Over the past few years, Australian universities have been confronted with issues that have damaged public confidence, including concerns around antisemitism, wage underpayments, scrutiny of Vice-Chancellor salaries, gender-based violence, harassment, and breaches of academic integrity. Together, these incidents have raised broader questions about how universities operate and whether their systems are strong enough to prevent problems. As The Hon Jason Clare MP, Australia’s Minister for Education, noted in October 2025: “If you don’t think there are challenges in university governance, you’ve been living under a rock.”
The scrutiny of universities is no longer limited to headlines — it is shaping formal oversight and policy. New regulatory requirements are being introduced, including mandatory accountability, expanded reporting, and additional compliance obligations. These include the proposed Australian Tertiary Education Commission, the National Student Ombudsman, strengthened powers for the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, and an ongoing Senate inquiry into university governance.
To restore trust, universities must demonstrate active stewardship of culture, governance, and risk. It is important to recognize, though, that many recent failures are not purely governance breakdowns but, in several cases, operational or human error issues. In the current environment, these are still interpreted — publicly and politically — as governance failures. Completely eliminating such errors through oversight would be impossible, and the level of scrutiny required could make universities ungovernable.
However, reducing the frequency and severity of errors is possible through a whole-organization governance approach: robust oversight, improved risk infrastructure and controls, and a clear understanding of the culture and capabilities needed to meet evolving expectations. Without visible and decisive action, intervention is likely to intensify, mirroring patterns seen in other sectors where public trust has eroded.
Universities also have some of the most experienced leaders serving on their governing bodies, including individuals from business, government, industry bodies and from within the university itself. The question therefore is not whether expertise exists — it is why outcomes are not consistently aligning with that expertise.
University governance challenges need deeper reform in Australia
Some universities are addressing issues with short-term, reactive measures, such as standalone reviews focused on culture, governance or a specific incident. While these actions can be necessary and responsible, they often address symptoms rather than root causes. The Expert Council on University Governance, an advisory body established to provide guidance on improving governance standards across the sector, noted in its report, “many of the submissions received from universities [for its review] failed to engage proactively and genuinely in addressing areas of weakness and/or in identifying scope for improvement in governance practices and outcomes.”
This challenge is not unique to higher education. Australia’s financial services industry has faced similar losses of public trust at different points. While the sectors differ, both involve complex organizations performing significant societal roles. Lessons from financial services include:
- Governing bodies must be actively informed about risks and organizational culture
- Meaningful debate and diversity of thought is essential
- Strategy, values, target culture and risk culture must be clearly aligned
- Compliance alone is not a benchmark for performance
- Everyone has a role in culture and risk, supported by trusted channels to speak up
- Identifying risk is only valuable if followed by committed action
Governance, culture, and risk sustain improvement in Australian universities
Instead of isolated fixes, universities need a holistic approach to governance reform. While regular “council effectiveness reviews” are common, these tend to be superficial and procedural. True progress requires treating governance, culture, and risk as interconnected elements. Structurally, governance sets the framework and authorizing environment in which culture and risk culture emerge. These, in turn, drive outcomes, which reinforce the culture, norms, and behaviors that permeate the institution.
The Expert Council has provided a useful reference point for what strong governance could look like. The risk, however, is that institutions focus only on tactical fixes — for example, adding a specific skill set to a governing body or revising committee charters — without addressing underlying systemic conditions. These steps may be necessary but are unlikely to be sufficient on their own. External, independent diagnosis may be required, as self-assessment can reinforce existing assumptions. As the Expert Council notes, “success in lifting governance performance will depend critically on the intent and curiosity with which universities consider and apply them.”
