New Legal Protections Against Gender-Based Violence on Australian University Campuses from January 2026

Australian universities are stepping up to create safer environments for students and staff with the introduction of groundbreaking legislation targeting gender-based violence, or GBV. This form of violence encompasses a wide range of harmful behaviors rooted in gender inequality, including sexual assault, harassment, stalking, coercive control, and technology-facilitated abuse like image-based exploitation. From January 1, 2026, higher education providers across the country have been legally required to implement proactive measures under the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence. This mandatory framework marks a pivotal shift, holding institutions accountable for fostering cultures of respect and safety on campuses and beyond.

The code emerged from years of advocacy, inquiries, and data revealing persistent issues within the sector. Building on initiatives like the 2016 Change the Course report and the Respect. Now. Always. campaign, it aligns with the government's National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-2032. Education Ministers endorsed an Action Plan in February 2024, leading to parliamentary passage in August 2025. Now enforced by the dedicated Higher Education Gender-based Violence Regulator within the Department of Education, the code applies immediately to major public and private universities (Table A and B providers), with smaller registered providers following by January 2027.

Understanding the Scale of Gender-Based Violence in Australian Universities

Gender-based violence remains alarmingly prevalent in higher education settings, affecting learning, wellbeing, and retention. The landmark 2021 National Student Safety Survey, conducted across 39 universities, painted a stark picture: one in 20 students (5%) reported experiencing sexual assault since commencing their studies, while one in six (17%) faced sexual harassment. Women were disproportionately impacted, with rates climbing higher among international students—over 40% of whom reported sexual violence since arriving in Australia, according to targeted research. Gender-diverse students, including transgender and non-binary individuals, faced nearly 80% exposure rates to harassment or assault.

Locations vary widely: incidents occur in lecture halls, libraries, sports facilities, online forums, work-integrated learning placements, and off-campus social events. The 2023 National Tertiary Education Union survey highlighted workplace harassment, with 29% of staff reporting personal experiences. Emerging threats like technology-facilitated abuse, including doxxing and non-consensual sharing of intimate images, exacerbate risks, particularly for those with intersecting vulnerabilities such as First Nations students, people with disabilities, and those from culturally diverse backgrounds.

These figures underscore systemic drivers: gender stereotypes, power imbalances, alcohol-fueled environments, and inadequate responses. Victims often suffer academic disruption, mental health declines, and long-term trauma, with only about 30% satisfied with institutional handling. The code aims to disrupt this cycle through prevention and robust support.

The Seven Core Standards of the National Code

At the heart of the legislation are seven enforceable standards demanding a whole-of-organisation approach. Providers must embed these across leadership, policies, training, support systems, and partnerships, publishing a comprehensive GBV Prevention and Response Plan signed by the vice-chancellor or CEO.

• Standard 1: Accountable leadership and governance – Establish governance structures with GBV expertise, measurable outcomes, and regular plan reviews every two years.
• Standard 2: Safe environments and systems – Prohibit non-disclosure agreements (unless victim-survivor requested), manage conflicts of interest, and ensure safe physical/digital spaces.
• Standard 3: Knowledge and capability – Deliver ongoing, trauma-informed training for all students and staff, tailored to risks like peer-to-peer dynamics.
• Standard 4: Safety and support – Offer immediate crisis response, counselling, academic adjustments, and ongoing safety planning prioritising victim-survivor needs.
• Standard 5: Safe processes – Provide accessible, anonymous reporting; conduct risk-assessed investigations within 45 business days; uphold procedural fairness.
• Standard 6: Data, evidence, and impact – Collect de-identified incidence data annually and report by June 30, using insights for continuous improvement.
• Standard 7: Safe student accommodation – Extend standards to owned, managed, or affiliated housing, addressing heightened residential risks through staff declarations and binding compliance agreements.

These standards apply to interactions involving students, staff, and third parties, covering on-campus, online, and off-campus activities linked to university life. For deeper guidance, providers can reference the official regulatory resources.

Photo by Eriksson Luo on Unsplash

How Universities Are Implementing the Code

Early adopters have moved swiftly. The University of Queensland launched 'UQ Safer Communities', a dedicated framework integrating the seven standards with bystander intervention programs and 24/7 support lines. Victoria University published its GBV Prevention and Response Plan, emphasising protocols for safe work/study adjustments and collaboration with external services. UNSW Sydney, proactive pre-code, expanded its Respect and Equality program to include mandatory staff declarations on prior GBV allegations during hiring.

Monash University integrated the code into its existing Gender Equality Action Plan, focusing on peer education for first-year students. Student accommodation providers like UniLodge released 2026-2028 strategic plans, mandating risk assessments for residents and de-identified data sharing with partner universities. These examples illustrate a shift from reactive complaints to proactive cultural transformation, with vice-chancellors publicly committing resources.

Addressing High-Risk Areas: Student Accommodation and Online Spaces

Residential settings pose unique dangers, with isolation amplifying coercion. The code requires universities to oversee affiliated purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA), ensuring staff training, intimate relationship disclosures, and swift relocations for safety. Providers must audit partnerships, embedding code compliance in contracts.

Digital realms demand vigilance too: technology-facilitated GBV, like cyberstalking, crosses borders. Universities are enhancing ICT monitoring, digital literacy modules, and partnerships with platforms for rapid content removal. A follow-up National Student Safety Survey planned for 2026 will benchmark progress.

Challenges and Stakeholder Perspectives

Implementation hurdles include resource strains amid funding pressures, resistance to cultural audits, and balancing respondent rights with victim-survivor safety. Experts like those from Our Watch stress primary prevention—challenging norms excusing violence—while student unions advocate anonymous reporting expansions. Victim-survivors emphasise trauma-informed investigations, avoiding re-traumatisation.

Staff unions highlight workplace protections, noting 53% rises in harassment reports. International student advocates call for visa-safe disclosures. Positively, the GBV Regulator offers webinars and templates, fostering sector-wide learning.

Photo by Jeremy Huang on Unsplash

Enforcement, Reporting, and Accountability

The GBV Regulator monitors compliance via annual data submissions, site visits, and whistleblower channels. Penalties escalate for breaches, from improvement notices to fines. Prospective staff and governing members must declare prior GBV findings, promoting ethical hiring. Public plans enhance transparency, empowering community oversight.

Future Outlook: Measuring Impact and Sustaining Change

As 2026 unfolds, the first compliance reports due June 2027 will reveal baselines. Universities anticipate 10-20% incidence drops through targeted interventions. Long-term, integration with needs-based funding ties safety to allocations. Experts foresee ripple effects: safer campuses boosting enrolments, especially for equity groups, and modelling prevention nationally.

For university leaders, this is an opportunity to lead societal change. Students and staff can engage via consultations, while prospective applicants research providers' plans at the regulator's site. Collective action promises transformative safety.