Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025 is an important piece of legislation—one that deals not just with governance and compliance but also with the lives and safety of young people across our higher education sector. As well as being places of learning, universities provide an opportunity to transition to independence and a time of joy, growth and discovery. Yet for too many students that promise is overshadowed by an unacceptable reality: sexual assault and harassment are present in our universities.

The statistics are alarming. One in 20 students are sexually assaulted during their studies, and one in six experience sexual harassment. Half of those who report these incidents feel they're not listened to, not believed or not treated fairly. Behind those statistics are human stories, of students who sought help but were met with disbelief or blame, of students who reported violence only to find themselves ostracised or even evicted from their accommodation while the perpetrator remained, of students who decided it was safer to stay silent than risk retraumatisation through challenging complaints processes. For too long, the default response for some universities has been to step away, to take the path of least resistance, to manage these issues quietly and internally rather than confront the problem openly and decisively. That's why this problem has persisted for so long.

This bill recognises that failure. It aims to set clear, consistent and enforceable standards for preventing and responding to gender based violence in universities. The bill enables the Minister for Education to establish a national higher education code to prevent and respond to gender based violence. This code sets national standards that every university and higher education provider must meet. Compliance with the code will become a condition of being an accredited higher education provider under the Higher Education Support Act.

The bill also establishes a regulatory framework to monitor and enforce compliance. A dedicated branch within the Department of Education will oversee the code, with powers to issue civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions when universities fall short. This is part of a broader suite of reforms alongside the new National Student Ombudsman, the government's Action Plan Addressing Gender-Based Violence in Higher Education and the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. In short, the bill sets the legal scaffolding for a system of accountability on an issue that deserves attention and consistency.

There's much in this bill that deserves support. First, it sends a clear message. Universities must do more, and they'll be held accountable if they do not. Second, it recognises that gender based violence is not just an individual failing; it's a systemic issue requiring systemic solutions. By mandating national standards it ends the patchwork of inconsistent approaches across institutions. Third, it promises enforcement. Too often, universities have made well-meaning commitments on paper but have failed to follow through. This bill says that if you don't comply, there will be consequences. Finally, the bill places prevention at the centre. It's not enough to react after the harm has occurred. The national code is expected to require evidence based prevention programs, consent education, bystander intervention training and awareness campaigns. It will require trauma informed support services and transparency, including annual reporting of incidences and responses.

These are all good steps, but the devil is in the detail. The bill delegates much of the substance to the national code, which is made by the minister through delegated legislation. That gives considerable latitude. The Senate's owns scrutiny of bills committee has already queried whether it's appropriate to address this in delegated legislation. There are reasons to shift the detail to delegated legislation. It's easier to amend so it can be more responsive to new issues or parts of the legislation that don't work as planned, but it also means there's less scrutiny on the new rules. Rather than focusing on whether delegating the development of the code to the minister is the right approach, today I'll pragmatically focus my comments on the practicalities, issues that will need to be addressed either in the code or in it's implementation for it to be effective.

My electorate of Curtin includes the University of Western Australia, and I've spoken to various stakeholders at UWA about their concerns in relation to the code. All stakeholders I've spoken to are in favour of the goals of the code. They're already implementing some systems—we're not starting from zero—and there is recognition that this is an important issue. But stakeholders who will need to bring the code to life have legitimate concerns that should be considered in the code's implementation.

The UWA student guild is generally supportive of the code. The main concern expressed by the guild president, Nikhita Talluri, is about data sharing under the code. Survivors often turn to independent services, such as those operated by the guild, rather than university officers precisely because they do not trust the university to act fairly, so any requirement for student services to share data must be de-identified and must respect survivors' choices. UWA, along with other universities, is calling for clarity—clarity on how the 45-day disciplinary timeline will work and clarity on the relationship between the department's gender based violence unit, TEQSA and the National Student Ombudsman. These governance questions may sound technical, but they matter. Confusion at the regulatory level leave students in limbo.

I've had the pleasure of visiting student accommodation providers in my electorate a number of times and I know that the leaders there are passionate about creating a safe and welcoming environment for all students. Many of these student accommodation providers are not-for-profit organisations. The code is designed to apply equally to universities, university owned and operated accommodation providers, independent not-for-profit accommodation providers and commercial providers. This creates some challenges, as they all have different relationships with universities and different levels of resourcing. Some of the accommodation providers in my electorate have suggested that, at this stage, the lack of practical resources or advice from the Department of Education about the application of the code is creating real challenges, particularly for smaller providers. There's a risk that, without appropriately tailored supports from the department, this additional regulation could undermine the very outcomes that the code seeks to achieve. Some of the key issues on which the accommodation providers need clarification include definitions, privacy and legal obligations, workforce expectations, whole-of-institution plans, implementation timeframes, and sector support and engagement—and I'll run through these in turn.

On definitions and terminology, inconsistent definitions across jurisdictions and within the national code are creating confusion. For example, the expectation for student accommodation staff to declare all past and present intimate relationships is not clearly defined and may raise legal, contractual and ethical issues, and the term 'disclosure' versus 'formal report' requires clarification in relation to obligations and expected response timeframes.

On privacy and legal obligations, student accommodation providers operate under diverse legal frameworks across states and territories and may also be subject to religious, institutional and privacy related constraints. Requirements for staff, including professional psychologists, to disclose information received in therapeutic settings may contravene client confidentiality and professional codes of conduct. The requirement to share information with universities within 48 hours of disclosure raises complex privacy and liability issues for accommodation providers that are not part of the university's legal structure.

On workforce expectations, the code requires that only those with prescribed knowledge and expertise undertake risk assessments and investigations. Student accommodation providers do not currently have access to professionals with these qualifications. Recruitment, training and resourcing of appropriately qualified staff will be a major cost and capability burden for small providers. Increases in costs could result in significant fee increases that will impact equity and access.

On the requirement for whole-of-institution plans, all student accommodation providers must be included in their university's whole-of-institution prevention and response plan or develop their own. For affiliated but independent student accommodation providers, this presents a practical challenge. How can a university include a student accommodation provider that it does not control in its institutional plan, and what obligations arise if no legal agreement exists between the parties?

On implementation timeframes and resources, with the national code due to take effect on 1 January next year, most student accommodation providers have no access to funding, templates or endorsed training programs. There's been limited communication from the department's gender based violence unit since its establishment, and frequent staff turnover has also hindered progress.

Lastly, on sector support and engagement, the department has committed to develop guidance materials and a template for the whole-of-institution plan, but this needs to occur urgently and in consultation with accommodation providers.

Student accommodation providers are deeply invested in getting this right and ensuring that their environments are safe, inclusive and compliant, but without tailored guidance and resource support, smaller accommodation providers may struggle to comply, risking reputational harm and service withdrawal, particularly in regional areas.

Where does that leave us? Well, this bill is, in principle, a good step. It acknowledges that sexual assault and sexual harassment in universities is not a marginal issue and more must be done. It provides for a national code to establish clear, enforceable standards. It creates mechanisms for accountability and enforcement, and it affirms that every student deserves to feel safe and supported in their place of learning. I'm heartened by the goodwill of the stakeholders. Universities, student accommodation providers, student guilds and students themselves all want universities to be safer places, but the concerns listed here show how much work is still to be done to ensure that universities and student accommodation providers are realistically able to comply with the code.

I urge the government to appropriately resource the department to support all stakeholders through this implementation process. Many of the issues raised by stakeholders are not simple queries and will take time to work through. We need our universities to be safe places for students, but, in doing that, we need to ensure that this code is focused on practical, meaningful action that university stakeholders can take, not more regulation and box ticking. We owe it to students to get this right.

See this speech in context