In the coming days, a new copy of the voluntary code first proposed by former chief justice Robert French and now refined alongside Professor Evans and University of Queensland's Peter Varghese, will be sent to chancellors across the country. But while further clarification has been made around speakers and academic freedom, the revision upholds Mr French's original finding there is no duty to protect staff and students from feeling shocked or insulted by lawful speech.

The code came out of a government-commissioned review by Mr French into free speech - and cries of censorship from some quarters following recent protests over controversial speakers on campus.

Mr French found no evidence of such a free speech crisis, but did suggest strengthening protections under a new umbrella code that would supersede existing university policies but could be adopted voluntarily "with or without modification".

At the urging of Education Minister Dan Tehan, some universities, including the Australian Catholic University and University of Sydney, have already said they will act on the code.

If campuses do not adopt it, the Coalition has warned it will refer the matter to the higher education regulator.

When approached for comment on Friday, a spokesman for Mr Tehan pointed again to the government's election pledge to "empower the Tertiary Quality and Standards Authority to ensure freedom of speech is protected on campuses" but did not provide further detail.

It is understood Mr Tehan has since referred the matter to his higher education standards panel.

On Friday, Professor Evans said censorship fears at Australian universities were largely overblown and the ANU already had strong policies on free speech. But he said the university would still likely adopt the revised code when he put it to its council.

Under the revisions, the free speech protections still cover speakers invited by the university to talk, however unpalatable their remarks, but will not apply to those merely hiring out its facilities, he said.

While there are already safeguards against discrimination, threats, intimidation, disadvantage and humiliation, Professor Evans said the chancellors had considered seriously concerns that such protection did not extend to offence or shock.

READ MORE:

"But in the end we decided not to change that," he said.

"There's the old university principle that free debate is still the best disinfectant, however unattractive those views might be. If they are [speaking] in a university context, there should be minimal restrictions, if any."

Catriona Jackson, head of peak body Universities Australia, said the review had been broadly welcomed by universities as a guide from which they could begin the often complex work of reviewing their own policies, including staff agreements.

But the organisation was wary of any big stick regulation that would see the code enforced across campuses.

"We remain concerned that sector-wide legislative or regulatory requirements would be aimed at solving a problem that has not been demonstrated to exist and any changes could conflict with fundamental principles of university autonomy," Ms Jackson said.

Professor Evans agreed that, while a recent meeting of chancellors had loosely supported the code, the sector as a whole remained opposed to any forcible implementation.

"Whether and to what extent the code is applied by each university is entirely a matter for them but there's no reason why we shouldn't have a set of clear principles on this," he said.

At the University of Canberra, acting vice-chancellor Geoff Crisp said the university already had existing policies regarding free speech and intellectual freedom.

"We are reviewing these in light of the model code wording," he said, but did not commit to adopting the code.