“An investigation was started. The ANU management stonewalled. The Ombudsman office said to itself: ‘Oh dear, oh dear, what do we do now?’ and answered that question with: ‘We do nothing’.” HUGH SELBY reflects on the failings of a toothless token.

Just short of 50 years ago, Liberal senator Peter Durack gave the second-reading speech on the proposed Commonwealth Ombudsman Act.

He said: “The Ombudsman’s function is to investigate complaints about administrative actions.

“His concern is principally with the manner or the procedures by which officials have gone about the matter that is the subject of complaint.

“The most appropriate general description is that his work is directed at the correction of cases of maladministration – a term which has been described as including bias, neglect, delay, inattention, incompetence, ineptitude, perversity, turpitude and arbitrariness”. 

The key words in that description are that the ombudsman investigates and corrects.

Those intentions are reflected in the Act. For example, the ombudsman shall investigate (section 5); may require information and records (a power that is now used, but was not used earlier) (section 9); may examine persons under oath (section 13); and, may make public what the office is doing (section 35A).

That said, ombudsman investigations are to be without fanfare (section 8), and the ombudsman has a discretion (subject, of course, to its exercise being in good faith) to not investigate when such action is not warranted (section 6).

The ANU, Prof Tregear and the Ombudsman

The ANU was established by an act of parliament and is within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman.

There has been recent media attention to alleged, significant maladministration at the ANU.

For example, it has been reported this year that no evidence could be found to support the management plan to cut the budget and slash jobs; and, it was alleged last year that the management culture was one of threats and intimidation. 

Musicologist Peter Tregear was head of the School of Music from 2012 to 2015. In 2017, he made a lengthy public interest disclosure to the Commonwealth Ombudsman alleging misuse of funds, conflicts of interest and inappropriate hiring decisions. 

When Prof Tregear left the school, Vice-Chancellor Ian Young praised him: “Peter has been a strong advocate for music education in Australia and at ANU.

“He has worked tirelessly to build on the School of Music’s vision, to promote creative life on campus and in the Canberra community, while attracting Australia’s most gifted students to ANU”.

The Ombudsman office was inept in its response to Dr Tregear’s complaints.

An investigation was started. The ANU management stonewalled. The Ombudsman office said to itself: “Oh dear, oh dear, what do we do now?” and answered that question with: “We do nothing. We are powerless. We must back away.”

The Ombudsman office has powers, mentioned above. It didn’t then know how to use them. It’s unclear whether it now has the bottle or the leadership to be skilfully bold with its long-standing powers. 

People can be taught how to investigate, how to ask questions, how to compel production of information. There are courses available in Canberra that do that. 

Apart from the skills training, an ombudsman office needs leadership that is enthusiastic about the mission, promotes that mission widely, speaks truth to power, and accepts that being unpopular with government and bureaucracy is why they are taking the generous salary and benefits.

The first Commonwealth Ombudsman, Jack Richardson, understood all of that. He touted for business by advertising, letting people know that there might be a solution to the maladministration visited upon them.

He fought publicly and vigorously with public service mandarins who didn’t like being criticised.

Nowadays, the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Advertising Ombudsman and Health complaints use advertising to reach the public, but the Commonwealth Ombudsman eschews such work creation: out of sight and out of mind.

The relentless path to irrelevance, to being an expensive publicly funded toothless token, is illustrated, as reported in CityNews, by its failure to get even close to meeting performance timelines for FOI complaints, more recently by their pitiful response to complaints by Housing ACT tenants, and now by what’s happened to Peter Tregear and his disclosures since the office backed away.

There’s an issue, but will it be pursued by the ANU?

What has happened in his case is a saga of pointless jabs and a less than ideal Ombudsman office response that continues to 2026.

The pointless jabs are those from Prof Tregear who wants to believe that an organisation that let him down years ago has any interest, or aptitude, to put it right.

The law says that the Commonwealth Ombudsman shall investigate, but that assumes a willingness, a talent and a capacity to do so.

Prof Tregear put a lot of time and effort into his lengthy disclosure statement assuming, wrongly, that the Ombudsman office was fit for purpose.

He can’t be criticised for that assumption because nearly everyone would like to believe that the office is competent and will carry out the mission described by Senator Durack.

The truth of Prof Tregear’s allegations, and whether any of them warrant revisiting in 2026, can only be determined now by an independent inquirer.

Both the ANU and the Ombudsman office are too conflicted to do anything.

Meanwhile, he has maintained the rage by submissions to various parliamentary bodies, well-illustrated by a series of questions put to the ombudsman and his answers to a Senate Committee this year.

There were 21 questions put to the ombudsman by Senator Lidia Thorpe about the Tregear complaint and its non-handling by his office (all well before he became ombudsman).

The questions sought explanations for the failures of the earlier investigation, whether the office would do any further investigation, what lessons had been learned, and whether there would be an apology to Prof Tregear.

The answers indicate that the past is closed, that lessons have been learned, that there will be no further inquiry by the ombudsman, and no apology.

How much easier it would have been to express regret that when Peter Tregear made his complaint that the office was not equipped to investigate, that with the passage of time it would be an inappropriate use of limited resources to revisit his complaints, but that the ANU should engage with Prof Tregear to identify what, if any, issues now warrant an independent investigation, and by whom and within what time frame such an inquiry should be done.

Does today’s ANU management have the capacity to at least attempt in good faith to put this right? We must wait and see, remembering that it is never too late to right a wrong.

Hugh Selby is a former barrister and legal affairs columnist for CityNews.

Why the professor is entitled to the public recognition of his dignity