FOIBLES
By ema
il: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Our reference: LEX 1552
Dear Applicant
Freedom of Information request
1. I am writing about your Freedom of Information (FOI) request under the
Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) made on 27 July 2025 for access to documents held
by the Australian Public Service Commission (the Commission).
2. The FOI Act and all other Commonwealth legislation referred to in this letter are publicly
available from
www.legislation.gov.au.
Background
3. On 6 August 2025, the Commission requested an extension of time for fourteen (14) days
to ensure it had appropriate time to complete consultation with various external agencies.
4. On 8 August 2025, you agreed to the extension of time, with a revised due date of 9
September 2025.
Documents relevant to your request
5. You requested access to documents on the following terms:
“any and all:
a) agendas, and
b) minutes,
of the integrity agencies group for its meetings from 1 July 2024 to 26 July 2025.”
Decision
6. I am authorised under subsection 23(1) of the FOI Act to make FOI decisions.
5. I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate documents relevant to
your request.
1
6. I have identified six (6)
documents within scope of your request which are:
• Document 1: Integrity Agencies Group Meeting Agenda (9 August 2024)
• Document 2: Integrity Agencies Group Meeting Agenda (12 November 2024)
• Document 3: Integrity Agencies Group Meeting Agenda (27 May 2025)
• Document 4: Integrity Agencies Group Meeting Minutes (9 August 2025)
• Document 5: Integrity Agencies Group Meeting Minutes (12 November 2025)
• Document 6: Integrity Agencies Group Draft Meeting Minutes (27 May 2025)
7. I have decided to grant you access to Documents 1 - 3, partial access to Documents 4 and
5, and refused access to Document 6.
8.
Attachment A sets out the grounds on which Documents 4 and 5 are partially exempt and
Document 6 is exempt in full.
9. My reasons are set out in
Attachment B.
Deletion of exempt matter or irrelevant matter
10. Section 22 of the FOI Act requires an agency to provide access to an edited version of a
document where it is reasonably practicable to edit the document to remove exempt
material or material that is irrelevant to the scope of the request.
Contacts 11. If you require clarification on matters in this letter please contact the Commission’s FOI
Officer by email at
xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx.
Review rights
12. You are entitled to seek review of this decision. Your review rights are set out at
Attachment C.
Yours sincerely
Meeghan Webster
Authorised FOI decision
5 September 2025
2
ATTACHMENT A
SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS
Document Description
Exemptions
1.
Integrity Agencies Group Meeting
Agenda (9 August 2024)
Release in full
2.
Integrity Agencies Group Meeting
Agenda (12 November 2024)
Release in full
3.
Integrity Agencies Group Meeting
Agenda (27 May 2025)
Release in full
4.
Integrity Agencies Group Meeting
Minutes (9 August 2024)
Partial release
Section 47F – Personal Privacy
5.
Integrity Agencies Group Meeting
Minutes (12 November 2024)
Partial release
Section 47F – Personal Privacy
6.
Integrity Agencies Group Draft
Meeting Minutes (27 May 2025)
Exempt in full
Section 47C – Deliberative processes
Section 47F – Personal Privacy
3
ATTACHMENT B
Reasons for decision
1. In making my decision I have had regard to:
• the terms of your request;
• the content of the documents;
• the FOI Act; and
• the FOI Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner.
Exemptions
Section 47C – Documents subject to deliberative processes
2. Section 47C of the FOI Act conditionally exempts documents containing deliberative
matter. Deliberative matter generally consists of matter in the nature of, or relating to:
• an opinion, advice or recommendation that has been obtained, prepared or recorded; or
• a consultation or deliberation that has taken place in the course of, or for the purposes
of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of an agency, Minister or the
Commonwealth Government.
3. Deliberative matter does not include operational information or purely factual material,
particular types of reports, or records or formal statement of reasons for a final decision
given in the exercise of a power or of an adjudicative function.
4. A deliberative process includes the recording or exchange of opinions, advice,
recommendations, a collection of facts (including the pattern of facts or opinions
considered) and interim decisions or deliberations.
5. In
Wood; Secretary, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and (Freedom of
information) [2015] AATA 945, Deputy President S A Forgie (at [87]), considered the
meaning of consultation and deliberation:
“There is a notion of consideration inherent in the meaning of consultation. That
consideration may or may not lead to the formation of an opinion, advice or
recommendation…Similarly, the word deliberation encompasses the notion of
consideration, that consideration may involve consultation or discussion amongst more
than one persons...”
6. Document 6 is the draft minutes of the Integrity Agencies Group meeting of 27 May 2025.
7. To the extent that the document contains factual material, I am satisfied that the factual
material is an integral part of the deliberative content, or is embedded in, or intertwined with
the deliberative content, such that is impractical to excise. I therefore find that the
deliberative matter contained within the document does not consist of ‘purely factual
material.’
8. In
‘AUK’ and Commonwealth Ombudsman (No.2) (Freedom of Information) [2025] AICmr
4
35, FOI Commissioner Pirani (at [23]),
recognised that where a document bears a
watermark to the effect that it is a deliberative document, this is not, by itself, a
determinative factor.
9. Noting this, and notwithstanding Document 6 bears a watermark to the effect that it is a
deliberative document, I consider the document contains deliberative matter and remains
subject to a deliberative process, i.e. consideration and endorsement by members of the
Integrity Agencies Group.
10. I am further satisfied that the deliberative matter was obtained in the course of a deliberative
process involved in the functions exercised by an Australian Government agency, being the
Australian Public Service Commission.
11. For this reason, I am of the view that Document 6 is conditionally exempt under section
47C of the FOI Act, subject to the public interest factors outlined below.
Section 47F – Personal privacy
12. Section 47F of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditionally exempt if it would
involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person.
13. Personal information means information or an opinion about an identified individual, or
an individual who is reasonably identifiable whether:
a. the information or opinion is true or not; and
b. the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not.
14. I consider that Documents 4 - 6 contains such matter; specifically, the names of non-SES
APS employees.
15. I have had regard to the matters I must consider under subsection 47F(2) of the FOI Act in
determining whether the disclosure of the personal information would involve the
unreasonable disclosure of personal information.
16. In considering what is unreasonable, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in
Re Chandra
and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1984] AATA 437 at [51] stated:
…whether a disclosure is ‘unreasonable’ requires… a consideration of all the
circumstances, including the nature of the information that would be disclosed, the
circumstances in which the information was obtained, the likelihood of the information
being information that the person concerned would not wish to have disclosed without
consent, and whether the information has any current relevance… and to weigh that
interest in the balance against the public interest in protecting the personal privacy of a
third party…
17. Other factors to be considered include the nature, age and current relevance of the
information, any opposition to disclosure held by the person that the personal information
relates to, and the circumstances of an agency’s collection and use of the information
(‘
FG’ and
National Archives of Australia [2015] AICmr 26 at [47]).
18. I note that in
Warren; Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia and (Freedom of
5
link to page 6
information) [2020] AATA 4557 (9 November 2020), Deputy President S A Forgie
found (at [130]):
An individual may include his or her direct telephone number in correspondence
directed to other persons. Unless published on an agency’s website or made public in
some other way, such as on a pamphlet or report available to the public, I consider that
disclosure of an individual’s telephone number in his or her place of employment is
unreasonable. Its disclosure will provide an avenue by which others may choose to
express their displeasure with the individual or with that for which he or she is
responsible but its disclosure does not make any positive contribution to increasing
public participation in Government processes or in increasing scrutiny, discussion,
comment and review of the Government’s activities.
19. Further, in
‘BA’ and Merit Protection Commissioner [2014] AICmr 9, former
Australian Information Commissioner, Professor John McMillan cited Heerey J in
Colakovski v Australian Telecommunications Corporation who considered that:
“… if the information disclosed were of no demonstrable relevance to the affairs of
government and was likely to do no more than excite or satisfy the curiosity of
people about the personal affairs of the person whose personal affairs were
disclosed ... disclosure would be unreasonable.”
20. Professor McMillan explained that:
“…the object of the FOI Act to promote transparency in government processes and
activities needs to be balanced with the purpose of s 47F to protect personal
privacy, although care is needed to ensure that an FOI applicant is not expected to
explain their reason for access contrary to s 11(2).”1
21. Relevant to personal information of certain public servants, under the FOI Act there
is no presumption that agencies and ministers should start from the position that the
inclusion of the full names of staff in documents increases transparency and the
objects of the FOI Act:
Warren; Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia and
(Freedom of information) [2020] AATA 4557 at [83].
22. I have identified the following factors that, in my view, do not support the release of this
personal information under section 47F of the FOI Act:
• the individuals’ personal information, in particular their names will identify them;
• the personal information is unique and relates specifically to the individuals, and is
generally not well known or publicly available;
• the FOI Act does not control or restrict the subsequent use or dissemination of
information released under the FOI Act;
• the disclosure of this information will not advance scrutiny of any decisions
falling within scope of your FOI request;
• the disclosure of this information could expose concerned individuals to unsolicited
and inappropriate approaches by external parties;
• release of the individuals’ personal information may cause stress for them or
other detriment; and
1 ‘BA’ and Merit Protection Commissioner [2014] AICmr 9 [64].
6
• disclosure would prejudice the individuals’ right to privacy.
23. I have therefore decided to the extent that Documents 4 - 6 include the names of non-SES
level staff members, those parts are conditionally exempt from disclosure under section 47F
of the FOI Act because disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of their
personal information.
Section 11A – Public interest test
24. Subsection 11A(5) of the FOI Act provides that an agency must give access to a
document if it is conditionally exempt unless access to the document would, on balance, be
contrary to the public interest.
25. I have considered the public interest exemption factors in favour of disclosure at
subsection 11B(3) of the FOI Act, including the extent to which access to the documents
would promote the objects of the FOI Act and inform debate on a matter of public
importance.
26. I have identified the following public interest factors as weighing against disclosure:
a. the information is still subject to consideration and endorsement by members of the
Integrity Agencies Group. Early release could prejudice those considerations and cause
confusion for the public, if the draft minutes do not accurately reflect the deliberations;
b. disclosure could prejudice the relationship between the Commission and other agencies
in the future;
c. disclosure of individuals’ personal information will not advance any scrutiny of any
decisions falling within the scope of your FOI request;
d. disclosure would prejudice individuals’ right to privacy; and
e. disclosure could lead to unwarranted approaches to the individual which would
adversely impact their ability to perform their role and functions.
27. Subsection 11B(4) of the FOI Act lists factors that are irrelevant to determining
whether access would be in the public interest. I have not considered these factors.
28. On balance and considering the factors outlined above, I find disclosure of parts of
Documents 4 – 6 containing personal information, and all of Document 6 would be
contrary to the public interest. To the extent that the material contained in Documents 4 – 6
is conditionally exempt under section 47F and material in Document 6 is conditionally
exempt under section 47C, those parts are exempt from disclosure.
7
ATTACHMENT C
Rights of Review
Asking for a full explanation of a Freedom of Information decision
If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may seek review. Before you seek review of a
Freedom of Information (FOI) decision, you may contact us to discuss your request and we
will explain the decision to you.
Seeking review of a Freedom of Information decision If you still believe a decision is incorrect, the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act)
may give you the right to apply for a review of the decision. Under sections 54 and 54L of the
FOI Act, you can apply for a review of an FOI decision by seeking:
1. an internal review by an different officer of the Australian Public Service
Commission; and/or
2. external review by the Australian Information Commissioner.
There are no fees applied to either review option.
Applying for a review by an Internal Review Officer If you apply for internal review, a different decision maker to the agency authorised officer
who made the original decision will carry out the review. The Internal Review Officer will
consider all aspects of the original decision and decide whether it should change. An
application for internal review must be made in writing within 30 days of receiving this letter
to:
Email:
xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Post:
The FOI Officer
Australian Public Service Commission
B Block, Treasury Building
GPO Box 3176
Parkes Place West
PARKES ACT 2600
You do not need to fill in a form. However, it is a good idea to set out any relevant
submissions you would like the Internal Review Officer to further consider, and your reasons
for disagreeing with the decision.
Applying for external review by the Australian Information Commissioner If you do not agree with the original FOI decision or the internal review decision, you can ask
the Australian Information Commissioner to review the decision. You have 60 days to apply
8
in writing for a review by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (the OAIC)
from the date you received this letter or any subsequent internal review decision.
You can
lodge your application:
Online:
www.oaic.gov.au
Post:
Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Email:
xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
The OAIC encourage applicants to apply online. Where possible, to assist the OAIC you
should include your contact information, a copy of the related FOI decision and provide
details of your reasons for objecting to the decision.
Complaints to the Information Commissioner and Commonwealth Ombudsman Information Commissioner You may complain to the Information Commissioner concerning action taken by an agency
in the exercise of powers or the performance of functions under the FOI Act. There is no fee
for making a complaint. A complaint to the Information Commissioner must be made in
writing. The Information Commissioner's contact details are:
Telephone: 1300 363 992
Website:
www.oaic.gov.au
Commonwealth Ombudsman You may complain to the Ombudsman concerning action taken by an agency in the exercise
of powers or the performance of functions under the FOI Act. There is no fee for making a
complaint. A complaint to the Ombudsman may be made in person, by telephone or in
writing. The Ombudsman's contact details are:
Phone:
1300 362 072
Website:
www.ombudsman.gov.au
9
Document Outline
