Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 1:23:42 to 1:35:22
Officials provide updates on university compliance with new standards for responding to gender-based violence on campus.
Topics: Education, Family and domestic violence
Speakers: Senator Paul Scarr, Speaker 12, Speaker 11, Unknown Speaker, Tony Cook, Speaker 2
>> Just get the regulators. ready to go, Senator.
>> Yeah. So, look, I've got a special interest in this. I was on the Senate committee that looked at um what was happening in our universities in terms of gender based violence. Uh and I just want to call out um Senator Green, my co actually it was my two colleagues from Queensland, Senator Nita Green and uh >> Senator Lissa Waters who uh >> who who provided uh outstanding work on that committee and the evidence we received was shocking.
>> Yeah.
>> And we heard evidence in camera. It was just shocking. And I want to call out to all those wonderful advocates uh who was supporting students and um calling for reform which has now occurred. Uh and I've been on the website. I've had a look at your uh your material and I whoever was involved in preparing that material I really compliment you. I think it was um it's uh it's well done. So, as I understand it, universities have been lodging these uh what's referred to as their uh their plans, their response plans. >> Uh and that process commenced at the start of the year. Correct.
>> That's right, Senator.
>> Okay. And those plans have to comply with the standards which were included in the code. Correct.
>> Correct. Yes.
when you're assessing those plants when they're lodged, do you undertake a rigorous review as to whether or not the plants actually satisfy each and every element of the standards?
>> Yes, Senator. So, um I might uh kick off and then I'll introduce my wonderful colleague, Miss Michelle Clark. Uh it's her first time at the estimates table. She is the gender based violence regulator. She holds that position. Oh. and she joined the department in early January uh this year which coincided with when the code took effect. >> So as you know the code took effect from the 1st of January 2027 for 42 table A and B providers. >> Correct. >> It's going to take effect from 1 January 2028 for around 200 non-UN university higher education providers. Yep. >> Uh so that will see quite a quite a significant kind of scale up. Uh you're correct.
>> What's your background, Miss Clark?
Uh my most previous role was I was the director for the office for women for the Victorian state government. Okay. And uh in that role I did gender equality prevention of family violence. Um but I have been working in the gender equality prevention of family violence and sexual violence for the last decade or so. Excellent. And have also conducted a Churchill fellowship on the intersection between gendered violence and violent misogyny.
>> Okay, there you go.
>> Yeah, highly credible. Um so to go to your question around uh the plans so uh I think it's standard 1.4 sets out that universities or providers in fact have to uh prepare and submit to the department a whole of organization plan to prevent and respond to gender- based violence and an outcomes framework. We uh wrote to providers and asked them to provide those plans in mid January of this year. >> Yep. Then uh Miss Clark and her team went through a process where they assessed each of those plans.
>> Yep.
>> Um Ms. Clark can talk you through a little bit more around uh that process. Before we kind of embarked on that assessment process, we met with our gender-based violence advocates, some of them who are known to you. Shauna Brennner for example, uh Camille Schae uh as well, and I think there were a couple of others to talk them through the approach that that we were taking to that. Uh we also talked with our provider implementation working group and and talked them through how we were undertaking that process and just I think we what we wanted to do senator was just to recognize that this was a as you've said such a fundamental and seismic change. So we did want to spend some time in our posture which you've probably read from some of the documents on the website the regulatory statement and what have you working in that education and engagement space. So educating the sector around what we were looking for, what does good look like? Um to get that balance between prevention and response. Um so we spent a bit of time in that space. Yep. >> Um and Miss Clark may want to talk through the process that she went through, but essentially it was a a rigorous assessment of those plans as an initial assessment. Then we provided that outcome to providers how we had assessed them, gave them the opportunity for them to improve their plans and then conducted a further assessment. Um, if you have the time, Miss Clark might want to reflect on what she sort of gathered through that that process.
>> Yeah. So interested to know how many of the plans pass muster, if I can use that phrase. >> Uh, have have they all been settled now and approved? Uh were there any particular issues with respect to any of the plans >> where where you having difficulty bringing the universities up to the standard you expected?
>> Thank you very much. So Michelle Clark, I'm the um assistant secretary of the high education gender based finance regulator. It was a lengthy process that we're still undertaking at the moment. So as Miss Morton said, we started with our initial assessment. So we received 100% of the plans in January as we had requested which was fabulous. So that that was all 42 table A and B providers. The first thing that we really um realized is that they were very differing quality and and showing very different levels of maturity across the sector which was absolutely not a surprise to us. So we undertook a rigorous assessment of each of the plans and I think they went through seven levels or seven different sets of eyes within my team and myself to arrive at an initial assessment point and we were we were judging against the 14 requirements under standard one of the national code. The results of that initial assessment were that around 20% we deem to be sufficiently compliant for this first year of regulation. We looked at all of the plans 20% which
>> only one in five
>> eight out of the 42 >> there was a couple of reason >> well we weren't really surprised for a couple of reasons one is that we knew there was a lot of work to do in the sector that's why the code was brought in that's why we were established as a regulator the other factors which were clear as to why there was such a low amount that hit the mark initially was that The code really came into effect in October. Plans were due in January. So what that meant was that there was very little time for the institutions to pull the information together and satisfy all the requirements at the time.
>> What I'm going to do, I'm going to ask you one more question because there's something you said that stood out to me. Uh, and then I'm gonna I'll put the further questions on notice, but I'm I'm really if I can um I'll give you the detailed questions on notice, [clears throat] but I'm really keen to to to get some granularity with respect to um whether or not everyone now has a compliant plan.
>> No, 54% now have compliance plans and we're continuing to work with the other 46%. But um we are expecting revised plans from that group in the next month or so. So I'm hopeful by the end of the year we'll be in a situation where
>> well that's I I got to tell you that surprises me. I can understand the the 20 well I was surprised by the 20% given the quality of the information that been provided and the highprofile nature of these issues. uh 20%. Okay, that's a bit disturbing, but only 54%. We're in nearly November. Is that correct?
>> That's right. And we'd like to see better as well, Sandra, to be clear.
>> So, how many universities is that? That's about what there's
>> I think we've got about
>> 20 who are non-compliant.
>> We've got about 18 that we're still doing the assessment on.
>> 18?
>> Yeah. So um the step in the process was we gave feedback on their initial plan and and kind of met with them and said this is what we need to see from you to get you to compliant. >> They are in the process of working with us to
>> I'll see if I can give you a hand. Um so I'll ask you to take on notice. Can you list uh the universities in the 18 who
>> We'll take that on notice.
>> You take that on notice.
do that.
>> Thank you. Uh, and I'll ask for copies of your correspondence with each of those universities and you can take that on notice as well. >> Thank you, Senator. >> Uh, now last question. Um, there's one phrase you used and sorry, I'm a lawyer by background, right? So,
>> I think everyone's worked that out by
>> You said sufficiently compliant. >> Now, something's either compliant or it's not compliant. If it's not compliant, then it's not compliant. And then you work out what the appropriate response is to the non-compliance. It might be a minor non-compliance where you can educate and address it. Might be a major compliance which you've raised before and you need to take more uh concrete action. So what's this concept of sufficient compliance because I don't remember seeing that in any of the guidelines. >> Yeah. and how how how's that work in the
the plans and it was clear that there was a lot of work to be done across the sector, we considered our posture as a regulator and that need to educate and engage very early on in the life of the code and we considered whether is 100% technical compliance with all 14 elements of standard one going to get us to the outcomes we want to which is that universities are starting to meaningfully implement the outcomes of So what we decided to do was hone in on three [clears throat] core requirements of standard one that we believe for year one of the regulation of the code are critical to success for the four years of the life of these plans. So to be deemed as sufficiently compliant for our purposes this year providers had to meet those three foundation requirements as well as 50% of the overall 14.
>> Okay. All right. I I'll ask you to provide further information on notice on that. But can I tell you from my perspective uh the issue as you you know better than anyone is extraordinarily serious. The code is the code and and it should be incumbent upon universities to be compliant and it shouldn't be in my view it a gray area of sufficient compliance. Either you're compliant or you're not compliant. And then the next step is what actions taken. And I I say that with having had the benefit of engaging with the universities on that previous Senate inquiry. And I can tell you there was a pretty broad spectrum of um of acknowledgement of the issue or or non-agnowledgement of the issue. So I dearly hope you um you endeavor for compliance. Okay.