The University adopted a new Campus Access Policy in July 2024, and we undertook to review its operation at the end of that year.  In November, all staff and students were invited to submit feedback on the policy. All submissions were carefully considered, and many made similar points. 

While we aren’t able to provide individual responses, particularly as the process provided for anonymous submissions, we have identified the main themes and our responses to them are set out below.  

The amended policy is now presented in our new template, which is designed to make it more accessible and easier to navigate.  This is part of our Policy Transformation Project, which will see us rolling out new templates for all policy documents and a new policy platform that is easier to use and search.

The consultation process

The consultation period was open from 30 October to 30 November to all staff and students.

To better support the process, feedback was captured through an online form that enabled commentary on parts of the policy or overall feedback. 

During the consultation period, feedback was gathered and any questions regarding the process were responded to. 

Once the consultation period closed on 30 November, all feedback was carefully considered for any further revisions of the policy.

Our new policy platform will also provide us with tools for managing policy consultations better in the future. 

Updates to the policy

Human rights issues

Australia is a signatory to a number of international conventions on human rights.  These conventions bind the nation states who sign them, and it is up to those nation states to translate their requirements into their own legal systems. They then sit within the overall legal framework governing the country and must be read consistently with the other legal obligations that framework imposes on citizens and organisations.

The University has deep respect for the principles espoused in these international covenants, and we are committed to doing our best to implement them within the context of our other legal obligations.

The covenants permit reasonable and proportionate limits on rights such as freedom of speech and assembly for purposes that include public safety, public order and protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Under both Australian and New South Wales law we have an express obligation to protect users of our lands from harm, and that obligation expressly includes protection from psychosocial hazards.

We have reviewed the provisions of the policy from this perspective and have made changes where we could. These are discussed in more detail below, and we firmly believe that they are both reasonable and proportionate to the competing obligations we need to meet.

Some of the feedback submitted outlined concerns that the University would use the policy in an unreasonable manner.  

While Australian law requires any administrative decision to be made reasonably, we have added a clear statement that we will not unreasonably restrict rights of freedom of speech and academic freedom. We have also clarified that directions given by Protective Services to demonstrators and approvals for space bookings will be reasonable.

Safety and psychosocial risk

Many submitters called for precise definitions and greater detail.

The University has obligations under both Australian and New South Wales laws to ensure the health and safety of workers and others who use our lands and premises. These obligations mean that we cannot simply rely on other laws that provide sanctions and compensation for people or property if they are hurt or damaged.  We must take all reasonable steps to prevent harm in the first place.  

The legislation specifically calls out psychosocial harm, and psychosocial hazards as things we must prevent wherever possible. However, there is no clear definition of what these terms mean, and no clear guidance on how they might be interpreted in the University context.  

In the circumstances, the University sought guidance from an expert in health and safety law, Mr Bruce Hodgkinson AM SC. The Hodgkinson Review has provided recommendations for steps we should take to meet these obligations for users of our lands and premises.  This includes ensuring that there are safe spaces on campus for people who may be traumatised by others’ activities, and that we have sufficient security and oversight of activities to be confident that we can keep everyone safe while they are going on.

The revised Campus Access Policy reflects this advice, while aiming to keep impacts on human rights reasonable and proportionate. We are also working to explore the nature and impact of psychosocial risks in our context, and to develop guidance for our community about how we will be approaching these obligations.

Disability rights and accessibility

Australia’s human rights commitments also extend to protecting the rights of people with disabilities to access, personal mobility and inclusion in the community.  Members of our community pointed out that the conduct of many demonstrations and other activities on campus failed to respect these rights and caused them considerable inconvenience and distress. 

Demonstrations have often blocked disabled access, making it impossible for those with mobility impairments to move around at all. Loud noise can also have adverse impacts on those with hearing impairments or neurodiversity, and on assistance animals.

We have amended the policy to address these rights by requiring that demonstrations not block disability access. We have retained the prohibition on demonstrations and megaphones inside buildings so that they can continue to be places of refuge for those distressed by what is going on outside, and now clearly require space bookings for any temporary structures or stalls so that we can plan for them appropriately.

Enforcement concerns

A number of submissions expressed concern that users’ access to University lands might be revoked unfairly, and questioned the scope of the discretion the policy gave to Protective Services staff in revoking permission.

Other submitters were concerned that the University appeared to be conferring powers of detention on Protective Services staff. These powers are granted by statute, not by us. 

We have added a new provision allowing anyone whose permission on University lands has been revoked to apply to the Vice-President (Operations) to have that decision reviewed, and if necessary amended. To facilitate any review, notices are required to state the reason and duration of the revocation. We have also added clearer references to the statutory sources for powers of detention.

Demonstrations

The strongest and most numerous objections we received related to the requirement to give 72 hours’ notice of a proposed demonstration. The intention here was to provide sufficient time for Protective Services to put in place any necessary safety measures, and to make sure that enough staff are rostered on. We have reviewed the processes involved and have concluded that, provided that organisers notify the University of a proposed demonstration at the same time as they inform others, we will be able to respond appropriately.

We have therefore removed the 72-hour notice requirement and replaced it with a requirement for organisers to notify the University no later than the time they first communicate a proposed demonstration to others. We are updating the Resource Booker webpage to provide an easy way to give notice.

There were also objections to limits on the use of megaphones. Some submitters pointed out that they are an important tool for crowd control when large numbers of people are gathered outside. Many called for permitting their use indoors.

Although we have retained the prohibition on using megaphones inside buildings, we have removed the requirement to obtain permission to use them outdoors. The amended policy now provides that they may be used to address large groups and manage crowds and processions.  However, they must not be used to harass or intimidate or in ways injurious to safety.

Stalls and other temporary structures

It was clear from the submissions, and from the experience of our Venues Team, that the original draft of the policy was not clear enough about when space bookings are required and how bookings interact with notifications of demonstrations.

As well as removing the 72-hour notification requirement, the amended policy now makes clear that any temporary structure (such as a stall) requires a space booking through Resource Booker. These bookings will be managed by our Venues Team, and their responsibilities under the Campus Access Policy are now included in Part 3.

The legal status of University land

Many submitters appear to have assumed that our campuses are public land, analogous to George Street or a public park, and on that basis objected to the addition of any limitations on its use beyond those that apply under the general law.  

The University is situated on private land, owned by the University. As the owner, the University has responsibilities to users and obligations under the law and is entitled to set the terms on which people may use its lands.  

The Campus Access Policy explains the University’s expectations and requirements of those who use its lands.

The University’s history of activism

The University has a long tradition of student and staff activism, of which our community is rightly proud. Many submissions claimed that the Campus Access Policy would mean that such activities as the Vietnam war protests, or the climbing of the Clocktower by students in the past, could never happen again. There is nothing in the policy that would have this outcome. The outcomes for students who breached the policies that applied at those times were no different then to what they would be under the current policy.