Proposed Cuts at ANU Raise Questions Over National Role and Sector Reform

Calls Grow to Rethink National Institutes Grant Amid ANU Centre Closures

The Australian National University (ANU) is reportedly considering the closure of several key research centres within its humanities, arts, and social sciences portfolio. This proposal has triggered significant concern across academic and policy communities, raising questions about ANU’s claim to be a “truly national university” and its ongoing eligibility for the National Institutes Grant. Among the proposed cuts are long-established institutions such as the Research School of Social Sciences and the Humanities Research Centre (HRC), both of which have played a formative role in shaping public policy and national discourse. Consequently, their potential disbandment is viewed by many as a retreat from ANU’s foundational mission. Moreover, the timing of these decisions amid sector-wide instability has amplified concerns regarding the future of humanities scholarship in Australia.

Critics have highlighted the incongruity of these proposals in light of the $200 million annual grant from the National Institutes of Health. Designed to safeguard critical research infrastructure from enrolment-related fluctuations and to support research of national significance, the grant has historically underpinned the very units now facing closure. Indeed, observers such as Senator David Pocock, through a recent Senate motion, have warned that such restructuring could undermine ANU’s capacity to fulfil the grant’s intended purpose. Furthermore, some commentators have likened the situation to sporting “relegation,” suggesting that the reputational and structural damage may extend beyond ANU to Australia’s broader intellectual ecosystem. In this context, calls have emerged to reassess long-held assumptions about institutional prestige, particularly the notion that regional universities are undervalued. Accordingly, questions have been raised as to whether the National Institutes of Health grant should remain tied to a single institution or be distributed more equitably across the sector.

Professors Kylie Message (ANU) and Victoria Kuttainen (James Cook University) have jointly articulated a shared concern: the steady erosion of cultural infrastructure across Australian universities. While ANU faces the prospect of closure and JCU endures regional neglect, both cases reflect a national trend characterised by declining support for the humanities, driven by outdated hierarchies and prestige-based funding models. In support of this view, the Australian Academy of the Humanities has cautioned against weakening the humanities' capacity during a period of global uncertainty. Faced with challenges such as climate change, artificial intelligence, rising inequality, and declining trust in democratic institutions, the Academy has called for renewed investment. Professor's Message and Kuttainen concurred, arguing that future progress depends on new collaborative frameworks that connect regional needs with national objectives.

This perspective aligns with a broader pattern of restructuring across the university sector. Institutions including Macquarie University, the University of Tasmania, and Western Sydney University have already experienced significant job losses and departmental closures. To date, over 1,000 positions have been lost or placed at risk, with the humanities sector bearing the brunt of sustained political and financial pressure.

The crisis is particularly acute in regional universities such as JCU, Charles Sturt, and Southern Cross, which have long contended with chronic underfunding, unsustainable workloads, and deteriorating staff morale. Unlike metropolitan institutions, these universities lack financial buffers such as international student revenue, large enrollments, and external funding streams like the National Institutes of Health grant. Moreover, the authors warned that well-intentioned equity initiatives by city-based universities—such as scholarships aimed at attracting regional students—may inadvertently exacerbate regional brain drain. While individual students benefit, the cumulative effect can be the erosion of civic and cultural roles played by local institutions.

They also cited growing evidence that the weakening humanities pipeline is affecting the availability of arts professionals in regional areas. Nonetheless, the broader consequences, rising operational costs, declining enrolments, and weakened educational ecosystems, remain poorly understood, even within academic circles. In 2024, a national panel of humanities leaders dismissed the notion of a sector-wide crisis, although notably, it included no regional representation. In response, the HRC challenged this view and partnered with JCU’s Roderick Centre to host the “Communities, Arts, Wellbeing” conference in Cairns. Rather than defending the humanities, the event sought to reposition them as essential to addressing environmental, social, and cultural crises. Organisers argued that meaningful transformation must begin in the regions, where such pressures are most acutely felt.

Collaborations such as that between the HRC and the Roderick Centre, though rare, are vital. They are especially valuable in communities where climate change, economic transitions, and social inequality are part of everyday life. The authors noted that northern Australia generates approximately 70% of the nation’s export income, yet economic benefits remain concentrated in the south, while burdens fall disproportionately on the north. The HRC has long distinguished itself as a national institution that bridges regional and urban divides. Prioritising civic responsibility over institutional self-interest, it has used the National Institutes Grant to deliver research outcomes of national relevance. However, such work cannot continue in an environment marked by downsizing and the casualisation of academic labour.

This led the authors to pose a critical question: if ANU is no longer able or willing to support the HRC’s national mission, should the government reconsider how the corresponding portion of the National Institutes Grant is allocated? Despite potential legal or logistical constraints, they argued that a compelling case exists for untethering the grant from a single institution. As an alternative, they proposed a competitive funding scheme whereby universities could apply for support based on alignment with national priorities, such as regional collaboration, First Nations leadership, interdisciplinary research, and community engagement. Under this model, public value would replace historical prestige as the guiding principle, and applications would be assessed on their capacity to uplift less-resourced partners, particularly in regional and remote areas.

Additionally, they recommended awarding grants to host or node institutions responsible for leading national research networks. These networks would deliver training and research that no single institution could sustain independently. The proposal rests on the belief that coordinated, collective efforts across universities can achieve more than fragmented, isolated initiatives. Emerging from extensive national consultation prompted by ANU’s withdrawal of support from the HRC, the proposal reflects a deeper structural challenge within the higher education sector, one that demands comprehensive reform. The future of Australia’s humanities may no longer reside in the capital, but in a decentralised, network-based model rooted in regional resilience and civic purpose.

Editor’s Note:

The restructuring plans at the Australian National University (ANU) represent a turning point for higher education in Australia. These are not just internal decisions; they raise important questions about the country’s support for intellectual diversity, fairness for regional areas, and the wider value of academic research. This article reflects a shared concern among academics, policymakers, and regional universities: that the humanities should not be seen as secondary. Instead, they should be recognised as vital to tackling some of Australia’s biggest challenges, such as climate change, social unity, and strengthening democracy. The suggested move towards a competitive, network-based funding system signals a major and much-needed shift away from long-standing, prestige-based models.

Skoobuzz asserts that rather than continuing to concentrate resources in a few elite institutions, Australia must invest in regional universities that are already doing vital work, often with limited means. For higher education to genuinely serve the nation, universities must prioritise collaboration over competition, valuing public good above prestige. This requires working directly with and within communities across the entire country, rather than operating solely from central institutions.