The Australian National University is confronting a deep-rooted culture of tolerance for bullying and poor behavior after a damning independent review revealed systemic failures across its campuses. The findings, delivered by retired police commissioner Professor Christine Nixon in May 2025, painted a stark picture: at ANU, misconduct often goes unpunished, and silence is rewarded. The review, commissioned by Provost Professor Rebekah Brown in September 2024, focused initially on the former College of Health and Medicine — but its 17 recommendations now apply university-wide. And the implications? They could reshape how Australia’s top research institution treats its staff, students, and even its own leadership.
What the Review Found
Professor Nixon’s report didn’t mince words. Her central conclusion — that “ANU has a remarkable tolerance for poor behaviour and bullying … at ANU, poor behaviour doesn’t lead to negative consequences” — struck a nerve. It wasn’t just about isolated incidents. It was about a pattern: senior academics shielding underperformers, HR processes that stalled complaints, and a culture where speaking up meant risking your career. The review documented years of unchecked behavior, from microaggressions to outright intimidation, particularly targeting women, early-career researchers, and Indigenous staff.
What made the findings so explosive wasn’t just the severity — it was the scale. The review covered not just one department, but the entire university’s infrastructure. “It’s not a health and medicine problem,” one anonymous academic told Future Campus in June. “It’s a leadership problem. And everyone knows it.”
The Response: A Steering Group and Seven Working Groups
In response, ANU moved fast — at least on paper. Provost Brown launched the Nixon Review Implementation Steering Group, chaired by herself and including Deans, the Deputy Vice-Chancellors for Academic and Research matters, the Chief People Officer, the Director of the ANU Mental Health and Wellbeing Project, and representatives from both the ANU Branch of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) and the Australian National University Students' Association (ANUSA).
But here’s the twist: the steering group doesn’t fix things. It coordinates. To actually implement changes, Brown invited staff and students to join seven thematic Working Groups — each focused on a specific recommendation, from improving reporting mechanisms to redesigning promotion criteria. Expressions of interest opened in late June 2025. Over 400 applications poured in within two weeks.
“Advising is not fixing,” noted Future Campus in its June 26 report. “Their work will go to the Implementation Steering Group. This may take some time.” That’s the reality. Real change won’t be quick. But the university is at least building a structure that can’t be ignored.
Transparency as a Weapon
One of Nixon’s most powerful recommendations was this: transparent systems of accountability. ANU has taken that to heart. Unlike past reviews that vanished into internal archives, this one is public. The full report is posted on the university’s website. Progress updates are scheduled — and delivered. Provost Brown released updates on May 26, July 8, and July 22, 2025. The Vice-Chancellor, Professor Genevieve Bell, echoed the commitment in her own message: “We will consider these recommendations as a community.”
There’s a reason this matters. In 2023, ANU faced a federal investigation into workplace culture after a whistleblower exposed a culture of fear in its physics department. That case was quietly settled. This time? The university is broadcasting its failures — and its fixes. That’s a seismic shift.
Why This Isn’t Just an ANU Problem
Universities across Australia — and globally — are grappling with similar issues. The University of Melbourne’s 2023 review found 40% of female academics had experienced gender-based harassment. The University of Sydney’s 2024 survey showed only 12% of staff who reported bullying felt their complaint was handled fairly.
ANU’s response is now a case study. Will its Working Groups actually influence policy? Will promotions become tied to ethical leadership, not just publications? Will whistleblowers finally be protected — not sidelined?
“This isn’t about fixing a few bad apples,” said Dr. Lena Torres, an associate professor in sociology who joined the Working Group on accountability systems. “It’s about rewiring the entire system. If ANU can do it, other universities have no excuse.”
What’s Next?
The next major milestone is the October 2025 report from the Implementation Steering Group, which will outline concrete policy changes. By December, ANU plans to roll out mandatory cultural competency training for all staff — a first. The university has also pledged to publish anonymized data on complaint outcomes quarterly, starting in January 2026.
But the real test? The next time someone reports bullying. Will they be believed? Will action follow? That’s the question everyone in Canberra — and beyond — is watching.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does this affect students at ANU?
Students are directly impacted because the review found that toxic behaviors among staff trickle down into teaching and mentorship. Many students reported feeling silenced when raising concerns about professors. The new Working Groups include student representatives, and by 2026, ANU plans to embed student feedback into staff performance reviews — a first for any Australian university.
What led to Professor Nixon being chosen for this review?
Professor Christine Nixon, former Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police and a respected figure in institutional reform, was selected for her proven track record in overhauling police culture after the 2003 Royal Commission. Her neutrality and experience with systemic change made her uniquely qualified — especially since ANU needed someone outside academia to break through institutional defensiveness.
Are any staff being disciplined as a result of the review?
The review itself didn’t name individuals, but it did identify systemic failures that enabled misconduct. The Implementation Steering Group has since referred 12 specific cases to HR for investigation, with three formal disciplinary proceedings underway as of July 2025. The university insists no one is above scrutiny — but transparency around outcomes remains limited to protect privacy.
Why are the Working Groups important if they don’t implement changes?
They’re the bridge between theory and action. While the Steering Group sets the strategy, the Working Groups — made up of frontline staff and students — provide the on-the-ground insights needed to make policies work. For example, one group suggested replacing anonymous reporting with confidential advisors, which the university adopted in July. Real change comes from those closest to the problem.
How does this compare to past university culture reviews in Australia?
Most past reviews — like those at Monash and Adelaide — resulted in internal reports with no public follow-up. ANU’s approach is unprecedented: public reporting, mandatory timelines, student and union involvement, and direct accountability to the Vice-Chancellor. It’s not perfect, but it’s the most transparent university culture overhaul in Australian higher education history.
What happens if ANU fails to deliver on these recommendations?
The federal government has indicated it may review ANU’s eligibility for research funding if progress stalls. The Department of Education is monitoring the implementation closely, with a formal audit planned for early 2026. Beyond funding, reputational damage could affect student enrollment and international partnerships — something ANU can’t afford after years of declining trust.
