4. This letter constitutes my notice of decision.
5. In making my review decision I had regard to the following:
a. the terms of your request;
b. the content of the documents you requested;
c. relevant provisions of the FOI Act; and
d. Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A
of the FOI Act, available at www.oaic.gov.au (FOI Guidelines).
Documents 1-3 and 5-13
6. Many of the concerns raised in your request for review relate to redactions which
appear in documents 1 to 3, and 5 to 13. You note that several of the names that
have been redacted are readily identifiable on the basis of publicly available
information. You similarly note that the names of agency systems that have
been redacted are identifiable.
7. In my view the decision we provided on 22 February 2023 was misleading. The
decision stated that you had been provided with 'partial access' to documents 1
to 3 and 5 to 13. The decision letter included text justifying deletions which were
made from the text. In fact, the copies of all documents we disclosed to you
were identical to the ones disclosed to the applicant in FOI 2023 10087. All of the
redactions you have raised concerns about appear in the documents which you
requested. In my view, our Office has provided complete copies of "
the disclosed
documents” as per your original request.
8. I understand the concerns you have raised about the redactions which were
applied in FOI 2023 10087, however in my view it would not have been
appropriate to revisit the original redactions at the point of subsequent
disclosure to you.
9. If you would like us to reconsider these deletions, it is open to you to lodge a new
FOI request for "the original documents considered for release in relation to FOI
2023 10082". We can then consider afresh what deletions are necessary, taking
into account the points you have raised in your email on 23 February 2024.
Helping people, improving government
Page
2 of
7
1300 362 072 ombudsman.gov.au GPO Box 442, Canberra ACT 2601
10. I have provided a revised schedule of documents at Attachment A, which more
accurately describes our decision in relation to each document, although it does
not change the material released to you.
Transcript of staff meeting
11. Your review request also notes that you would like access to Document 4 an
automatically generated transcript of the all staff meeting on 12 July 2023. You
have highlighted that s 11B(4) of the FOI Act expressly states that certain factors
must not be taken into account in deciding whether access to a document
would be contrary to the public interest. You argue that this is incompatible with
paragraph 43 of the original decision. You have also indicated that you do not
believe confidential information would have been shared in this forum.
12. I have carefully considered these arguments, but I have decided not to change
our decision to exempt Document 4. I agree with the original decision maker
that disclosure in these circumstances would have a substantial adverse effect
on operations of this agency and is against the public interest, and the
document is therefore conditional y exempt under s 47E of the FOI Act.
13. This is because:
a. The purpose of the meeting was to al ow a candid discussion of the
outcomes of the Royal Commission among staff, and for staff to ask
questions of the executive about the topic. In my view it is necessary to
the proper management of personnel to offer an opportunity for staff to
discuss and debrief after a significant event. In my view, the knowledge
that a transcript of discussion might be publicly disclosed would be
reasonably likely to inhibit such discussions in the future and would
therefore have a substantial adverse effect on the agency's management
of staff.
b. The automatically generated transcript of the meeting is of a very low
quality and materially misrepresents what occurred at the meeting.
These errors are more than merely typographical, and at some points
impact the meaning of what was said during the meeting. In these
circumstances, disclosing the transcript would amount to publishing
Helping people, improving government
Page
3 of
7
1300 362 072 ombudsman.gov.au GPO Box 442, Canberra ACT 2601
incorrect information about the views of the Ombudsman and staff on this
topic.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not taking into account that access to
the document could result in a person misinterpreting or
misunderstanding the document. Rather I consider that the document is
not a true record of what was said in the meeting, and circulating an
inaccurate record of our views could compromise confidence in the Office.
This would be reasonably likely to inhibit willingness to share complaints
with our Office and the persuasiveness of our conclusions.
14. For completeness I note that the full transcript also includes some discussion of
completed and ongoing Ombudsman investigations and other confidential
activities of the Office. It also includes names and other personal information of
staff that it would be unreasonable to disclose. I acknowledge your view that
confidential information would not be shared in an all staff meeting, however on
my review of the document I have formed the view that it does. However, in my
view this information could be removed through selective deletions, and this is
not determinative in relation to my decision to exempt the whole document.
15. Section 11A of the FOI Act provides that while an agency must give a person
access to a document if it is conditionally exempt, access may be refused if the
document’s disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.
16. I have taken a number of matters into account in making this assessment,
including the public interest factors for and against disclosure as outlined in the
Guidelines at paragraph 6.17 6.22, as wel as matters specific to our agency’s
functions and operating environment.
17. I do not believe that in this instance access to the document would promote the
objects of the FOI Act, inform debate on a matter of public importance, promote
effective oversight of public expenditure or al ow a person to access his or her
personal information.
18. In my view disclosure of incorrect information about what was said in an internal
meeting does not serve to increase transparency about a matter of public
importance. The Ombudsman has published a statement in response to the
Helping people, improving government
Page
4 of
7
1300 362 072 ombudsman.gov.au GPO Box 442, Canberra ACT 2601
findings of the royal commission, which provides far better public visibility of his
views on the outcome.
19. On balance I consider that most of the public interest factors support the
conclusion that disclosure of the transcript would not be in the public interest.
If you are dissatisfied with my internal review decision, you can apply to the Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) for review within 60 days. More
information about the OAIC review is available on its website.
Yours sincerely
Matt Jackson
Assistant Director – Legal
Helping people, improving government
Page
5 of
7
1300 362 072 ombudsman.gov.au GPO Box 442, Canberra ACT 2601
Senior Assistant Ombudsman about the
report
9.
12 July
2 (78- Redacted copy of all staff town hall
Full
2023
79)
invite - Royal Commission into the
access
Robodebt scheme report
10.
20 July
1 (80) Redacted copy of Intranet post –
Full
2023
Recording available – All-staff town hall
access
about Robodebt Royal Commission
11.
6 July
2 (81-
Redacted copy of email exchange
Ful
2023
82)
between HR and Execs about staff
access
support strategies post RRC Report
release
12.
6 July
3 (83- Redacted copy of Intranet post – A
Ful
2023
85)
message from the Ombudsman
access
13.
7 July
1 (86) Redacted copy of email from Brett to
Ful
2023
SLG
access
Helping people, improving government
Page
7 of
7
1300 362 072 ombudsman.gov.au GPO Box 442, Canberra ACT 2601
