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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN - IMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail message or an attachment to it is confidential, and it is
intended to be accessed only by the person or entity to which it is
addressed.
No use, copying or disclosure (including by further transmission) of this
message, an attachment or the content of either is permitted and any use,
copying or disclosure may be subject to legal sanctions. This message may
contain information which is:
* about an identifiable individual;
* subject to client legal privilege or other privilege; or
* subject to a statutory or other requirement of confidentiality.
If you have received this message in error, please call 1300 362 072 to
inform the sender so that future errors can be avoided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN - IMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail message or an attachment to it is confidential, and it is
intended to be accessed only by the person or entity to which it is
addressed.
No use, copying or disclosure (including by further transmission) of this
message, an attachment or the content of either is permitted and any use,
copying or disclosure may be subject to legal sanctions. This message may
contain information which is:
* about an identifiable individual;
* subject to client legal privilege or other privilege; or
* subject to a statutory or other requirement of confidentiality.
If you have received this message in error, please call 1300 362 072 to
inform the sender so that future errors can be avoided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN - IMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail message or an attachment to it is confidential, and it is
intended to be accessed only by the person or entity to which it is
addressed.
No use, copying or disclosure (including by further transmission) of this
message, an attachment or the content of either is permitted and any use,
copying or disclosure may be subject to legal sanctions. This message may
contain information which is:
* about an identifiable individual;
* subject to client legal privilege or other privilege; or
* subject to a statutory or other requirement of confidentiality.
If you have received this message in error, please call 1300 362 072 to
inform the sender so that future errors can be avoided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN - IMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail message or an attachment to it is confidential, and it is
intended to be accessed only by the person or entity to which it is
addressed.
No use, copying or disclosure (including by further transmission) of this
message, an attachment or the content of either is permitted and any use,
copying or disclosure may be subject to legal sanctions. This message may
contain information which is:
* about an identifiable individual;
* subject to client legal privilege or other privilege; or
* subject to a statutory or other requirement of confidentiality.
If you have received this message in error, please call 1300 362 072 to
inform the sender so that future errors can be avoided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
OAIC reference: CP26/00019
To whom it may concern,
This is the second email that I am sending in relation to registering IC review applications because the OAIC's online form is playing up. The first email was sent on 5 January 2026, which has gone unanswered.
The purpose of this email is to draw your attention to my email of 5 January 2026 and to again press my applications for IC review so that they are registered with the assistance of officials in the OAIC, pursuant to subsection 54N(3) of the FOI Act.
1. The law
An IC review application must be in writing: FOI Act, s 54N(1).
An IC review application must give details of how notices may be sent to the IC review applicant (for example, by providing an electronic address to which notices may be sent by electronic communication): FOI Act, s 54N(1).
An IC review application must include a copy of the notice given under section 26 of the IC reviewable decision for which an IC review is sought: FOI Act, s 54N(1).
The IC review application must be sent to the Information Commissioner, and may be sent to the Information Commissioner by electronic communication to an electronic address specified by the Information Commissioner: FOI Act, s 54N(4)(c). The electronic address specified by the Information Commissioner is [email address] : https://webform.oaic.gov.au/prod?entityt... .
Specifically, the OAIC notes that “an application for review must be submitted in writing, either via this form, an email, or in a letter” and “if you have trouble completing this form please send an email to [email address].”
These four conditions are all that must be satisfied to submit a lawful IC review application.
The law does not require that I lodge my IC review application using the OAIC's online form, particularly when, as I have already noted in my email of 5 January 2026, that form fails to function properly.
2. Two IC review applications
I am, again, writing to the OAIC to submit two applications for IC review. I wrote to the OAIC on 5 January 2026, in response to an email sent from Alex in the intake and eligibility branch: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
3. IC review application 1 – Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman
My name is Eilidh Wallace.
I am applying for IC review of an internal review decision made by Tin Yan Wong, legal director in the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, dated 23 December 2025. The reference provided by the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman for the internal review decision is FOI-2025-80163-IR.
Tin Yan Wong's decision is set out here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...
Notices pertaining to this application for IC review may be sent to me by return email to the email address [email address]
Pursuant to subsection 54N(2), I have prepared a statement setting out the particulars of the basis on which the I dispute the IC reviewable decision. That statement of particulars is set out here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
4. IC review application 2 – Australian National University
My name is Eilidh Wallace.
I am applying for IC review of a refusal decision deemed to have been personally made by the principal officer of the Australian National University.
Notices pertaining to this application for IC review may be sent to me by return email to the email address [email address]
As I noted in my email of 5 January 2026 to Alex in the intake and eligibility branch of the OAIC, 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 11 November 2025, an official in the ANU's FOI tram acknowledged receipt of my request: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
The reference provided by the Australian National University for the freedom of information application sent to them on 5 November 2025 is 202500289.
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 by 12 December 2025 and, therefore, it is deemed under the FOI Act to have been personally denied by the principal officer of the ANU on 12 December 2025.
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.
5. Providing assistance to an IC review applicant to apply for IC review
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner must provide appropriate assistance to a person who wishes to make an IC review application and requires assistance to prepare the IC review application: FOI Act, s 54N(3).
I have already pointed out that I have attempted to use the OAIC's online form to register my applications for IC review of two IC reviewable decisions, but have been unable to because of technical errors associated with the use of the form: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
In line with instructions of the OAIC's online IC review form ( https://webform.oaic.gov.au/prod?entityt... ), I sent, on 5 January 2026, an email to [email address] noting that I was having trouble completing the online IC review form.
In my email of 5 January 2026, I specifically noted that 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: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
Pursuant to subsection 54N(3), I requested the assistance of staff in the OAIC to register my IC review applications, after having submitted, in writing, applications for IC review. The written applications for IC review contained all that the law requires that I provide the Information Commissioner.
6. Acknowledging receipt of my written IC review applications, and acknowledging assistance to register the written IC review applications
Please, as soon as practicable and by return email, acknowledge receipt of my written applications for IC review dated 5 January 2026.
Please, as soon as practicable and by return email, acknowledge that I have provided the Information Commissioner with all that is required under the FOI Act to lodge a lawful and valid application for IC review.
Please, as soon as practicable, register my requests for IC review and provide me with the references for the IC review applications by return email.
Yours sincerely,
Eilidh
Our reference: MR26/00101
By email: [1][FOI #13975 email]
Receipt of your IC review application
Thank you for your application for Information Commissioner Review (IC
review) regarding an internal review decision made by the Commonwealth
Ombudsman with agency reference number FOI-2025-80163-IR.
The [2]OAIC service charter sets out the standard of service you can
expect from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)
and explains how you can assist us to help you.
Information about the Information Commissioner review process is set out
in:
• [3]How we handle an IC review application.
• the [4]Direction as to certain procedures to be followed by applicants
in Information Commissioner reviews issued under s 55(2)(e)(i) of the
FOI Act.
The OAIC is considering a large number of applications. Information about
the OAIC’s IC review caseload and focus areas can be found at [5]Caseload
reports and focus areas.
The OAIC will be in contact with you regarding whether the OAIC is able to
review your application and if so, whether the OAIC has commenced review
of your application. The respondent agency or minister may also engage
with you directly in relation to your IC review application if we decide
to review its decision.
You may experience long delays as we review your application particularly
if it does not involve an issue within the OAIC’s focus areas. The OAIC is
not able to provide substantive updates on the progress of your
application and is unable to accommodate requests to expedite matters.
You may wish to contact the agency that dealt with your FOI request to
attempt to resolve the matter. Agencies are required to deal with FOI
requests in accordance with the [6]FOI Guidelines. These Guidelines may
also assist you to make your submissions in your IC review.
Further information about the IC review process is outlined in [7]Part 10
of the [8]FOI Guidelines.
Yours sincerely
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
-----Original Message-----
From: Eilidh <[FOI #13975 email]>
Sent: Monday, 5 January 2026 1:14 PM
To: OAIC - FOI DR <[email address]>
Subject: Re: OAIC - CP26/00019 - Your FOI complaint about the Commonwealth
Ombudsman [SEC=OFFICIAL]
**************************************************************************
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know
the content is safe.
**************************************************************************
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:
[9]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:
[10]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
On 5 December 2025, an official at the ANU asked me for an extension of
time:
[11]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
I agreed to an extension of time until 12 December 2025:
[12]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
-----Original Message-----
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.
[13]https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
2.
[14]https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
3.
[15]https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
4.
[16]https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
5. [17]https://www.oaic.gov.au/
6.
[18]https://webform.oaic.gov.au/prod?entityt...
7. [19]https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[20][FOI #13975 email]
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[21]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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. mailto:[FOI #13975 email]
2. https://www.oaic.gov.au/about-the-OAIC/o...
3. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
4. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
5. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
6. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
7. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
8. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
9. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
10. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
11. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
12. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
13. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
14. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
15. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
16. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
17. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
18. https://webform.oaic.gov.au/prod?entityt...
19. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
20. mailto:[FOI #13975 email]
21. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
Our reference: MR26/00103
By email: [1][FOI #13975 email]
Receipt of your IC review application
Thank you for your application for Information Commissioner Review (IC
review) regarding a deemed refusal decision made by the Australian
National University with agency reference number FOI 202500289.
The [2]OAIC service charter sets out the standard of service you can
expect from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)
and explains how you can assist us to help you.
Information about the Information Commissioner review process is set out
in:
• [3]How we handle an IC review application.
• the [4]Direction as to certain procedures to be followed by applicants
in Information Commissioner reviews issued under s 55(2)(e)(i) of the
FOI Act.
The OAIC is considering a large number of applications. Information about
the OAIC’s IC review caseload and focus areas can be found at [5]Caseload
reports and focus areas.
The OAIC will be in contact with you regarding whether the OAIC is able to
review your application and if so, whether the OAIC has commenced review
of your application. The respondent agency or minister may also engage
with you directly in relation to your IC review application if we decide
to review its decision.
You may experience long delays as we review your application particularly
if it does not involve an issue within the OAIC’s focus areas. The OAIC is
not able to provide substantive updates on the progress of your
application and is unable to accommodate requests to expedite matters.
You may wish to contact the agency that dealt with your FOI request to
attempt to resolve the matter. Agencies are required to deal with FOI
requests in accordance with the [6]FOI Guidelines. These Guidelines may
also assist you to make your submissions in your IC review.
Further information about the IC review process is outlined in [7]Part 10
of the [8]FOI Guidelines.
Yours sincerely
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
-----Original Message-----
From: Eilidh <[9][FOI #13975 email]>
Sent: Monday, 5 January 2026 1:14 PM
To: OAIC - FOI DR <[10][email address]>
Subject: Re: OAIC - CP26/00019 - Your FOI complaint about the Commonwealth
Ombudsman [SEC=OFFICIAL]
**************************************************************************
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know
the content is safe.
**************************************************************************
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:
[11]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:
[12]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
On 5 December 2025, an official at the ANU asked me for an extension of
time:
[13]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
I agreed to an extension of time until 12 December 2025:
[14]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
-----Original Message-----
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.
[15]https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
2.
[16]https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
3.
[17]https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
4.
[18]https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
5. [19]https://www.oaic.gov.au/
6.
[20]https://webform.oaic.gov.au/prod?entityt...
7. [21]https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[22][FOI #13975 email]
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[23]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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. mailto:[FOI #13975 email]
2. https://www.oaic.gov.au/about-the-OAIC/o...
3. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
4. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
5. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
6. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
7. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
8. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
9. mailto:[FOI #13975 email]
10. mailto:[email address]
11. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
12. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
13. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
14. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
15. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
16. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
17. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
18. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
19. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
20. https://webform.oaic.gov.au/prod?entityt...
21. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
22. mailto:[FOI #13975 email]
23. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
Our reference: CP26/00019
Agency reference: FOI-2025-80163-IR
Complainant: Eilidh Wallace
Respondent: Commonwealth Ombudsman
By email: [1][email address]
By email: [2][FOI #13975 email]
Withdrawal of FOI Complaint
Good afternoon parties,
I refer to the above matter.
The complainant has advised they wish to withdraw their FOI complaint.
As such, the matter is closed and no further action is required.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Kind regards,
Regards
[3][IMG] Bradley Penfold
Review Advisor, Early Resolution
FOI Case Management
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
E [4][email address]
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.
[5]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. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[FOI #13975 email]
3. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
4. mailto:[email address]
5. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
Our reference: MR26/00101
Agency reference: FOI-2025-80163-IR
FOI Contact Officer
Commonwealth Ombudsman
By email: [email address]
Eilidh Wallace
By email: [1][FOI #13975 email]
Information Commissioner review - Notice of commencement
Dear Parties,
Please find attached notice of commencement for the above referenced
Information Commissioner review (IC review).
The OAIC requires the agency to engage with applicants to resolve or
narrow the issues in dispute. Applicants are encouraged to actively
communicate with the agency to facilitate this engagement.
Please note, Annexure A and B of the notice provide further information
about the obligations of parties during the IC review process.
Kind regards
[2][IMG] Melih Sayan
Assistant Review Advisor
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney NSW | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P 1300 363 992 E [3][email address]
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. mailto:[FOI #13975 email]
2. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
3. mailto:[email address]
Dear Tin Yan Wong,
OAIC reference: MR26/00101
Ombudsman reference: FOI-2025-80163-IR
I refer to Melih Sayan's email dated 20 January 2026: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
In her email, Melih has encouraged me "to actively communicate with the agency to facilitate ... engagement" about MR26/00101, and I am doing so by sending you this email.
I have provided detailed reasons as to why your decision notice is, in the light of the FOI Act and authority, unjustifiable.
My reasons are set out below. I request that you reconsider your decision, which is affected by legal errors, and grant access to the requested documents, as required by law.
********************************************************
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... 80163 IR Decision Final.pdf?cookie_passthrough=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 these 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.
Yours sincerely,
Eilidh
Our reference: MR26/00103
Agency reference: FOI 202500289
Applicant: Eilidh Wallace
Agency: The Australian National University
Applicant email: [1][FOI #13975 email]
Agency email: [2][email address]
Dear parties,
Please find attached a notice of Information Commissioner review (IC
Review) and request for documents.
As outlined in the attached notice, a decision was not made within time
(as defined by section 15AC of the FOI Act) and thus the IC reviewable
decision was a deemed access refusal.
We refer the parties to the directions issued by the FOI Commissioner
which outline the obligations of applicants and respondents:
• [3]Direction as to certain procedures to be followed by applicants in
Information Commissioner reviews
• [4]Direction as to certain procedures to be followed by agencies and
ministers in IC reviews
In order to simplify the IC review process, we encourage the respondent
agency to make a revised decision, which specifies the decision is made
under section 55G of the FOI Act. A decision made under the Privacy Act
1988 or administrative access, is not a valid FOI decision and does not
comply with the FOI request.
Please note, a response from the Respondent Agency is requested in this
matter by 24 February 2026. The Agency must send any submissions to the
Applicant at the same time as the OAIC. No action is required by the IC
Review Applicant at this time.
If the Respondent Agency requires an extension of time, they must make a
request in writing to the Information Commissioner with supporting
evidence of the need for extension prior to the due date.
Regards
[5][IMG] Bradley Penfold
Review Advisor, Early Resolution
FOI Case Management
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
E [6][email address]
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. mailto:[FOI #13975 email]
2. mailto:[email address]
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. mailto:[email address]
7. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
OFFICIAL
Dear Eilidh,
I am writing to you in relation to the Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner’s (OAIC) notice of commencement of review dated
20 January 2026, in relation to our 23 December 2025 decision to affirm
our decision in your internal review request of FOI-2025-80163.
Under the Direction as to certain procedures to be followed in IC review
issued under s 55(2)(e)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act), OAIC requires agencies to engage with IC review applicants during
the IC review. I am writing to you for the purpose of attempting to
resolve or narrow the issues in dispute, as outlined in the OAIC review
commencement notice.
Accordingly, we invite you to provide any details or information that
support your contentions in relation to the decision under review.
Refusal of Access
As set out in both our original decision and our Internal Review decision,
we maintain our position that access to the requested document is exempted
in full under ss 37, 47E and 47F of the FOI Act.
PID Documents
I note that in your original FOI request, it refers to public interest
disclosures (PID) made by an individual. Our Office is of the view that
documents relating to PID investigations contain material which, if
disclosed, could reveal the personal information of PID disclosers and
witnesses.
Section 20 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) makes it an
offence for a person to disclose identifying information of a person
making a PID discloser. Also, in s 65 (as the version of PID Act in force
when the PID was made) contained secrecy provisions.
Our Office is of the view that releasing this confidential information
will not protect the identity of witnesses and will be contrary to our
Office’s statutory obligations under the PID Act, regardless of material
already in the public sphere.
Section 37
As set out in our decisions to you, our Office maintains that the scope of
your request contains information enabling our Office to enforce or
administer a law, under s 37(1)(b) of the FOI Act. Disclosure of the
documents would identify the identity or existence or non-existence of a
confidential source of information, and that the person who had supplied
the information had provided it to our Office on a confidential basis for
the purposes of enforcing or administering the law.
In your reasons for IC review, you claimed that the individual is not a
confidential source of information, as their identity is on the public
domain. Our Office takes the protection of a complainant’s identity
seriously and does not publicly comment on who has made complaints to our
Office. If our Office was to disclose information about complaints, it
would reveal 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, under s
37(1)(b).
We also consider that the material contains information on investigative
methods and related correspondence, that if disclosed it would
significantly prejudice the effectiveness of the Ombudsman’s investigative
functions, under s 37(2)(b). This is because this information may allow
agencies (whom the Ombudsman investigates) to circumvent the Ombudsman’s
investigations by predicting or forestalling them.
In your reasons for IC review, you mentioned that Ombudsman’s method of
investigating is part of the public record. While our policies are
generally public, each investigation has to be tailored to the
circumstances, and the exact method of investigating is not publicly
known. Disclosing these methods would allow agencies and individuals to
tailor their answers and less than fulsome information may be provided.
Section 47E(d)
In your reasons for IC review, you mentioned that agencies are under an
obligation to use their best endeavors when dealing with our Office. The
willingness of agencies to assist with our investigation would be limited
to only what was required for compliance. Candidness and active
cooperation from agencies would be less likely. This applies to individual
complainants, as complainants would not be willing to assist our Office,
if they believe that their information would be publicly disclosed.
Our Office is of the view that the relevant documents do not disclose
information about efficiencies in the operations of an agency.
The Office views that it is a strong public interest to ensure that the
Ombudsman has the ability to perform their statutory functions
effectively, which would be undermined if the material was to be
disclosed, as agencies and individuals would be discouraged from providing
information to the Ombudsman.
Section 47F
Our office maintains the view that the relevant documents contain personal
information of third parties, Office and other Commonwealth agency staff
members and their contact details. The information is not well known and
not readily available from public sources.
In your reasons for IC review, you mentioned various individuals are
publicly associated with the matter. Our Office does not disclose the
personal information of individuals who are involved in Ombudsman’s
investigations, as disclosing personal information would undermine the
individual’s willingness to assist with our investigation and the harm
that may be caused to individuals should their personal information be
disclosed.
Next steps
Considering the information above, we would be grateful for your response
to this email by 26 February 2026. You may also consider the option of
withdrawing this request for IC review.
Should you require more time to respond, please let us know and we will
seek an extension of time from the Information Commissioner.
If you have any questions, please let us know.
Kind regards
Richard
Legal Officer
[1]A black and white logo [2][email address]
Description automatically
generated [3]ombudsman.gov.au
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.
Artwork by Kevin Bynder, Whadjuk Nyungar Badimia Yamatji Artist.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN - IMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail message or an attachment to it is confidential, and it is
intended to be accessed only by the person or entity to which it is
addressed.
No use, copying or disclosure (including by further transmission) of this
message, an attachment or the content of either is permitted and any use,
copying or disclosure may be subject to legal sanctions. This message may
contain information which is:
* about an identifiable individual;
* subject to client legal privilege or other privilege; or
* subject to a statutory or other requirement of confidentiality.
If you have received this message in error, please call 1300 362 072 to
inform the sender so that future errors can be avoided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/
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...