13 October 2025
FOIBLES
By email:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Our reference: LEX 1626 (LEX 1552)
Dear FOIBLES
Freedom of information internal review request decision notice
1.
I am writing about your Freedom of Information (
FOI) internal review request under the Freedom
of Information Act 1982 (
FOI Act) made on 16 September 2025 for access to documents held by
the Australian Public Service Commission (
Commission).
2.
I am authorised to make this decision under subsection 23(1) of the FOI Act, and have reviewed
your application in accordance with section 54C of the FOI Act.
3.
My role as authorised internal review decision maker is to make a new decision on your FOI
request, impartially and independently from the primary decision maker. Internal review is a merit
review process where I can exercise al the powers available to the primary decision maker.
Background of primary FOI request and decision – LEX 1552
4.
Your original FOI request was made on 27 July 2025 seeking access to documents in 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.”
5.
Ms Webster identified six (6) documents within the scope of your request.
6.
On 8 September 2025,
Ms Webster made a decision to grant you full access to Documents 1 to
3, partial access to Documents 4 and 5, and refused access to Document 6 on the basis the
documents were either exempt in part or full.
7.
For completeness, I note I was not involved in the making of Ms Webster’s decision and have not
consulted with her about the history of the matter.
Australian Public Service Commission I
Page 1
Internal review application
8.
On 16 September 2025, you made an FOI internal review application. A copy of that application
is found at
Attachment C.
9.
In making this request, you specifically highlighted some reasons you wished the authorised
officer conducting the internal review to consider, which you say it was not open for Ms Webster
to:
• redact the personal information of the Director, Integrity and Ethics, contained in Documents
4 and 5; or
• conclude disclosure of Document 6 would reveal deliberative matter, subject to a deliberative
process.
10. I have addressed these submissions in my reasons for decision.
Decision on your internal review request
11. I have considered your request and contentions, together with other relevant information including
the nature of the information, the relevant provisions of the FOI Act and the guidelines issued by
the Australian Information Commissioner the FOI Act.
12. After considering your request under section 54 of the FOI Act, I:
• affirm Ms Webster’s decision to refuse you access to Document 6 on the basis the
document is exempt in full;
• set aside Ms Webster’s decision to grant you partial access to Documents 4 and 5;
• grant you partial access to Document 4 and full access to Document 5, as I have consulted
with the relevant stakeholders, and am satisfied with the outcome of that consultation.
13. My reasons for this decision are set out in
Attachment A.
Review rights
14. You are entitled to seek a review of my decision. Your review rights are set out in
Attachment B
to this notice.
Contact
15. If you have any questions, please email the Commission’s FOI Officer at
xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx.
Yours sincerely,
KB
Authorised FOI internal review decision maker
Australian Public Service Commission
13 October 2025
Australian Public Service Commission I
Page 2
ATTACHMENT A
Reasons for decision
1.
In making my decision I have had regard to:
• the terms of your request and submissions;
• the content of the document;
• the FOI Act; and
• the FOI Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner (
FOI Guidelines).
2. In making the decision to exempt the documents in full and in part, I have applied section 47C –
deliberative processes and section 47F – personal privacy, of the FOI Act.
Exemptions
Section 47C – Deliberative processes
3. Section 47C of the FOI Act conditionally exempts documents containing deliberative matter.
Deliberative matter general y 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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...”
7. Document 6 is the draft minutes of the Integrity Agencies Group meeting of 27 May 2025.
8. 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.’
9. In
‘AUK’ and Commonwealth Ombudsman (No.2) (Freedom of Information) [2025] AICmr 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.
10. 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.
Australian Public Service Commission I
Page 3
11. I am further satisfied that the deliberative matter was generated in the course of a deliberative
process involved in the functions exercised by Australian Government agencies, one being the
Australian Public Service Commission.
12. 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
13. Section 47F of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditional y exempt if it would involve the
unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person.
14. 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.
15. I consider that
Documents 4 and 6 contains such matter; specifically, the names of non-SES
APS employees other than the Director, Integrity and Ethics.
16. 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.
17. 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…
18. 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]).
19. I note that in
Warren; Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia and (Freedom of
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.
20. Further, in
‘BA’ and Merit Protection Commissioner [2014] AICmr 9, former Australian
Information Commissioner, Professor John McMil an 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.”
Australian Public Service Commission I
Page 4
link to page 5
21. Professor McMil an 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
22. 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].
23. 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 wel 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
• disclosure would prejudice the individuals’ right to privacy.
24. I have therefore decided to the extent that
Document 4 and 6 include the names of non-SES
level staff members other than the Director, Integrity and Ethics, 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.
Sections 11A and 11B – public interest factors
25. Subsection 11A(5) of the FOI Act provides:
(5) The agency or Minister must give the person access to the document if it is conditionally
exempt at a particular time unless (in the circumstances) access to the document at that time
would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.
26. 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.
27. I have identified the following factors as weighing against disclosure of certain information or
documents:
Section 47C conditional exemption
• disclosure of conditionally exempt information under 47C could reasonably be expected to
prejudice the ability of the Commission to manage future deliberations;
• disclosure could prejudice the relationship between the Commission and other
_____
1 ‘BA’ and Merit Protection Commissioner [2014] AICmr 9 [64].
Australian Public Service Commission I
Page 5
Commonwealth agencies; and
• disclosure of deliberative matter could unreasonably disclose deliberations, consultations,
and the exchange of advice and recommendations undertaken by a Commonwealth
agency in the course of exercising its functions.
Section 47F – Personal Privacy
• the wishes of affected individuals potentially being identified;
• disclosure of individuals’ personal information wil not advance any scrutiny of any decisions
falling within the scope of your FOI request;
• disclosure would prejudice individuals’ right to privacy; and
• disclosure could lead to unwarranted approaches to the individual which would
adversely impact their ability to perform their role and functions.
28. 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.
29. On balance, I find disclosure of
Documents 4 and 6 in full, would be contrary to the public
interest.
Your submissions
30. In your submissions, you take objection to the interpretation and application of:
•
Section 47F (Personal Privacy) being applied to documents 4 and 5; and
•
Section 47C (Documents subject to deliberative processes)
being applied to document 6.
31. I address these broadly below.
Documents 4 and 5
32. Documents 4 and 5 were partial y released to you with personal information conditionally exempt
pursuant to section 47F (personal privacy).
33. In my view, it was open for Ms Webster to apply section 47F (personal privacy) to material containing
personal information in Documents 4 and 5. However, I have conducted consultations with relevant
stakeholders and now comfortable with releasing more material to you contained Documents 4 and
5 consistent with the wishes of those affected by my decision.
34. Accordingly, I set aside Ms Webster’s decision and grant you partial access to Document 4 and full
access to Document 5.
Document 6
35. I affirm the primary decision maker’s reasons for decision.
36. A function of the Integrity Agencies Group is to provide a forum for coordination, enhancement
and promotion of institution integrity across the Commonwealth. The Australia Public Service
Commissioner chairs this forum, and invites members across the Commonwealth to participate in
this forum. It is critical to the continuation of this forum that each member is able to comment and
confirm that the relevant meeting minutes reflect their understanding. A release of the draft
meeting minutes could unreasonably disclose deliberations, consultations, and the exchange of
advice and recommendations between Agency Heads about activities and trends in integrity
assurance and combating corruption. Accordingly, the content of the documents contains
deliberative matter, disclosing a deliberative processes. Release of Document 6 would also be
contrary to the public interest for the reasons I outlined above at paragraph [27].
Australian Public Service Commission I
Page 6
ATTACHMENT B
Rights of Review
Asking for a ful 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.
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 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
Australian Public Service Commission I
Page 7
Document Outline
