The ANU was set up to be a ‘national asset’. Here are 3 ways it can return to its original mission

The Australian National University is one of the most prestigious universities in Australia and is regularly ranked among the world’s best.

Despite this pedigree, it has recently been embroiled in ongoing controversies. This includes a restructure to try to save A$250 million, including mass redundancies and the closure of nationally significant research programs.

The ANU leadership has been scrutinsed by Senate hearings and there is an ongoing investigation by the national university regulator.

After months of mounting pressure and staff dissent, vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell has resigned. Chancellor Julie Bishop – who is also under pressure – made the announcement on Thursday.

This leadership crisis actually presents a rare opportunity for the federal government to intervene. The ANU is a unique institution in Australia, with a specific mandate to do research in the national interest.

This means Education Minister Jason Clare could get involved to return the ANU to this mission and create a model of university governance for the rest of the university sector.

Why was the ANU created?

The ANU is the only Australian university established by an act of federal parliament. In 1946 about £872,500 (roughly A$75 million today) was set aside to establish the ANU. This was because education was a matter for the states, according to the Constitution. A national university would allow the federal government to directly intervene to promote research in the national interest.

As Social Services Minister Nicholas McKenna argued, the ANU could “expand to meet the needs of the whole community”:

we have an unexampled opportunity to speed the development of that national spirit.

Member for Wilmont and former school teacher Gilbert Duthie argued after defeating Nazism and fascism in the war, the new university was a way of winning the battle of ideologies. He claimed:

our enemies have to go to school again to unlearn their beliefs, and we have to go to school again to relearn what democracy stands for.

Prime Minister Ben Chifley tied the ANU to a broader program of promoting and preserving what makes Australia unique:

Australian literature, music and art will prove a national asset as our country develops a culture of its own.

So the Australian National University Act states it should be a national institution that facilitates research “in relation to subjects of national importance to Australia”.

It was not to be led by market forces or the fickleness of student subject choices, but funded to pursue research in the national interest.

What can Jason Clare do?

The legislation that created the ANU has reasonably precise rules on how the university’s governing council should operate. But is silent on many other issues.

There are three ways today’s federal government could amend the act to restore public confidence in the university.

Read more: There is declining trust in Australian unis. Federal government policy is a big part of the problem

1. Increase transparency

As economist Jack Thrower and political historian Joshua Black have argued, the Senate estimates process is a powerful tool. This is where government departments and institutions come before senators for public questioning.

At the moment, ANU leadership only appears before Senate committees on an ad-hoc basis. As Thrower and Black noted in March, the ANU has only ever appeared four times for a total of 4 hours and 45 minutes of questioning since estimates was established in 1970.

The ANU could be required to appear before a Senate committee at least once a year.

If the university’s leadership had to regularly and publicly justify their spending decisions, this could dramatically change the culture. Perceived lavish executive travel and spending would likely be reined in if each flight, party, and office refurbishment had to be publicly accounted for.

A regular review of this kind would also provide an opportunity to scrutinise the significant payments to consultancy groups.

By making the ANU the benchmark for public accountability, Clare may also encourage state parliaments to pass similar legislation to allow public scrutiny of how other universities are run.

2. Executive salaries

Australian vice-chancellors’ salaries have more than quadrupled since the 1980s (even allowing for inflation). But there is scarce evidence this has resulted in better outcomes.

No one denies universities are large, complex organisations and that running a university is a high-pressure job. But million dollar-plus salaries have eroded public trust and make governments unsympathetic to appeals for greater sector funding.

Clare can set a national standard by legislating, for example, a vice-chancellor salary at the ANU cannot exceed two times a professor’s salary. (Bell took a 10% pay cut in 2024 and was on a base salary of $969,564. The top academic salary level at the ANU is currently $222,362.)

Again, this could hopefully encourage state parliaments to pass similar laws.

Read more: Universities have lost their way, but cost-cutting and consultants are not the answer

3. Return to the public good

Thirdly and most importantly, Clare should work with ANU representatives at all levels – not just the leadership – to re-articulate the true purpose of the national university.

What are the institutions and outputs that should be seen, not as a mere budget line, but something in the national interest? The current legislation vaguely mentions “national importance”. This could be rewritten to set out a clear vision.

As is stands, national treasures such as the Humanities Research Centre and the Australian National Dictionary Centre may be disestablished, while the Australian Dictionary of Biography, Australian Studies Institute, and School of Music face a precarious future.

If the ANU is not committed to research that tells the Australian story then well may we ask, what is the point of a national university?

In a campaign policy speech ahead of the 1946 election, Chifley defended the ANU, declaring, “the government has not lost sight of the value of culture in the community”.

The current government – and new ANU leadership – should not lose sight of it either.