WISE Workplace

On 9 May 2026, the Australian National University confirmed that an independent review by Dr Vivienne Thom had made five adverse findings against former ANU Council members and identified maladministration in how the university handles complaints raised by or about Council members. The report was delivered to the Council the same day former Chancellor Julie Bishop announced her resignation.

The review followed a Senate hearing on 12 August 2025 at which former Council member and demographer Dr Liz Allen alleged she had been harassed, bullied and mistreated during her time on Council. Her testimony triggered the establishment of a Special Governance Committee, the appointment of Dr Thom — an experienced government investigator — and, in parallel, a TEQSA investigation into whether the Council had failed to exercise competent governance oversight.

The ANU's own statement is striking for what it acknowledges. The finding of maladministration related to the procedures for managing complaints raised by or about Council members. The five adverse findings against individual former Council members concerned their conduct in those roles. Notably, those findings did not reach the threshold of disclosable conduct under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth); instead, the review recommended that the Council consider whether the conduct breached the ANU Code of Conduct Policy. Having considered that recommendation, the Council concluded that no further action was required given the members had already resigned.

That last point is the part HR practitioners should sit with. When the people whose conduct is found wanting are no longer in the organisation, the consequence calculus changes, and not always in ways that look like accountability.

A few broader lessons surface from the public record...

Governance bodies are not exempt from the rules they enforce. Boards and councils routinely set the cultural and procedural standards for the organisations they oversee. When those same bodies become the subject of complaints, the absence of a clear, independent pathway for handling those complaints is itself a governance failure.

Maladministration of complaints involving leaders is a specific risk pattern. Independence in investigation is not optional when leadership is implicated. The Senate hearing testimony included claims that an independent investigator was constrained from examining differential treatment of Council members. Whether or not that account is accepted in full, the perception of constrained independence is corrosive. Where governance figures are involved, external investigators must be empowered with terms of reference broad enough to follow the evidence.

Resignation does not equal resolution. The ANU Council's decision that no further action was required because former members had resigned reflects a defensible legal position, but it does not address the underlying systemic findings. Codes of conduct mean less where their enforcement turns on whether a respondent remains in their role.

Regulators are watching. TEQSA's parallel investigation into the Council's governance oversight signals that external regulators are increasingly prepared to scrutinise the conduct of governance bodies themselves, not just operational management. For organisations in regulated sectors (universities, NDIS providers, financial services, aged care, health) the assumption that boards sit above the line of regulatory attention no longer holds.

The ANU situation is a reminder that the systems we build for accountability must work in every direction — including upward. If your organisation is dealing with complex governance matters and allegations of leadership misconduct, get WISE!
https://loom.ly/N1d5L80

Probe makes adverse findings against former ANU Council members An independent review into 36 allegations concerning the Australian National University has made a series of adverse findings against former council members.

When Bad Process Doesn't Sink a Dismissal — Don't Get the Wrong Idea

Most HR practitioners know the script: rock-solid reason to dismiss, shaky process, Commission reaches for the compensation calculator. A recent Full Bench decision flips that expectation — and it's worth a closer look before anyone takes the wrong lesson from it.

An ABC Tissue Products process worker was sacked in July 2024 for serious misconduct after allegedly assaulting a coworker. His defence: self-defence. The coworker, he said, was trying to steal his money.

At first instance, Deputy President Wright didn't shy away from the employer's procedural deficiencies; she acknowledged them openly. But she found they didn't change the outcome. The Full Bench agreed. Permission to appeal: refused. Why this should make HR pay attention...

The Commission has spent years telling us that procedural fairness isn't optional. We've watched mine workers get reinstated. Workers who threw punches keep their jobs. "Harsh, unjust, unreasonable" findings rack up where employers cut corners.

This decision pushes back. It says: where the conduct is serious enough and the substantive case is strong enough, deficient process won't necessarily rescue the worker. That's a meaningful nuance. It's also a trap, if you read it wrong.

The Full Bench wasn't blessing sloppy process. It was saying that on these specific facts, a better process wouldn't have produced a different result. That's a hindsight conclusion, not something employers can build a strategy around.
ABC Tissue Products survived its procedural flaws because the underlying case was strong. Weak evidence with perfect process still loses; strong evidence with imperfect process might survive.

This case is useful, but narrow. The principle isn't new, as procedural flaws have always been weighed against likely outcomes, but it's an interesting example.

The lesson isn't "process matters less." The lesson is what it's always been:
- Document the conduct
- Particularise the allegations
- Give a real opportunity to respond
- Consider the response genuinely
- Don't have the affected person make the call

Get those right, and you don't need to hope the Full Bench is feeling generous. Dealing with complex disciplinary or dismissal matters? Get WISE!

Employee loses appeal against "self-defence" sacking

https://loom.ly/_HxI_-0

Attention Required! | Cloudflare This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.