Two investigations are still underway, one into ANU’s governance and another into claims of bullying and harassment made against Chancellor Julie Bishop. Photo: Claire Fenwicke.
An independent committee could be brought in to decide the Australian National University’s new Chancellor and vice-chancellor, depending on the outcomes of the national regulator’s investigation.
Professor Rebekah Brown is currently ANU’s interim vice-chancellor while Chancellor Julie Bishop’s contract finishes at the end of 2026.
A recent Senate inquiry hearing with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) heard the regulator was working towards producing a report in late February or early March, and aimed to have a decision by April.
“The end point of that is that TEQSA will need to make a decision about whether or not the ANU has been meeting or failing to meet the [legislative] threshold standards,” TEQSA CEO Dr Mary Russell said.
Under questioning from independent ACT senator David Pocock, the inquiry heard the regulator requested, and ANU agreed, for the university to not progress advertising and recruitment for the permanent vice-chancellor role nor start the process of finding a new chancellor until TEQSA’s findings are available.
And it may result in the ANU Council’s make-up being completely different.
“[I spoke] with the council about the appointment processes and … put to them some considerations about the extent to which they could delegate to an independent committee to that process, and we would be willing to work with them to see whether that could be facilitated,” Dr Russell said.
“What I have said to the ANU Council is that we cannot prejudge the outcome, but that it’s a matter of good governance that the council should contemplate a range of outcomes, from finding that there are no substantial problems to finding that there are extreme problems of governance that would necessitate a complete changeover of the council.
“They will need to consider how that process could go ahead, either if certain council members were not able to participate in that process, or, in fact, if there was an extremely negative outcome of TEQSA’s compliance assessment.”
TEQSA is restricted to only apply any possible regulatory action to ANU as an institution and not to individuals, but it is open to investigation lead, and former Public Service Commissioner, Lynelle Briggs to make observations about individuals.
However, TEQSA general counsel Nicholas Reardon pointed out the statute required decision-makers of a registered provider to be “fit and proper persons”.
“So it may be that, for instance, findings could go directly to an individual’s fitness and propriety, and that then feeds into a broader decision about the institution that the agency could make,” he said.
“Whether that would be feeding into decisions that the agency made, or on the basis of disclosures to other agencies, would really depend on the nature of the issue that was before us.”
Dr Russell added the regulator was “actively contemplating the full range of possible outcomes”.
“I would have to say this is not something I think that has ever occurred for TEQSA before.”
TEQSA is also awaiting the result of ANU’s internal investigation into claims of Ms Bishop bullying and harassing former council members (aired at a previous Senate hearing). This investigation is being headed by former Australian Government investigator Dr Vivienne Thom.
There is no reporting date for this investigation.
It’s as the final implementation plan from the discontinued RenewANU plan has been released — for the Academic Portfolio.
The original change proposal suggested the reduction of 27 roles through a closed EOI process (with another 66 disestablished through the voluntary separation scheme and vacant roles), and the realignment of 216 roles. The creation of 17 new ongoing and three new fixed-term roles was also proposed.
Under the final implementation plan, the portfolio’s name will be changed from Academic to Education, and there will be several reporting line changes.
Seventy-two roles will be disestablished instead of 93 (as originally planned).
“[This is] in part because several roles were reinstated and redesigned to meet critical functional needs,” the plan noted.
“Following a detailed budget review, 30 of the 44 vacant positions counted in the proposal as disestablishments were found to be unfunded. These were never part of the operational cost base and therefore do not contribute to savings.”
Academic Portfolio deputy vice-chancellor Professor Joan Leach said the plan outlined a series of changes to role structures across the portfolio, including the reinstatement and redesign of roles identified as capability gaps during consultation.
“Although 56 positions appear in the Implementation Plan as newly established, the actual net increase is 17 roles, reflecting the replacement of previous positions, reinstated roles, redesigns and capability gaps, not an expansion of headcount,” she said.
The implementation of these changes will take place progressively in 2026.
