A snapshot of Australian university responses to campus sexual violence

Abstract

In recent years Australian universities have come under increasing pressure over their management of sexual assault and sexual harassment. In February 2024, on the eve of an unprecedented regulatory intervention from Australian governments, the Australian Human Rights Institute analysed university websites to assess the degree to which Australian universities had adopted good practice guidance in their responses to sexual violence. The Institute’s subsequent report highlighted gaps and inconsistencies in institutional responses, serving to underline the need for the new national Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education.

Following decades of campaigning by survivors, sexual violence advocates and student leaders, the issue of sexual assault and sexual harassment in Australian universities has attracted increased attention over recent years. The Australian Human Rights Commission (‘the Commission’) landmark 2017 report, Change the Course, documenting the survey responses of 30,000 students and more than 1800 submissions, ¹ was a key turning point – detailing what then Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins described as a ‘disturbing picture’ of sexual and gendered violence within Australian university settings. ²

The Change the Course report prompted the self-regulating Australian university sector to commit to ‘strong and swift action to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment’, ³ with individual universities and colleges, led by their peak bodies Universities Australia (UA) ⁴ and University Colleges Australia, adopting a range of initiatives to strengthen institutional responses. These efforts included commitments to: review existing university policies and response pathways; introduce online reporting tools and confidential data collection processes; increase respectful relationship and consent education, first responder and bystander training programs; enhance access to counselling services; and increase the visibility of support and reporting pathways. ⁵ Enhanced oversight mechanisms were also introduced by the Commission and the national higher education regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). ⁶

UA also commissioned a second student safety survey on behalf of its 39 member universities. Conducted in 2021, the National Student Safety Survey (NSSS) results were released in March 2022. ⁷ While changes in survey methodology made it difficult to compare the 2016 and 2021 findings, the NSSS demonstrated little improvement had occurred in the prevalence of sexual assault and sexual harassment experienced by Australian university students. ⁸

Australian university staff are also subject to sexual violence. In October 2023 the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) released the findings of its second survey on sexual harassment, sexism, and gender-based bias in higher education. ⁹ With more than 2000 respondents, the NTEU found an almost 53 per cent increase in reported personal experiences of sexual harassment since its first survey in 2018. ¹⁰

The Commission’s Change the Course, and the accompanying report On Safe Ground: A Good Practice Guide for Australian Universities ¹¹ from the Australian Human Rights Centre (AHRCentre, now the Australian Human Rights Institute) at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), contained a suite of recommendations for the sector. Australian universities were subsequently offered tailored good practice guidance, including TEQSA’s Good Practice Note: Preventing and responding to sexual assault and sexual harassment in the Australian higher education sector ¹² and UA’s Sexual Harm Response Guidelines. ¹³

In early 2024, the Australian Human Rights Institute (‘the Institute’) sought to assess the extent to which universities had adopted this good practice guidance. ¹⁴

Renewed attention on the issue of campus sexual violence

The Institute’s desktop research was prompted by repeated queries during 2023 – from members of the Universities Accord panel, ¹⁵ parliamentarians and student leaders – around which universities were ‘doing well’ in responding to campus sexual violence.

High profile campaigning ¹⁶ and the Universities Accord process, a 12-month review established by the Albanese Labor government in 2022 ‘to drive lasting and transformative reform in Australia’s higher education system’, ¹⁷ had reignited attention on the issue. The Accord Panel’s Interim Report in July 2023 had recognised that ‘[s]taff and student safety, including in relation to sexual assault and sexual harassment, requires concerted action’ and identified governance improvements as one of five priority actions. ¹⁸ Australia’s university sector and TEQSA had also been the subject of a scathing Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report on sexual consent laws in September 2023; the unanimous cross-party report describing their response to sexual violence as ‘unacceptable’ and ‘a shameful state of affairs’. ¹⁹

The Commonwealth Minister for Education, Jason Clare, had acted promptly on the Accord’s priorities, in August 2023 establishing a cross-jurisdictional working group, ²⁰ supported by a stakeholders reference group, to develop a strategy to combat campus sexual violence. The draft Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education was released in November 2023 for consultation and further policy development. ²¹

The Institute’s report, How Australian Universities are Responding to Campus Sexual Violence, ²² was released on the eve of the announcement of the final Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education ²³ in February 2024. As such, it provided a snapshot of Australian university responses just prior to this unprecedented regulatory intervention by Australian governments.

Methodology

The Institute aimed to develop a resource that could be utilised by incoming student leaders in their discussions with university administrators, and by parliamentarians as the anticipated government initiatives were being deliberated during 2024. The Institute’s research also addressed a regulatory gap; while the Commission and TEQSA had initially compiled information about university responses to the Change the Course recommendations, ²⁴ there had been no systemic oversight of universities’ efforts to address or prevent sexual violence since mid-2020.

The Institute’s report collated information drawn from university websites, as at February 2024, to develop profiles on the 39 universities who are members of Universities Australia. Institute researchers first sought to locate institutional reports that had been provided to universities as part of the two national student survey processes. They were then asked to put themselves in the position of undergraduate students who may have been subjected to an incident of sexual violence and were seeking advice or assistance, undertaking simple website searches for each university using generic terms like ‘UNSW sexual assault’ or ‘ANU reporting rape’ or ‘JCU sexual violence support’. The researchers navigated university websites to locate relevant information around the identified themes, collating links for inclusion in the Institute’s report. The research was premised on the understanding that if the requisite information could not be located within 15 minutes then the information was not sufficiently accessible for an undergraduate student seeking advice or assistance. Reflecting this focus on the student experience, the researchers did not seek to access materials or information from universities beyond the information available on university websites.

The university profiles in the report drew on recommendations and key themes in four of the good practice publications produced in recent years: the Commission’s Change the Course report; the AHRCentre’s On Safe Ground report; TEQSA’s Good Practice Note and UA’s 2023 Sexual Harm Response Guidelines. ²⁵ The profiles provided links to university sexual assault and sexual harassment policies and procedures, and information about university complaints processes, support services, and governance mechanisms responsible for implementation of institutional responses. The Institute also conducted research to ascertain what information universities were making publicly available about the disclosures and reports of sexual violence they had received, and how they had responded (for example, outcomes on investigations undertaken including disciplinary measures implemented).

There was no attempt to assess or comment on the effectiveness of the initiatives listed, with the Institute acknowledging that, ‘The existence of a policy or strategy does not necessarily indicate that a university’s response is evidence-based or good practice, or that initiatives are adequately resourced.’ ²⁶

This article expands on the key findings in the report and tracks university performance against the commitments outlined in UA’s November 2023 Charter on Sexual Harm. ²⁷

Key findings

The university profiles focused on five key themes identified in the good practice guidance as essential elements for a robust institutional response to sexual violence: internal governance mechanisms, policies and procedures, reporting mechanisms, information about support services and transparency around institutional responses to sexual violence.

Internal governance mechanisms

A key Change the Course recommendation was that university Vice-Chancellors should establish an advisory body with broad representation, to develop an action plan and guide the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations. ²⁸ TEQSA’s guidance also emphasised the need for leadership and governance to ensure institution-wide action, stating that:

[a] taskforce or working group responsible for the ongoing implementation and improvement of measures to prevent and respond to sexual assault and sexual harassment is a very important component in each provider’s approach to the issue. ²⁹

At February 2024, almost two-thirds of Australia’s universities had a standing governance mechanism, such as an internal taskforce, steering or advisory committee, or working group, contributing to a consistent institutional focus on sexual violence. Several of these governance bodies were headed by senior university leadership: for example, Macquarie University’s Sexual Safety and Wellbeing Committee is led by the Vice-Chancellor; Griffith University’s Safe and Respectful Communities Working Group is chaired by the Provost; the University of the Sunshine Coast’s Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment (SASH) Prevention and Response Taskforce is chaired by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Students) and Deakin University has a Vice-Chancellor’s Sexual Harm Prevention and Response Advisory Group. ³⁰ Some of these governance bodies included student representatives: for example, the University of Western Australia’s Safer Communities Working Group is co-chaired by the Student Guild President and the Director of Student Life, and the University of Wollongong’s Safe and Respectful Communities Advisory Group, RMIT’s Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory Group, and The Respect at Monash Committee all include student representatives. ³¹

Fifteen universities had current action plans or strategies specifically targeting sexual or gender-based violence, including Sydney University’s Roadmap to prevention of sexual misconduct (May 2023), La Trobe University’s Sexual Harm Prevention and Response Action Plan 2023–2026 and Melbourne University’s Respect Action Plan 2023–24. ³² However, four university action plans had lapsed in 2023, with no indication on the respective university’s website that a new plan was under development. ³³ Several other universities had either outdated action plans, or mentioned action plans on their websites but did not make them publicly available. ³⁴

Policies and procedures

The Change the Course and On Safe Ground reports in 2017, ³⁵ together with TEQSA’s Good Practice Note in 2020, had all emphasised the need for the development of distinct university policies and response pathways ‘to prevent, identify, record, and respond to sexual assault and sexual harassment.’ ³⁶ UA’s Sexual Harm Response Guidelines, updated in 2023, contained detailed sections on ‘Principles to guide policy responses’ and ‘Key information in a sexual harm policy’. ³⁷

UA’s Charter on Sexual Harm in November 2023 recognised the centrality of appropriate policies, committing all 39 member universities to:

[s]trengthening, developing and implementing policies that make clear that sexual harm is unacceptable, acting against any violations of those policies, and taking allegations seriously, regardless of the seniority or status of the person against whom a claim is made. ³⁸

As at February 2024, nearly all Australian universities had stand-alone policies on sexual violence. Most policies were clearly and appropriately named, though the terms employed (eg sexual violence, sexual harm, sexual misconduct) varied between institutions. As documented in the Institute’s report, two thirds of these policies were accompanied by procedural documents. Most university policies and procedures were accessible through university policy banks with some student-facing webpages also providing direct links. However, the policies at Swinburne University ³⁹ and the University of Tasmania ⁴⁰ were difficult to locate and navigate. As at February 2024, some policies and procedures appeared to be overdue for review. ⁴¹ For example, the Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy on Western Sydney University’s website was dated as effective from September 2015 and due for review in May 2018. ⁴²

Reporting mechanisms

Staff and students who have been subjected to sexual violence need to be assured that when they seek to report an incident, their matter will be taken seriously and (if desired) investigated by their university.

The necessity for robust and accessible reporting mechanisms was highlighted in the NSSS findings that just 3 per cent of students subjected to sexual harassment and 5.6 per cent of students subjected to sexual assault had made a formal report or complaint to their university. ⁴³ Of those who reported to their university, satisfaction with the university’s processes was a troubling 41.3 per cent for sexual harassment reports, and 29.7 per cent for sexual assault. ⁴⁴

To facilitate reporting, TEQSA’s Good Practice Note recommended that providers should have several reporting pathways, including an anonymous mechanism, ⁴⁵ and that information about these options should:

• include procedures covering each reporting pathway (disclosure and whether these are recorded, formal report, reporting to police)

• include a clear outline of what to expect for each reporting pathway

• allow various modes of receiving the report (online form, face-to-face, telephone or email, through a first responder network)

• include whether third-parties can make a report (such as someone who may have witnessed an incident of sexual assault or sexual harassment)

• include clear stipulations about if, and under which circumstances, the provider will report incidents to the police. ⁴⁶

The need for the wide dissemination of information about university reporting avenues was recognised in the Change the Course and On Safe Ground recommendations ⁴⁷ and reiterated in TEQSA’s Good Practice Note advice, which encouraged providers to ensure that reporting information was easily accessible. ⁴⁸ UA’s Charter on Sexual Harm in November 2023 reflected this guidance, committing all 39 member universities to ‘clearly educating and informing’ their communities about where and how to report sexual violence incidents and access support. ⁴⁹

At February 2024, most universities had clear online reporting mechanisms for sexual violence incidents, with an opportunity for anonymous reporting available in many instances. In accordance with TEQSA’s guidance, most university reporting sites provided information about what would occur once a disclosure or report was made to the university. In some cases, reporting processes for sexual assault or sexual harassment were incorporated into generic university reporting and complaints processes. ⁵⁰ There was a lack of clarity in some reporting procedures about the difference between concerns, disclosures, reports and complaints and the reporting processes or language on the James Cook University, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), CQUniversity Australia and the University of Adelaide’s websites were challenging to navigate. ⁵¹

Information about support services

As submissions to the Change the Course and NSSS processes indicated, campus sexual violence can cause significant and enduring personal trauma to victim survivors, first responders and bystanders. ⁵² Sexual assault and sexual harassment can lead to long-term health consequences including anxiety, depression, social isolation, unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, substance abuse disorders and self-harming behaviours. ⁵³ In university settings, sexual violence can also be highly disruptive to student survivors’ higher educational experience, ⁵⁴ including attendance and performance, and may adversely impact on workplace safety for staff. ⁵⁵

The good practice guidance emphasised the need for students and staff to have access to internal and external support services including campus counselling, medical and security services, as well as local sexual assault services, medical and counselling services and police. ⁵⁶ Further, information about these support services should be prominently displayed and widely disseminated on university websites. ⁵⁷ UA’s Sexual Harm Response Guidelines contains specific and detailed advice on ‘Support and assistance’ ⁵⁸ and UA’s Charter on Sexual Harm in November 2023 committed all 39 member universities to ‘providing access to trauma-informed and culturally appropriate support services.’ ⁵⁹

The Institute’s research found, as at February 2024, that Australian universities profiled in the report have prominently displayed guidance on how students or staff who have been subjected to sexual violence can access internal and external support services.

The On Safe Ground report had recommended that universities establish ‘an integrated sexual violence support service’, co-locating therapeutic and academic support services to ‘provide a single point of entry for victims of sexual assault and harassment’. ⁶⁰ Several universities have established these integrated services. For example, the University of Queensland has a Sexual Misconduct Support Unit, which can provide information about reporting options and support to survivors of sexual assault and harassment regardless of when or where the violence occurred. ⁶¹ The Australian Catholic University has a Safeguarding and Student Safety Team ⁶² and Sydney University’s Safer Communities Office includes specialist staff members who can offer an immediate response and case management support to people who have experienced sexual misconduct. ⁶³

Institutional transparency

Institutional transparency and accessibility of information around university policies and procedures, reporting mechanisms and student support services was a major focus in the good practice guidance. The Change the Course report, for example, called for universities ‘to ensure information about reporting avenues and support services is widely disseminated and easily accessible’ ⁶⁴ and the On Safe Ground report emphasised the need for ‘clear and prominent signposting on university websites, in university publications, and at appropriate campus locations.’ ⁶⁵ UA’s Sexual Harm Response Guidelines similarly stated that:

[b]est practice extends to how easily the policy, procedure and other key information can be accessed by students. This can include providing highly visible information on the university’s homepage or easily located webpages … ⁶⁶

The easy availability of this information is particularly critical when considering staff and student awareness of, and confidence in, their university’s policies and responses to sexual violence. Both the Change the Course report in 2017 and the NSSS report in 2022 had indicated a concerningly low level of students’ awareness around where to seek help or make a report at their universities. ⁶⁷

Beyond these practical considerations, there have been concerns around university openness in relation to their handling of campus sexual violence. For example, an open letter to the Albanese government in July 2023, with more than 40 signatories including past and current student representatives, women’s support services and other advocates, highlighted the need for universities to ‘be more transparent about the use of sexual violence in their communities, and how they are responding and holding perpetrators accountable.’ ⁶⁸

In November 2023, UA committed their members to ‘[p]ublicly reporting annually on the number of reported instances of sexual harm in our organisations’ ⁶⁹ and ‘[p]roactively collecting robust data about occurrences of sexual harm in our organisations and the effectiveness of our reporting and support systems.’ ⁷⁰

Despite these commitments, in February 2024, only 15 of 39 universities were publicly reporting any consolidated sexual violence data. Of these, only six universities – the Australian National University (ANU), Sydney University, UNSW, Melbourne University, Monash University and La Trobe University – were publishing data beyond reporting numbers.

These more detailed reports variously include analysis on the nature of incidents reported (eg sexual assault, sexual harassment, technology facilitated violence); de-identified demographic information about the complainants and alleged perpetrators and their relationship to the university (eg staff, student, other); information regarding when and where incidents occurred (eg on-campus locations such as labs, lecture rooms or staff offices, or off-campus locations such as field work or learning placements). As documented in the Institute’s report, these six universities’ reports provided variable levels of detail about investigations undertaken and outcomes including student and staff disciplinary outcomes.

Four of these universities ⁷¹ have now published several annual reports, indicating a sustained commitment to institutional transparency on these issues.

In its Charter on Sexual Harm, UA also committed Australian universities to

[w]orking collectively in a research-informed manner to better understand and assist in addressing the prevalence of sexual harm in our wider society and develop evidence-based approaches for its elimination. ⁷²

It is suggested that such research, and the development of evidence-based approaches, can only be pursued with open sharing of institutional data and its analysis against national surveys such as the NSSS.

Unfortunately, when preparing the Institute’s report, researchers were unable to locate institution-specific Change the Course reports for a third of Australian universities. ⁷³ Further, while nearly all universities have published the high-level infographics from the NSSS on their websites, only three universities (ANU, University of Tasmania and La Trobe University) have published their detailed institutional findings. This level of data gatekeeping is not only undermining institutional transparency but also the capacity of researchers to develop evidence-based solutions.

Conclusion

In considering institutional responses to campus sexual violence, there are pockets of good practice across the university sector. While more research is required into how universities are translating their policies into practice, the Institute’s research revealed that nearly all Australian universities now have a standalone policy targeting sexual violence, and most universities are being proactive in making information about their policies, reporting mechanisms and support services visible and accessible. However, none of Australia’s universities currently represents an exemplar of good practice.

Furthermore, university responses continue to be inconsistent and fragmented across the sector, leaving staff and students who have been subjected to sexual violence with a postcode lottery: the institutional response and support they will receive is highly dependent on the university, and sometimes the campus, they attend. Researchers observed a pattern of initiatives being introduced but then neglected, including out of date policies and action plans, abandoned working groups and broken links on key websites. The research illustrated that sector commitments such as UA’s Charter on Sexual Harms are meaningless without concerted and sustained effort, backed by long-term institutional commitment and resourcing, across all universities.

As has been demonstrated, transparency remains a significant concern across the sector in relation to the sharing of institutional data.

It is anticipated that the new Action Plan will assist in addressing many of the issues identified in this research. ⁷⁴ For example, the proposed new National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence will provide a consistent national blueprint for universities – setting expectations for embedding a whole-of-organisation approach, and including rules around management of disclosures and reports; service-level standards for student and staff support and response, terminology and data collection; and regular and transparent public-facing reporting. ⁷⁵ The National Code will be implemented by a new expert unit in the Commonwealth Department of Education and will require universities to report annually to the Minister and the Commonwealth Parliament – mechanisms which will significantly increase institutional accountability and transparency. ⁷⁶

It is hoped that a similar research exercise in several years’ time, following the implementation of the Action Plan, may result in a more consistent and open national picture of university responses to sexual assault and sexual harassment, premised on evidence-based good practice.