University governance: three myths every council member needs to challenge

Three persistent myths continue to shape university governance – and there are lessons every director can take from them, writes Dr Tracey Dodd GAICD.

When ABC's Four Corners aired its investigation into university consultant spending in March 2026, Education Minister Jason Clare said he was shocked. The program highlighted the findings of a year‑long inquiry, which found that Australian universities are increasingly relying on corporate consultants to aid decision-making, spending $1.8 billion on consultants in 2024 alone, with limited public disclosure of the business case for such investment.

The revelation came six months after the Expert Council on University Governance released its final report, recommending a “demonstrable uplift in governance culture and practices” across the public university sector, ensuring a sharper focus on the purpose for which universities were established.

For some university council members, this mandate will feel like an uphill battle; for others, a welcome challenge; and for all, a reminder of the important role that university governing bodies play in overseeing good governance.

Getting the response right requires council members to first challenge some received wisdom or myths surrounding university governance.

Why university governance failures matter to every director

The governance challenges facing university councils mirror those confronting boards across other sectors. Practical lessons related to the importance of independent thought, active inquiry, and a commitment to director duties to act in the best interest of the organisations that they steer provide takeaways for all directors, regardless of whether they sit on a university council.

For example, the decision by Australian National University (ANU) Chancellor Julie Bishop, along with council members Wayne Martin and Tanya Hosch, to step away from the council signals to directors that even highly experienced board members may disengage when governance settings, culture or role clarity constrain their ability to contribute effectively.

For directors more broadly, it is a reminder that governance credibility is sustained not by stature or process alone, but by whether boards create conditions for rigorous oversight, open challenge and meaningful participation.

Three common myths about university governance

1. The council should stay in the helicopter

A university council is the governing body of a university, equivalent to a board in the corporate sense, with responsibility for strategy, oversight and accountability.

We often use the metaphor of a helicopter for governance – the council maintains a high-level view of the organisation without getting involved in day-to-day operations. However, the roots of this metaphor are carefully selected. A helicopter doesn’t stay in the air. It navigates from A to B, responds to conditions below, descends for a closer look and climbs for a broader view. The pilots maintain an active stance, meaning they do not switch to autopilot.

Principle 1 of the Expert Council's Governance Principles reflects this and requires the governing body to "actively oversee the university's strategy, performance, risk management, culture and compliance consistent with its purpose and in the public interest". Active oversight is not passive altitude. It means descending far enough to ask what the university has and should deliver and whether it serves the university's public purpose – then climbing back up to hold management accountable for the answers.

We cannot take this for granted. The Expert Council pointedly found "a persistent theme across many consultations pointing to a prioritisation and primacy of the views of management over other voices on the governing body".

The Expert Council also found that inadequate risk management was systemic, with "insufficient attention paid to non-financial risks, such as those attached to the broader purpose, reputation, and social licence of the university", highlighting where the heavy lifting is required.

2. Not all council members are equal

The second myth is a half-truth. True; some council members add more value than others. Not because of their role (e.g., a staff representative or external member) but based on their commitment to rigorous governance. Their ability, willingness, and sometimes bravery to ask the hard questions when the room does not. As the adage goes. When things go wrong, a valuable council member will reflect on how we can ask better questions.

False: Elected and appointed members hold different weight when it comes to governance.

The Expert Council confronted this directly, devoting substantial attention to what it described as a "culture of exclusion" experienced by elected members. Staff representatives told the council they faced "bullying, harassment, intimidation, and vilification" and that "disagreement with university management, or the governing body, is unwelcome – if not actively discouraged". Conflicts of interest were "regularly cited as a reason for not sharing information or papers, restricting participation in some agenda items and discussions, and restricting participation in or attendance at committee meetings". Students reported similar experiences, finding governing bodies "intimidating" and difficult to challenge.

The Expert Council was strong in its response. It states that "the approach to conflicts of interest should not be used as a basis for excluding elected or representative members of the governing body from participating in discussions" and that "exclusion should only be based on a specific, material and direct conflict of interest". Principle 2 requires the governing body to "recognise the value of diverse perspectives and respect the differing views of its members, including elected members".

Every member around the council table carries one vote and the same fiduciary duties. Chancellors, as chairs, and experienced independent directors must invest actively in drawing elected members into substantive discussion, share papers at the same time as all other members, and create psychological safety. Principle 2.5 explicitly requires this, stating that good governance requires "open, constructive discussions focused on the success of the university, with psychological safety and respectful challenge".

3. The council model is broken

When things go wrong, it’s easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For university governance, this should not be the case.

University councils embody one of the most durable governance designs in human history. Oxford formalised academic governance in 1214 when the body of Masters and Scholars was placed under a Chancellor, and the Oxford University Act 1854 established the Hebdomadal Council as the university's governing body with broad accountability structures.

The civic universities that spread across Australia adopted the bicameral model. A governing council alongside an academic senate followed this model with the aim of overseeing external community accountability and internal academic authority.

As statutory bodies established by State, Territory or Commonwealth legislation, Australian public universities have governance and accountability requirements imposed through law, accreditation by TEQSA, and the Higher Education Standards Framework. This layered system of governance requires active stewardship.

The Expert Council did not recommend dismantling this model. Its principles and recommendations are designed to ensure councils fulfil the role the law already assigns them.

A call to action

What does all this mean for council members? It points to three clear responsibilities:

• Provide oversight as a trustee or steward of the university, not as a passive approver or adviser
• Invest actively in the participation of all council members
• Embrace transparency and rigour in decision‑making

Key questions for council members:

• When did the council last descend from the helicopter, requesting deeper information on a management recommendation rather than accepting the paper at face value?
• Does the council receive regular reporting on non-financial risks – reputational, cultural, and social licence risks – with the same rigour as financial risks?
• When management presents a recommendation unanimously, who in the room asks the uncomfortable question?
• When was the last time an elected staff or student member led a substantive discussion at the council table?
• Does the council's conflict of interest policy clearly define what constitutes a specific, material and direct conflict and is it applied consistently across all member types?
• Does the council actively steward its governance model, or does it treat structure as someone else's responsibility?
• The hardest question of all: When something goes wrong at this university, will your first instinct be to ask how management failed or to ask what questions the council should have asked sooner?