Submissions to Senate
Dear Commonwealth Ombudsman,
I refer to published submission 47 in relation to the Senate's inquiry into the quality of governance at Australian higher education providers.
The submissions were made by Professor Peter Tregear OAM, and can be accessed on the submissions page of the inquiry page.
In his submissions, Professor Tregear refers to manner in which a delegate of the Commonwealth Ombudsman terminated an investigation into the handling of a whistleblower disclosure by the Australian National University, even though it would appear that the Ombudsman's delegate appeared to agree that Professor Tregear had been denied procedural fairness by the ANU's PID investigators.
In her decision to terminate the investigation, the delegate noted that she requested, "on a number of occasions between April and August 2020", additional information from the ANU to assist in her investigation but that the ANU ignored her requests.
Under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth), I request access to each and every one of the delegates requests, issued to the ANU "on a number of occasions between April and August 2020", for further information from the ANU.
Yours faithfully,
Eilidh
Dear Commonwealth Ombudsman,
I have noticed that my FOI request has not been acknowledged even though other FOI requests made on this site after my request was made have been acknowledged.
Would you please acknowledge receipt of my FOI request dated 5 November?
Yours faithfully,
Eilidh
OFFICIAL
Dear Eilidh
I apologise for the delay in responding to your request. We have reviewed
our inboxes and unfortunately it appears that your original correspondence
of 5 November 2025 was sent to our junk email inbox. In light of these
circumstances we respectfully ask whether you are amenable to withdrawing
your request and resubmitting it.
In the alternative, we request a 30-day extension of time under s 15AA of
the FOI to process your request. We will treat your request as a matter of
priority.
We appreciate if you could let us know whether you consent to this
extension of time by Wednesday 3 December 2025.
I apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Please do not hesitate to contact us via reply email if you have any
further questions or concerns.
David
Legal Officer
Legal Team – Defence, Investigations, ACT, Legal (DIAL) Branch
[1]A black and white logo Description 1300 362 072
automatically generated
[email address]
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the traditional
owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to
land, culture and community. We pay our respects to elders past and
present.
References
Visible links
Dear David,
You've noted that my FOI request was sent to the Ombudsman's junk email box but I find that hard to believe.
I have a delivery status notification from the mail server of the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman noting that my request successfully reached its destination:
Nov 5 15:52:27 ip-172-31-43-31 postfix/pickup[1175]: E68973F158: uid=1001 from=<foi+request-13975-[REDACTED]@righttoknow.org.au>
Nov 5 15:52:27 ip-172-31-43-31 postfix/cleanup[4047]: E68973F158: message-id=<[email address]>
Nov 5 15:52:27 ip-172-31-43-31 postfix/qmgr[1533]: E68973F158: from=<foi+request-13975-[REDACTED]@righttoknow.org.au>, size=2663, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Nov 5 15:52:32 ip-172-31-43-31 postfix/smtp[4049]: E68973F158: to=<[email address]>, relay=ombudsman-gov-au.mail.protection.outlook.com[52.101.149.2]:25, delay=4.2, delays=0.03/0.01/0.24/3.9, dsn=2.6.0, status=sent (250 2.6.0 <[email address]> [InternalId=24107651478758, Hostname=SY7P300MB1525.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM] 15049 bytes in 2.983, 4.926 KB/sec Queued mail for delivery)
Nov 5 15:52:32 ip-172-31-43-31 postfix/qmgr[1533]: E68973F158: removed
I am not convinced that my request was screened as junk.
You have also requested that I either withdraw my request and reapply, or accede to a request for an extension of time.
I won't be withdrawing my request.
I am not inclined to accede to a request for a 30 day extension of time unless you provide me with good reasons to do so (the claim that my request was screened as junk mail is not, in the light of the delivery status notification, adequate in my opinion). Why do you need 30 days to process a request for documents with a very narrow scope?
If you would like a 30 day extension, then I suggest you apply to the OAIC as soon as possible for that extension. If you do apply to the OAIC for a 30 day extension, please let me know at the earliest opportunity. I do not want to inconvenience the OAIC with an application for a deemed refusal decision if there is an extension request application in the works.
This is all quite inconvenient. I had hoped to receive a decision from the Ombudsman's office by 5 December 2025, at about the time the final report of the Senate's Education and Employment inquiry into the quality of governance at Australian higher education providers.
Yours sincerely,
Eilidh
Dear David,
Would you please advise me if the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office has applied to the OAIC for an extension of time and, if so, whether the OAIC has provided a decision on the request for an extension of time.
Yours sincerely,
Eilidh
OFFICIAL
Dear Eilidh
I attach correspondence in relation to your request:
1. Decision letter dated 5 December 2025.
Please do not hesitate to contact us via reply email if you have any
questions or concerns.
Kind regards
David
Legal Officer
Legal Team – Defence, Investigations, ACT, Legal (DIAL) Branch
[1]A black and white logo 1300 362 072
Description automatically generated
[2][email address]
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the traditional
owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to
land, culture and community. We pay our respects to elders past and
present.
References
Visible links
2. mailto:[email address]
Dear David Yalpi,
Commonwealth Ombudsman reference: FOI 2025 80163
Thank you for the decision you provided to me today.
I have carefully read your reasons. Not one of the exemption that you claim applies actually applies to the documents requested.
For that reason, I request internal review of your decision on each and every ground that you have identified in your reasons. Please pass this request for internal review to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
Yours faithfully,
Eilidh
OFFICIAL
Our ref: FOI-2025-80163-IR
Dear Eilidh,
Freedom of Information request – Acknowledgment
I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 5 December 2025 to the Office of
the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Office), in which you requested internal
review of FOI decision 2025-80163 under the Freedom of Information Act
1982 (FOI Act). Your original request for documents was made in the
following terms:
I refer to published submission 47 in relation to the Senate's inquiry
into the quality of governance at Australian higher education providers.
The submissions were made by Professor Peter Tregear OAM, and can be
accessed on the submissions page of the inquiry page.
In his submissions, Professor Tregear refers to manner in which a delegate
of the Commonwealth Ombudsman terminated an investigation into the
handling of a whistleblower disclosure by the Australian National
University, even though it would appear that the Ombudsman's delegate
appeared to agree that Professor Tregear had been denied procedural
fairness by the ANU's PID investigators.
In her decision to terminate the investigation, the delegate noted that
she requested, "on a number of occasions between April and August 2020",
additional information from the ANU to assist in her investigation but
that the ANU ignored her requests.
Under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth), I request access to each and every one of
the delegates requests, issued to the ANU "on a number of occasions
between April and August 2020", for further information from the ANU.
Scope of review
I understand based on your email that you are only disputing the
application of exemptions to the documents falling within the scope of
your request.
Please let me know as soon as possible if this is not correct.
Timeframes
The FOI Act requires us to provide notice of a decision on your request
within 30 days from the date we received a valid FOI request. Therefore, a
decision for your request will be provided to you on or before 5 January
2026.
If you have any questions, you may contact me via email at
[1][email address]
Kind regards,
T. Wong
Defence, Investigations, ACT Ombudsman, Legal
1300 362 072
[2]A black and white logo [3][email address]
Description automatically
generated [4]ombudsman.gov.au
Level 5, 14 Childers St Canberra ACT 2600
Proud to be working on the lands of the Gadigal people of the Eora
Nation. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the
Traditional Owners of Country throughout Australia and their continuing
connection to land, culture and community. We pay our respects to Elders
past and present.
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the traditional
owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to
land, culture and community. We pay our respects to elders past and
present.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/
OFFICIAL
Our ref: FOI-2025-80163-IR
Dear Eilidh
Please see attached a decision affirming the original decision in your FOI
matter.
Kind regards,
T. Wong
Legal Director
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the traditional
owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to
land, culture and community. We pay our respects to elders past and
present.
Eilidh left an annotation ()
REASONS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
These are my reasons for IC review.
The reasons for review are in relation to the internal review decision made by Tin-Yan Wong, the legal director at the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, on 23 December 2025.
I applied for access to each and every one of the requests, made by the Commonwealth Ombudsman's delegate, issued to the ANU "on a number of occasions between April and August 2020", for further information from the ANU about a mishandled public interest disclosure investigation relating to Professor Peter Tregear OAM: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
Tin-Yan Wong denied access to the documents requested on four grounds, which were that exemptions applied to the documents under paragraphs 37(1)(b) and 37(2)(b) of the FOI Act, and that conditional exemptions applied to the documents under paragraph 47E(d) and section 47F of the FOI Act.
Each ground will be addressed.
PARAGRAPH 37(1)(b)
Paragraph 37(1)(b) provides that a document is exempt if disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to disclose, or enable a person to ascertain, the existence or identity of a confidential source of information, or the non - existence of a confidential source of information, in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law.
The documents that I have requested are documents that were issued under section 8 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth), by the Commonwealth Ombudsman's delegate, to the ANU about an inadequate public interest disclosure investigation. Such documents do not disclose the existence or identity of a confidential source of information, or the non - existence of a confidential source of information, in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law.
To the extent that Tin-Yan Wong is claiming that the documents issued by the Ombudsman's delegate identify the whistleblower, Professor Peter Tregear, then paragraph 37(1)(b) does not apply because Professor Tregear is not a confidential source of information. He is a conspicuous and public source of information because it is in the public domain that Professor Tregear made a public interest disclosure about misconduct at the ANU: e.g. https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/watc... ; https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-24/c... . Professor Tregear's identity as the complainant to the Ombudsman following the botched PID investigation by the ANU is also on the Parliamentary record: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...
Paragraph 37(1)(b) has no application to the documents that I have requested because the documents do not disclose the existence or identity of a confidential source of information, or the non - existence of a confidential source of information, in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law.
PARAGRAPH 37(2)(b)
Paragraph 37(2)(b) provides that a document is exempt if disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to disclose lawful methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating, or dealing with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law the disclosure of which would, or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures.
The documents that I have requested are documents that were issued under section 8 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth), by the Commonwealth Ombudsman's delegate, to the ANU about an inadequate public interest disclosure investigation. Such documents do not disclose lawful methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating, or dealing with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law the disclosure of which would, or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures.
The methods employed by the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman when investigating or dealing with matters under the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth) are also part of the public record, with the investigative operations manuals of the Commonwealth Ombudsman published on its website under the information publication scheme: e.g. https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/asse... ; https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/asse... ; https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/asse... .
The way that the Commonwealth Ombudsman's delegate requested information from the ANU's officials pursuant to section 8 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth) is also part of the Parliamentary record: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash... - see paragraphs 16 and 31 of Professor Tregear's submissions, as well as pages 7 and 8 of the submissions (the delegate's reasons).
Therefore, paragraph 37(2)(b) has no application to the documents that I have requested because the documents do not disclose lawful methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating, or dealing with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law the disclosure of which would, or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures.
PARAGRAPH 47E(d)
Paragraph 47E(d) of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document if its disclosure could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the agency.
It is a matter of public record that the ANU's investigation of Professor Tregear's PID was inadequate. The Commonwealth Ombudsman's delegate admits as much in her correspondence to Professor Tregear, which is published on the Parliament's website: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash... - see pages 7 and 8 of the submissions made by Professor Tregear.
Tin-Yan Wong claims that the delegate's requests for information from the ANU about the ANU's inadequate PID investigation could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the agency because “releasing of any relevant documents of this kind would adversely affect the Office’s PID investigative functions by discouraging individuals from making complaints or sharing information, and by reducing the openness of agencies when dealing with our Office”: paragraph 19 of the internal review decision - https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1... . That is not so.
Under the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth), agencies must use their best endeavours to best endeavours to assist the Ombudsman in the performance of the Ombudsman’s functions: Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth), s 32. There is no scope under the law for an official to by less than open when dealing with the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Mr Wong's argument is contradicted by the very legislation the Ombudsman's Office operates under.
The continued unwillingness of the Ombudsman's Office to engage openly about its failures when dealing with whistleblower complaints is much more likely to be a source of discouragement on the part of individuals making complaints because individuals would feel that it is a foregone conclusion that the Ombudsman's Office is engaged in covering up incompetence and failure because the Ombudsman's officials do not practise what they publicly preach.
Paragraph 47E(d) also does not apply to documents that disclose inefficiencies in the operations of an agency: FOI Guidelines, 6.115. The Ombudsman's delegates failures, which are set out in Professor Tregear's submissions to the Parliament ( https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash... ), are exposed by the documents requested, which are the requests that she made to the ANU for more information about the ANU's inadequate PID investigation (the delegate essentially notes that Professor Tregear was denied procedural fairness by the ANU's investigators).
For the reasons, paragraph 47E(d) of the FOI Act has no application to the documents that I have requested because the disclosure of the documents could not reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the agency. Since paragraph 47E(d) does not apply to the documents requested, there is no need to consider the public interest test.
PARAGRAPH 47F
Section 47F of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document to the extent that its disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person.
Tin-Yan Wong claims that the delegate's requests for information from the ANU about the ANU's inadequate PID investigation are conditionally exempt because “the relevant documents contain personal information in the form of third-party names, complaint details and contact details as well as junior Ombudsman staff or other government agency staff last names and direct contact details”: paragraph 30 of internal review decision - https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1... .
In determining whether the disclosure of the requested documents would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information, Mr Wong was required to have regard to the following matters under subsection 47F(2) of the FOI Act:
a) the extent to which the information is well known;
b) whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be (or to have been) associated with the matters dealt with in the document;
c) the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources.
The names of relevant individuals are well known because they are accessible from public sources.
The whistleblower in question is Professor Peter Tregear OAM, the one time head of the ANU's music school. This fact can be gleaned from multiple media articles and submissions to the Parliament. Some open access documents, which I found on the first three pages of a Google seach by typing in “Peter Tregear”, are set out below to prove the availability of the whistleblower's identity:
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...
https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/watc...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-24/c...
https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au...
https://region.com.au/oversight-bodies-f...
https://justinian.com.au/administrative-...
https://citynews.com.au/2025/why-the-pro...
https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/inte...
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/act/...
https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/anu-...
https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/anu-...
There are still many more articles.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman's delegate's identity is also well known. The Commonwealth Ombudsman's delegate, who is the subject of Professor Tregear's criticism in his recent submissions to the Senate, is Cassandra Hodzic. There are at least two publicly accessible articles in which her failures have been identified and criticised:
https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au...
https://justinian.com.au/administrative-...
The name of the the third party investigator engaged by the ANU to investigate Professor Tregear's PID is also known because the contract entered into with Deloitte has been published on the ANU's FOI disclosure log: https://d1zkbwgd2iyy9p.cloudfront.net/fi... . The investigator was Matt O'Donnell.
Since the names of the key actors in this matter are all in the public domain, and the information is readily accessible to the public over the internet, and their names are associated with the matter dealt with in the documents requested, the conditional exemption under section 47F has no application to the documents that I have requested because the disclosure of the documents would not involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person. Since the condition exemption in section 47F does not apply to the documents requested, there is no need to consider the public interest test.
Our reference: CP26/00019
By email: [FOI #13975 email]
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner (OAIC)
The OAIC receives a large quantity of correspondence each day and we will
be in contact as soon as we are able.
If you have contacted us to make a freedom of information (FOI) complaint
If we are unable to assist you in relation to your complaint
issue, or require further information, we will contact you.
You may wish to also lodge a complaint directly with the agency
that handled your freedom of information (FOI) request.
If you are seeking access to documents, the Information
Commissioner (IC) review process would be more appropriate. If this is the
case, please make an IC review application using our [1]online webform and
withdraw your FOI complaint by emailing [2][email address].
If your contact details change, your complaint has been resolved, or if
other circumstances change, please write to us at [3][email address] and
quote CP26/00019.
Information about how we handle FOI complaints is available on our
website: [4]How we handle a freedom of information complaint.
The OAIC’s [5]service charter sets out the standard of service you can
expect from the OAIC and explains how you can assist us to help you.
Yours sincerely
Intake and Eligibility Branch
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
References
Visible links
1. https://webform.oaic.gov.au/prod?entityt...
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
5. https://www.oaic.gov.au/about-the-OAIC/o...
Our reference: CP26/00019
Agency reference: FOI-2025-80163-IR
Eilidh Wallace
By email: [FOI #13975 email]
Your FOI complaint about the Commonwealth Ombudsman
Dear Eilidh,
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has received
your complaint made under s 70 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982
(Cth) (FOI Act) about the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Agency).
You have advised that:
• You made a request to the Agency for access to documents under the
FOI Act.
• You disagree with the decision made by the Agency.
• You wish to complain about the reasons for this decision.
Option of Information Commissioner review
Where you disagree with a decision made by an agency under the FOI Act and
wish to receive the requested documents, we recommend that you apply
for [1]Information Commissioner review (IC review) rather than make an FOI
complaint. If you do this, the FOI Act gives the OAIC power to review the
decision and can result in further documents being released in relation to
your request.
You may apply for IC review using our online application form, available
here: [2]Apply for an Information Commissioner review | OAIC.
FOI complaints
Complaints generally focus on how an agency has handled your FOI request
or complied with other obligations under the FOI Act, rather than the
decision itself. Where the Information Commissioner decides to investigate
a complaint, outcomes are limited to the Commissioner making
recommendations to the agency about how it should improve its FOI
compliance. Outcomes do not include obtaining access to documents in
response to your FOI request.
Information about the complaints process is available at: [3]How we handle
a freedom of information complaint | OAIC.
Under s 73(b) of the FOI Act, the Commissioner may decide not to
investigate a complaint if the complainant has, or had, a right to have
the action reviewed by the agency, a court or a tribunal, or by the
Information Commissioner under Part VII of the FOI Act and has not
exercised that right when it would be reasonable to do so.
As the issue you have complained about could be more appropriately dealt
with under the IC review process, I intend to recommend to the
Commissioner that your complaint be declined under s 73(b) of the FOI Act,
on the basis that you have not applied for IC review of the Agency’s
decision when it would be reasonable for you to do so.
Next steps
1. If you wish to apply for IC review of the Agency’s decision (because
you disagree with the decision), please apply using our online IC
review application form, available at: [4]Apply for an Information
Commissioner review | OAIC.
2. Please advise whether you wish to withdraw your FOI complaint. If not,
please provide a response explaining why you wish to continue with
your complaint. If the OAIC does not receive a response from you by 12
January 2026, we may finalise your complaint under s 73(b) of the FOI
Act and will notify you of your review rights.
Regards,
Alex
[5]A blue Intake and Eligibility Branch
background
with white Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
text
AI-generated Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
content may be
incorrect. P: 1300 363 992
W: [6]Enquiry form
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across
Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and
communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people, cultures
and Elders past and present.
[7]Subscribe to Information Matters
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
2. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
3. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
4. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
5. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
6. https://webform.oaic.gov.au/prod?entityt...
7. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
OAIC reference: CP26/00019
Agency reference: FOI-2025-80163-IR
Dear Alex,
Thank you for your email.
I tried to apply for IC review using the online portal several times in December 2025 but the portal was not functioning properly. In particular, when I tried to submit my IC review application, on each occasion, the portal would stall indefinitely at the last page and the submission attempt would time out.
I tried again to do submit an IC review today and the same thing happened. I think there might be a problem with the IC review application portal form that might need to be reviewed by the OAIC.
Request 1
May I kindly request that you help me register my IC review application in respect of Tin-Yan Wong's internal review decision (FOI-2025-80163-IR) dated 23 December 2025 because I am having technical difficulties doing so?
You have my personal details (i.e. my name and my contact address). My reasons for seeking IC review are recorded here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
Once you have registered the IC review in respect of Tin-Yan Wong's internal review decision (FOI-2025-80163-IR) dated 23 December 2025, would you please provide me with the IC review reference?
Request 2
Since I am having trouble lodging an IC review application using the OAIC's online form, may I also ask that you help me register an IC review of a refusal decision deemed to have been made by the principal officer of the Australian National University?
By way of background, on 5 November 2025, under the FOI Act I applied for access to:
i) the correspondence dated 23 December 2020, from Julie Bishop to Professor Tregear, referred to at paragraph 42 of Professor Tregear's submissions, and
ii) any and all correspondence from the Senate's Education and Employment Committee, or the secretariat of that committee, inviting comments from the ANU or Ms Bishop to the critical or adverse reflections set out in Professor Tregear's submissions, and
iii) any and all correspondence to or from Julie Bishop in relation to any correspondence from the Senate's Education and Employment Committee, or the secretariat of that committee, inviting comments from the ANU or Ms Bishop to the critical or adverse reflections set out in Professor Tregear's submissions.
The FOI request to the ANU was sent through Right to Know: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
On 5 December 2025, an official at the ANU asked me for an extension of time: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
I agreed to an extension of time until 12 December 2025: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
No decision has been provided in relation to my request and, therefore, it is deemed under the FOI Act to have been personally denied by the principal officer of the ANU.
The ground for IC review of my request of 5 November 2025 to the ANU is that a deemed refusal decision was made on 12 December 2025.
You have my personal details (i.e. my name and my contact address). Once you have registered the IC review in respect of the deemed refusal decision by the principal officer of the ANU, would you please provide me with the IC review reference?
I thank you in advance for assisting me lodge IC reviews in relation to:
1. the internal review decision made by Tin-Yan Wong on 23 December 2025; and
2. the deemed refusal decision made by the principal officer of the ANU on 12 December 2025.
Once the IC review request are registered, feel free to close complaint CP26/00019. Please also relay my concerns about the technical problems that I have experienced trying to submit IC review requests to the relevant team in the OAIC.
Yours sincerely,
Eilidh
Eilidh left an annotation ()
Peter Tregear's submissions to the Senate's Education and Employment Committee (submission 47): https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...