Written by Anushka Vineet
Content Warning: This article contains references to Sexual Assault and Sexual Violence
ANU has announced a review into the current Student Disciplinary Framework, which was last reviewed in 2021.
The review follows the release of the 2024 Sexual Misconduct Annual Report in April 2025.
It was revealed in 2024 that of 70 reported disclosures of sexual violence on campus, only 5 proceeded to the formal reporting stage.
This year’s review will occur in 3 key phases.
- Phase 1 – Resource-base development
- Phase 2 – Preliminary recommendations & consultation
- Phase 3 – Final recommendations report
Currently, the university is in Phase 2 of the process, following a now-closed survey released to the student population. However, questions have been raised by ANU students on the efficacy of the survey, given its lack of visibility, as little to no advertisement was promoted by the university.
Observer reached out to Maya Perry, a prominent activist advocating for change to the disciplinary procedures on campus, who brings a voice to the people who have been subject to the procedures.
Perry has been advocating for the issue of sexual assault across many ANU platforms.
Firstly, Perry stresses the importance that there is a difference between the disclosure and the reporting pathway.
She states that once a student makes a disclosure, “Student Safety and Well-being can email you with a follow-up…if you’re seeking support…help with some coursework or with the reporting pathway”.
Though she stressed that the student wellbeing team were “really lovely”, she also believes the team is too small, with allegedly only one caseworker specific to sexual violence.
Observer reached out to the ANU to clarify this statistic; however, they failed to clarify how many caseworkers specific to sexual violence exist. Currently, there are 4 full-time and 1 part-time “Student Safety and Wellbeing Case Managers”.
Perry also disclosed that the student well-being team is not directly linked to the reporting process. So though Perry complimented the efforts of the team and noted she spoke with “a lovely woman” who was “really supportive”, there were also “distinct limitations with how much knowledge she had of the reporting pathway”.
Perry describes the current reporting process as “non-transparent”.
If a student decides to file a report, it is filed with the ANU registrar’s office; however, there is not “a lot of structural support [while] writing the report”.
Perry concedes that “there has been positive change over the years in the respect that there are some more attempts at privacy for the reporter”.
However, due to the personalised nature of the reports and the fact that they are shared with the accused, she believes the attempts seem “very tokenistic”.
Perry believes that “due to the nature of the reporting system, which even though it has changed over the years… it was created to support perpetrators and the image of ANU”.
One of the biggest barriers Perry believes students encounter is that once written, a victim-survivor’s report is sent to the accused/respondent.
According to Perry, for many students, this was a huge barrier to reporting, as there is “no way to anonymise it properly”.
Everything in the report, including medical records and witness statements, is given to the person whom you are reporting.
Perry stresses that for reporters it is a very “re-traumatising process” and the accused “who had that power over you gets to maintain that power throughout the process”.
Further, though the accused is provided with the report, “there is no option for you [the reporter] to read the perpetrator’s response to your report”.
ANU failed to comment on why such a method was chosen as “the review is ongoing and would not be appropriate to provide more specific comments[s] on possible changes while the review is ongoing”.
With the review, Perry is hoping for a positive change that will shift the pendulum towards the reporter rather than the respondent. The biggest change she hopes to see is “having an alternative to the report being sent to the perpetrator [accused]”.
Perry calls for “more transparency on the university’s part” and that though the “Registrar’s Office talks a lot about procedural fairness, there is a “double standard”.
In the framework, the only mention of “procedural fairness” is “in reference to the respondent” and she believes that “it doesn’t exist for the reporter”.
If you would like to know more about the review or contribute, visit this link.
Though the survey for student contribution into the review closed on the 18th August, Perry has been in contact with the Student Discipline Reform team to meet to express her views on the process and to “discuss the deadline”.
Observer will continue to provide updates on the changes as they occur.
Graphics by Alex Matthews
Know something we don’t know? Email news@anuobserver.org or use our anonymous tip submission.
If you have an issue with this article, or a correction to make, you can contact us at news@anuobserver.org, submit a formal dispute, or angry react the Facebook post.
If you don’t have an issue with this article and want to hear more from us, we’re in the process of making a newsletter! Sign up here, and have the latest news delivered directly to you.
Want to get involved? You can write articles, photograph, livestream or do web support. We’re also looking for someone to yell “extra!” outside Davey Lodge at 1AM. Apply today!
ANU Observer 