The Australia Institute has released its audited analysis of ANU’s 2023 and 2024 budget. ANU’s unaudited deficit was reported at $142.5 million, while its audited revenue showed a surplus of $89.9 million. 

The $232.4 million difference in these values can be accounted for through the following exclusions:

• $171 million revenue in investment funds designated for “specific purpose funds… not available to fund day-to-day operations”
• $16.6 million revenue in philanthropic funds. Note that the expenditure of these funds was included in the final calculation.
• $3.2 million in restricted specific purpose funds.
• $42 million ‘other’ funds, excluded for entailing “one-off items of a non-operating nature”. These ‘other’ funds average $55 million per year over the past five years.

Dr Richard Denniss, the co-CEO of the Australia Institute, says that the  audited accounts show that “any argument that the ANU is in an unhealthy financial position is flimsy”. He continues, “the audited accounts of the ANU show the organisation is stockpiling revenue from governments, students and philanthropy for some unstated future purpose.”

The ANU’s chief financial officer (CFO) Michael Lonergan told Woroni that the University has always “received an unqualified audit opinion from the [Australian National Audit Office].”

Lonergan continued, “If the financial statements for a Commonwealth entity prepared in accordance with accounting standards do not present fairly the financial performance of the entity, the entity must add additional information and explanations to present fairly the financial performance.”

The CFO claims that this calculation is standard practice across the university sector.

An ANU spokesperson reiterated this practice in a written comment, stating, “we are shifting our focus to how we can secure our revenue.” They state, “Professor Brown and the University executive understand the need for urgent action.”

Interim Vice-Chancellor Rebekah Brown acknowledges that “this has been a difficult time for many of our community” and “[asks] everyone to come together to determine our future.”

ANU has justified course, degree and staff cuts of Renew ANU with its “underlying operational deficit”, calculated by excluding revenue from their calculations. The ACNC states that organisations may retain profits for, among other things, accumulating a reserve to remain sustainable. This implies that such a reserve would be spent in times of deficit to ensure minimal disruption to operation and provision of the University’s main purposes: education and research.

Herein lies the question: if not to sustain ANU’s once diverse range of courses and degrees, and if not to retain the knowledge and skills of its academics, then what is that $232.4 million revenue for?