From our webinar: Students and the National Code, 30 July 2026
Capyble founder Cam sat down with Evan Cooper, Acting Head of Curriculum at Consent Labs, for a live conversation about what Section 3 of the National Code actually looks like in practice.
We run a lot of these conversations internally.
They happen in meetings, in onboarding calls, in the middle of working through policy documents with teams who are doing their best. Cam put it simply at the start of the session:
“We keep having them with amazing people when we’re doing our day-to-day work and being like, we really wish we could share them.”
— Cam, Capyble
So we started doing them live. This was one of the first.
What followed was an honest, wide-ranging conversation about consent education, disclosure response, technology, and what the code is actually asking of education providers with six months left on the clock.
Here is what stayed with us.
1. They are the expert in what they need
The most grounding moment of the conversation came when Evan talked about what happens in the first 90 seconds after a disclosure.
There is a natural instinct, when someone tells you something difficult, to want to fix it. To know the right move. To take over.
Evan called it the “hero cap.” The training that actually works teaches something different.
“They are the expert in what they need. Which can sometimes be the knee-jerk reaction when we have disclosures is to immediately put on our hero cap or know exactly how to fix that situation right away.”
— Evan Cooper, Consent Labs
The ask instead is to move at the speed of safety. To be present. To make sure the person in front of you has autonomy throughout what happens next, not just in the moment of telling, but in everything that follows.
Cam connected it to a principle he comes back to often:
“You don’t have to be a counsellor. But you do need to be able to help guide someone and hold space when that moment happens if you’re in a position of power or responsibility.”
— Cam, Capyble
For institutes of higher education, this has direct implications for how disclosure response training is designed and delivered. Scripts are a starting point. The skill is knowing what to do when the script runs out and the person in front of you needs something the training did not cover.
2. Guide them as they are figuring out who they are
Higher education is where many young people work out who they are. Their peer relationships carry
enormous weight during this period. Research tells us that a peer will likely be the first person someone discloses to, particularly among young people. That makes what happens in those peer moments just as important as what happens in a formal reporting pathway.
“Guide them as they are figuring out who they are.”
— Evan Cooper, Consent Labs
Consent Labs builds their programs with young people rather than for them. Their facilitation team is largely made up of young people themselves. The scenarios reflect what is actually happening in students’ lives, including the parts that adults find hard to talk about directly.
“We know this is what your reality looks like and we know that we can’t shy away from talking about this. And so in being able to lean into those conversations, you’re building rapport and you’re also building credibility with young people.”
— Evan Cooper, Consent Labs
The payoff is that young people can see themselves in the content. It stops being abstract. They can see how the skills apply to something that is actually happening to them or someone they know.
Cam raised the tension between awareness and practice as two different things that often get collapsed into the same training:
“There’s a lot of barriers in the space that are around awareness and understanding, which e-learning can be really good at. But the idea of practice, and differentiating awareness and practice, and how long it takes to find your own words for something.”
— Cam, Capyble
For education providers, that distinction matters. Knowing what consent is and being able to respond well in a real moment are not the same outcome. Both need deliberate design.
3. Fear of technology tells us more about us than about young people
Cam raised research from the eSafety Commissioner showing that young people are more likely to accept certain technology behaviours, like location sharing and phone access, that older generations view as potentially controlling. It sparked one of the most honest exchanges of the conversation.
Evan’s response was careful.
“I do wonder about maybe some of the interpretation around it and the way that reflects a lot of our fears and anxieties around changes that we’re not necessarily always able to keep up with.”
— Evan Cooper, Consent Labs
Then Cam offered a comparison that landed cleanly. He grew up getting off a bus and walking into a stranger’s general store at nine years old to call home. Now his mum shares her location while bike riding so the family knows how long to wait before ordering coffee. The technology is the same. The context is entirely different.
“That is very different to ‘show me your location.’ The informed consent of being able to share that.”
— Cam, Capyble
The missing ingredient in so much of this research, as Evan put it, is context. The same behaviour can look controlling in one relationship and caring in another. What young people need is not less access to technology. It is the knowledge to recognise the difference, and adults who stay curious enough to keep that conversation open.
“We actually don’t get to be in charge of the way that media and digital technologies evolve in the way that young people use them. That is something that is an organic development so often led by young people being really innovative about the way that they connect to each other.”
— Evan Cooper, Consent Labs
Technology also does things worth protecting. Evan pointed to the way online communities give young people in minority groups, or those in disadvantaged areas, access to connection and community they cannot find in person. That is a protective factor, not a risk. Cam added:
“There are more ways to be consistent with someone now. You can send a meme to just show up. You can share a reel. There are ways to affirm relationships and show up for someone that are so small but consistent that we didn’t have a little while ago.”
— Cam, Capyble
The fear is understandable. But it can lead us away from the more useful question, which is how we equip young people to navigate a digital world well rather than treating the digital world itself as the problem.
4. The ask is not expertise. It is building the muscle
One of the most reassuring things said in the conversation, and also one of the most actionable, is that the code is not asking people to become overnight experts.
“People aren’t expected to become overnight pros at knowing how to support somebody who is going through an experience of gender based violence. The ask here is that people build the tiny skills that build over time into muscles.”
— Evan Cooper, Consent Labs
That reframe matters for teams that are stretched. The goal is not to turn every staff member into a specialist. The goal is for every person in the environment to be able to hold space, know their role, and help someone access the support that exists for them.
The compassionate disclosure response module Consent Labs developed came directly from what institutions kept asking for. What do I say? How do I stay present? What is safe to say? It is delivered in person because that kind of practice needs a room. It needs the ability to adapt to who is there and what they are actually afraid of getting wrong.
Evan’s broader message on where to begin was direct: reach out, look at what is available, use the code as a tool to advocate for internal change with leadership, and know that no one is figuring this out alone.
Cam closed the loop on it:
“We can point young people, or any people, with the right knowledge as education organisations at something and they can smash through it with a smaller team or a smaller group. If we can focus the education on those tools and awareness and practising those pieces, then there is a really positive view of what they are capable of.”
— Cam, Capyble
Final thoughts
This conversation was not a masterclass in compliance. It was a reminder that the code exists because the people it protects are real, and the gap between a policy and a person feeling safe is still very wide.
If you are working out what Section 3 of the National Code looks like for your institution, you do not have to figure it out alone. Capyble helps you understand where your systems stand. Consent Labs helps you build the education that makes those systems real.
Both things are needed. And there is still time to get them right.
Want to know where your organisation sits against the National Code? We offer a free standard analysis.
