| Latest Stories | Featured Article | Social |
April 28, 2025UncategorisedBy Sarah McCrea
On February 6 2025, the ANU implemented its ‘Posting on ANU Campus’ policy. Under this policy, members of the general public have to seek approval from the university before displaying posters on campus. To display posters without needing approval from ANU, the posters must be attributed to an individual, group, or club that has created it. Posters cannot be “displayed in excessive numbers”.
If a poster does not meet these requirements, it will be taken down. The policy also states that posters “displayed in breach of the law or any ANU policy are prohibited and will be promptly removed”. All allowed posters are still removed at the end of each month.
The description states:
“This policy ensures that posters are displayed in appropriate locations maintaining the aesthetic and operational integrity of the University while supporting communication and engagement within the ANU community.”
Endorsed by both ANUSA and ‘No Cuts At ANU,’ a new student group is fighting back against this policy. The Poster Policy Working Group is a student-led subcommittee of the ANUSA Clubs Committee. It aims to have the university’s poster policy revised, calling it “draconian.”
The group plans to “unite diverse campus stakeholders” and organise “public demonstrations highlighting the absurdity of these rules”. With “petition and pressure” they demand ANU “Tear Down the Poster Policy”.
ANUSA Clubs Officer, Harrison Oates, is the convenor for the group. Speaking to Observer, he called the policy a “significant overreach” that “undermine our ability to communicate freely and spontaneously”.
“They are prioritizing a sanitized, corporate-friendly image over the fundamental rights of their community.”
Referring to the policy’s specifications on approved locations for posters and limits on poster amounts, he added that it “affects every club wanting to promote a trivia night, every band advertising a gig, every student group trying to build community”.
Regarding ANU’s poster policy description, Oates stated: “we don’t believe this rationale fully captures the impact of these changes.”
He referenced the policy’s implementation date, which “was also the same week as the heavily-postered ANUSA election period,” where “students vote overwhelmingly for the ANU to divest its investments in weapons companies”.
The group raised concerns about the rule’s impact on freedom of expression and ability to partake in on-campus activism.
“A de facto restriction on advertising to only ANUSA-affiliated clubs…means that groups like No Cuts at ANU wouldn’t be able to operate effectively and build campaigns like the May 1st Student Strike.”
“ mandatory attribution discourages participation in legitimate debate and protest for fear of personal consequences.”
Oates clarified ‘The Poster Policy Working Group’ has not yet received a formal response from the university, but he hopes the campaign will encourage ANU to “engage directly with the concerns.” At the same time, he says “we anticipate they might double down, perhaps reiterating their stated reasons about ‘aesthetics’ or ‘operational needs’”.
“Frankly, my role as ANUSA Clubs Officer should be focussed on fostering a vibrant campus life…it shouldn’t involve running activist campaigns against the university administration simply to protect the basic functions of student clubs and societies. Yet, that’s precisely the situation ANU’s recent decisions have created.“
Observer spoke to ANU about the new student committee and campaign.
A spokesperson for the university stated: “Our policies, and the way we apply them, are designed to support our people, and balance this commitment to freedom of expression with our legal responsibility to provide a safe environment for all members of our community.”
“All students and staff are free to express themselves on any issue in line with Australian law and the University’s Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech Policy.”
The university directs any feedback for the policy to [email protected].
The ANU spokesperson confirmed that, through this channel, there had been 7 pieces of feedback thus far. They stated the “majority” of this feedback was from community members looking to “ensure they’re following it appropriately.”
They confirmed that the review date of the poster policy will continue as planned on August 6 2025.
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! [...]
April 28, 2025Academics / ANU / NewsBy Amelia Gordon
Upon his election, US President Donald Trump signed several executive orders banning federal funding on “woke research” that could be deemed as “anti-American”.
Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs have come under attack in US legislatures, college campuses, and now at a federal and international level. So far, this has resulted in universities cutting student admissions and looking to reduce academic staff and researchers. Federal agencies in the US have been directed to avoid using terms associated with “woke ideologies”.
According to the Free Speech Project, these terms include “climate crisis”, “accessible”, “racism”, “women”, “transgender”, “LGBTQ” and many more.
It has been reported that the US government has cancelled grants which directly affect the National Institute of Health, particularly in studies focusing on the prevention of new HIV infections, healthcare accessibility and other drug research that directly affects LGBTQ+ and other marginalised communities.
This ban has now impacted Australian researchers, particularly those with connections to US government-funded projects. The Group of Eight (Go8) has already terminated researcher grants, with the ANU among those impacted.
An ANU spokesperson has confirmed that the ANU received a letter from the US government indicating their intent to terminate funding on one of the 16 funded US government research projects they have with ANU.
The US government sent a questionnaire to some Australian researchers from Australian universities, assessing their project’s focus and the academics’ own connections to China and other states.
The Trump Administration has demanded to know if the focus of these projects had green-left agendas, had links to China and also their views on terrorism, and if they align with Trump’s national ideologies.
The Go8 have raised concerns with the Australian government about the survey and its impact on Australian research. The Australian Research Council’s (ARC) discussion paper expressed that a lack of funding will make Australia unable to compete for research agreements and contacts with the US.
About forty-percent of Australian publications involve American collaborators. Terminated funding threatens critical research areas ranging from vaccine development, weather and climate forecasting, and Australia’s ability to retain international talent.
It is estimated that the US invested more than $386 million in 2024 in Australian research.
The ARC is proposing changes to potentially restructure grants and replace standalone positions with shorter fellowships.
The Trump Administration has cut $1 million AUD in funding from ANU research into terrorism and targeted violence, as it “no longer achieved the US Department of Homeland Security’s priorities”.
An ANU spokesperson clarified that the US government-funded contracts are worth $9.3 million AUD altogether.
On 18 March, Vice-Chancellor Genevieve Bell stated, “we have had the first termination of funding from the United States”.
She noted that the ANU had 15 US-funded projects, but there was no reason to suspect that these would be cut.
Bell has said, “to ensure the privacy of the staff and projects, we will not identify these individuals or projects further, but I will confirm we remain committed to our research and supporting our academics”.
Bell also expressed that the ANU “deeply value the opportunity to work with international partners and collaborators and this will not change.”
The Australian government is doing a strategic review of Australia’s research and development system to diversify funding strategies.
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!
[...]
April 23, 2025UncategorisedBy Anushka Vineet
Saturday the third of May 2025 is the Australian Federal election: every political science major’s favourite time of their degree! If you did not have the pleasure of taking POLS1002: Introduction to Politics, or are after a refresher on the Australian political and voting system, Observer has you covered!
This is a Federal election, which means you are voting for members to represent you in the Commonwealth Parliament. Federal elections occur every three years. To be eligible to vote, you must be over 18, an Australian citizen, and be enrolled to vote. The cut-off date to enrol to vote or change your details has already passed, but you can check here if you are unsure whether you are enrolled.
The Commonwealth Parliament was formed in 1901 after Australia’s federation. Federation was when the six British colonies – New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania – united to form the Commonwealth of Australia on the 1st of January 1901. Since then, we have had 47 Federal elections and 31 Prime-Ministers.
Australia’s Commonwealth Parliament is a bicameral system. This means that you will be voting for candidates to represent you in two houses: the House of Representatives (the Lower House) and the Senate (the Upper House).
Both houses use different methods of voting.
The House of Representatives uses preferential voting. On the ballot, you will need to order all the candidates according to your preferences.
The Senate is a bit more complicated as it uses proportional voting. When voting for the Senate, you will have a choice to vote ‘Above the Line’ or ‘Below the Line’. If you choose ‘Above the Line’ you need to number at least six of the parties or groups. For ‘Below the Line’ voting, you need to number at least 12 of the individual candidates.
If you are still unsure, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has created a helpful resource to practice how to vote for the House of Representatives and the Senate, to ensure your vote counts.
The House of Representatives currently has 151 members. Each member represents an electorate. An electorate is a geographical area where an average of 120,000 voters live. If you are unsure of your electorate, you can check here. In an election you are electing one member to represent your electorate.
The Senate contains 76 senators with each senator representing a state or territory. Each state has 12 senators while each territory, like the ACT, has two. Every election, half of the senators are up for election unless there is a double dissolution. In this election, only 36 senators will be re-elected: six senators per state and one senator per territory. In an election, if you are from a state, you would vote for multiple members to represent your state.
If you are unsure of the candidates for your electorate or your state/territory, you can check here.
In Australia, there are two major parties/coalitions: the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal-National Coalition.
Currently, the ALP is in power, with Anthony Albanese as party leader and Prime Minister. Peter Dutton is the leader of the Liberal Party and if the coalition wins the election he would be the new Australian Prime Minister. The leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, would be the Deputy Prime Minister. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has some resources to help you determine which party’s policies you align most with. Build a Ballot is another resource that allows voters to see which candidate they align most with in their electorate.
You can vote either by attending a polling booth or using one of the early voting methods. If you are enrolled to vote outside of the ACT, you can attend an interstate voting centre or apply for a postal vote. Wednesday April 30 is the last day to apply for a postal vote. The postal vote application can be found here.
Voting in Australia is compulsory and failure to vote can result in a $20 fine. But remember, you are exercising your civic duty and your right to vote!
If you are attending an in-person voting centre, don’t forget to collect your ‘democracy sausage’ (a sausage sizzle) for a gold coin donation: a well-deserved reward for fulfilling your civic duty! You can find your nearest polling booth, with a democracy sausage or cake stand, here.
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! [...]
April 22, 2025ANU / NewsWritten by Finn Slattery-O’Brien and Angela Paulson
Additional Reporting by Mackenzie Watkins
On Tuesday 15 April, Observer sat down with ACT Independent Senator David Pocock and his running mate Hannah Vardy at their campaign office in Pialligo.
Senator Pocock is a former Australian professional rugby union player and conservationist, who became the first Independent Senator for the ACT following the 2022 federal election.
For the 2024 federal election, Pocock has announced he is running for a second term with Hannah Vardy. Technically, both Pocock and Vardy are candidates for the “David Pocock” political party. This is as registering as a political party rather then running as an independent allows candidates to get “above the line” and become more visible on the ballot. As part of this, Pocock is thus required to run a second candidate – with Hannah kindly agreeing to be his running mate this election (Clare Doube was his running mate in 2022).
On top of being a current fourth-year ANU law and science student, Vardy is also a research assistant, an advocate for the Duty of Care campaign, and has been working within Senator Pocock’s electorate office.
Observer talked to Pocock and Vardy about their views on political polarisation, ANU’s leadership controversies, federal university funding, the growing conservatism of young men and what the future holds for young voters in the upcoming election.
Here’s what they had to say.
ANU Leadership Concerns
We began the conversation by addressing Senator Pocock’s recent accusations against ANU leadership in misleading Senate Estimates on how much the University had paid a consultancy firm.
ANU Chief Operating Officer Jonathan Churchill had told the Senate Estimate Committee that the University had “paid circa $50,000 this year” to Nous Consulting Group.
However, in reality, the University’ s contract with the firm was worth upwards of $1.1 million.
“It’s very clear that … anyone who turns up to estimates has to answer truthfully and have concerns that at the time they would have known that it was far more than $50,000 owed or the contract was worth a lot more than that,” said Pocock.
He reiterated that these issues were part of larger concerns regarding Genevieve Bell’s execution of her deficit-reducing plan dubbed ‘Renew ANU’.
“I guess there’s the broader question about concerns about how the sort of Renew ANU strategy is being implemented. The use of external consultants, which really doesn’t seem to have resulted in genuine consultation.
I’ve raised these with the Vice Chancellor…as a representative of the ACT. I think it’s really important that we ensure that people’s voices are heard and it’s done in a way where there is genuine consultation.”
The Senator also expressed that many people had come to him with concerns about “the direction heading in.”
“I’ve had more people stop me to talk about the ANU than probably any other issue over the last few months walking around Canberra.”
Vardy also drew on her own experience as an ANU student and how she has felt the material effects of ‘Renew ANU’.
“The culture of fear, I think, is a really concerning thing. I know teachers can’t teach the way they used to because they are so worried about … cuts and I think it has a massive impact on student conditions.”
Vardy highlighted the doubling of class sizes of her lectures and seminars, resulting in impaired learning opportunities for students. She also expressed concern over how “some of the cuts have been communicated to staff as well.”
Both Vardy and Pocock went on to emphasise that ANU governance is not purely at fault. They drew attention to how the federal government’s progressive decrease of funding helped contribute to an overreliance on international student numbers.
“Universities have been starved of funding when it comes to research,” Pocock said. “And because we don’t have the research funding we really should have, universities have gone out and started cross-subsidising with international students.”
However, that model is now under pressure. “We’ve got the government essentially cracking down on international students through visa fees, slowing down processing, and new legislation,” he said. “That all has an impact on ANU.”
He added that while it’s widely acknowledged that universities need to make significant financial adjustments, how those changes are unfolding at ANU raises alarm.
“It’s the way that it’s happening—and what that actually looks like for staff and students—that’s the issue.”
The Youth Vote and Policy-Making
Observer then asked Pocock and Vardy about what they thought the record number of youth voters would mean for the outcome of this election.
“Young people are going to the ones with the most to lose and the most to gain from the results of this election,” emphasised Vardy.
“ my parents bought their first home back in the 80s and 90s, the price of a home was about 3 times what the average income was…now it’s eight times.”
According to Vardy, home ownership is “becoming more and more out of reach, more of a pipe dream … for our generation.”
“And so I think it’s really important that young people for the first time are outnumbering boomers, people under 40 for the first time are outnumbering older generation, and so I think it’s a really wonderful opportunity for young people to actually go, OK, what sort of country do we want to inherit?”
“I think it’s a huge opportunity for young people…such big challenges being faced by young people, and the future that looking at…you can see why… some young people are pretty cynical about politics,” added Senator Pocock.
“The thing I urge young people to do is to actually get involved. Yeah, you can get cynical. You can check out and say, well, my vote doesn’t matter…or you can say…I’m gonna make sure that I’m giving my vote and my preferences to candidates who I think are going to build a better future.
“I think that’s when we’ll see the kinds of changes we need…in Australia.”
Vardy also commented on why she thought young voters can tend to be disillusioned and cynical about politics.
“I think it’s one of the reasons people tend to check out is that the parliament looks nothing like the society that we’re inheriting, right? 8% of people in parliament are aged under 40, but more than 50% of Australians are aged under 40.
t’s really easy to check out when you see all those people in the news that look absolutely nothing like this amazing, diverse society that we’re a part of.”
Pocock emphasises how his community engagement efforts also attempt to be representative.
“You know, over a dozen town halls, different forums, round tables … all sorts of events, really trying to hear from people.
My policy platform for this election is pretty much crowd-sourced.”
Pocock says these forums and conversations with “experts” had led him to build a policy base which will help “start to deal with the root causes of these big challenges we’re facing.”
Pocock, in particular, draws attention to the housing crisis as central to this election. However, unlike some others on the political left have called for, Pocock is not suggesting that capital gains tax and negative gearing be scrapped overnight.
“You know, if you look at what I’m proposing on housing, it takes into account the current politics around capital gains tax discount and negative gearing, and proposes a way forward that not everyone’s gonna like.
I think a fair and really pragmatic way to do it is to grandfather existing arrangements, constrain negative gearing to one investment property going forward, and then have a reduced capital gains tax discount for new builds.”
This policy, including grandfathering of existing arrangements, is similar to one proposed by the Greens.
Political Polarisation
Shifting the conversation, Observer asked Pocock and Vardy about any changes that they’ve noticed in Australian politics since Pocock’s campaign in the 2022 federal election, especially concerning the rise of independents and progressive engagement alongside the recent surge in conservative, Trumpist rhetoric in Australia.
Referencing the attempt of “Dutton and the Coalition” to “try out some of the Trump playbook” surrounding discourse on cultural issues, Pocock made it clear that he thought these issues “just aren’t front and centre for most Australians.”
“Most Australians are far more concerned about housing and cost of living and being able to go and see a GP or a psychologist, or knowing that the government’s actually got a plan when it comes to climate and the environment.
As humans, we have a very long history of scapegoating and being able to point to a group or an issue and say, well, this is actually the problem in our society…I think we’ve got to urge Australians to say no, let’s deal with the bigger…challenges we’re facing.”
When talking about policies of the major parties when it comes to tackling these issues, Senator Pocock exhibited a preference for Labor, saying “learly on things like housing, Labor has more of a plan than the Coalition”.
Yet, Pocock emphasised that he still does not think Labor are “willing to have the courage to actually take on the root causes of the big problems that we’re now facing” and that these issues are in fact due to “major parties doing what they need to do to win the next election, not what they need to set the country up for the next 30 years.”
Pocock emphasised the role independents have to play in subverting a status quo with which many people are dissatisfied.
“More and more Australians looking for alternatives,” Pocock added, “I’ve seen a real enthusiasm and excitement about independents and minor parties … and saying, well, there’s actually a third way of doing it now.”
Climate Action and the Future
The pair was also asked about their championing of the Duty to Care bill, which would require ministers to consider the future impacts of their decisions, including the effects of climate change.
However, the Bill has currently stalled in the Senate.
Pocock stated that he sees “this sort of duty as totally inevitable” amongst a scarcity of climate action and the short-term thinking of the major parties’ in their focus on re-election.
“At some point, politicians will catch up with most Australians who think that it is just common sense for the parliamentary duty of care to young people in future generations.”
When asked on whether Pocock would keep pushing for the Bill, especially with the possibility of a balance of power in the event of a Labor minority government, he said,
“e’ll certainly keep pushing it, and one of the things I hear all the time is people’s concerns about short-term thinking in parliament.
And this is a real pragmatic and, I think, tangible way to actually embed long-term thinking in our decision making, to force it on decision makers, so they have to consider it.”
Vardy, who herself is a Duty of Care researcher and campaigner, and a current Law/Biology student, also commented that the federal government needs to move beyond focusing purely on “domestic emissions and how we’re going to get to net zero.”
Vardy says this is “completely ignoring the outsized impact that our exports have on worsening climate change.
“I think 70% or 80% of our emissions overseas goes offshore, and we’re not thinking about that … there’s nothing in legislation to say, you have to think about the impact of our exports … on the health and wellbeing of young people.
“I think it’s a really great policy failure, the fact that we don’t have to think about the impact of those decisions; that we know that young people are gonna inherit the worst effects of climate change.”
The Gender Divide in Youth Politics
Pocock and Vardy were also asked their thoughts on worldwide trends including the growing popularity of right-wing, nationalist and misogynist male figures amongst young men. These include figures like Donald Trump, Andrew Tate, Javier Milei and Nigel Farage.
Pocock says that “you do see kind of these, you know, strong men offering silver bullets and saying this is the solution, and it can be quite attractive.
“ere’s a leader who’s got all the answers. They’re gonna smash the status quo and they’re gonna change everything. I think as we’ve seen with Donald Trump, we’ve really got to interrogate what they’re actually putting forward.”
However, Pocock also acknowledged that there are “legitimate concerns young men are raising about what is it to be a man in our society?
We hear about toxic masculinity all the time. What’s positive masculinity? How do you be a man and contribute and have value in our society?
And I think that’s probably something we haven’t grappled with that well. I think we’ve desperately needed the feminist movement to push and change a whole bunch of things in society. But at the same time, we need to be talking about young boys and men’s mental health and suicide and all, you know, all these issues that really are affecting men.”
“It’s a tough one.”
Senator Pocock and Candidate Vardy will be holding a ‘Youth Forum’ at ANU on 23 April from 6 – 7.30 pm at Theatre 2, Level 2 of the Lowitja O’Donoghue Cultural Centre. All students and young people are invited to attend.
Photo credit to Team Pocock
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! [...]
April 14, 2025UncategorisedBy Sarah McCrea
On 21 March 2025, an Open Letter signed by 434 ANU staff was sent to executives and the university’s Organisational Change contact. It called for “transparency” from executives regarding the new Change Management Proposals (CMP) at the local (departmental) and university-wide levels.
The Change Management Proposals are part of ANU’s ‘Renew ANU’ plan to reduce the university’s budget deficit and “strengthen the University’s long-term sustainability.” Staff were invited to take part in consultation processes, with the feedback submission deadline being 21 March 2025, the day the open letter was published.
The letter requested the release of financial information that had informed recent proposals, a halt on local CMPs, and for the consultation period on both local and university-wide CMPs to be extended to at least 21 April.
It asked ANU to reveal “the exact number of planned redundancies by college and work units,” and “how the Executive determined allocated budgets across colleges and work units in 2024 and 2025.”
Raising concerns about the university’s reputation and future, it alleged the “cuts are being carried out on the basis of questionable financial data and pose a serious institutional risk.”
The letter claims the restructuring process “lacks transparency, collegiality, and the substantive data required for meaningful consultation.”
It contended that staff were being consulted on changes that were “already underway in our local work units, but not being disclosed in the consultation documents.”
In response to the Open Letter’s claim that the university achieved cash surpluses in 2022 and 2023, ANU’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Michael Lonergan told The Canberra Times, “I don’t know where it’s coming from.”
In a second statement from the CFO, he responded that “the detail at a college level is transparent.” He added the deans were “walked through the methodology” and could do “a level of sharing with their directors.”
The letter also requested financial information not currently available, including statements from ANU’s 2024 Annual Report.
On 4 April, a university spokesperson told Observer that ANU “is required to submit the 2024 Annual Report to the Commonwealth by 15 April,” which “must then be tabled in the House of Representatives and the Senate.”
They noted that with the House currently dissolved due to the federal election, the 2024 Annual Report may not be tabled during this time. As the Annual Report must be approved by the Senate before being released on the ANU website, this may delay the release of information requested by the open letter.
The ANU spokesperson added that “the $200m operational deficit forecast was built using a set of assumptions…ow that the 2024 year is complete, we have actual numbers.”
“Our goal hasn’t changed. Rather, we’ve made progress towards our goal of having our expenses equal our revenue by 2026.”
In a statement released later on 4 April, ANU publicly responded to the open letter.
It stated the intention of the response was to “clarify what are considered to be misunderstandings and address statements that are factually incorrect.”
ANU also denied the request for an extension of the consultation period for the CMPs. It stated the consultation period was in line with the university’s Enterprise Agreement and therefore the consultation period would not be extended, noting “all staff have been afforded the opportunity to provide feedback.”
The statement alleged that the staff’s open letter had “misunderstood the purpose” of the consultation paper, which had the primary goal of “reflect a commitment to early engagement and providing our community with an opportunity to provide feedback.”
ANU also confirmed “there are no local change plans currently in consultation at the University.” It asserted there was not a “predetermined view” on “staffing levels, changes in individual organisational units,” and the allocation of cost-saving measures across portfolios and faculties.
It concluded that “the University Leadership Group will continue to work with local area staff” which “will include ways to optimise, pause or cease activities.”
“The University remains committed to consultation and open dialogue with our community.”
Observer contacted a spokesperson at “Our ANU Group”, the organisers of the letter.
Addressing Lonergan’s comments, the spokesperson said “ANU’s own financial results for 2023 say, “hen our Annual Report is tabled you will also see a reported net result of a surplus of $146.6 million.”
“To be clear, the open letter is simply asking for clarity and transparency in relation to the methodologies the university is using to calculate ANU’s operating deficit.”
On Lonergan’s remarks on CMP details being communicated to deans, Our ANU Group stated “this information has not reached us, the staff. Our request is simply for the “whole picture” that the CFO rightly asserts we do not have.”
The spokesperson affirmed the open letter was acknowledged by the university. “We want to emphasise that the organizers of the letter are not the ones who are owed a response, rather it is the signatories who are.”
“The signatory who delivered the letter was invited by email to a meeting immediately, and then a smaller group was invited to dialogue with the CFO alone. But the letter represents a much larger group.”
“The signatory and letter organising group declined the small group meeting, and asked the executive for a full written response to the requests made.”
Our ANU Group expressed that the requests outlined in the letter being met “would go a long way in restoring trust and faith in our institution” and that “without these elements there can be no meaningful consultation process.”
Observer will continue coverage as this matter unfolds.
NTEU did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication.
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! [...]
April 11, 2025UncategorisedBy Evie McEachern
Picture this: the year is 2020 and high school me is sitting at my desk, pondering where to go to university. So I did what any slightly misguided 17-year-old would do and searched up, “What is the best university in Australia?” The answer was clear: the ‘Australian National University’. I did not question this at all, and here I am several years later.
The first thing I probably should have considered is who exactly decides how ANU and other universities are ranked. Observer is here to explain it.
There are two main organisations responsible for ranking universities globally: the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings.
ANU recently moved up in the QS World University Rankings by Subject, with six subjects ranked in the top 20 globally, and 42 subjects ranked in the top 50 globally. ANU is now ranked 30th overall globally by QS, up from 34th in 2024, and is ranked 4th in Australia. However, this slight improvement has not returned ANU to the rankings it received in past years. In 2016, ANU peaked in its QS ranking at 19th globally.
In 2025, THE ranked ANU 73rd globally, a decrease from 67th in 2024, with the university remaining 4th in Australia. None of ANU’s subjects made it into their top 20, with social sciences landing the highest ranking of equal 29th. This continues a downward trend in ANU’s THE ranking, with the university’s peak occurring in 2017 at 47th globally. The trend in ANU’s QS and THE ranking is reflected in the below graph.
Another aspect of uni rankings that I failed to consider at 17 is the criteria used to decide how each university performs. Why exactly does ANU perform so differently between the QS and the THE?
Put simply, the QS prioritises student experience and employability, while the THE emphasises research and academic reputation. This is reflected in the rankings criteria: the THE has more criteria categories concerning research, including ‘Research Environment’ and ‘Research Quality’, of which ANU performs poorly in ‘Research Environment’. In comparison, the QS’s only criteria related to research is ‘International Research Network’ which ANU performs well in.
Based on this, undergraduate students may be more invested in the results of the QS rankings whereas postgraduate students and staff may be more interested in the results of the THE rankings.
However, there are some similarities between the two rankings’ chosen criteria and how ANU performs. Both organisations consider the quality of teaching: the QS specifically looks at ‘Faculty student ratio’ and the THE considers ‘Teaching’ more broadly, both of which ANU scores significantly lower in than any other category.
Keen-eyed students may notice that ANU tends to favour their more positive rankings. The ANU study home page refers to both the QS and THE rankings depending on which the university performed best in. In some cases, the page cites statistics from 2023 or 2024, despite the majority of 2025 ranking information being available since October of last year. Additionally, it references the Good Universities Guide 2023 for its five star rating of “student-to-staff ratio and staff qualifications” which contradicts the QS and the THE comparable category rankings.
My advice to my past self and to other students trying to decipher the rankings system is to focus on the subject you wish to study. Both the QS and the THE do university rankings by subject where you can filter to see which Australian university performs the best in your chosen discipline.
Coincidentally, ANU is currently ranked first in my specialisation, Sociology. A truly happy ending to our story.
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! [...]
April 9, 2025UncategorisedBy Sarah McCrea
The ANU’s severe budget deficit is more than just a headline, resulting in a bevy of proposed cost-cuts that affect staff and students alike. For months, media groups such as the ABC, Canberra Times, and the Australian Financial Review have commented on the university’s financial situation. Members of ANU staff have described themselves as “distressed and scared for their livelihood” due to the proposed changes. Groups such as No Cuts At ANU have lobbied for proposed cuts to be retracted.
However, though the cost-cuts proposed in the university’s Renew ANU plan are more extreme than those in the past, they are not unprecedented. Notably, in 2013, the university cut 10 per cent of the professional workforce to improve its financial position.
Despite ANU’s generally strong financial figures, cost-reduction measures are not infrequent and range from staff cuts to decreased funding for grants and teaching schools.
Here, Observer presents a brief record of ANU’s cost-cutting, cost-management, and revenue-maximising measures over the past decade. All net operating financial figures are taken from ANU’s official Annual Reports.
In 2015, ANU experienced a strong net surplus and a slight operating surplus. Cost-cutting measures taken throughout the year primarily focused on job and budget cuts at the College of Asia and the Pacific (CAP). The panel involved in this decision cited low student numbers as a reason for the actions, and the avoidance of potential operating deficits.
Discussion and implementation of staff cuts at CAP continued into 2016, with the Asian Studies Association of Australia suggesting this would “threaten ANU’s international reputation.”
An article in 2016 further addressed these cuts, as well as staff response to wider proposed cuts. Internally, anonymous ANU staff expressed mistrust of the administration and the legitimacy of its actions, with financial “numbers shifting with every presentation”. The official reported annual figures included an increased operating surplus.
In 2017, ANU’s net surplus and operating surplus increased substantially. No prominent cost-cutting measures were imposed by the university this year, but cost-cuts were put in place by the federal government in the form of a $2.2 billion funding cut to Australian universities.
A statement from ‘Good Universities’ suggested this would impact cost-management strategies for institutions such as ANU. These funding cuts were in place throughout 2018 and 2019.
During 2018, ANU ‘axed’ a School of Music course offered to high-school students, stating it was a response to a loss of its funding from the ACT government.
Additionally, in 2018, despite experiencing strong financial growth, international student fees at ANU increased by 9.5 per cent, increasing revenue for the university into the future.
In this year, ANU decided to cap the amount of student enrollments available, effectively stabilising student numbers. ABC News alleged this was a response to the government’s 2017 funding cuts, continuing to reference the past expenses of construction at ANU that occurred to accommodate growing student numbers.
In 2019, the university experienced a significant operating surplus and a net surplus of over $300 million.
However, in a 2019 article with the Sydney Morning Herald, former ANU Vice-Chancellor Brian Schmidt proposed that the university’s financial state would decline. The article suggested that the “university actually loses money on every undergraduate student it accepts – with per student funding insufficient to cover the high cost of the highest staff to student ratio in the country.”
With the arrival of COVID, ANU experienced both a net deficit and an operating deficit after over a decade of surpluses. This had long-term implications for its finances, with the university removing $200 million in cash from its reserves to be used for “unexpected expenditure.”
In October of 2020, the university released ‘The ANU Recovery Plan,’ containing cost-cutting measures such as pausing staff recruitment processes, staff deferring pay rises, and cutting staff numbers by 465. This plan included a ‘Change Management Process’ for several portfolios, including the School of Arts and Design, where workshop availability, types of staff positions, and general staff were all reduced.
Another important figure this year is the government’s revision (by ANU’s request) of the university’s debt limit, which restricts the amount of money ANU may borrow.
In 2020, this limit increased to $800 million and has remained the same since.
The university had offset COVID’s financial impacts by 2021, with a slight operating surplus. ANU’s Financial Results for 2021 outline reductions in salary-related expenditure. The report states this was composed of a “decrease in annualised full time equivalent (FTE) employees” and a “decrease of $48.9 million in voluntary separation expenses.”
These positive financial results did not continue into 2022, with budget deficits moving into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Also that year, the university decreased funding to Research Block Grant (RBG) due to “underperformance”.
During 2023, ANU announced a temporary closure of the Art & Music Library due to hail damage, with the library to turn into a study space upon reopening.
Riotact alleged that this was an example of ANU’s cost-cutting as the university was “continuing to hunt for savings” after experiencing another triple-digit operating deficit. Currently, ANU states that parts of the Art & Music library are “likely to be available to students and staff in Semester 1 2025.”
Towards the end of 2023, ANU released its ‘2024-2028 Financial Plan,’ which intended for the university to reach a financial surplus by 2026. This would be achieved through increasing student numbers and implementing successful cost-reduction measures.
ANU has not released its Annual Report or official financial results for 2024. Last year, the university projected that the operating deficit for 2024 would be over $200 million. However, it was recently revealed that ANU had “overstated” the budget deficit by $60 million.
Based on the 2024 projection, last October the ‘2024-2028 Financial Plan’ was deemed ‘unfeasible’ and replaced with ‘The ANU Academic Colleges Realignment Plan’ and ‘Renew ANU’.
The Academic Colleges Realignment Plan’ includes cost-cutting measures such as “disestablishing” the ANU College of Health and Medicine and “realigning” five schools. Two of these realigned schools were within the now-disestablished College of Health and Medicine, and three of the schools were from other colleges.
‘Renew ANU’ outlines a broader response to the university’s financial position, including the much-discussed $250 million reduction in operating costs and cost reductions in areas such as travel, IT, and facilities. The university describes ‘Renew ANU’ as a way to transition the university “from a decentralised operational model to a cohesive, strategic, and centralised model.”
ANU also requested staff to forgo their 2.5 per cent pay rise scheduled for December 2024. ‘Renew ANU’ cited staff-costs would have to be reduced by $100 million in order for the university to reach its financial targets.
If the pay rise was forgone, it would reduce staff costs by approximately $15 million. In November, ANU staff voted on this proposal, with 88 per cent of voters voting against this request.
To contribute to salary-related cost reductions, Vice-Chancellor Geneive Bell lowered her salary by 10 per cent, down from $1.1 million to $1 million.
The consequences of accumulating cost-cuts continued in this year, both financially, academically and socially. Cost-reduction measures taken by ANU have led to course cuts and more students per tutorial.
More recently, the university has introduced a new voluntary separation scheme. The scheme would allow ANU to decrease staff, bringing them closer to the numbers needed to achieve salary-related cost reductions.
The university has publicly outlined that initial consultation for the ‘Renew ANU’ concluded on the 19th of March, with the closure of a feedback form for ANU staff to comment on proposed changes.
It further states that there will be ‘broader consultation and planning phases’ from 2025, potentially moving into 2026. Implementation of the changes is projected to occur in early to mid-2026.
This most recent round of cost cuts has highlighted the precarious nature of ANU’s financial position. However, while the university’s current operating deficits and amount of general debt are anomalous, the types of cost-reduction measures we are seeing are not.
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! [...]
April 8, 2025ANU / News
By Sophie Felice
ACT independent senator David Pocock has accused ANU of intentionally misleading the senate as to the true cost of an external consultant contract with Nous Group Consulting.
It was revealed the university had allegedly spent over $1 million as of January 2025 on the contract compared to the $50,000 originally quoted in a hearing in November of 2024.
During a senate hearing on 7 November 2024, Pocock questioned ANU executives, including Vice Chancellor Genevieve Bell, about the scope and subsequent cost of the university’s engagement with Nous Group Consulting.
Vice Chancellor Bell stated she had initially engaged Nous Group to “help think about how to look at the role and changing roles of universities in a global landscape” and that “since then we’ve been continuing to work with them in order to understand best practice around service infrastructure and support services.”
The question as to the value of the contract was deferred by VC Bell to Provost Rebekah Brown and then again to the Chief Operating Officer, Jonathan Churchill. Churchill said, “We have paid circa $50,000 so far this year”.
However, it was revealed in a response to a question on notice by senator Tony Sheldon that the university had entered into a contract with Nous Group Consulting on 12 September 2024 worth $837,000 plus travel expenses, excluding GST. The initial contract was then extended twice, once in December 2024 and again in January 2025, bringing the total value of the contract to $1,127,000, excluding GST.
Senator Pocock has written to the chairman of parliament’s Education and Employment Legislation Committee, senator Tony Sheldon, to request an inquiry into ANU citing apparent “contempt for the Senate estimates process”.
“To say a contract is $50,000 when we learn it’s actually $800-and-something-thousand is a huge discrepancy”.
An ANU spokesperson has called the initial comments on the 7 November senate hearing “factually accurate”.
“The arrangements with Nous were based on the university’s needs, were subject to regular review, and contained the ability for ANU to exit without committing the full amount of the contract if the university desired. Additional work was identified as required”.
Senator Sheldon said of the discrepancy in the figures provided in November and those most recently released that, “The figure is nearly 17 times higher than previously stated, raising serious questions about transparency and whether the actual amount could be even greater”.
This news comes in the week following the NTEU vote of no confidence in Chancellor Julie Bishop and Vice Chancellor Geneievieve Bell in which of the 800 union members at ANU, over 95% voted no to the question “Do you have confidence in the leadership of the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor?”.
More to come.
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! [...]
April 4, 2025ANU / ANUSA / NewsWritten by Brianna Elliott
Despite minor improvements over the last 5 years, ANU still reports a significant gender pay gap across all roles on campus. The 2023-24 Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) data shows that ANU has a 7.7 percent median total remuneration gender pay gap in favour of men.
Comparatively, the average national gender pay gap is 21.8 percent for total remuneration, which includes an employee’s base salary and any additional bonuses or benefits they receive. On average, this means that for every $1 a man earns, a woman will only earn 78 cents.
According to the WGEA, institutions and companies that have a less than 5 percent average pay gap between women and men are considered to have effectively eliminated their gender gap. However, only 21 percent of all Australian employers have met this benchmark.
In comparison to the Group of Eight (Go8) and the University of Canberra, ANU ranks second last in the median total remuneration of the gender pay gap for the 2023-24 WGEA data.
The University of Adelaide takes the last position with a 14.3 percent gender pay gap, however, the University of Sydney comes in the lead with only a 1.8 percent gap.
While the University of Canberra is not a Go8 university, it also met the pay gap benchmark with only a 4.3 percent gendered difference.
However, when breaking this data down further and specifically looking at the gender composition by pay quartile for 2025, there is a notable difference in gendered ratios per position.
For example, 56 percent of male ANU staff are employed in a role in the upper quartile of paid positions. Comparatively, only 44 percent of women occupy the same quartile of high-paying jobs. However, this gap for the lower quartile of positions on campus is significantly more dominated by women (62 percent) than men (38 percent).
Notably, while the 2024 data confirms there was no change in the gendered percentage difference in the upper quartile positions, the same cannot be said for the lower quartile, where the number of women in these lower-paid positions increased in 2025.
A University spokesperson emphasised ANU’s advocacy of the WGEA as “a vital initiative” and “an important step in ensuring that all organisations make pay fair and equal across the board”.
They continued to state that ANU “fully support WGEA’s publication of gender pay gaps as part of national efforts to advance gender equality”.
ANUSA President Will Burfoot and Women’s Officer Jade Poulton provided a collective response to ANU’s 2025 Gender Pay Employee Statement, voicing that, “from a student perspective, we appreciate that ANU is engaging with this issue and seems to be approaching it seriously”.
They emphasised that ANU’s “Gender Equity Strategy is a strong foundation, especially now that it’s being operationalised and monitored more closely”.
However, they believe that ANU “also need to make sure that issues like pay equity, fair workloads and representation don’t fall off the radar.”
Poulton and Burfoot also highlighted recent concerns and issues, such as “the wage underpayment affecting over 2,000 staff”, where “there are still serious gaps in how the University values and compensates its workforce”.
The ANUSA representatives reaffirm that while “the intent is there, ANU needs to follow through with tangible outcomes – especially for women and gender-diverse staff who’ve historically been left behind”.
The ANUSA President and Women’s Officer both confirm that “there are definitely conversations happening” in regards to achieving gender equity, but they both would “love to see more consistent and visible action”.
Despite this concern from the student body, an ANU spokesperson notes that as an institution, they are committed to “upholding and leading our community with a values-led approach” and “having difficult conversations when we fall short of our own expectations”.
Within ANUSA and the ANU Women’s Department, Burfoot and Poulton highlighted that they are “always pushing for better gender representation in leadership and decision-making – not just among staff, but within student-facing roles as well.”
When asked by Observer about whether student workers experience gendered disparities in pay and/or workload, the ANUSA representatives stated that “issues around workload and recognition often come up, particularly for women and non-binary students who are more likely to take on less visible labour like student support or emotional work.”
The spokesperson from ANU acknowledged the university’s shortcomings in this area, stating that “although has made progress and commitments to address and lead change, work remains to be done”. They emphasise that this will “require our entire community to support and deliver”.
The Women’s Officer and ANUSA President note that “the gender pay gap is just one symptom of a wider issue”, emphasising that across all gender issues, including “sexual violence prevention, leadership representation, or equitable employment the same themes keep coming up: progress is slow, and accountability is often missing”.
The ANUSA representatives believe that “students want to see more than glossy statements” and instead are asking the university to show visible “proof that people are being paid fairly, promoted equitably, and supported to succeed”.
Therefore, as conversations around gender equity continue on a national level, students and staff are watching closely to see whether ANU’s commitments will lead to meaningful, measurable change.
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 1 am. Apply today! [...]
April 4, 2025ANUSABy Anushka Vineet
At the second Student Representative Council (SRC) meeting of the year, a motion moved by the BIPOC Officer was unanimously passed, condemning ANU’s alleged censorship of a pro-Palestine chalk mural outside the BIPOC Base. The BIPOC space is an autonomous safe space on campus accessible to all BIPOC identifying students.
This follows ANUSA’s motion last year which condemned multiple instances of vandalism targeting the mural. At the meeting, BIPOC officer Aleesya Amirizal said that ANU failed to take adequate measures to ensure the preservation of the mural in the face of vandal attacks.
Prior to an event to restore the mural last year after it was fully erased, previous BIPOC Officer Selena Wania met with former Deputy Vice-Chancellor Grady Venille and claimed she showed more concern for the subject matter of the mural rather than then some BIPOC students feeling unsafe due to the vandalism.
More specifically, it is alleged that Venville believes that “the mural was impermissible” as it was “making people feel unsafe” by including the phrase “from the river to the sea”.
There are conflicting opinions on the intended meaning of the phrase “from the river to the sea”. Historically, it has been used by Palestinians to reaffirm their quest for sovereignty and national rights over their homeland. On the other hand, some Israelis believe that the phrase calls for the erasure of the State of Israel. In the context of the current Israel-Gaza conflict, this phrase remains contentious.
The BIPOC Department has publicly expressed their support for all Palestinian students.
Seconder to the motion, Tian Kaelin, stated “ANU likes to try forget that Palestinian students exist, despite their families currently being murdered by the tens of thousands. But the BIPOC Department doesn’t forget because that is our community.”
Following the meeting with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Department decided to restore the mural.
However, the mural was removed 12 hours later by the university.
The BIPOC Department was contacted by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor alleging they failed to “comply with a university directive”. Amirizal stated that ANU threatened to disband the BIPOC space and send a cleaning bill, which they are yet to receive.
A university spokesperson did not clarify how university directives can be enforced, but did comment that the ANU “made clear last year, the University was willing to work with BIPOC members to install a mural in a way that was not exclusionary or caused harm”.
In the SRC meeting, Amirizal said that the BIPOC Base should not be used “as a bargaining tool”, and that “the university is not interested in protecting students: it is interested in controlling us in attempting to dictate the limits of our advocacy and to punish us for standing in solidarity ”.
ANUSA President Will Burfoot expressed his support to “protect the department’s autonomy”. As per the motion, it is expected that Burfoot will release “a public statement denouncing the university’s censorship, intimidation tactics, and threats against the BIPOC Department while demanding ANU uphold its commitment to student safety, free expression, and anti-racism”.
The relevant actions in the motion are summarised below:
Publicly condemning ANU actions
Demanding transparency and accountability
Protecting the BIPOC base’s autonomy
Establishing clear protections for BIPOC political expression.
A university spokesperson stated that “significant consultation was undertaken to support the development of a permanent mural that adhered to relevant legislative and heritage requirements”.
“The University remains committed to freedom of expression, as well as working collaboratively to ensure the campus continues to be a safe, inclusive, and welcoming space for all,” said the spokesperson.
Observer will continue to report on this story as it develops.
Graphics by James Neal
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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! [...]
|
[do_widget id=mailpoet_form-2] |
