ANU Chancellor Julie Bishop has raised concerns about how a Senate inquiry handled witness testimony during an August hearing. Photo: Claire Fenwicke.
CONTENT WARNING: This article makes references to suicide and pregnancy loss.
ANU Chancellor Julie Bishop has accused a Senate inquiry of exposing people to psychosocial harms for allowing a senior lecturer to air allegations against her and other ANU senior executives.
Demographer Dr Liz Allen detailed allegations of bullying and harassment against Ms Bishop, and allegations of misconduct against senior ANU staff, during her appearance at a Senate inquiry into university governance on 12 August.
Ms Bishop has publicly denied the allegations against her. In her written response (as she had been unable to attend the hearing), she raised “grave concerns” about how the testimony had been delivered.
“I understand that the entirety of the 12 August 2025 testimony was given in a public hearing, was livestreamed, and that there were no relevant sessions in private nor any testimony given ‘in camera’,” she wrote.
“I am dismayed that witnesses gave testimony in an environment that failed to meet safe workplace standards, particularly with regard to psychosocial safety.”
Ms Bishop argued the committee should have taken steps to reduce witness exposure to traumatic events or material once the nature of Dr Allen’s testimony became apparent, or that at least ACT independent Senator David Pocock should have known Dr Allen was likely to be “vulnerable and distressed” during her testimony.
“The witness was evidently deeply distressed and spoke specifically about suicidal ideation and a miscarriage,” she wrote.
“There was no warning about the nature of the testimony likely to be given, and I am concerned that appropriate trauma-informed principles were not applied in relation to her testimony.
“There appeared to be no consideration given to the well-being of those viewing the footage, and I note that the recording is still accessible on the Senate’s website and on multiple other platforms with no warning to viewers who may be triggered by such references.”
Ms Bishop stated Mr Pocock had not privately discussed Dr Allen’s allegations or his concerns about her leadership, particularly when they met face-to-face on 22 July to discuss the ANU.
She also wrote that she still hadn’t been formally advised of the substance or details of the workplace grievance against her.
“Had the committee taken the approach of hearing the testimony in camera, my right to procedural fairness would have been preserved, and my reputation would not have been harmed,” Ms Bishop wrote.
“It would clearly be in my interests to have my name cleared and the damage to my reputation mitigated … however, I cannot in good conscience publicly give testimony to the committee that may further compromise the workplace grievance process … or deny the parties involved the necessary protections of confidentiality and procedural fairness that I was denied before the committee.”
Inquiry Chair Senator Marielle Smith responded to Ms Bishop’s concerns, stating the committee was of the view it had met its obligations to protect witnesses when giving evidence and to give individuals the opportunity to respond if testimony “reflects adversely” on them.
“The committee was not aware of the detail of Dr Allen’s testimony in advance, and Dr Allen did not provide her opening statement to the committee prior to the hearing,” Ms Smith stated.
“Senator [Pocock] has no obligation to provide advance notice of any issues he intends to raise, and it is not my role as chair, or the role of the committee, to vet individual members’ lines of questioning, or issues they wish to pursue.”
Ms Smith noted the committee had chosen not to make the workplace grievance document against Ms Bishop publicly available, and that a committee can decide to make ‘in camera’ evidence public.
A spokesperson for Senator Pocock said he did not raise the workplace grievance allegations with Ms Bishop during their 22 July meeting as he felt it would be “inappropriate to do so given the processes underway”, but he did raise them with then Vice-Chancellor Genevieve Bell in a letter (seen by Region) sent on 25 June.
They also said it was “entirely [Dr Allen’s] own decision” to speak on the record.
“Senator Pocock’s team provided Dr Allen with a range of different options (including asking the committee to hear evidence in camera) and fully empowered her to make her own decision about how she would like to proceed,” the spokesperson said.
“All actions Senator Pocock undertook were with the full, prior and informed consent of Dr Allen.”
The spokesperson said there wasn’t a process requiring Ms Bishop to be provided notice about the workplace grievance document or that Dr Allen would be making her allegations.
“Dr Allen is her own, independent agent. It would have been pre-emptive and not his place for Senator Pocock to provide any advance notice of what Dr Allen or any other witnesses intended to say to the committee,” they said.
“Senator Pocock works for the people of the ACT, and if a constituent asks him to table important and relevant documentation, he will do so.
“The ANU Chancellor is putting a lot of emphasis on workplace safety and due process for her own benefit, but very little as regards to Dr Allen and other staff who have raised concerns.”
If this story has raised issues for you, a free 24/7 crisis support service is available from Lifeline by calling 13 11 14 or texting 0477 13 11 14, or contact Beyond Blue on 1300 224 636. Red Nose has a pregnancy bereavement service available 24/7 on 1300 308 307.
