ANU group to probe allegations after Julie Bishop bullying claims
The university has established an internal response group after an academic blamed chancellor Julie Bishop for her near-suicide and miscarriage, but not everyone welcomed the process.
The Australian National University has set up a group to investigate and respond to serious allegations made against senior employees, after an academic blamed her near-suicide and miscarriage on alleged bullying by chancellor Julie Bishop.
ANU also acknowledged, in response to the regulator’s probe into the culture of the council and executive, that it does not have sufficient processes in place for complaints to be made against senior leadership.
ANU announced the “Senate Hearing Governance Group”, which counts Provost Rebekah Brown as a member, to respond to disputed allegations of bullying and spying by staff and students at a dramatic Senate inquiry earlier this month.
The process was rejected by the National Tertiary Education Union who said “we don’t need a new investigation, we need new leadership”. It was also criticised by ACT Independent Senator David Pocock, who said any investigation overseen by Council could not be “construed as independent”.
ANU said the group would operate independently of council and be made up of “independent externals and officers and staff … without current allegations against them”.
“The rot is so deep, there can be no confidence in an investigation that the ANU has any role conducting or overseeing,” NTEU ACT Division Secretary Lachlan Clohesy said.
At a Senate hearing on August 12, Liz Allen, an ANU demographer and lecturer who quit the university’s governing council in April, told senators she had written a suicide note to her children after Ms Bishop wrongly accused her of leaking information to the media during a two-hour “disciplinary lecture’’ in February.
Ms Bishop told The Australian she disputed Dr Allen’s allegations against her.
The announcement of the Governance Group on Tuesday coincided with ANU making public its response to a compliance investigation by TEQSA against the university.
In it, ANU accepted “its policy suite has not clearly articulated pathways for the submission, and management, of concerns or complaints against senior leadership,” but largely outlined and backed the operations, functions and culture of the ANU council, as well as its financial position.
ANU defended “recent media reports claiming that staff were afraid to voice concerns about decisions made by members of the executive leadership team”, saying the consistent number of complaints across numerous years “indicated that staff and students feel able to raise concerns”.
It also said “open letters” signed by several hundred staff meant willingness of staff meant they were “not afraid to voice concerns about decisions by the University’s senior leadership”.
Senator Pocock said he found it “particularly offensive the attempt to gaslight staff by citing letters and votes of no confidence as evidence of staff not being afraid to voice their concerns”.
“Having read the self assurance report the ANU vice-chancellor has provided to the higher education regulator TEQSA it is more clear to me than ever how manifestly inadequate the response is given the extraordinarily serious allegations that have been made,” he said.
He also called for the chancellor to step aside while matters were investigated by a truly independent third party.
In an adjoining letter to TEQSA CEO Mary Russell, ANU vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell, said the report “makes clear that we are on a journey and we still have considerable work to do in the areas of risk management, governance and culture.”
“ANU is at a critical point in its history, one where we need to reset not only our finances but also our operating and structural model”.
“We believe that the university’s self-assurance report demonstrates how we have and do monitor, manage and mitigate institutional risks with regard to the concerns identified in your letter, especially regarding our current financial state and the culture of council and our leadership.”
Professor Bell noted the “serious allegations” made in the senate inquiry on August 12.
“As the ANU testimony outlined, an existing workplace grievance process was underway, however a number of the allegations made are outside of the scope typically contemplated by the grievance process, and the rights and protections afforded by the grievance process are no longer appropriate.
“Grievance processes are confidential, and the public statements made at the inquiry will mean the university needs to appoint a new independent assessor to ensure all parties receive fair and due process. Allegations will need to be investigated and substantiated with all parties provided an appropriate opportunity to respond.”
She also said a number of other statements made at the Senate hearing were “factually incorrect” and a response would be provided to the chair of the Senate committee.
