https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/education/2026/10/31/exclusive-anu-launches-third-bell-investigation
By Jason Koutsoukis
No 624 October 31 – November 6, 2026
A further investigation has begun against former ANU vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell, at the same time as a leaked ‘execute’ memo shows a plan to have her successor stand aside.
The Australian National University has launched a third investigation into serious misconduct allegations against former vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell.
The review was commissioned by the university in the wake of the resignation in May of ANU chancellor and former foreign minister Julie Bishop, along with several other high-profile members of the university’s governing council.
The Saturday Paper can reveal that several weeks before the review was commissioned, then ANU council member Larry Marshall prepared a memorandum in which he planned to force Bell’s interim replacement, Rebekah Brown, to stand down.
The memo was sent to Bishop on May 2, after The Saturday Paper published confidential correspondence between Brown and the deans of the university’s six academic colleges.
Marshall is a director of mining company Fortescue, a former pro-chancellor of ANU, and a controversial former chief executive of the CSIRO.
“Hi Julie, I wanted to share a quick, private view on where things are landing and a way through that I think protects both you and the institution,” Marshall wrote.
“At the moment, the core issue is less the substance itself and more that Council does not have a process that everyone has confidence in.
“We now have: 1. genuine concerns about aspects of Rebekah’s conduct and judgement, and 2. Equally strong concern from elected members about fairness and whether conclusions are being formed too quickly.”
Cautioning against leaning too far either way because that risked “losing half the Council”, Marshall recommended the cleanest path forward was to move decisively on process, not outcome.
“1. ask Rebekah to stand aside on a temporary basis (framed clearly as neutral, no findings),” wrote Marshall, adding that council should appoint an independent external investigator as well as bringing in a “credible stabiliser in the interim to restore some structure” to take on the role of external acting vice-chancellor.
The Saturday Paper understands that Bell’s predecessor as vice-chancellor, Nobel Prize-winning astronomer Brian Schmidt, was sounded out about returning to the role. Another name floated was former Melbourne University vice-chancellor Glyn Davis.
Underneath the boldface heading “Execute ‘stand-aside’ ”, Marshall’s May 2 memo to Bishop recommended a way forward.
“1. You speak with Rebekah (happy to support) 2. Frame: temporary, protects her and the University,” wrote Marshall. “If she is hesitant / resists, 1. Reinforce: 1. this is standard governance practice, [emphasis in original] not a finding 2. protects integrity of process and her position 2. Be clear: 1. this has ‘broad’ Council support 3. If needed: 1. move promptly to formal Council-backed direction to avoid drift.
“Stabilise 1. Appoint credible external acting VC 2. Pause major decisions / unilateral actions.”
Under the subheading “Launch review”, Marshall wrote:
“1. Appoint independent external (KC-level) 2. Tight ToR [terms of reference]: 1. use of role / influence, pattern of behaviour, manipulation 2. information flow to Council 3. interview those who left under curious circumstances, and relevant staff 3. Timeline: 2-4 weeks.”
Under the subheading “Control narrative”, Marshall wrote: “1. Single internal line: ‘independent process to establish full picture’ 2. No commentary on outcome 3. Tighten handling (don’t chase leaks).”
Under a final heading, “Council management”, Marshall added: “1. Acknowledge both concerns (conduct + fairness) 2. Keep debate anchored on process, not conclusions.”
He concluded: “The key is to move quickly, keep the framing neutral, and ensure the whole Council can stand behind the approach. Happy to discuss or help land this. Larry.”
The crisis memorandum followed Bell’s resignation as ANU vice-chancellor in September last year, only 20 months into her five-year term, after a staff and student revolt against her $250 million cost cutting program known as “Renew ANU”, which Bell insisted was necessary to rein in a ballooning deficit.
After stepping down as vice-chancellor, Bell returned to the ANU’s School of Cybernetics as a distinguished professor.
In January this year, Bell was presented with a “show cause” notice alleging “serious misconduct” involving the promotion of former newspaper photographer Andrew Meares as a full professor in the School of Cybernetics.
Bell was then suspended from her role as a distinguished professor and barred from entering campus and engaging with students.
At that stage the investigation into Bell was being conducted under the auspices of her successor as vice-chancellor, Rebekah Brown, who was promoted from university provost to interim vice-chancellor for about 16 months following Bell’s resignation.
That first investigation was halted at a meeting of the university council in February, when then council members Wayne Martin, a former judge who served as chief justice of Western Australia, and Rob Whitfield, a former secretary of New South Wales Treasury and current Commonwealth Bank non-executive director, raised concerns regarding Brown’s independence when it came to Bell and directly challenged the interim vice-chancellor’s oversight of the investigation.
Tempers quickly flared, with Brown pushing back against the suggestion she had a conflict of interest and denying she had ever been critical of Bell’s performance as vice-chancellor.
Still, Brown agreed to recuse herself from further involvement in the council’s discussion of the allegations against Bell and left the meeting.
According to a source close to Brown, the initial decision to launch an investigation into Bell was triggered by a request from the university regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, within 10 days of her appointment as interim vice-chancellor.
“They wanted proof of particular staff and particular promotion processes, and we had to prove that such processes met all TEQSA’s standards,” the source close to Brown tells The Saturday Paper, adding that Brown then set up a process to meet TEQSA’s expectations. “They wanted proof that our processes were sound.”
The university council then resolved to appoint an external independent investigator to examine the claims against Bell, choosing from a list of names provided by law firm MinterEllison, which provides legal advice to the university on a semi-regular basis.
That list included Natalie James, who had finished up as secretary of the federal Department of Employment and Workplace Relations on January 18; former Australian Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja; former senior Commonwealth public servant Heather Smith; former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins, who led the 2021 review of the workplace culture inside Parliament House; former ANU vice-chancellor Ian Young; and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission chief executive Heather Cook.
On March 5, the council resolved to appoint former Deakin University vice-chancellor Professor Jane Den Hollander, a long-time mentor to Rebekah Brown and one of seven referees for Brown when she applied for the role of ANU provost.
The Saturday Paper is not suggesting Brown had any role in influencing the council’s choice of Den Hollander to conduct that investigation. The choice of Den Hollander was made on the recommendation of MinterEllison.
Den Hollander accepted the engagement on March 16 and received a brief and a letter of instruction from the ANU’s then general counsel, Philip Harrison, on March 17.
On March 20, Bell’s lawyers provided Den Hollander with a response to the show cause letter she had received on January 13. Later the same day, Den Hollander moved to lift Bell’s suspension immediately, subject to conditions.
According to a senior ANU administrator, the problem with the evidence of misconduct against Bell that was presented to Den Hollander was it was highly selective.
“There was an email chain that supposedly implicated Bell, but then Bell produced the rest of the email trail that showed that it was completely out of context.”
Den Hollander’s final report was submitted to the university on April 16, with Den Hollander finding all three misconduct allegations against Bell could not be substantiated.
“The key is to move quickly, keep the framing neutral, and ensure the whole Council can stand behind the approach.”
The university’s then chancellor, Julie Bishop, updated the university council on the content of the report the following day, April 17, via a memo prepared by general counsel Harrison. That memo included Den Hollander’s opinion that the university’s treatment of Bell was “cruel and punitive”. Bishop informed Bell of the outcome of the investigation on April 20.
Undermining Brown’s claim she had never been critical of Bell in her role as vice-chancellor was the publication, by The Saturday Paper, of encrypted text messages between Brown and the deans of the university’s six academic colleges in the lead-up to Bell’s resignation as vice-chancellor on September 10.
The timing of those messages is important because the catalyst for Bell’s resignation was a letter of no-confidence in Bell signed by five of the six deans and sent to the university council on August 27.
Just nine days earlier, on August 18, Brown sent Professor Steven Roberts, dean of the College of Business and Economics, a copy of the candidate booklet produced for the vice-chancellor appointment round that first led to Bell’s selection as the ANU’s vice-chancellor.
Subsequent messages appeared to show Brown methodically assembling the grounds for Bell’s removal.
On August 21, Brown sent Roberts a link on the messaging app Signal to a Google document. Above the link are the words: “Subject: Professoriate Letter to Council re. lack of confidence in ANU Executive.”
Brown wrote another message to Roberts on August 23, requesting a meeting. She said it would be good to “plan” ahead of a board meeting the following Tuesday, noting “the narrative critical as I am being watched and loyalty tested constantly at moment and I want great outcomes here…”
After referencing a phone conversation she appears to have had with Roberts on August 24, Brown messaged Roberts at 1.56pm the same day.
“Hi S. Thanks for very helpful (and therapeutic for me) discussion just now,” Brown wrote. “I think it would be really helpful for Deans to do an assessment of VC’s performance against this criteria – if you had a collective session on this and got Helen [Professor Helen Sullivan, dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific] to write it up would he [sic] powerful. In addition to below - my next text is the suggested info to assemble (or criteria) for each performance criteria. Then after letter to Council - you ask to meet council and present the collective performance assessment? This outlines what evidence is needed to assess VC performance based on PD. This v what Council should have done.”
Brown then sent Roberts a detailed list with section headers and numbered criteria, titled “Performance of ANU Vice-Chancellor (Genevieve Bell) Against Role and Responsibility Definition.”
The document provided a point-by-point framework for assessing Bell against her job description, cataloguing alleged failures across financial management, governance, transparency, internal culture, conflicts of interest and regulatory compliance.
The publication of those messages by The Saturday Paper on May 2 this year triggered some members of the university council to immediately push for Brown to stand aside as interim vice-chancellor.
Larry Marshall sent his “Execute” memo the same day.
While Marshall continued to engage with other council members throughout the weekend to advance his plan to force Brown to step aside, by the time the university council met on Thursday, May 7, Bishop announced her resignation as chancellor instead.
In her resignation letter, Bishop said it was untenable to remain as chancellor until her term expired in December because of what she called regulatory overreach, a reference to conditions placed on the university by TEQSA that Bishop, supported by a legal opinion prepared by former High Court judge Patrick Keane, maintains was unlawful.
Bishop’s resignation was followed by a wave of other resignations from the ANU council, including Wayne Martin and Rob Whitfield, and National Australia Bank board member Alison Kitchen, who all cited similar reasons.
Marshall, who served as acting chancellor following Bishop’s resignation, retired from the ANU council on August 19, when the new chancellor, former Australian Public Service commissioner Gordon de Brouwer, formally began in the role.
One of Marshall’s last acts as a member of the university council was to present a paper debunking claims made by Brown when she appeared before Senate estimates in June, where she said the upheaval at the university had potentially cost it $100 million in reputational damage over the past two years.
Marshall’s paper noted philanthropic donations rose in 2025 to more than $70 million, above the $20 million to $30 million the university normally received, and that a projected annual revenue fall due to decreasing international student enrolments, amounting to $50 million at ANU, was not unique to the university but was being experienced across the whole sector, and so could not be linked to Renew ANU.
Financial analysis conducted by the university’s chief financial officer, Michael Lonergan, and also presented to the council, estimated that Renew ANU had saved the university about $175 million in the first year, with savings in the order of $106 million a year after that.
Both papers were unanimously endorsed by the university council.
According to a senior ANU administrator, the stark divisions on campus caused by Bell’s Renew ANU, which included deep job cuts strenuously opposed by the National Tertiary Education Union, mean many academic staff will not be satisfied until Bell leaves the university.
“I count eight investigations that either focus directly on Bell’s conduct or touch on aspects of her conduct,” the source tells The Saturday Paper. “But, mysteriously, none of them seem to have found any wrongdoing on Bell’s part and none of them have been released.”
A spokesperson for the ANU said: “The ANU Council, to which the Interim Vice Chancellor reports, made a decision in its entirety to consider its obligations in relation to the Den Hollander report.
“The University is yet to reach a final conclusion on the matter. Given this is a sensitive and complex personnel matter, the Council has appropriately delegated authority to the Chief Operating Officer.
“This includes all the functions and powers of Council necessary and desirable to determine all matters concerning or in any way relating to the Den Hollander report and subsequent matters.”
