r/Anu

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.

Saw this floating around and figured I’d share because petrol prices are crazy right now and free money is free money 😂

ING are currently offering anyone who signs up before May 31st a $100 bonus. No catches other than doing a few easy things once your account’s open. Here’s the breakdown:

1. Use the following link to sign up - Link here
2. Deposit $1000 (you can transfer out once you receive your $100 bonus)
3. Make 5 purchases - Just use the card you get sent on your weekly shopping (split the transaction into 5 payments at checkout)
4. Open a savings maximiser account and deposit $1 into it (you can do this straight away once you sign up they walk you through everything)

Then you just sit back and wait for ING to drop that $100 straight into your account. You can transfer it to your main bank, or spend it with the ING card, up to you.

Took me less than 10 minutes to do everything and it’s one of the easiest bonuses I’ve seen. Longest part is waiting for the card to arrive but once you have it you can just use it with your regular shopping for 1 week.

I’ve been living in Laurus Wing, Ursula Hall accommodation at the ANU for the last few years and have loved it. Since I am moving out, I figured that I would share pictures of the empty room for future students/ residence to see the space, (especially since the official accommodation pages don’t provide many photos). 

Unlike the Ursula Hall main wing, which is dormitory-style, Laurus Wing has self-contained apartments.  While there are some undergraduates, the majority of residents are post-graduate students and more mature. Compared to the party halls, Ursula Hall has a chill, relaxed environment.  Some of the community activities include: BBQs, gardening, icecream and boardgame nights, and destress snacks during exam time. 

The studio apartment is around 9m x 2m and comes pre-furnished with desk, bed, wardrobe, bookshelves and drawers. There is a bathroom with toilet and shower, kitchen with electric stove, oven and full sized fridge, and a balcony. (Mine was lv 6 facing towards Black Mountain.) 

There is a wall heater for winter, and the windows are double-glazed and well-insulated. There is no air conditioner, so I had to get a standing fan for the hot summers. Each room has a TV… but all the room TVs don’t work, so don’t depend on it. The walls are thick and block out the sound pretty well when your doors are closed.  However, the balcony opens out to the inner courtyard, so the sound travels EVERYWHERE if you leave your door open. 

The building has two laundry rooms (wash and dry fee is included in rent), and there is a common room with a study room and a computer lab. The contract also includes some meals for the main wing dining room (aprox 1 meal per week). There is no option to opt out of this. The dining room meals come with the contract whether you want them or not.  That being said, the food is pretty good, and they have options for diet and health restrictions. A good option when you’re burnt out from studies.

PS. Student accommodations are notorious for having really sensitive fire alarms. It is Australian law to evacuate the building every time the alarm goes off, and there you may get charged a fee by the fire department. When cooking, use the range hood smoke collector, makes ure the exhaust fan is on when taking hot showers, and smoke outside in the designated smoking area (not your room).  Follow these tips, and your fellow res will love you! 

Due to these days' rainfall, the footpath between Gym and Building 151 is flooded. Please seek alternative route to avoid this area.

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.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.