u/PlumTuckeredOutski

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9250482/julie-bishop-alleged-dictatorial-leadership-linked-to-anu-decline/

By Christian Flynn

May 22 2026 - 5:30am

The Australian National University is currently the only Australian university with a democratically elected majority of representatives on its governing board. This moment offers a glimpse for a brighter future.

In less than a month, six out of 15 members of the ANU's governing body have resigned. This comes after years of poor financial decision-making, allegations of bullying, and an irrecoverable breach in trust between management and community.

ANU's precipitous decline in international rankings, national prestige, and community esteem stem from a multitude of governance failures delivered by an unaccountable corporatised leadership. I spent years as a student advocate at ANU, including a year on the council itself alongside Julie Bishop, and it has left me convinced that only a democratic council can repair ANU.

I sat on ANU council from December 2021 to November 2022 as the student-elected undergraduate member. I worked directly alongside Bishop as well as several ministerial appointees, who have all now resigned. Two things have stuck with me from that time.

The first is the concerted dedication of elected students and staff to fully understanding council matters, duly asking questions and raising concerns that only those substantially involved in a community would know to ask. I served alongside committed individuals selected by their peers, who brought a vitality to council and a belief that things could improve through their effortful engagement.

The second takeaway I had was the sheer arrogance of many appointed members. A clear divide existed in my time at council between elected and appointed members. Appointees' opinions were consistently more highly valued and sought by senior leadership, and the function of council itself heavily favoured the soft power of the chancellor.

While details on the reasoning for the resignations of the ministerial appointees are still coming to light, my experience was that most ministerial appointees exhibited a deep admiration and even reverence for Bishop. They remained consistently unwilling or uninterested in challenging her, and would regularly hold asides outside of council with her to seek her support, a privilege not afforded elected representatives.

During my tenure, Bishop's leadership style can only be described as dictatorial, an approach enabled by the appointees. Requests to meet for longer, more regularly, and to spend more time on particular agenda items (usually originating from the elected representatives on council) were consistently rejected, or more tellingly, simply ignored.

Bishop would repeatedly rush through agendas, sometimes citing impending plane flights as a motivator for brushing aside members' fair concerns. More explicitly, I was told on multiple occasions by non-elected council members how "lucky" I was that council did not exclude student voices entirely, and that I should always keep in mind how precarious my position was on the council. There were repeated references to other university governing bodies that supposedly, as I was told, instituted practices to exclude elected student representatives from substantial discussion and decisions.

It is easy to think of the ANU governance crisis as one of personalities and individuals, but as always, it is structures and systems that create our greatest failures. Despite our many political differences, the ministerial appointees were undoubtedly intelligent and capable high-achievers in their respective fields.

So where did it all go wrong? How did a room of experienced operators proceed to alienate an entire community and bring regulatory wrath upon themselves? There was no shortage of feedback; plenty of voices were in the room telling the appointees at the other end of the table that there was a problem.

Many appointed members repeatedly expressed their disdain for community perspectives; they believed that students and staff were too close to their communities to represent ANU's interests appropriately and with due diligence. It is this disdain that underpins the gap between the obvious capability of many appointees and the abject governance failure we've seen play out so publicly.

With only nine remaining council members currently serving, a democratic majority now holds the balance of power; the time has come for a bold statement. This historic five-member bloc comprises two academic and one professional staff representative, alongside a pair of student undergraduate and postgraduate representatives. Current legislation empowers this group to call an out-of-session council meeting, to constitute a valid quorum for that meeting, and to pass most motions by a simple majority of those present.

The currently elected representatives of council have an opportunity, even obligation, to call such a meeting to assure the community that the crisis will subside. This meeting should be held publicly, allowing the community an opportunity to observe a deliberation on the democratisation of their university.

As the community-led ANU Governance Project raised in its final report, there are many crucial reforms ANU must undertake to avoid repeating past mistakes. Recommendations such as a representative university senate, directly electing chancellors, and elected representatives comprising a permanent majority on council are smart and suitable.

But what my time on council with Bishop taught me was that the failures of the cults of personality that abound so recklessly across our universities' boardrooms are systemic. A democratic university would not produce a better outcome because the calibre of elected representative is necessarily higher than that of a ministerial appointment. Rather, democracy understands success not as a personal undertaking, but a process of accountability.

A democracy is not merely an election of representatives. It includes and requires the institutions that create the social norms of healthy civic engagement. Australian national democracy cannot function without free media, a right to freedom of association, and public access to parliamentary debates. It is institutions of this nature that remain the fundamental blind spot in discussions about our universities. Our intuitive grasp of the necessary building blocks of democracy can evaporate when we attempt to apply such considerations to a university.

The ANU has lively student media publications, along with a student union that represents every student. Yet student media and representative organisations are funded almost entirely by the university itself, which could defund them at any moment through their complete control over student-services fees. The staff union showed immense courage in challenging Renew ANU, yet their power remains hampered by the mass casualisation of tertiary education, leaving staff in permanently precarious positions.

The council must meet urgently, and extend an invitation to all staff and students to observe proceedings. At such a meeting, the council should address not only the immediate reforms necessary to fix their own body, but also strengthen the very institutions that brought us to this point. Funding for student organisations cannot be controlled by the very institution that they seek to hold accountable. Staff cannot organise to protect their ability to teach when they lack certainty of employment. Council has the power to change not only the immediate composition of its own body; it can change the very landscape of ANU for years or even decades to come.

In 1974, more than a hundred students occupied the ANU Chancellery building to demand student representation on council. The then-chancellor, H. C. "Nugget" Coombs, responded by saying he preferred "activism, even if impolite, over apathy." How lacking such a presence of mind has been these last few years, yet how different the ANU would be if his outlook had prevailed in its most recent leadership.

Christian Flynn was the ANU Students' Association President and the Undergraduate Member of ANU Council in 2022. Christian began studying at ANU in 2018, graduating with a Law and Arts degree in 2024; he now works as a lawyer.

https://www.afr.com/policy/health-and-education/universities-lost-their-social-licence-now-they-re-losing-control-20260521-p5zzae

May 21, 2026 – 6.35pm

The regulator’s involvement in the ANU leadership saga raises serious concerns about institutional autonomy and government encroachment in university affairs.

Few would argue that Julie Bishop and Genevieve Bell delivered stellar performances during their recent tenures as chancellor and vice chancellor of the Australian National University.

Their stewardship was marred by concerns over governance, internal culture and leadership.

Bishop and Bell were caught up in the backlash over a cost-cutting exercise to save $250 million in the ANU budget (the National Tertiary Education Union is not renowned for accepting the realities of large, complex organisations when revenues are declining).

Discontent among staff fuelled the storm of accusations and scrutiny about opaque leadership appointments, excessive remuneration, the engagement of expensive consultants and a lack of transparency about the university’s true financial position.

Many of the complaints about Bishop’s and Bell’s conduct were entirely legitimate and The Australian Financial Review did more than any other publication to expose these failings. But it’s important to note the NTEU campaign wandered into more contested territory – namely whether ANU’s senior leaders should be making cuts.

An unwanted consequence of the ANU leadership saga is that it has opened the floodgates for the university regulator (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) to intervene in the recruitment of a new chancellor of the university. Normally, that responsibility lies with the university’s governing body.

Under a voluntary undertaking agreed to by the council, TEQSA will have the power to appoint a chair and two independent experts to serve on a panel that would oversee the recruitment process for Bishop’s replacement. The agreement also permits two members of the university’s council to sit on the panel, but only if they are approved by the regulator.

The regulator’s involvement raises serious concerns about institutional autonomy and government encroachment in university affairs. Bishop attributed her decision to step down to regulatory overreach. Since then, a spate of council members have resigned, including outgoing member and the former chief justice of Western Australia, Wayne Martin, who accused the council of having taken complete control of the governing body through “coercive, unlawful threats”.

It’s safe to say that if a Coalition government tried to dictate who ran a university, the outrage from the campus left would be deafening.

“The sector is being whacked by the policy see-sawing of successive governments.”

Compounding these concerns is Education Minister Jason Clare’s plan to beef up the powers of TEQSA, arguing stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary with what he describes as poor university governance. Predictably, the NTEU has supported the plan on the grounds that university governance in general is a “nightmare” and backed the regulator’s ANU intervention on the basis that governance at that university in particular is a “crisis”.

It’s certainly fair for the union and the minister to highlight governance problems at some of our biggest tertiary institutions but their support of TEQSA’s participation in the appointment of Bishop’s successor is driven by ideological motivations.

As Universities Australia chief executive Luke Sheehy warned on Thursday, “accountability and overregulation are not the same thing”. He said a more interventionist approach by the government could encroach upon how universities operate and pull attention away from a higher education provider’s core mission.

Sheehy makes an apt point. A higher regulatory burden coupled with the risk of political meddling compromises an institution’s standing and ethos, further corroding the raison d’être of higher education as a bastion of free thought.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t demand better performance from university leaders. Overreliance on international students, falling standards and poor student learning experiences have, after all, contributed to less confidence in those in charge of higher education, which needs to be urgently reversed in the artificial intelligence age when people are rethinking the value of tertiary study.

Whoever takes on the reins of the ANU leadership will need to address the longer-term malaise plaguing the sector. That includes reclaiming the academic institution’s social licence which has steadily eroded over years. That has stemmed from the perception that the higher education sector was more interested in chasing revenue from Chinese students and gaming research-based international rankings than pursuing their core mission of providing quality education, research and teaching. Nor have university governors and executives covered themselves with glory by paying lip service to the need to combat anti-Jewish hate on campus while failing to adopt a definition of antisemitism with enough teeth to actually stamp it out.

To be fair, the sector is being whacked by the policy see-sawing of successive governments. Both sides of politics have signalled measures that would clamp down on student visas. And just this week, the Albanese government announced vocational education and training providers without current accreditation to teach international students will be barred from enrolling foreigners for 12 months.

Higher education bodies possess a wealth of institutional goodwill and an expansive alumni network with deep links to business and politics. It’s well within their reach to find the talent capable of steering their universities through a more turbulent operating environment, clean up governance shortcomings and make the hard choices necessary to sustain themselves – especially against a backdrop of overzealous regulators pulling the strings.

https://www.afr.com/policy/health-and-education/anu-saga-a-threshold-moment-for-unis-fearing-government-crackdown-20260520-p5zz0s

Maani Truu

Education correspondent

The university regulator’s move to intervene in the Australian National University leadership saga has rattled the higher education sector, which is warning institutional autonomy is under threat from creeping government regulation.

Universities Australia chief executive Luke Sheehy will argue in a keynote address in Adelaide on Thursday that a dramatic escalation of regulatory obligations is pulling attention away from higher education providers’ core mission and could stymie innovation.

“If the sector isn’t overregulated already, it’s getting dangerously close,” he will say, according to a preview of the speech seen by The Australian Financial Review.

“Accountability and overregulation are not the same thing. And right now, our sector feels the balance is wrong.”

The warning comes after Education Minister Jason Clare announced plans to beef up the powers of the higher education regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, arguing stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to deal with poor university governance.

Sheehy, who represents Australia’s 38 public universities, will point to the watchdog’s intervention in the recruitment process for a new ANU chancellor and vice chancellor after months of turmoil, saying the decision “sent shockwaves through the sector”.

“Not simply because of the specifics of the case, but because of what it signalled. For many in the sector, it felt like a threshold moment,” he says.

“A moment where the regulator moved beyond questions of compliance and quality assurance into questions much closer to institutional governance and operational decision-making.”

The ongoing crisis at the ANU has raised questions about the extent of TEQSA’s powers, with outgoing chancellor and former foreign minister Julie Bishop attributing her decision to step down to regulatory overreach.

Amid ongoing concerns over governance, internal culture, and leadership, the university earlier this month agreed to a voluntary undertaking that would allow a panel handpicked by the regulator to oversee the recruitment process for its new leaders.

Following the decision, Bishop and a wave of council members resigned from the university’s 15-person governing body, leaving behind just two of seven ministerially appointed members.

Sheehy will also say the creation of the Australian Tertiary Education Commission amounts to the “strongest signal yet that the Commonwealth wants a much stronger hand on the wheel of higher education policy”.

The ATEC was established in July, after a landmark government review of Australia’s higher education sector called for a new independent body to steer the tertiary education and research system into the future.

It is designed to fulfil a more strategic role than the pre-existing regulators, and oversee both the higher education and vocational education systems.

Clare has labelled the commission the most important outcome of the Universities Accord, which was released during Labor’s first-term, and argued it will lead to “real long-term systemic reform”.

Sheehy says his organisation advocated for the commission’s creation and that the sector needs long-term thinking, but will warn the body can’t become “another layer in an already overcrowded regulatory architecture”.

“There is now a growing sense across the sector that almost every issue facing Australia eventually lands on the desk of a university vice chancellor,” he says.

“Some universities are now navigating more than 300 separate legislative, regulatory and reporting obligations.”

As an example of the shifting landscape, Sheehy will point to recent changes to the Fair Work Act that he says forced universities to rethink their workforce models.

“This isn’t an argument against workplace protections, it’s simply a reminder that regulatory decisions often have far-reaching operational consequences,” he says.

The federal government last year outlined a set of “governance principles” for the higher education sector, with universities required to report their compliance annually to TEQSA.

Labor has made reducing red tape a focus of its efforts to kickstart the country’s lagging productivity, including by cutting regulatory costs by $10 billion a year for businesses.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9245841/julie-bishop-anus-governance-crisis-met-by-grassroots-democracy/

By Ron Levy, Laura Davy

May 14 2026 - 5:30am

The recent early resignation of Julie Bishop as chancellor of the ANU, and the resignations of many of her allies on the ANU council, is on the one hand a mark of how leadership went off the rails at the university. On the other hand, however, it's a mark of something much more positive.

Democracy worked in this case, if belatedly, as a kind of immune system to repair the damage done.

Democracy both within the university and across the wider democratic system of Australia played this role.

The ANU ultimately withstood a problematic period in its leadership - which could have hollowed out the institution - because staff, students, local and national media, regulators, and a wide and non-partisan group of members of parliament stepped up.

As scholars of democratic governance, we see what happened at the ANU as ultimately a success story - even an inspiring one - that shows how grassroots democracy can still sometimes work to restore sound governance.

By way of background, a former vice-chancellor - whom Julie Bishop had selected - initiated a program of structural change and widespread firings of staff based on contested claims about the university's apparent money woes.

From start to finish, there was a notable lack of transparency around the figures. Staff, understandably, wished to see the numbers.

Many staff were financial experts, others experts in political processes, and still others simply concerned employees of an institution they respect and even love.

In the end, academics with expertise ranging from Middle Eastern politics, to honeybee pollination, to politics and constitutional law formed a constituency that spoke up, and prevailed. This is why this saga qualifies as a success story.

The success involved one of the most effective ground-up democratic movements of recent years - which continues at other universities, like UTS, with comparable governance failures that have led to program and staff cuts based on unexplained rationales, overreliance on costly external consultants, and little to no transparency or accountability to staff, students and the broader public.

At the ANU, one of the standout features of the movement was the leadership of the ANU Governance Project, led by a senior lecturer, Jessie Moritz, and a few dozen other concerned academics.

The group helped to frame the problems at the ANU under the vice-chancellorship of Genevieve Bell. Then-chancellor Bishop noted the group's role during the extraordinary town hall last September where Bishop announced Bell's departure.

But the group did not work alone. A broader movement to fix the ANU's governance drew on local senators, other federal and territorial MPs, and the federal Minister of Education. All of them helped to amplify concerns. Media reporting was also essential - demonstrating the key, continuing roles of media in catalysing democratic change.

While the Governance Project focused on process and system design, the National Tertiary Education Union led the campaign to stop Renew ANU and called for the resignation of Bishop and all appointed council members.

Other staff and student-led initiatives focused on financial transparency, produced independent letters of no-confidence in university leadership - speaking up despite a widespread culture of fear.

It was the combination of these efforts - each independent but with the shared goal of requiring accountability, transparency, and good governance at our national university - that has led to a historic opportunity to rebuild ANU and instill governance that is nation-leading.

The project operates on principles of deliberative democracy - a growing movement in which citizens' democratic voice is elevated in policymaking, but is also informed, and carefully facilitated to involve inclusive and reciprocal reasoning. The Project held so-called "kitchen table conversations" with hundreds of staff to draw out their lived experiences in reaction of Bell's tumultuous project of restructuring and retrenchment.

From then on, nearly everything the governance project did was informed by these initial staff conversations, as the group built upon these conversations to propose specific reforms - to make sure, most of all, that the university's problems will not recur.

And this is a key point. Securing better governance in universities is not about deposing particular members of governing executives.

It is not about Julie Bishop, Genevieve Bell, or anyone else in particular. It's about ensuring democracy and deliberation have a central place in universities, which continue to be vitally important institutions for generating knowledge and educating citizens, teachers and leaders of each generation.

The governance project has formulated plans to update ANU's institutions. The plans focus on making sure that no single person or group can, by appointing friends and allies, dominate a university's governance and promote a single perspective without pushback.

If and when these reforms are adopted, ANU's internal institutions will be stronger, better informed, and more able to weather future financial and other pressures that continue to shape the higher education sector.

And, our university will be better positioned to do what we're all here for: producing public education and research for Australian society. We are less likely to need regulatory intervention because we will be able to resolve our issues internally. That is, in itself, the best answer to any concerns about regulatory overreach.

Of course, on its own, democracy is not always a complete solution to problems of governance.

Sometimes, democracy leads to divisions of such depth and ferocity that sensible policy cannot be reached.

But as mentioned, what worked at the ANU was not just democracy in its raw form, but rather deliberative democracy.

Looking ahead, the governance group now proposes deliberative institutions overtop democratic ones.

For instance, in addition to democratically elected council members, some members should be randomly assigned from the broader population - based on date of birth or other "lottocratic" methods.

This might ensure that at least some leaders are not insiders, but ordinary citizens who bring the insights of the governed into governance.

Careful deliberative facilitation of council debates - ensuring, for example, equal opportunities to speak, civil conduct and reciprocal reason giving - are ways of managing debate in more a deliberative rather than divisive key.

While other universities still struggle, ANU is nearly back from the brink.

The recent experiences of chaos and governance at the ANU have taught us about what may work to restore institutions.

Academics from around the country and the world have expressed interest in the ground-up, deliberative democratic movement that is helping to restore ANU's footing. Similar movements should become permanent parts of universities' governance over the long-term.

• Ron Levy and Laura Davy are ANU academics and members of the ANU Governance Project.

https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/education/higher-education-regulator-warned-over-anu-intervention-20260513-p5zw99

Maani Truu

Education correspondent

May 13, 2026 – 6.41pm

Legal advice provided to Australian National University’s council says that the tertiary education regulator’s attempt to steer the selection of top posts could trigger a court challenge, as experts warn the watchdog’s overreach risks compromising institutional independence.

The university’s 15-person governing body has been rocked by a wave of resignations since former foreign minister and chancellor Julie Bishop stepped down on Friday, attributing her decision to moves by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to run the recruitment process for a new chancellor and vice chancellor.

A voluntary undertaking agreed to last month set up a process by which the regulator would handpick a panel to run the recruitment process for Bishop’s replacement when her term expired in December.

But independent advice provided by top legal firm Clayton Utz to Bishop on May 5 agreed with earlier advice to interim vice chancellor Rebekah Brown that the involvement of the regulator in the recruitment process exceeded its statutory powers and could be legally challenged.

“If TEQSA purported to impose a condition of that kind, it would be susceptible to a successful challenge in the Federal Court,” said the document, seen by The Australian Financial Review.

The regulator’s intervention after months of turmoil at the ANU has also sparked wider concerns for the future of university independence, with leading higher education expert Andrew Norton warning that the voluntary undertaking sets a “dangerous precedent”.

“If the regulator can appoint a chancellor, where does this stop?” he said.

The Albanese government welcomed the university’s announcement of an independent process to select the next chancellor.

But five of the seven ministerially appointed council members have quit since the undertaking was entered into, including former West Australian chief justice Wayne Martin, KC, who before his exit argued for the council to resist TEQSA’s “demands”.

In a letter sent to then pro chancellor Larry Marshall before a May 7 meeting, Martin said it was “clear beyond argument that the council has received legal advice to the effect that TEQSA’s various demands with respect to the council’s performance of its statutory obligations exceed the powers conferred upon TEQSA by the TEQSA act.

“Acts taken in excess of power are unlawful, and are often referred to by lawyers as an abuse of power, terminology which seems particularly apt to the present circumstances,” it continued.

Martin argued the TEQSA conditions, which he said were “imposed … by the use of coercive threats of unlawful conduct”, would prevent the council from performing its statutory obligations, which includes appointing the chancellor.

“Continued acquiescence in those demands would set a very bad precedent for the entire tertiary education sector,” Martin’s letter continued.

“These are not powers which the parliament has chosen to confer upon TEQSA.”

Norton said TEQSA was limited in what action it could take but went wrong by following a course of action “that they didn’t really have the power to do under the rules as they stand.

“If we establish the precedent that a voluntary undertaking can be used to require things that are not mandated by the threshold standards, then that is dangerous,” he said. “I really think this is a major mistake.”

His comments echo an earlier warning from University of Queensland chancellor Peter Varghese, who said TEQSA’s involvement in the ANU recruitment process was “part of a disturbing pattern of intrusions into the autonomy of universities”.

In a statement, a TEQSA spokesperson said the organisation “had not acted beyond its legislative remit in relation to the ANU and will continue to regulate in a proportionate, risk-based way, consistent with its legislated responsibilities”.

“The voluntary undertaking offered by the ANU and accepted by TEQSA facilitates the important process of recruiting the next chancellor, while our regulatory work and other investigations continue,” they said.

In an address to the ANU community on Tuesday, newly acting pro chancellor Andrew Metcalfe said the council had “much to do to rectify what has gone wrong” and would engage positively with regulators.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9244789/more-anu-council-members-resign-after-julie-bishop-departure/

By Nieve Walton

May 12 2026 - 1:30pm

A community meeting will be held at the Australian National University on Tuesday, May 12, after four council resignations continue the institution's leadership exodus.

Since chancellor Julie Bishop resigned from the university on Friday, May 8, council members Tanya Hosch, Wayne Martin, Rob Whitfield and Padma Raman have resigned.

Ms Raman's resignation will take effect later in the week once her safety and wellbeing committee roles have been transitioned.

Interim chancellor Larry Marshall, who is acting until a new chancellor can be recruited, thanked members for their service during "a challenging period for the university".

The four resignations are from members appointed to the board by the federal education minister.

There are six other elected staff and student representatives on the university's council as well as the chancellor and vice-chancellor.

Interim arrangements for the University Secretary are also being arranged after Phillip Tweedie resigned.

Dr Marshall said the university was considering "longer-term governance legal and risk structures in the service portofolio".

"While this is a period of significant change, the university's operations, teaching, research and student activities continue as normal," he said.

"Council and the university's senior leadership are continuing to work constructively together in the best interests of ANU to ensure the university remains focused on its core mission of education, research and service to the nation."

On the same day that Ms Bishop resigned from her role, the university responded to the Thom review which made findings after Liz Allen alleged she had been adversely affected after sharing concerns at council meetings.

https://www.afr.com/policy/health-and-education/former-chief-justice-indigenous-leader-quit-anu-council-20260511-p5zvm8

Maani Truu

Education correspondent

May 11, 2026 – 6.13pm

Two members of the Australian National University’s governing council have quit in the aftermath of outgoing chancellor Julie Bishop’s shock resignation, adding to accusations of a power grab by the higher education regulator.

Former chief justice of Western Australia Wayne Martin, KC, and Indigenous leader Tanya Hosch resigned from the 15-person council at the weekend amid rising criticism that the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency overreached by intervening in the recruitment process for the next chancellor.

Former foreign minister Julie Bishop stepped down last week over a dispute about the regulator’s intervention, following a tumultuous period at the helm of the troubled institution.

In his own resignation letter, Martin accused TEQSA of taking “complete control” of the governing body through “coercive, unlawful threats”.

“It follows from the council’s continuing abdication of the fundamental governance responsibilities expressly imposed upon the council by the ANU Act, at the behest of demands made by TEQSA … that I can no longer serve on the council,” it read.

“I sincerely hope that you and the council are able to mitigate the damage which has been done to the reputation and standing of a great university by unidentified malicious actors within either the council or staff of the university or quite possibly both.

“However, achievement of that worthy objective will be much harder now that the council has allowed TEQSA to unlawfully usurp council’s role in the governance of the university.”

Martin joined the council during Bishop’s tenure as one of seven ministerially appointed members. The council is responsible for appointing the chancellor and pro-chancellor, as well as ensuring the effective management of the institution.

TEQSA intervened following months of turmoil at the university, marked by concerns over governance, internal culture and leadership.

A voluntary undertaking agreed to by the council and TEQSA last week gave the regulator the power to appoint a chair and two independent experts to serve on a panel that would oversee the recruitment process for Bishop’s replacement when her term expired in December.

Under the agreement, two members of the university’s council were permitted to sit on the panel, but only if they were approved by the regulator.

Indigenous leader Tanya Hosch, who was also appointed by the minister, cited a lack of “due commitment and recognition of the importance and priority to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in decision-making” in her resignation letter.

“I do not accept it should be within the entire control of non-Indigenous people to determine the criteria under which an Indigenous person can participate,” it said.

“I have greatly appreciated the opportunities to contribute to ANU and will continue to be pleased to see ANU recover.”

The cascade of resignations comes after former KPMG chairwoman Alison Kitchen resigned from the council on Anzac Day, also citing TEQSA overreach.

Following Kitchen’s resignation in April, Bishop wrote to TEQSA’s chief executive, Mary Russell, seeking input on the council’s ability to start the search for potential replacements.

In a letter on May 5, Russell said she did not consider it appropriate for the council to provide recommendations for a replacement, given ongoing concerns about the council’s culture, the effectiveness of its oversight, and its ability to facilitate a selection process.

Bishop informed the university and the Albanese government of her decision to step down on Thursday night.

In a statement the following day, she said the council was no longer able to “discharge its legal and ethical obligations” following “unprecedented and co-ordinated interference”.

A TEQSA spokesperson on Friday said the voluntary undertaking set out “arrangements for a rigorous process to recruit the next chancellor of the ANU”.

“TEQSA’s compliance assessment of ANU is ongoing and no final decisions have been reached,” the statement read.

The regulator declined to comment on the subsequent resignations. ANU was also contacted for comment.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9242549/canberras-national-university-cant-be-allowed-to-fall-further/

May 10 2026 - 5:30am

The announcement of Australian National University Chancellor Julie Bishop's resignation, months ahead of the official end to her term, brings to a close an unedifying and highly damaging chapter in the history of one of the nation's premier universities.

After months of tumult that started with a financial disaster and has now claimed the head of the governing council itself, the ANU finds itself greatly weakened, its stellar international reputation tarnished, and its staff, students and supporters badly demoralised by the chaos.

The announcement comes hot on the heels of the university regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency's extraordinary intervention in the search for Ms Bishop's replacement, saying it would run the process, effectively sidelining the university council.

Ms Bishop did not mince words during the week, blaming her decision to leave on "unprecedented and coordinated interference" that had made it impossible for the ANU council to discharge its legal and ethical obligations.

But the foundations of the former foreign minister's downfall go further back to her involvement in the appointment of controversial vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell, whose instigation of the widely loathed Renew ANU cost-savings program ultimately led to her own premature departure from her role.

Both Professor Bell and Ms Bishop dug in for too long, refusing to see they were in an untenable situation. What was clear to everyone following Professor Bell's decision to step aside was that Ms Bishop's leadership had lost the confidence of the wider university community.

The union representing staff says the chancellor's departure was overdue.

"Now that the fire has been put out, we'll wait and see if the forthcoming TEQSA report will tell us how it started," National Tertiary Education Union ACT secretary Dr Lachlan Clohesy said.

That report, due shortly, is an important part of the puzzle that will be central to the ANU's overdue turnaround. Governance, accountability and a willingness to listen more broadly on how the university should be run will be central to any recovery. But the ANU's problems have been years in the making.

The ANU, despite its troubles, remains a prized national asset, a great centre of innovation, research and learning that has been one of the world's very best and a source of pride for Canberra.

It can, and should be among the top universities on the world stage again. But to get there will require commitment, funding and a willingness to confront the cultural problems that have seen it lose its way.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-09/julie-bishop-resigns-australian-national-university-chancellor/106659176

By ACT investigative reporter Adam Shirley

Julie Bishop, as so often has been her way, was resolute.

Unmoved.

When the vice-chancellor she served alongside at the Australian National University (ANU) resigned in September last year, then-chancellor Bishop was unequivocal — she wasn't going anywhere.

"There are no grounds for me to stand aside," she told a packed media conference at the time. 

"I have the backing of council, and I intend to see it through."

Until she didn't.

December 31 was the date when Ms Bishop was due to finish her term, so the obvious question is why — having repeatedly stated she would see her commitment through — did she leave months earlier? And did she jump, or was she pushed?

For her part, in a public statement announcing her resignation, Ms Bishop said that she continued to "regard the ANU as a truly national treasure".

She also noted concerns with university governance across the country, saying the higher education sector was "at a crossroads of regulatory overreach in the governance of our institutions or autonomy and academic freedom".

"I fear the collateral from this regulatory overreach will be the next generation of students and staff," she said.

A high-profile office holder will always have staunch supporters, opponents, and many others in between.

But some clues as to why further upheaval has beset an already teetering institution are staring students, staff and the taxpaying public right in the face.

Multiple investigations underway

There are currently six (count them) investigations involving the ANU — if you include the implementation phase of the review into alleged "wildly inappropriate behaviour" at the College of Health and Medicine.

One of those investigations has just been completed — an independent review about former Australian National University council members, which found five adverse findings against them.

A draft report into the reasoning and management of the now-aborted $250 million savings plan called 'Renew ANU' has also found the cost-cutting was approved without clear evidence it was needed or achievable.

And a highly anticipated release is the university regulator, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), inquiry into the ANU Council's decisions, leadership and internal culture, which some, including ACT independent senator David Pocock, want released as soon as practically possible.

All the investigations are assessing various forms of alleged poor conduct at an institution that is supposed to be revered worldwide. The alleged behaviours range from bullying, harassment, mistreatment, governance issues, financial mismanagement to possible freedom of information breaches by the ANU.

These reviews have all occurred during Ms Bishop's six-year tenure as chancellor.

While it's premature to conclude there is any direct link between these facts, the pressure on Ms Bishop as the institution's figurehead during this time — and the associated reputational damage to the ANU — is significant.

More resignations to come?

Beyond reputations, though, the real-world collateral hits hardest.

Whether it is students missing out on courses they were dedicated to, staff being dismissed or left in the lurch about their futures, or allegations of significant trauma meted out to people within the ANU's wall, lives have been harmed and livelihoods have been permanently scarred.

This may not be the end of the resignations from senior ranks of the ANU. Some are calling on appointed members of the ANU Council to seriously consider whether they should follow Ms Bishop's lead and head for the exits.

Until a replacement chancellor is found, the man warming the seat is current pro-chancellor Dr Larry Marshall — himself no stranger to controversy and staff disquiet during his years leading the CSIRO.

But amid the turbulence at the ANU, staff and students still profess a genuine love for a place where they learn, work and strive to do their best.

They will be hoping that these painful public losses will lead to more harmonious and productive days ahead.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/the-rise-and-fall-of-julie-bishop-as-chancellor-of-anu-20260508-p5zv4z.html

Sally Rawsthorne

May 9, 2026

When Julie Bishop was appointed as chancellor of the Australian National University in 2020, staff were surprised but optimistic.

Universities were feeling the fear typical of tertiary institutions under a conservative government, and there was a view that while the former foreign minister and long-serving deputy federal Liberal leader had no experience as a university administrator, her appointment brought prestige.

“People were cognisant of her ability to engage with a Liberal government,” said National Tertiary Education Union division secretary Dr Lachlan Clohesy.

The cautious sense of optimism did not last; Bishop’s departure from the role, effective immediately and seven months early, was welcomed on Friday by staff, the NTEU and politicians almost universally as a chance for ANU to rebuild after years of chaos. Bishop leaves behind an institution with its reputation in tatters, no permanent chancellor or vice-chancellor, and hugely diminished staff morale.

Independent senator David Pocock said that by stepping aside, Bishop was acting “in the best interest of ANU”.

“After an incredibly difficult few years, now is the time to recommit to that mission, that optimism and that vision for what the ANU can be,” he said. “When things go so terribly wrong, there must be accountability.”

University of Canberra vice-chancellor Bill Shorten said he hoped Bishop’s resignation would serve as a circuit-breaker for ANU and that it “can go back to being a great national research institution”.

There is much to recover.

Bishop has previously said she inherited a financial mess when she stepped into the role, but she could be forgiven for feeling her tenure had been cursed. In her first six weeks as chancellor, the 2020 Black Summer bushfires shuttered the campus, a hailstorm caused $100 million worth of damage to buildings and the coronavirus pandemic began.

COVID-19 caused more damage at ANU than almost any other university in Australia, thanks to an earlier plan to make ANU a smaller and more prestigious campus at a time when its competitors were shoring up cash through signing up as many international students as they could.

The relatively poor fortunes of ANU led Bishop and then-vice chancellor Genevieve Bell to oversee a contentious plan to slash jobs and claw back savings, which the union has since claimed were overestimated by as much as $125 million.

Hundreds of staff lost their jobs and, in 2024, ANU reported an $87 million surplus.

The simmering tensions erupted into full public view last year, when ANU academic Dr Liz Allen accused Bishop of bullying her to the point of suicide in a Senate Education and Employment Committee hearing (Bishop has always denied the allegations); staff passed a vote of no confidence in Bishop and Bell, and Bell resigned from her million-dollar role in October.

Reflecting on Friday’s developments, Allen said the university would come out stronger.

“We are on a path towards healing,” she said.

The problems continue apace at ANU; hours before Bishop handed in her notice to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Education Minister Jason Clare on Thursday night, this masthead revealed a months-long stand-off over an email had been resolved only after the university had been reminded that failing in its disclosure obligations could result in imprisonment.

There are two active investigations into ANU; a third, commissioned after the bullying allegations before the Senate committee, has been completed but a report is yet to be released.

Multiple sources have told this masthead that the report by Dr Virginia Thom has cleared Bishop of any bullying allegations.

Last week, university regulator the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency made the unprecedented call to accept a “voluntary undertaking” from ANU to allow it to control the appointment of Bishop’s replacement.

This, Bishop says, was the catalyst for her departure.

“Following unprecedented and co-ordinated interference, the ANU Council is no longer able to discharge its legal and ethical obligations,” she said.

“The higher education sector is at a crossroads of regulatory overreach in the governance of our institutions or autonomy and academic freedom.

“I fear the collateral from this regulatory overreach will be the next generation of students and staff.”

ANU council member Alison Kitchen resigned from the council last month over TEQSA’s involvement, according to correspondence seen by this masthead.

Higher education expert Andrew Norton is concerned “that voluntary undertakings to TEQSA … mean that government agencies can significantly extend their power simply because the universities feel like they’re in a vulnerable position and therefore agree to terms that might be beyond the normal powers of the regulator”.

While Bishop was in the crosshairs of the union, which earlier this week came out in support of interim vice-chancellor Rebekah Brown, and a core group of staff, there remained many at ANU who admired her.

“She came into the university at a hard time. She didn’t shy away from a lot of the challenges,” said one staff member speaking anonymously to protect their job.

“I think she made some missteps but a lot of what happened to her is political.”

Bishop’s resignation seven months before the end of her term has left former CSIRO boss and pro-chancellor Larry Marshall in the hot seat until a replacement chancellor can be found.

“Hopefully, this means things will calm down a bit,” said another staff member.

Do they think it likely?

“No.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-08/anu-independent-review-adverse-findings-former-council-members/106660472

By Monte Bovill

An investigation launched following allegations about the conduct of Australian National University (ANU) council members has found five adverse findings against now-former members.

The ANU appointed Dr Vivienne Thom AM to lead an independent investigation into the allegations raised at a Senate committee hearing in August last year.

In an email sent to staff and students late on Friday, the ANU Council said it received the report from Dr Thom.

"The Council recognises that the matters examined in the Thom ANU Report have been distressing for many members of our community, and we acknowledge the impact this has had on staff, students and the ANU Community," the email said.

"We do not want the matters investigated by Dr Thom to occur again."

It remains unclear who the adverse findings in the report relate to.

On Thursday night, before council met on Friday to receive the report, chancellor Julie Bishop told the council she was resigning from her position.

The council noted Dr Thom's report related to two public interest disclosures involving 36 allegations.

Dr Thom made findings of fact in respect of each allegation and made 12 recommendations all of which have been accepted.

"The Council acknowledges the distress individuals shared with Dr Thom, as outlined in her Report, and regrets the experience of those individuals," the email to staff and students said.

"The Council commits to fully implementing Dr Thom's recommendations and to building trust and confidence in the ANU."

ANU says it takes findings 'extremely seriously'

Dr Thom made one finding of maladministration, relating to ANU procedures for managing complaints raised by or about members of the ANU Council.

"The ANU takes this finding extremely seriously and will work diligently to address the recommendations of Dr Thom," the council said.

Five adverse findings were also made in relation to now-former council members in respect of their conduct as council members.

"While these adverse findings did not rise to the threshold of disclosable conduct... there was a recommendation that the Council consider whether the conduct breached obligations under the ANU Code of Conduct Policy," the council said.

"The Council carefully considered this recommendation and notes no further action is able to be taken in relation to former Council members."

The ABC has not seen the report, its recommendations or findings.

The report was provided to the Commonwealth Ombudsman "with appropriate redactions made to protect the identity of the discloser and the privacy of witnesses".

The higher education regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Authority (TEQSA), also received an unredacted copy of the report.

Review reveals 'significant concerns' over ANU governance: union

National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) ACT division secretary Lachlan Clohesy said while council's statement doesn't go into specifics, it does reveal "significant concerns".

"A finding of maladministration is incredibly significant, as well as the disclosure that five adverse findings have been made against former Council members," he said in a statement to the ABC.

"Even with this little information, it confirms what we have known for some time: governance at the ANU is broken."

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9242770/vivienne-thom-report-finds-anu-maladministration-in-complaint-handling/

By Miriam Webber

Updated May 8 2026 - 7:10pm, first published 5:46pm

The beleaguered Australian National University has been hit with a serious finding of maladministration in the way it handles complaints at top levels, on the same day the institution's chancellor resigned over claims of "regulatory overreach".

The university's governing council on Friday revealed it had received Vivienne Thom's report, sparked by Liz Allen's allegations that she had been adversely affected after sharing her governance concerns at council meetings.

The council has not released the report or the 12 recommendations it made, only a statement on its response.

Dr Allen, an academic and former council member made the allegations during a Senate estimates hearing in August 2025, including that she had felt "violated and deeply humiliated" by former chancellor Julie Bishop's actions.

Ms Bishop has categorically denied the allegations and said she was denied procedural fairness after the allegations were heard publicly.

Dr Thom's review only made one finding of maladministration in relation to the university's procedures for managing complaints raised by or about members of the ANU council.

"The Thom ANU report considered a number of matters and made one finding of disclosable conduct in relation to the ANU," the council's statement reads.

"This finding related to the ANU procedures for managing complaints raised by or about members of the ANU council.

"The ANU takes this finding extremely seriously and will work diligently to address the recommendations of Dr Thom."

The council also said the review "made five adverse findings in relation to former council members in respect of their conduct as council members".

"While these adverse findings did not rise to the threshold of disclosable conduct under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, there was a recommendation that the council consider whether the conduct breached obligations under the ANU Code of Conduct Policy.

"The council carefully considered this recommendation and notes no further action is able to be taken in relation to former Council members."

It did not name any of the former council members.

Ms Bishop resigned on Friday, seven months before her term was due to expire, citing an intervention by the higher education regulator in the process to find her replacement.

"Following unprecedented and co-ordinated interference, the ANU council is no longer able to discharge its legal and ethical obligations," she said.

"The higher education sector is at a crossroads of regulatory overreach in the governance of our institutions or autonomy and academic freedom.

"I fear the collateral from this regulatory overreach will be the next generation of students and staff."

The report has been given to the Commonwealth Ombudsman and to the discloser.