student-Facing Roles

• Train all frontline staff in trauma-informed responses.
  
• Embed safety messaging across campus life — from orientation to graduation.
  

Part 6: Beyond compliance: Building safe cultures

Compliance is the floor, not the ceiling. To truly create safe campuses, leaders must invest in culture change:

• Embedding gender equality in leadership pathways.
  
• Challenging cultures of silence and complicity.
  
• Celebrating prevention successes, not just managing crises.
  

Part 7: What this means for employers beyond higher education

While the Code applies to higher education, its implications ripple across all sectors. Employers everywhere can learn from its principles:

• Prevention requires cultural change, not just policies.
  
• Responses must be trauma-informed and survivor-centred.
  
• Accountability must sit at governance level.
  

Conclusion: the future of safe campuses

The National Higher Education Code is more than regulation. It’s a statement that safety is non-negotiable. It’s a call to leaders to step up, not just when crises erupt, but every day, in policies, classrooms, staffrooms, and boardrooms.

For higher education providers, the question is no longer “Should we act?” but “How quickly and how well will we act?” Those that lead will rebuild trust, attract students, and shape a culture of respect. Those that don’t will face not just compliance penalties, but reputational wounds that linger for decades.