(b) whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be (or to have been) associated with the matters dealt
with in the document;
(c) the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources
It is well known that the director of integrity and ethics is Clare McLean because a Google search immediately returns a
bunch of results that identify her as such.
It is well known that the person to whom the information relates in the document (the title director, integrity and ethics) is
known to be associated with Clare McLean.
The information is, as I have demonstrated, available from public sources, including website administered by the APSC.
Therefore, it was never open to you to apply section 47F in respect of Clare McLean's name, and further not open to you
to claim that it was in the public interest to redact her name from the document.
In that respect, your decision is erroneous and must be set aside.
Unlawful application of the public interest
You noted in your decision that it was against the public interest to grant access to document 6, which was the Integrity
Agencies Group Draft Meeting Minutes (27 May 2025).
At paragraph 26, you justified your decision to refuse access to document 6 by claiming that “[e]arly release could
prejudice those considerations and cause confusion for the public.”
The Parliament has explicitly stated, in subsection 11B(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), that the following
factors must not be taken into account in deciding whether access to the document would, on balance, be contrary to the
public interest:
(a) access to the document could result in any person misinterpreting or misunderstanding the document: FOI Act, s
11B(4)(b); or
(b) access to the document could result in confusion: FOI Act, s 11B(4)(d).
Your justification for refusing access to document 6 is unlawful because you have taken into account factors that the
Parliament has explicitly forbidden public servants from taking into account in deciding whether access to the document
2
would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.
Your justifications for refusing access to document 6 are, therefore, vitiated by error, and must be set aside.
Please pass this request for internal review to the person responsible for conducting such reviews.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/dr_de_brouwers_letter_to_senior
Yours sincerely,
FOIBLES
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/officers
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3
