ANU crisis: Pressure mounts on Bishop and Bell

Australian National University Chancellor Julie Bishop and Vice-Chancellor Genevieve Bell are still standing – not because the storms battering Australia’s premier research institution have eased but rather because no one in power wants to force a change.

This goes for the university council, which has formal responsibility for governance, as well as for senior figures in the Albanese government, who remain unwilling to take the unprecedented step of forcing the removal of an ANU chancellor or vice-chancellor.

For the past year, Bishop and Bell have failed to quell staff and student uproar over a $250 million restructure and cost-cutting program known as Renew ANU – a plan that has triggered staff no-confidence votes, allegations of financial mismanagement and, in explosive testimony to a Senate inquiry this week, damaging bullying claims from Dr Liz Allen, a former member of the university’s governing council.

In stark and emotional testimony, Allen told the inquiry she had contemplated suicide after Bishop had accused her of “improper and illegal activity”, claiming that Bishop “laughed” at her before blocking her from leaving a room.

‘‘During a lengthy, near two-hour disciplinary-like lecture in February, the chancellor made significant allegations of improper and illegal activity relating to leaking of confidential matters, specifically naming me and the undergraduate student representative,’’ Allen told the inquiry into the quality of governance at higher education institutions.

‘‘At no time have I leaked confidential council business. When I defended myself in this meeting, the chancellor suggested I defamed her. The repeated public allegations and increasing aggression was so distressing I cried.”

Allen alleged Bishop later took her into a private room with another elected member of the council, where the chancellor berated her further.

‘‘Chancellor Bishop laughed incredulously at my emotional response, and at one point blocked me leaving the room. I cannot tell you just how traumatising this was for me. It affected me so deeply that on the drive home, I decided to kill myself,” Allen said.

“And I pulled over to write final goodbyes to my children and my partner. I emailed my supervisors so they knew I hadn’t done anything wrong. A call from my husband stopped me taking my life.”

Soon after the meeting, Allen told the inquiry, she miscarried her “much-wanted baby”.

Bishop immediately rejected the allegations, issuing a statement shortly after Allen’s testimony had concluded.

“My attention has been drawn to allegations made against me by a witness at a Senate hearing today. I reject any suggestion that I have engaged with Council members, staff, students and observers in any way other than with respect, courtesy and civility,” Bishop said. “The witness concerned has initiated grievance proceedings and it is not appropriate for me to comment further at this time.”

“These are extraordinarily serious and disturbing allegations that have been made against the ANU chancellor from a respected member of the academic community … the chancellor should step aside until a full and independent investigation has been undertaken.”

The allegations against Bishop land on top of a series of crises at the ANU since the Renew ANU program was unveiled last October. Yet the university’s governing council – and the federal government that ultimately holds oversight powers through the Australian National University Act – show little inclination to halt the implementation of the program or seek the removal of any key staff.

That calculation is as much political as it is procedural: forcing the removal of either the chancellor or vice-chancellor would not only be messy but would likely cause even more damage to the university’s reputation.

Senior government figures privately concede that an attempt to oust Bishop or Bell could also trigger legal disputes, galvanise their defenders and embroil Education Minister Jason Clare in an ugly public brawl, with no immediate benefit to either the government or the university itself.

One Labor source said that while there was a degree of frustration over the way Bishop and Bell have handled the implementation of the Renew ANU program – particularly the lack of communication between the senior leadership and university staff – the firm belief within the government is to just “let things run”. The Saturday Paper is not suggesting Bishop or Bell have done anything to warrant removal from their positions.

Clare has referred a raft of complaints about ANU’s leadership and governance to the federal higher education regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), which he says will appoint an independent investigator within weeks to probe key concerns about management and oversight.

“I am committed to strengthening university governance and ensuring universities are safe and welcoming places to work and study,” the minister said in a statement to The Saturday Paper following Allen’s testimony.

“The work being undertaken by the Expert Council on university governance is critical to strengthening governance arrangements in our universities and I expect recommendations from them soon,” Clare added, referring to the advisory body established in January this year by agreement of federal, state and territory education ministers to develop national governance principles and recommendations to improve accountability, transparency, engagement and representation in university governing bodies.

With specific reference to the issues raised by Allen, Clare said: “The university regulator, TEQSA, is investigating this matter. TEQSA is in the process of engaging an independent expert to review key concerns as part of its compliance assessment of ANU. This person will have significant senior expertise in governance and public administration. We expect they will be appointed in the next few weeks.”

A spokesperson for TEQSA said the regulator has been engaged in a live compliance process with the ANU since October last year in relation to its compliance with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021.

“In June 2025, TEQSA escalated this engagement to a formal compliance assessment, consistent with our graduated approach to compliance and enforcement. This step was taken in light of our assessment of the seriousness and complexity of the concerns,” a TEQSA spokesperson tells The Saturday Paper.

“As part of the compliance assessment, TEQSA is directing ANU to provide a self-assurance report by Tuesday 19 August 2025. The information gathered will further inform our ongoing compliance work,” the TEQSA spokesperson added. “TEQSA’s compliance assessment is an active process that can lead to a range of outcomes, including enforcement action where necessary. While it is under way, we cannot pre-empt those outcomes. TEQSA will not be making any further comment at this time.”

A self-assurance report is a formal submission to TEQSA, showing how a university meets the Higher Education Standards Framework. It should demonstrate how the institution monitors and manages risks to its operations, as well as academic standards, student welfare and governance.

A self-assurance report matters with regard to the controversy engulfing ANU because it will give TEQSA a detailed account of how the university council and executive are handling governance – and could underpin further intervention if those systems are found wanting.

ACT independent Senator David Pocock, who first raised Allen’s complaint with Jason Clare in June, said the seriousness of the allegations meant Bishop should step aside immediately until Allen’s claims are fully investigated.

“These are extraordinarily serious and disturbing allegations that have been made against the ANU chancellor from a respected member of the academic community,” Pocock said. “I believe that in light of these allegations the chancellor should step aside until a full and independent investigation has been undertaken. It is also clear that we need an improvement in governance at the university, including through an update of the ANU Act.”

Shortly after Bell took over as vice-chancellor in January 2024, with a mandate to steady ANU’s finances and modernise governance, it was revealed that the university was staring at a deficit of about $200 million for 2024.

While that figure has since been disputed, the trouble for Bishop and Bell began in earnest in October last year, when Bell unveiled a restructure to save roughly $250 million by 2026, including major staff reductions and operating cuts.

Staff and student groups reacted with anger, accusing the leadership of cloaking the true scale of job losses and program cuts behind corporate spin.

Bell’s reputation suffered another hit in December last year when it was revealed she retained paid consultancy work with United States technology giant Intel, where she spent 18 years as the company’s resident anthropologist before returning to Australia to a position at the ANU in 2017.

The arrangement with Intel, struck before her appointment as vice-chancellor, raised questions about priorities and transparency as the university grappled with the financial and structural upheaval stemming from the Renew ANU program.

By March this year, frustration among university staff boiled over.

In a show of dissent, more than 95 per cent of 800 voting members of the National Tertiary Education Union – out of about 4000 full-time academic and professional staff – backed a no-confidence motion in both Bell and Bishop. The grievances included claims of financial mismanagement, unnecessary job cuts and what staff described as a toxic workplace culture.

Two months later, the Nixon Culture Review landed. Commissioned after complaints in the College of Health and Medicine, the report by former Victoria Police commissioner Christine Nixon painted a bleak picture – entrenched sexism, bullying and nepotism.

While the ANU leadership apologised and promised reforms in the wake of the review, its findings fed a growing narrative of dysfunction.

Also dogging both Bishop and Bell have been claims they relied too heavily on external consultants, in particular the Nous Group, which is projected to receive about $3 million in fees for its work advising the university on the restructure.

Questions have also been raised over $800,000 spent on Bishop’s Perth office and $150,000 in travelling expenses for Bishop at a time when academic units were under budgetary strain.

The Renew ANU restructure – billed as essential to the university’s financial sustainability – has become a touchstone for wider discontent about governance transparency and decision-making at the university.

TEQSA’s compliance assessment, and the self-assurance report due next week, offers the most concrete prospect of outside scrutiny. Yet regulatory timelines are slow and any eventual enforcement action would follow months – if not years – of investigation.

Meanwhile, on campus, disquiet remains sharp. According to the ANU Governance Project – a staff-driven push to reform how the university is run – a survey launched on August 6 attracted 209 responses from current staff, former staff and students within just five days. Of those respondents, 97 per cent said they believed ANU’s current governance was not fit for purpose and should be overhauled.

For staff and students who see the Renew ANU program as the root of the university’s malaise, the current investigations offer scant relief. Critics believe trust in the institution’s leadership has already been eroded beyond repair.

The coming months will test whether endurance is a viable strategy for senior leadership. If TEQSA’s findings are damning, the government and the university council may be forced to act.

Until then, Bishop and Bell’s survival depends on a fragile consensus that, despite the turmoil, intervention would be worse than letting them see out their terms.

Lifeline 13 11 14

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on
August 16, 2025 as “ANU crisis: Pressure mounts on Bishop and Bell”.

For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers.
We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth.
We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care,
on climate change, on the pandemic.

All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers.
By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential,
issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account
politicians and the political class.

There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this.
In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world,
it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.

You’ve shared all of your credits for this month. They will refresh on September 1. If you would like to share more, you can buy a gift subscription for a friend.

SHARE WITH A FRIEND
? CREDITS REMAIN

SHARE WITH A SUBSCRIBER
UNLIMITED

Loading…