“A Fundamental Question of Priorities”: Further Dissent Against ANU Governance

By Sarah McCrea

Media attention to ANU is not slowing down, with new reports, papers, and analyses dissecting the university’s finances, budget cuts, and governance.

New criticism comes from the Australia Institute, in a report released on April 30. 

The report examined areas of elective expenditure across Australian universities including executive travel, advertising, marketing, and consultancy, with a focus on three universities: ANU, the Australian Catholic University, and the University of Wollongong. 

Written by Research Fellow and former ANU PhD student Joshua Black, the report argued that the spending decisions of universities “boils down to a fundamental question of priorities.”

The report compiles and analyses universities’ financial figures to illustrate two halves of finances. First, the savings, listing the well-known figures of financial deficits, budget cuts, and reduction in salary and non-salary related expenditure. 

Second was expenditure, with specific numbers on universities’ elective spending. 

Suggestions to improve transparency and accountability included “nationally consistent annual reporting categories for universities,” “improved disclosure requirements for consultancy spending,” and “nationally consistent disclosure rules for overseas travel expenses.”

The report stated, “Institutions that value their paper assets over their real assets, their staff and students, are institutions in need of repair.”

More recently, on May 9, The Canberra Times published an opinion piece titled “The system is broken at ANU and these scandals were predictable.” The piece was written by two members of the Australia Institute, Joshua Black – the author of the elective spending report – and Senior Economist Jack Thrower. 

The article described ANU’s response to community agitation, such as feedback mechanisms and websites, as “highly performative.” Responding to ANU’s “flawed” governance, the article proposed alterations to the existing governance. Primarily, having a mandatory number of elected representatives on the University Council, and having better disclosure of said Council’s minutes of their monthly meetings. 

Addressing the report, ANU’s Chief Financial Officer Michael Lonergan stated, “Understanding university finances is more nuanced than the top line dollar amount presented in the report.”

Lonergan discussed the rationale behind various fields of elective spending, including how income is generated from marketing and advertising, how travel is “crucial for research and field work,” and how consultancy spending included “commissions and support for research.”

He acknowledged, “That’s not to say that we don’t have to reduce our spending. We do, and we are.”

Referencing the Expenditure Taskforce, Lonergan stated that staff were involved in discussions “right across campus” looking for options for reducing non-salary expenditure. 

He added, however, “the fact remains that salary costs have been a material driver of total cost increases, as we have been very clear about.”

“We remain committed to working with our community on how we can return the University to financial sustainability so we can continue delivering world-class research and education for many years to come, by reducing both salary and non-salary costs.”

Observer spoke to the Australia Institute’s Joshua Black, author of the elective spending report and co-author of the opinion piece. 

Dr Black stated in the report he wanted to illustrate that “budgets are not neutral documents,” even though universities act as if it’s “all neutral, it’s just the way things have to be.” 

He said this alleged attitude of universities was incorrect, remarking “That’s just not how budgets work. Budgets are about choices.”

 “A financial statement at the end of each financial year tells you what the university’s choices have involved, what those choices cost, where the money went, and who benefited and who didn’t.”

Regarding the proposal that ANU provide their Council meeting minutes in more detail, Dr Black clarified that the idea was not to have every word made available to the public. Instead, redactions should be “comprehensively explained,” include questions asked and problems raised during the meeting, and title what documents were attached to the discussions. 

Referencing executives’ ambiguous knowledge on issues such as consultancy fees and Intel roles, he stated, “Proper detailed minutes and the disclosure of those proper detailed minutes should make it clear whether the Council knew about these things or not.”

Dr Black discussed his experiences in tertiary education, including his time as a PhD student at ANU, stating it was an “an extraordinary privilege” but that “you get to see the best and worst.”

He added, “You also see enormous challenges…systems and processes that don’t work terribly well, the shock that comes with announcement of restructure plans that don’t have clear end dates, end goals, other than a $250 million cut agenda.”

“We are asking our academics and our professional staff to be productive and useful all of the time—and that’s as it should be—but they cannot be productive and useful all the time if their livelihoods are hanging over their head.”

Graphics by Shé Chani

Know something we don’t know? Email [email protected] or use our anonymous tip submission.

If you have an issue with this article, or a correction to make, you can contact us at [email protected], submit a formal dispute, or angry react the Facebook post.

Want to get involved? You can write articles, photograph, livestream or do web support. We’re also looking for someone to yell “extra!” outside Davey Lodge at 1AM. Apply today!