OFF ICIAL
Agency Reference: FOI 23-24/160
Contact:
FOI Team
Email:
xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
“Me” via Right to Know
By email only:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Me,
Decision and Statement of Reasons issued under the Freedom of Information
Act 1982 – FOI 23-24/160
I refer to your request of 5 June 2024 to Department of Finance (Finance) seeking access
under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)) (FOI Act) to:
“…1. Attachment A to FOI 23-24/034 Document 1
2. ASIC statements referred to in FOI 23-24/034 Document 1 [2(c)]
3. Any documents not exemptable under s 42 that relate to the subject matter of FOI 23-
24/034 Document 1 [13] (ASIC's potential inability to use CDDA)
4. Documents other than RMG 401 that talk to the appropriateness of granting an AoG
application for an omission of an NCE (cf an act of an NCE in FOI 23-24/034 Document 1
[12(a)]
5. Attachment A to FOI 23-24/034 Document 2
6. Any documents not exemptable under s 42 that relate to the subject matter of FOI 23-
24/034 Document 2 [4(a)], including the relevance of ASIC Act s 11
7. Attachment C to FOI 23-24/034 Document 2
8. Attachment A to FOI 23-24/034 Document 3
9. Attachment C to FOI 23-24/034 Document 3
10. Attachment A to FOI 23-24/034 Document 4
11. Attachment A to FOI 23-24/034 Document 5
12. Attachment A to FOI 23-24/034 Document 6
Regarding (2), (7), and (9), if DoF attempts a blanket redaction such as s 47E, I will fight
you on the beaches. ASIC are generally incompetent, are known across the Commonwealth
to be generally incompetent, are the subject of many parliamentary inquiries aimed at their
lack of competence, and are otherwise a stain on the reputation of the executive branch of
government. It is manifestly in the public interest to see the supposedly valid bases ASIC
uses to defend itself from AoG claims.
One Canberra Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603 Internet www.finance.gov.au
OFFICIAL
Personal information of non-SES (excl a/SES) is excluded. Personal information of third
parties, narrowly construed, is excluded. Legal advice, where it was authored by someone on
the roll of a supreme court and the entire document is a legal advice, is excluded.
Corporations cannot possess personal information and their details cannot be exempt on
this basis. If John Smith forms John Smith Pty Ltd, they are, at law, separate legal entities
with no relationship. The FOI Act and/or Privacy Act does not stitch together what the
Corporations Act has bifurcated.…”
On 21 June 2024, Finance acknowledged receipt of your request.
On 1 July 2024, Finance requested an extension of time of 30 days to process your request
under section 15AA of the FOI Act. By email of the same date, you agreed to extend the
time for making a decision to 5 August 2024.
I would like to thank you for agreeing to extend the timeframe for processing your request.
Authorised decision-maker
I am authorised by the Secretary of Finance and section 23(1) of the FOI Act to make
decisions in relation to FOI requests.
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with notice of my decision under the FOI Act.
My Decision
Finance has undertaken a reasonable search of its records and has identified 49 documents
relevant to your request.
The documents are set out in the schedule at Attachment A.
I have decided to:
grant access in part to 4 documents, subject to the redaction of exempt material
under sections 37(2)(b), 47C, 47E(d), 47F, and irrelevant material under
section 22(1)(a)(ii) of the FOI Act;
refuse access to 42 documents under sections 37(2)(b), 47C, 47E(d), 47F 37(2)(b),
and 22(1)(a)(ii) of the FOI Act; and
grant access in full to 3 documents, with irrelevant material under
section 22(1)(a)(ii) of the FOI Act redacted.
I have also refused access to parts 3, 4, and 6 of the request under section 24A on the basis
that the documents you have requested access to do not exist.
Where I have decided to grant access in part, I have provided access to an edited copy of the
documents, modified by deletions in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act.
Material taken into account
In accordance with section 26(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in making my decision, I have stated
any material question of fact, the material on which these findings were based, and the
reasons for my decision to grant or refuse access to the documents.
2
OFFICIAL
In making my decision, I have had regard to the following:
the terms of your FOI request;
the content of the documents that fall within the scope of your request;
consultation with a Commonwealth agency and submissions made by that agency;
the relevant provisions of the FOI Act;
the FOI Guidelines issued by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
(FOI Guidelines);1 and
sections 3, 11 and 11A of the FOI Act.
Reasons for decision
I have decided to grant and refuse access to the material within the scope of your request,
subject to the following provisions of the FOI Act:
Section 37 - Documents affecting enforcement of law and protection of
public safety
Section 37(2) of the FOI Act states that:
…A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or could
reasonably be expected to:
(a) prejudice the fair trial of a person or the impartial adjudication of a
particular case;
(b) disclose lawful methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating,
or dealing with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law the
disclosure of which would, or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the
effectiveness of those methods or procedures; or
(c) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of lawful methods for the
protection of public safety…
The FOI Guidelines at paragraph [5.127] provide that in order for this exemption to apply,
two factors must be satisfied. Specifically (footnotes omitted):
…There must be a reasonable expectation that a document will disclose a method or
procedure and a reasonable expectation or a real risk of prejudice to the effectiveness of
that investigative method or procedure. If the only result of disclosing the methods would be
that those methods were no surprise to anyone, there could be no reasonable expectation of
prejudice. However, where a method might be described as ‘routine’, but the way in which it
is employed can reasonably be said to be ‘unexpected’, disclosure could prejudice the
effectiveness of the method.
I consider that material in documents 24 and 45 contain information that is exempt in part
under section 37(2)(b). Relevantly, parts of the documents discuss the Australian Securities
and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) methods or procedures preventing, detecting,
investigating, or dealing with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law.
I am satisfied that there is a reasonable expectation that the release of the material would
disclose information about the ASIC’s investigative methods and procedures for
investigating matters arising out of breaches of law. I am further satisfied that the disclosure
of this information would prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures.
1 Available at: https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-guidelines/.
3
OFFICIAL
I consider that the relevant parts of the documents contain information regarding the process
and function of ASIC investigations pursuant to section 911D of the Corporations Act 2001.
When read together, these parts reveal the direction and pivotal considerations of an ASIC
investigation.
I am therefore satisfied that the release of this information would disclose a method or
procedure in relation to the investigation of a matter arising out of the law, and that this
disclosure could reasonably prejudice these methods or procedures. I consider that this
material is exempt pursuant to section 37(2)(b) of the FOI Act.
Section 47C – Documents subject to deliberative processes
Section 47C of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditionally exempt if it contains
deliberative 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
Government.
The FOI Guidelines at paragraph [6.58] provide that a deliberative process involves the
exercise of judgement in developing and making a selection from different options:
The action of deliberating, in common understanding, involves the weighing up or
evaluation of the competing arguments or considerations that may have a bearing upon
one's course of action. In short, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of an
agency are its thinking processes –the processes of reflection, for example, upon the wisdom
and expediency of a proposal, a particular decision or a course of action.
Section 47C(2)(b) of the FOI Act states that deliberative material does not include
information that is purely factual, however, the FOI Guidelines provide that at paragraph
[6.73]:
'Purely factual material’ does not extend to factual material that is an integral part of the
deliberative content and purpose of a document, or is embedded in or intertwined with the
deliberative content such that it is impractical to excise it.
While the documents can be considered to contain ‘purely factual material, this information
is central to the content and purpose of the deliberative information in the documents.
I consider that it would be impractical to remove this information from the documents.
Furthermore, paragraph [6.74] of the FOI Guidelines advises that:
“where a decision maker finds it difficult to separate the purely factual material from the
deliberative matter, both elements may be exempt.”
Documents 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, 24 and 45 in scope of your request relate to submissions
made by a third party on behalf of act of grace claimants. These documents contain
information including opinion, advice and recommendations from ASIC, and other third
parties, and were presented to Finance in the consideration of specific act of grace requests.
The relevant information in these documents was used in an ongoing consultation process to
determine the suitability of act of grace payments. As such, this information constitutes
matter relating to the deliberative process of advising and considering the exchange of
4
OFFICIAL
opinions, which I consider satisfies the requirements outlined in section 47C and the FOI
Guidelines.
I also consider that while the deliberative material within the documents does contain
elements of ‘purely factual material’, that information is the recording of the deliberative
processes captured within the documents. Furthermore, I consider the factual material is
inextricably linked to the opinions, advice and recommendations, and to attempt to separate
the information would unreasonable.
Accordingly, I have decided that this information in Documents 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, 24 and
45 would disclose deliberative matter and is conditionally exempt pursuant to section 47C of
the FOI Act.
Section 47E – Material affecting certain operations of agencies
Section 47E of the FOI Act states that:
A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or could
reasonably be expected to, do any of the following:
(a) prejudice the effectiveness of procedures or methods for the conduct of tests,
examinations or audits by an agency;
(b) prejudice the attainment of the objects of particular tests, examinations or
audits conducted or to be conducted by an agency;
(c) have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of
personnel by the Commonwealth or by an agency;
(d) have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the
operations of an agency.
Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditionally exempt from
disclosure if its disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial
adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency.
For this exemption to apply, it is necessary that the predicted effect ‘would, or could
reasonably be expected to’ occur.
FOI Guidelines at paragraphs [5.17] and [5.18] provide that:
…the term ‘could’ in this instance, requires an analysis of whether there exists a reasonable
expectation that an event, effect or damage could occur. This ‘reasonable expectation’
cannot be a mere risk, possibility or chance of prejudice. It must be based on reasonable
grounds, a real, significant or material possibility of prejudice…
In DZ and Commonwealth Ombudsman [2014] AICmr 137, it was found that disclosure of
certain material could adversely affect the willingness of agencies to cooperate with another
investigative body. Furthermore, the Information Commissioner provided that:
“It is likely that a situation will arise in future that involves information held across more
than one agency and that agencies will be less forthcoming about the issues this raises if the
information is not treated confidentially. If agencies are less forthcoming and less willing to
consider and consult on the proper course of action in this situation, the [Ombudsman’s]
investigations will be less efficient.”
Further, the AAT has recognised in Telstra Australian Limited and Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission [2000] AATA 71 (7 February 2000) that the conduct of an
5
OFFICIAL
agency’s regulatory functions can be adversely affected in a substantial way when there is
a lack of confidence in the confidentiality of the investigative process. Similarly, in this
instance, the ASIC’s ability to carry out its regulatory functions would be affected if there
was a lack of confidence in the confidentiality of this process.
Documents 7, 8, 10-15, 17-19, 24, and 45 in scope of your request relate to submissions
made by a third party, including from other government agencies, on behalf of act of grace
claimants. I consider that disclosure of this information would, or could reasonably be
expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the
operations of Finance. The information contained within the document was provided by the
third party in the course of Finance’s functions in assessing act of grace claims.
I consider that the disclosure of this information could have an adverse effect on the
willingness of people making submissions. Furthermore, I consider that some of the material
within the documents was provided by ASIC on the assumption that it would be treated as
confidential information and not disclosed.
Act of grace is a discretionary payment under the Public Governance, Performance and
Accountability Act 2013. There is no situation which creates an automatic entitlement to an
act of grace payment and a decision maker must consider all relevant facts to determine
whether a special circumstance exists to justify a payment. Other agencies provide
comprehensive and frank submissions relating to specific matters to assist in the making of
an act of grace decision. Finance is reliant on the submissions of other departments to enable
it to consider all relevant material relating to the claim and determine whether a special
circumstance exists.
I consider that the disclosure of this information could have an adverse effect on interagency
communications and have a substantial adverse effect on Finance’s operations in the future.
If sensitive information shared in confidence by government agencies is exposed, it could
reasonably be expected that those agencies would be less forthcoming with the breadth of
material and views they provide in future submissions. If this occurred, this would
materially impact the quality of decision making in relation to act of grace applications.
Accordingly, I have decided that this information is conditionally exempt pursuant to
section 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
Section 47F – Personal Privacy
Section 47F of the FOI Act states:
(1) A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would involve the
unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a
deceased person).
(2) In determining whether the disclosure of the document would involve the unreasonable
disclosure of personal information, an agency or Minister must have regard to the
following matters:
(a) the extent to which the information is well known;
(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;
(d) any other matters that the agency or Minister considers relevant
6
OFFICIAL
The FOI Guidelines provide:
[6.127 (relevantly)] The FOI Act shares the same definition of 'personal information' as the
Privacy Act, which regulates the handling of personal information about individuals (see
s 4(1) of the FOI Act and s 6 of the Privacy Act).
[6.130] Personal information can include a person’s name, address, telephone number, date
of birth, medical records, bank account details, taxation information and signature.
The documents subject to the request contain personal information, specifically the names
and ‘credit information’ of third parties, as described in section 6N of the Privacy Act.2
I have considered whether the information contained within the documents is well known
and whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be associated with the
matters dealt with in the document. I have not found this to be the case in this instance.
Furthermore, I have given significant weight to the context of these documents, in which
individuals have sought assistance in their time of hardship. These documents contain
overviews of individuals’ impact statements, their personal affairs and details of their
financial situations.
I consider that the release of the personal information within the documents would be
unreasonable and could cause stress on the third parties. Furthermore, I do not consider that
the disclosure of their personal information would achieve a public purpose in this instance.
Accordingly, I consider that the disclosure of this personal information would be
unreasonable, and I have decided to conditionally exempt these parts under section 47F(1)
of the FOI Act.
Section 47G – Documents disclosing business information
Section 47G of the FOI Act provides:
(1) A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would disclose
information concerning a person in respect of his or her business or professional affairs or
concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation or undertaking,
in a case in which the disclosure of the information:
(a) would, or could reasonably be expected to, unreasonably affect that person
adversely in respect of his or her lawful business or professional affairs or that
organisation or undertaking in respect of its lawful business, commercial or
financial affairs
(b) could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information to
the Commonwealth or an agency for the purpose of the administration of a law of
the Commonwealth or of a Territory or the administration of matters administered
by an agency.
Furthermore, the FOI Guidelines provide:
[6.12] In order to find that s 47G(1)(a) applies, a decision maker would need to be satisfied that
if the document were disclosed there would be: an unreasonable adverse effect, on the business
or professional affairs of an individual, or the lawful business, commercial or financial affairs
of an organisation or undertaking.
2 The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
7
OFFICIAL
[6.13] These criteria require more than simply asserting that a third party’s business affairs
would be adversely affected by disclosure. The effect would need to be unreasonable. This
requires a balancing of interests, including the private interests of the business and other
interests such as the public interest.
Section 47G(1)(a)
Section 47G is intended to protect the business interests of third parties dealing with the
Government. I consider that the documents I have listed at Attachment A contain sensitive
business information relating to the operation of a third-party organisations. Specifically,
I consider that certain information in these documents would unreasonably disclose the
operations and service offerings of certain businesses, which is information that is not
otherwise public.
I am of the view that disclosure of this information would allow competitors to draw upon
the third parties intellectual property and use it to obtain an unfair advantage. Misuse of
third-party intellectual property would have an unreasonable adverse effect on that business’
affairs.
Section 47G(1)(b)
I also consider that disclosure of sensitive business information would discourage third
parties from making such detailed submissions regarding act of grace payments in the
future.
Paragraphs [6.196-6.197] of the FOI Guidelines provide that:
A document that discloses the kind of information described at [47G(1)(a)] above will be
conditionally exempt if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future
supply of information to the Commonwealth or an agency for the purpose of the
administration of a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory or the administration of
matters administered by an agency (s 47G(1)(b)).
This limb of the conditional exemption comprises 2 parts:
a reasonable expectation of a reduction in the quantity or quality of business affairs
information to the government
the reduction will prejudice the operations of the agency.
As many of the documents, which include sensitive business information, were supplied as
part of act of grace applications, I consider there to be a reasonably high likelihood that the
disclosure of this information will adversely affect Finance’s ability to consider all relevant
material relating to claims and materially impact the quality of decision-making in relation
to act of grace applications. I consider that the integrated business information within these
parts of the document would be sufficient to prejudice the future supply of this information.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the disclosure of this information would be unreasonable
and is exempt under section 47G.
Public interest test
Section 11A of the FOI Act relevantly 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.
8
OFFICIAL
In finding that the documents referred to at ‘Attachment A’ are conditionally exempt in full,
I am required to consider whether it would be contrary to the public interest to give access to
the information in the documents at this time.
Factors favouring disclosure
Section 11B of the FOI Act relevantly provides:
(3) Factors favouring access to the document in the public interest include whether access to
the document would do any of the following:
(a) promote the objects of this Act (including all the matters set out in sections 3 and
3A);
(b) inform debate on a matter of public importance;
(c) promote effective oversight of public expenditure;
(d) allow a person to access his or her own personal information.
In considering the scope of your request and the content of the documents, I have taken into
account the intention of the FOI Act to provide for open Government and that the release of
the documents would promote transparency of Government activities. I consider that the
release of the documents would promote the objects of the FOI Act. Further, I have balanced
this consideration against the factors against disclosure below.
Factors against disclosure
Paragraph [6.233] of the FOI Guidelines provides a non-exhaustive list of factors against
disclosure. I consider that the following factors apply to these documents, in that the release
of the information in the documents could reasonably be expected to:
prejudice law enforcement, by disclosing ASIC’s investigative methods and
procedures, and by informing the entities ASIC regulates as to how and why ASIC
will act on specific information in specific circumstances;
inhibit interagency communications regarding consideration of act of grace
payments;
prejudice the protection of an individual’s right to privacy;
prejudice the effectiveness of an agency’s decision-making and deliberative
processes; in particular, by:
o discouraging full and complete sharing of opinions and recommendations;
and
o harming the development of sound decision-making.
I consider that the release of documents within the scope of your request could prejudice law
enforcement by disclosing ASIC’s investigative methods and procedures. This would inform
the entities ASIC regulates how and why ASIC will act on specific information in specific
circumstances.
Further to this, I have considered the use of ASIC’s investigations as a method of promoting
market integrity and consumer protection in relation to the Australian financial system and
the payments system and find that the disclosure of the information in these documents
would prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures. It may assist other entities
in endeavours to evade ASIC investigations and thereby inhibit ASIC’s ability to protect the
Australian financial and payments system. I consider there is a strong public interest in
ensuring that ASIC can conduct its law enforcement functions and that these functions are
not compromised or prejudiced in any way. I consider that this would be contrary to the
public interest and that this factor weighs strongly against disclosure.
9
OFFICIAL
I consider that the release of documents within the scope of your request could inhibit
interagency communications in considering act of grace payments. Finance seeks
submissions from third parties and other Commonwealth departments, which are relied on as
a prominent element of the decision-making process. Some information is provided on the
assumption that it remains confidential. If the redacted material is released it would divulge
information or matter communicated in confidence between ASIC and Finance, which could
adversely affect the level of trust and cooperation between the departments.
It could lead to ASIC and other departments losing trust in Finance’s ability to handle
confidential information about current and future act of grace claims, resulting in less
comprehensive and frank submissions. Accordingly, disclosing this material would
adversely affect Finance’s ability to consider all relevant material relating to claims and
materially impact the quality of decision-making in relation to act of grace applications.
I consider that this would be contrary to the public interest and that this factor weighs
strongly against disclosure.
I consider that the release of documents within the scope of your request could prejudice the
protection of an individual’s right to privacy. The documents subject to the request contain
significant personal information. Decision letters, for example, contain overviews of
individuals’ impact statements, their personal affairs and details of their financial situations
which they have provided in the context of making an act of grace request. It would be
unreasonable and contrary to the expectations of those individuals who have sought
assistance through the act of grace mechanism to disclose information identifying
individuals and the circumstances of their request.
I also consider disclosure could impair Finance’s ability to efficiently deliver services,
noting that if an individual does not provide their personal information, Finance may be
unable to process an act of grace application. I consider that this would be contrary to the
public interest and that this factor weighs strongly against disclosure.
Irrelevant factors
Section 11B of the FOI Act relevantly provides:
(4) 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 embarrassment to the Commonwealth
Government, or cause a loss of confidence in the Commonwealth Government;
(b) access to the document could result in any person misinterpreting or
misunderstanding the document;
(c) the author of the document was (or is) of high seniority in the agency to which
the request for access to the document was made;
(d) access to the document could result in confusion or unnecessary debate.
I have not taken into account any of these irrelevant factors.
Balancing public interest factors
The FOI Guidelines relevantly provide:
[6.238] To conclude that, on balance, disclosure of a document would be contrary to the
public interest is to conclude that the benefit to the public resulting from disclosure is
outweighed by the benefit to the public of withholding the information. The decision maker
must analyse, in each case, where on balance the public interest lies based on the particular
facts of the matter at the time the decision is made.
10
OFFICIAL
I acknowledge that there is public interest in providing access to the information in the
documents. However, on balance, I consider that the factors against disclosure outweigh the
factors favouring disclosure.
This is because there is a clear public interest in the continuation of the Commonwealth’s act
of grace mechanism in special circumstances. This can only be achieved through the
provision of comprehensive and frank submissions from ASIC and other departments and
maintaining an individual’s right to privacy.
I also consider the strong public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of ASIC’s
investigative methods and procedures to allow ASIC to maintain its role as a regulator.
I also note that act of grace payments are discretionary; there is no situation which creates an
automatic entitlement to an act of grace payment. As a result, there is limited value and
relevance of any act of grace decisions to future applications.
Therefore, I consider that on balance the release of the conditionally exempt material in the
documents would be against the public interest and have decided to refuse the release of this
material.
Section 22 – Access to edited copies with irrelevant matter deleted
Section 22 of the FOI Act provides that, if giving access to a document would disclose
information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to the request, it is possible for
the Department to prepare an edited copy of the document, modified by deletions, ensuring
that the edited copy would not disclose any information that would reasonably be regarded
as irrelevant to the request.
In your request dated 5 June 2024, you advised that:
“Personal information of non-SES (excl a/SES) is excluded. Personal information of third
parties, narrowly construed, is excluded. Legal advice, where it was authored by someone
on the roll of a supreme court and the entire document is a legal advice, is excluded.”
I have decided that parts of documents marked ‘s22(1)(a)(ii)’ would disclose information
that could reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to your request, including material which
relates to the terms you have provided in the scope of your request. I have prepared an
edited copy of the documents, with the irrelevant material deleted pursuant to
section 22(1)(a)(ii) of the FOI Act.
Section 24A – Document cannot be found, do not exist or have not been
received
Section 24A of the FOI Act provides that an agency may refuse a request for access to a
document if after taking reasonable steps to find the document, the agency is satisfied that
the document does not exist. In line with this provision, I have decided to refuse parts 3,4
and 6 of your request.
In coming to my decision, I have consulted with the internal business area responsible for
discretionary payments. The business area ensured that thorough searches were undertaken
of relevant Finance systems where any such documents may have been stored, such as:
OneDrive and SharePoint
11
OFFICIAL
Microsoft Outlook (SFC inbox);
Local G Drive;
EClaims system; and
HPE Content Manager.
As a result of these consultations and searches, I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have
been taken to find any a document that may fall within the scope of these parts of your
request, and the documents could not be identified as they do not exist.
Review and appeal rights
You are entitled to request an internal review or an external review by the Office of the
Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) of my decision. The process for review and
appeal rights is set out at Attachment B.
If you have any questions about this request, please contact the FOI Team by emailing
xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx.
Yours sincerely,
Grant Stevens
Assistant Secretary
Risk and Insurance Branch | Risk, Insurance and Discretionary Payments Division
Department of Finance
5 August 2024
12
OFFICIAL
ATTACHMENT A
SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO FOI 23-24/160
Document
Date of Document
No. of Description of Document
Decision
Relevant provision
No.
Pages
Part 1
“Attachment A to FOI 23-24/034 – Document 1”
1
1 October 2021
23
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
2
1 October 2021
23
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
3
1 October 2021
23
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
4
1 October 2021
23
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
5
1 October 2021
23
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
6
1 October 2021
24
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
Part 2
“ASIC statements referred to in FOI 23-24/034 Document 1 [2(c)]”
7
7 December 2020
11
ASIC Submission
Part release
s37(2)(b), s47C, s47E(d),
s47F, s22(1)(a)(ii)
8
4 March 2021
10
ASIC Submission
Part release
s37(2)(b), s47C, s47E(d),
s47F, s22(1)(a)(ii)
9
26 May 2021
2
ASIC Submission
Full access
s22(1)(a)(ii)
10
4 March 2021
4
Chronology
Refused in full
s37(2)(b), s47C, s47E(d)
11
13 September 2013
4
Chronology - Appendix 1
Refused in full
s37(2)(b), s47C, s47E(d), s47F
12
23 September 2013
1
Chronology - Appendix 2
Refused in full
s37(2)(b), s47C, s47E(d), s47F
13
17 October 2013
2
Chronology - Appendix 3
Refused in full
s37(2)(b), s47C, s47E(d), s47F
14
26 November 2013
9
Chronology - Appendix 4
Refused in full
s37(2)(b), s47C, s47E(d), s47F
15
2 December 2013
1
Chronology - Appendix 5
Refused in full
s37(2)(b), s47C, s47E(d), s47F
16
unknown
3
Chronology - Appendix 6
Refused in full
37(2)(b)
17
1 December 2015
3
Chronology - Appendix 7
Refused in full
s37(2)(b), s47C, s47E(d), s47F
18
8 December 2015
2
Chronology - Appendix 8
Refused in full
s37(2)(b), s47C, s47E(d), s47F
19
5 April 2016
11
Chronology - Appendix 9
Refused in full
s47F
20
16 September 2016
117
Chronology - Appendix 10
Refused in full
s37(2)(b), s47F
21
28 March 2017
36
Chronology - Appendix 11
Refused in full
s37(2)(b), s47F
13
OFFICIAL
Part 3
“Any documents not exemptible under s 42 that relate to the subject matter of FOI 23-24/034 Document 1 [13] (ASIC's potential inability to use
CDDA)”
No documents identified.
Refused
s24A
Part 4
“Documents other than RMG 401 that talk to the appropriateness of granting an AoG application for an omission of an NCE (cf an act of an NCE in
FOI 23-24/034 Document 1 [12(a)]”
No documents identified.
Refused
s24A
Part 5
“Attachment A to FOI 23-24/034 Document 2”
22
September 2022
31
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
Part 6
“Any documents not exemptible under s 42 that relate to the subject matter of FOI 23-24/034 Document 2 [4(a)], including the relevance of ASIC
Act s 11”
No documents identified.
Refused
s24A
Part 7
“Attachment C to FOI 23-24/034 Document 2”
23
25 November 2020
1
ASIC Submission
Full access
s22(1)(a)(ii)
24
13 July 2021
10
ASIC Submission
Part release
s37(2)(b), s47C, s47E(d)
25
28 November 2001
61
ASIC Submission – Annexture
Full Access
Nil.
Part 8
“Attachment A to FOI 23-24/034 Document 3”
26
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
27
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
28
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
29
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
30
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
31
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
32
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
33
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
34
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
14
OFFICIAL
35
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
36
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
37
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
38
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
39
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
40
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
41
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
42
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
43
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
44
February 2023
19
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
Part 9
“Attachment C to FOI 23-24/034 Document 3”
45
13 April 2022
24
ASIC Submission
Part Access
s37(2)(b), s47C, s47E(d),
s47F, 47G, s22(1)(a)(ii)
Part 10
“Attachment A to FOI 23-24/034 Document 4”
46
February 2023
21
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
47
February 2023
23
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
Part 11
“Attachment A to FOI 23-24/034 Document 5”
48
May 2023
31
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
Part 12
“Attachment A to FOI 23-24/034 Document 6”
49
unknown
5
Decision letter to Act of Grace claimant
Refused in full
s47F
15
OFFICIAL
ATTACHMENT B
Your Review Rights
Legislation
A copy of the FOI Act is available at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A02562. If you
are unable to access the legislation through this website, please contact our office for a copy.
Internal Review (IR)
If you disagree with this decision, you can seek a review of the original decision. The review will
carried out by a different decision maker, usually someone at a more senior level.
You must apply for an IR within 30 calendar days of being notified of the decision or charge, unless
we agree to extend your time. You should contact us if you wish to seek an extension.
We are required to make an IR decision within 30 calendar days of receiving your application. If we
do not make an IR decision within this timeframe, then the original decision stands.
Your request for an IR should include:
a statement that you are seeking a review of our decision;
attach a copy of the decision you are seeking a review of; and
state the reasons why you consider the original decision maker made the wrong decision.
Email: xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Post: The FOI Coordinator
Legal and Assurance Branch
Department of Finance
One Canberra Avenue
FORREST ACT 2603
Information Commissioner review
You may apply directly to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) for an
Information Commissioner review of this decision. You must apply in writing within 60 days of this
notice. For further information about review rights and how to submit a request for a review to the
OAIC, please see https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/your-freedom-ofinformation-
rights/freedom-of-information-reviews/information-commissioner-review.
The OAIC ask that you commence a review by completing their online form which is available on
their website.
Your review application must include a copy of the notice of our decision that you are objecting to,
and your contact details. You should also set out why you are objecting to the decision.
Email: xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Post: Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner
GPO Box 5218
16
OFFICIAL
Sydney NSW 2001
Making a complaint
You may complain to the Information Commissioner about action taken by the Department in
relation to your request.
Your enquiries to the Information Commissioner can be directed to:
Phone: 1300 363 992 (local call charge)
Email: xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
There is no particular form required to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner. The
request should be in writing and should set out the grounds on which it is considered that the action
taken in relation to the request should be investigated and identify the Department of Finance as the
relevant agency.
17
