ACT Senator David Pocock raised concerns about governance at the Australian National University (ANU) in a letter to Federal Education Minister Jason Clare last month. In response, Clare referred the matter to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), which has since confirmed it is “engaged in live compliance processes in relation to concerns at the Australian National University.” 

This development marks a significant moment in the ongoing tensions between students, staff, and the wider community over governance at the ANU. As a federal agency, TEQSA can impose consequences if it finds the ANU Executive has breached standards required for a university to function. This is particularly notable given the ANU is the only Australian university established by, and accountable to, the Federal Government.

Senator Pocock told Woroni he was “deeply concerned” by the number of staff, students, and other community members who raised a broad range of concerns, including some “extremely serious in nature”, prompting him to raise the matter with the Education Minister.

If TEQSA finds that ANU executives have violated provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (PID Act) or the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act), it can enforce compliance through a range of powers. In the most extreme unlikely scenario, criminal charges could be brought against members of the ANU Council, including the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor. 

A likely outcome includes TEQSA issuing a warning letter or pursuing an informal resolution — neither of which are directly enforceable under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act). 

The referral arrives amid mounting concern over ‘Renew ANU’, which the ANU executive claims is a necessary response to financial strain.

During a recent town hall, Senator Pocock told attendees ANU executives were “trashing an amazing institution.” While acknowledging the need for a more “sustainable financial footing”, he stressed this must be achieved “fairly, transparently, with care and genuine engagement.”

Earlier this year, the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) held a no-confidence ballot in which more than 95 percent of participating staff voted against the University’s leadership. Chief Operating Officer Jonathan Churchill dismissed the result, emphasising its lack of “legal or binding effect” and describing it as a “vehicle for mis- and disinformation.”

Criticism has also been directed at the ‘Renew ANU’ strategy itself, with some students and staff telling Woroni ANU should prioritise reducing executive salaries and expenses, before resorting to teaching and research cuts.

Much of this outrage has been centered on Chancellor Julie Bishop’s reported expenses. ANU last year covered nearly $800,000 of Bishop’s expenses, including $151,424 for renting a luxury chancellery, $150,000 in travel, $109,000 in lease liability, $41,500 in office outgoings, and $22,000 in parking. This is in addition to the $800,000 ANU spent renovating Bishop’s office in Perth which financial documents sourced by the AFR found was also listed as the address of her private consulting firm. 

The Education Minister has begun the search for Bishop’s replacement as the ANU’s chancellor, whose term is set to expire at the end of 2026. A spokesperson told the AFR it was “not unusual” to begin scouting early while noting that “[t]he Chancellor is not appointed by the government … [but] by the ANU Council.” While technically accurate, the Council does consider government recommendations. 

In response to the news of its referral to TEQSA, Vice-Chancellor Genevieve Bell said ANU was “particularly disheartened” by Senator Pocock’s “allegations”, and “no allegations of any breach of ANU’s responsibilities under either the PID Act or the PGPA have been made to the University”. Bell said the ANU would write to Senator Pocock to request clarity and seek any relevant information he has.

The Senator’s office confirmed to Woroni it had received a letter from the Vice-Chancellor. It responded by stating the concerns raised involved potential breaches related directly to “the Vice-Chancellor’s own conduct and that of the University Chancellor”. The Senator has deferred to the Education Minister to determine what information to share with the University, and how to share it.