Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025, Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Smith argued that the bill was a crucial step in addressing the widespread feeling of unsafety among students, particularly women, on campuses. Smith highlighted that many students were unaware of reporting processes and that perpetrators often moved between institutions, necessitating a national framework. Smith emphasised that the bill built on the work of the National Student Ombudsman and would ensure greater oversight and accountability for higher education providers. Smith stated that the reforms were essential for the economic future of the country, as a growing proportion of the workforce will require higher education qualifications by 2050.

Waters strongly supported the bill, describing it as a transformative measure that would impose meaningful standards and penalties on universities failing to protect students. Waters criticised the previous regulator, TEQSA, for dropping the ball on its responsibilities and causing retraumatisation for victims-survivors. Waters acknowledged the advocacy of groups such as Fair Agenda and End Rape on Campus, noting their long campaign for these reforms. Waters argued that the new specialist unit within the Department of Education would finally provide the enforcement power needed to drive cultural change and prevent sexual violence.

Scarr spoke in favour of the bill, acknowledging the trauma suffered by victims-survivors and the failures of universities and TEQSA identified in the Senate inquiry into sexual consent laws. Scarr praised the advocacy of End Rape on Campus and noted that the code addressed specific issues raised by survivors, such as delays in responses and lack of flexibility in timetabling. Scarr stated that the code provided a person-centred and trauma-informed approach to handling complaints. Scarr expressed gratitude to advocates who had campaigned for these changes and committed to ongoing scrutiny of the new system.

Whiteaker described the bill as part of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, aiming to shift from voluntary efforts to enforceable national standards. Whiteaker argued that the legislation would place accountability on senior university leadership and require whole-of-organisation approaches to prevention and response. Whiteaker highlighted the importance of including student accommodation within the scope of university responsibility and establishing a national database to track prevalence and outcomes. Whiteaker stated that the regulatory burden on institutions was justified by the greater costs currently borne by victims-survivors.

Faruqi supported the bill, citing shocking statistics on sexual assault and harassment among students and staff, and noting that marginalised groups bore the brunt of this violence. Faruqi argued that the code would require universities to adopt trauma-informed responses, ban non-disclosure agreements, and publish prevention plans. Faruqi opposed the Coalition's amendment regarding antisemitism, characterising it as an attempt to silence criticism of Israel and suppress free speech. Faruqi stated that racism must be tackled in its entirety and that the Greens would not support measures that targeted students advocating for justice for Palestine.

Blyth stated that the Coalition supported the bill's intention to create a national code for campus safety, citing the high rates of sexual assault and harassment reported in the 2021 survey. Blyth raised concerns about the severity of the consequences for non-compliance, including the potential loss of accreditation and civil penalties for higher education providers. Blyth questioned whether the government's approach of empowering the minister to make the code was appropriate given these serious implications. Her speech was interrupted before she could conclude her remarks.