PDF and HTML versions of Submission 190 published here
The Role of the Office of General Counsel in Enabling Allegedly Unlawful Conduct by University Management
Submitted by
Professor Manuel B. Graeber MD PhD FRCPath
Sydney, 28 February 2025
Executive Summary
This submission, made by the President of the University of Sydney Association of Professors and Vice-
President of the Australian Association of University Professors, highlights the critical role of the Office of
General Counsel (OGC) in enabling allegedly unlawful conduct by university management.
The author, with extensive international academic experience, presents a personal case study of
reprisals faced after making a public interest disclosure about alleged management criminality at the University
of Sydney.
The submission argues that the OGC has failed to uphold its responsibility to maintain academic
integrity, honesty, and professional conduct, instead enabling management misconduct and prioritising profit
over scholarly excellence. The author contends that this is not an isolated incident, but rather representative of
a broader culture of impunity and lack of accountability in Australian universities.
To address these concerns, the submission recommends a series of reforms, including:
– Revising the composition of university senates to ensure a substantial representation of academic
members and students (together forming the majority).
– Implementing robust hiring processes for general counsel from a group of external candidates, with
careful vetting for ethical standards and professional integrity.
– Establishing clear ethical guidelines and codes of conduct for OGCs.
– Conducting regular performance reviews and maintaining independence in the general counsel’s
office.
– Strengthening whistle-blower protection laws and ensuring proper handling of public interest
disclosures by university audit under the oversight of the OGC rather than the Vice-Chancellor.
The submission highlights the relevance of these issues to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards
Agency (TEQSA).
Ultimately, the submission calls for a Royal Commission to investigate the shortcomings of Australian
university management and recommends increased transparency, accountability, and independent oversight
to restore the integrity and reputation of Australian universities.
Introduction
I am making this submission as the democratically elected President of the University of Sydney
Association of Professors (USAP), Vice-President of the Australian Association of University
Professors (AAUP) and in my personal capacity.
I have made observations in these roles which I hope the Committee will be able to use to
improve the quality of governance at Australian higher education providers.
In my submission I am focusing on the Role of the Office of General Counsel (OGC). The
OGC has so far received comparatively little attention in discussions about the Quality of Governance
at Australian Higher Education Providers.
A major concern at our Australian universities currently is the perceived lack of accountability
and impunity of university managers who routinely disregard academic values and principles and
engage in widespread staff abuses, e.g. (1).
I am well placed to compare local case evidence from colleagues as well as my own
experience at the University of Sydney to several higher education providers and research institutions
internationally where I have worked as an academic over the last decades: Max Planck Society and
University of Munich (Germany), Harvard Medical School, National Institutes of Health (visiting),
and Mayo Clinic (visiting) (USA), National Institute of Neuroscience (visiting) (Japan), Imperial
College (UK), and King Fahd Medical City (KSA). I have also been a medical student at several
universities (Saarbruecken/Homburg, Heidelberg/Mannheim and Technical University of Munich,
Germany, and, during two electives, in Glasgow, UK).
Background
TEQSA, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, is expected to ensure that universities
provide quality education while safeguarding student interests. Therefore, TEQSA expects
universities to prioritise student welfare by providing high-quality educational experiences.
Our domestic students hold the future of Australian society. They should be the main
beneficiaries of TEQSA’s activities and the Office of General Counsel (OGC) of a university would
be expected to assist with that.
The OGC at a university interacts with TEQSA as part of the university’s broader compliance
and regulatory framework. In addition to safeguarding the handling of student matters, the OGC is
supposed to uphold conscience and professional conduct rules, as well as academic values such as
honesty and integrity more broadly, i.e., a good OGC acts as a guardian of academic values and
principles. Honesty and integrity are fundamental to the purpose of a university, as they provide the
foundation for the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge.
To the general public and especially to fee-paying students the key question is: What is the
point of research and teaching if not to pursue and convey factual truth? However, habitual lying at
a university has become a common problem amongst managers with weak or no academic
background, and it is a mission-critical offence. Such behaviour should not be condoned or even
supported by the OGC.
As institutions dedicated to the advancement of learning and the education of future
generations, universities have a responsibility to prioritise truth, accuracy, and intellectual honesty
across all areas of activity. This enables good universities to serve as “crap detectors” for society and
support democracy.
Taken together, the OGC of a university has a central role as an enabler of academic life.
Academic integrity is inviolate. Therefore, at a properly managed university, the OGC will serve the
academic mission. Moreover, it has the legal means to guarantee that management does so as well.
The OGC can thus help ensure that universities are centres of free speech, intellectual curiosity,
critical thinking, and moral integrity. However, in the current culture at our universities this is no
longer the case.
As someone who has personally experienced the consequences of speaking out, I believe it is
crucial to provide the committee with pertinent records of my experience, which can inform its
recommendations.
The Role of the Office of General Counsel in Enabling Allegedly Unlawful Management Conduct: Case study
I was personally targeted and terminated by the current management of the University of Sydney
after I made a public interest disclosure about alleged management criminality, i.e., bribery and
blackmail of a junior staff member by a high-ranking university executive. Given the significance of
the allegations, which had been brought to my attention in my official role as workplace delegate
(USAP President), I tried to refer the matter to the federal police but this has been blocked so far.
As someone who has made a public interest disclosure, I have been subjected to massive
reprisals, including breaches of my work contract, fabrication of misconduct charges, and targeting
of my postgraduate students. The case is currently before the Federal Court:
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD57/2024/actions
The OGC not only ignored these reprisals but actively participated in creating management’s
false narrative. There can be no doubt that this false information was created deliberately and
systematically, constituting numerous lies, and some fabrications which are on file would qualify in
all the other jurisdictions where I have worked as perjury. However, I am not hopeful that the
responsible individuals will be held to account.
REDACTED
Importantly, based on what I have heard from colleagues both at our university and at other
universities, my experiences are not an exception but rather representative, which is worrisome.
Analysis and implications
Lots of money can currently be made by managers in the Australian university sector. This has led as
far as I can see to the wrong characters being attracted to many highly paid university positions,
individuals whose priority is profit, especially personal profit, rather than the scholarly excellence
good universities need.
It is not logically possible to serve two masters. The results are devastating and our domestic
students, the future of Australia, are taking the brunt of the damage: Education has been turned from
a common good into a commodity by non-academics in leadership positions, camouflaged as
professors of practice for instance, who lack the relevant qualifications, are typically and regularly
out of their depth but full of themselves which is especially dangerous at times when good universities
are needed to control AI. Many wrong decisions are being made by these managers.
Universities are the places where human intelligence and ideally morals should be cultivated
but how can this be done if the moral compass of the leadership has been lost?
The OGC at the University of Sydney employs lawyers to assist its work for the management
of the university. One would expect the rule of law to be upheld by these legal experts but this is not
the case in my personal experience.
I therefore wholeheartedly agree on the characterisation of our contemporary Australian
‘universities as a “lawless sector”’. My own submission to the Attorney General (2) more than a year
ago characterised the problem in similar terms: “University autonomy appears to be misunderstood
by these managers as a carte blanche to act as if they were above the law” and “University offices
of general counsel currently provide the legal cover for management misconduct. They have become
enablers rather than the correctors they ought to be. There need to be effective protections against
corrupt lawyers especially in a university setting where truth and integrity form the foundation of all
work.”
There cannot be an effective Governance reform in my opinion if this critical aspect continues
to be ignored. The OGC needs to become a true guardian again, of both the university’s integrity and
reputation, and in this order.
Recommendations
- Revise the composition of Senate with a clear majority of academic members and students.
- Implement robust hiring processes: The revised Senate should be actively involved in hiring
the general counsel, carefully vetting external candidates for their ethical standards and
professional integrity and excluding in-house recruitment. This helps ensure that the
selected individual has a strong moral compass and commitment to legal compliance. - Establish clear ethical guidelines aligned with academic values and principles for all OGC
conduct, e.g. develop and enforce a comprehensive code of ethics specific to the general
counsel’s office, outlining expected behaviours and professional standards. - Conduct regular performance reviews: Implement periodic evaluations of the general
counsel’s performance, including assessments of their ethical conduct and adherence to legal
standards. - Maintain independence: Ensure that the general counsel’s office operates with sufficient
independence to provide unbiased legal advice so that they can fulfil their role as the
guardian of the university’s integrity and reputation.
- Independent oversight: Establish an independent body to oversee the OGCs and ensure they
are upholding academic values and professional conduct rules. - Whistle-blower protection: Strengthen whistle-blower protection laws to prevent reprisals
against staff who make public interest disclosures (2). - Make sure that public interest disclosures are handled properly by audit and that audit
functions reporting them to the OGC but not the Vice-Chancellor’s office. - Transparency and accountability: increase transparency and accountability in university
governance, including regular audits and reporting requirements. - Establish a Royal Commission to look into the shortcomings of the management of
Australian universities.
References
2. https://consultations.ag.gov.au/integrity/pswr-stage2/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=834841301