FOI reference: FOI 25-0302 LD
Mr Francis Markham
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Mr Markham
Decision on your Freedom of Information Request
I refer to your information access request of 7 March 2025, made to the Department of
Health and Aged Care (the department) under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
(FOI Act). In your request, you sought access to:
I am writing to request a copy of select records relating to the National Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Health Collaboration. Specifically:
- Documents describing the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health
Collaboration's membership, as at 1 January 2023.
- Documents the describing changes to the membership of the National Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Health Collaboration's membership, between 1 January 2023 and
28 February 2025.
- Documents describing the Terms of Reference of the National Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Health Collaboration's membership, as they applied on 1 January 2023.
- Any revisions or updates to the Terms of Reference of the National Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Health Collaboration until 28 February 2025.
- Minutes and any informal records of discussion from meetings of the National
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Collaboration during the period 1 January
2023 to 28 February 2025.
- Any documents outlining the planned meeting dates of the National Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Health Collaboration over the period 1 January 2023 to 28
February 2025.
I am authorised under subsection 23(1) of the FOI Act to make decisions in relation to
Freedom of Information requests. I am writing to notify you of my decision on your
access request.
GPO Box 9848 Canberra ACT 2601 - www.health.gov.au
- 2 -
Consultation on scope of request
On 27 March 2025, the department contacted you by email to revise the scope of your
request.
On 28 March 2025, you agreed to modify the scope of your request to the following:
1. National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Collaboration membership
list, as at 1 January 2023.
2. Updated iterations of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health
Collaboration's membership list, between 1 January 2023 and 28 February 2025.
3. Terms of Reference of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health
Collaboration, as at 1 January 2023.
4. Updated iterations of the Terms of Reference of the National Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Health Collaboration, between 1 January 2023 and 28
February 2025.
5. Minutes of meetings of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health
Collaboration between 1 January 2023 and 28 February 2025, or, in the absence of
minutes, documents describing meeting outcomes as recorded by the First Nations
Health Division.
Extension of time to process request
On 13 March 2025, the department wrote to you under section 15AA of the FOI Act
seeking a 7-day extension of time to allow it to process your FOI request.
On 13 March 2025, you responded to the department agreeing to the extension of time
request. As a result, the statutory date for your FOI access request was extended to 14
April 2025.
On 9 April 2025, the department informed you that it was consulting with third parties
whose information was contained in documents identified as relevant to your request
under sections 26A, 27 and 27A of the FOI Act. As a result, the statutory timeframe for
your request was extended by 30 days to 13 May 2025.
On 7 May 2025, the department wrote to you under section 15AA of the FOI Act
seeking a 10-day extension of time to allow it to finalise your FOI request.
As you did not respond, the department has continued to process your request.
Reasonable searches
The department has conducted reasonable searches for documents in scope of your
request. As per the FOI Guidelines [at 3.89], these searches were undertaken with
reference to:
the subject matter of your request
the department’s current and past file management systems
the department’s record management systems
- 3 -
the individuals within the department with knowledge of the subject matter of
the documents, or who could assist with location of documents
the age of the documents.
I am satisfied that the searches undertaken were both thorough and reasonable in the
context of the scope of your request, the resources of the department, and the
requirements of the FOI Act and FOI Guidelines.
Decision on access
I have identified 11 documents that are relevant to your request.
These documents were in the possession of the department when your request was
received.
I have decided to:
grant access to 2 documents in full
grant access to nine documents in part, subject to the deletion of exempt
material
A schedule setting out the documents relevant to your request, with my decision in
relation to those documents, is at ATTACHMENT A.
My reasons for not providing access to material that has been deleted from the
documents are set out in ATTACHMENT B.
Legislative provisions
The FOI Act, including the provisions referred to in my decision, is available on the
Federal Register of Legislation website: www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A02562.
The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act), can also be accessed from the Federal
Register of Legislation website here: www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A03712.
Your review rights
I have set out your review rights at ATTACHMENT C.
Publication
Where I have decided to release documents to you, the department may also publish
the released material on its Disclosure Log, as required by section 11C of the FOI Act.
The department will not publish personal or business affairs information where it
would be unreasonable to do so.
For your reference the department’s Disclosure Log can be found at:
www.health.gov.au/resources/foi-disclosure-log.
- 4 -
Contacts
If you require clarification of any matters discussed in this letter you can contact the
FOI Section on (02) 6289 1666 or at xxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx.
Yours sincerely
Chantal Jackson
Assistant Secretary
First Nations Health Division
13 May 2025
- 5 -
ATTACHMENT A.
SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS
FOI REQUEST 25-0302 LD
Document Pages
Date
Description
Decision on
Relevant
access
provisions
of FOI Act
1
1
28/03/20 Collaboration Membership List - 1
Exempt in
s47B
25
January 2023
part
2
1
28/03/20 Collaboration Membership List –
Exempt in
s47B
25
Current
part
s47F
3
3
10/04/20 DRAFT Terms of Reference – March Granted in
NA
23
2023
full
4
4
22/08/20 Terms of Reference – Endorsed 22
Granted in
NA
24
August 2024
full
5
4
03/07/20 Email
Exempt in
s22
23
part
s47B
s47F
6
6
11/09/20 Endorsed Meeting Minutes – 11
Exempt in
s22
23
September 2023
part
s47B
s47E(c)
s47F
7
5
06/11/20 Endorsed Meeting Minutes – 6
Exempt in
s22
23
November 2023
part
s47B
s47E(c)
47F
8
4
08/12/20 Endorsed Meeting Minutes – 8
Exempt in
s22
23
December 2023
part
s47B
47F
9
6
14/02/20 Endorsed Meeting Minutes – 14
Exempt in
s22
24
February 2024
part
s47B
s47E(c)
47F
- 6 -
10
4
08/03/20 Endorsed Meeting Minutes – 8
Exempt in
s22
24
March 2024
part
s47B
s47E(c)
s47F
11
5
22/08/20 Endorsed Meeting Minutes – 22
Exempt in
s22
24
August 2024
part
s47B
s47E(c)
47F
- 7 -
ATTACHMENT B.
REASONS FOR DECISION
FOI 25-0302 LD
1.
Material taken into account
In making my decision, I had regard to the following:
the FOI Act
guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under
section 93A of the FOI Act (FOI Guidelines)
the terms of your FOI request as outlined above
submissions from third parties consulted about documents which contain
information concerning them
the content of the documents sought, and
advice from departmental officers with responsibility for matters relating to
the documents sought.
2.
Finding of facts and reasons for decision
My findings of fact and reasons for deciding that the exemptions identified in the
schedule of documents apply to the parts of documents are set out below.
3.
Section 22 – deletion of irrelevant and/or exempt material
Section 22 of the FOI Act applies to documents containing exempt material
(subparagraph 22(1)(a)(i)) and irrelevant information (subparagraph 22(1)(a)(ii)) and
allows an agency to delete such material from a document.
I have deleted material in the documents which can reasonably be regarded as
irrelevant to your request and prepared an edited copy for release. This information
has been marked ‘s22’ in the documents released to you.
The documents contain the names and telephone numbers of Department of Health
employees. When your request was acknowledged on 13 March 2025, we notified you
that this material would be considered irrelevant to the scope of your request unless
you told us that you were seeking access to that material. On the basis that you did not
notify us otherwise, this information has been deleted under section 22 of the FOI Act
as outlined above.
As I have decided that some of the information in the documents released to you is
exempt from disclosure, I have prepared an edited copy of the document(s) by deleting
the exempt information from the documents under section 22 of the FOI Act as
outlined above.
- 8 -
4.
Section 47B - Documents affecting Commonwealth-State relations
Section 47B of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditionally exempt if
disclosure:
(a)
would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to relations
between the Commonwealth and a State; or
(b)
would divulge information or matter communicated in confidence by or
on behalf of the Government of a State or an authority of a State, to the
Government of the Commonwealth, to an authority of the
Commonwealth or to a person receiving the communication on behalf of
the Commonwealth or of an authority of the Commonwealth.
Paragraph 6.24 of the FOI Guidelines states that a document does not have to have
been supplied or written by the Commonwealth, a State agency or a State authority to
fall within this exemption. The content of the document (and potentially the reason or
circumstances why the document was created) is the deciding factor, rather than the
originator’s identity. It is also not a relevant consideration that all the parties referred
to in the document are aware of the document or of the reference to the particular
agency.
Paragraphs 6.26-6.28 of the FOI Guidelines also state:
6.26 Disclosure of the document may cause damage by, for example:
interrupting or creating difficulty in negotiations or discussions that are
underway, including in the development of joint or parallel policy
adversely affecting the administration of a continuing Commonwealth-
State project
substantially impairing (but not merely modifying) Commonwealth-State
programs
adversely affecting the continued level of trust or co-operation in existing
inter-office relationships
impairing or prejudicing the flow of information to and from the
Commonwealth
6.27 Decision makers may also need to consider future working relationships
where disclosure may, for example:
impair or prejudice the future flow of information
adversely affect Commonwealth-State police operations or investigations
adversely affect the development of future Commonwealth-State projects
6.28 The potential damage need not be quantified, but the effect on relations arising
from the disclosure must be adverse.
In relation to the test would or could reasonably be expected, paragraph 5.16-5.18 of the
FOI Guidelines state:
5.16 The test requires the decision maker to assess the likelihood of the predicted
or forecast event, effect or damage occurring after disclosure of a document.
- 9 -
5.17 The use of the word ‘could’ in this qualification is less stringent than ‘would’,
and requires analysis of the reasonable expectation rather than certainty of an
event, effect or damage occurring. It may be a reasonable expectation that an
effect has occurred, is presently occurring, or could occur in the future.
5.18 The mere risk, possibility or chance of prejudice does not qualify as a
reasonable expectation. There must, based on reasonable grounds, be at least a
real, significant or material possibility of prejudice.
Having regard to the above, I am satisfied that release of the information marked ‘s47B’
could reasonably be expected to damage both the working relations between the
department and state/territory health departments, and the continued level of trust or
co-operation in existing inter-government working relationships. The information
marked ‘47B’ includes the named of state or territory government staff and/or
information about state / territory decisions or actions in relation to the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Health Collaboration meetings. If this information were
released, I am satisfied that it could reasonably be expected to have a chilling effect on
the trust and cooperation between the parties, which could reasonably be expected to
prejudice future communication and cooperation between the department and state
and territory departments.
I am satisfied that damage that would or could reasonably be expected to occur, based
on reasonable grounds, is real, significant or a material possibility.
Paragraph 6.36 of the FOI Guidelines states that when assessing whether the
information was communicated in confidence, the test is whether the communication
was considered to be confidential at the time of the communication.
The circumstances of the communication may also need to be considered, such as:
whether the communication was ad hoc, routine or required
whether there were any existing, implied or assumed arrangements or
understandings between the Commonwealth and State concerning the
exchange or supply of information
how the information was subsequently handled, disclosed or otherwise
published.
I am satisfied that the parts of the documents marked s47B contain information which
was communicated in confidence, and that the communication was considered to be
confidential at the time of the communication.
In making my decision, I have consulted with the relevant State and/or Territory
governments, and I have taken into account any concerns raised by the relevant State
and/or Territory.
For the reasons outlined above, I have decided that the parts of the documents marked
‘s47B’ are conditionally exempt from disclosure under section 47B of the FOI Act.
Where a document is found to be conditionally exempt, the department must give
access to that document unless access to the document at this time would, on balance,
- 10 -
be contrary to the public interest. I have addressed the public interest considerations
below.
5.
Section 47E - Documents affecting certain operations of agencies
Section 47E of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditionally exempt if its
disclosure 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.
Paragraph 6.84 of the FOI Guidelines states that section 47E conditionally exempts a
document where disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, prejudice or
have a substantial adverse effect on certain identified agency operations.
Paragraph 6.103 of the FOI Guidelines states that for this conditional exemption to
apply, the documents must relate to either:
the management of personnel – including the broader human resources policies and
activities, recruitment, promotion, compensation, discipline, harassment and
occupational health and safety, or
the assessment of personnel – including the broader performance management
policies and activities concerning competency, in-house training requirements,
appraisals and underperformance, counselling, feedback, assessment for bonus or
eligibility for progression.
The department has statutory obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011,
including a primary duty of care, so far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure that
persons are not put at risk from work carried out as part of the conduct of the
department. It is the aim of the department’s Work Health and Safety framework to
protect workers and other persons against harm to their health, safety and welfare
through elimination or minimisation of risks arising from work, and release of such
information could cause harm to their physical and mental wellbeing.
I am satisfied that disclosure of the personal information of public servants contained
in the documents relevant to your request may be substantially and adversely affect
the department’s ability to meet its statutory obligations under the WHS Act. There is
therefore a protective element to my decision to ensure that departmental staff are not
subjected to inappropriate risks or harm.
I am satisfied that the parts of the documents marked ‘s47E(c)’ would, or could
reasonably be expected to have, a substantial adverse effect on the management or
assessment of personnel by the department.
- 11 -
For the reasons outlined above, I have decided that the parts of the documents marked
‘s47E’ are conditionally exempt from disclosure under section 47E of the FOI Act.
Where a document is found to be conditionally exempt, the department must give
access to that document unless access to the document at this time would, on balance,
be contrary to the public interest. I have addressed the public interest considerations
below.
6.
Section 47F – Documents affecting personal privacy
Section 47F of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditionally exempt if its
disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about
any person (including a deceased person).
Personal Information
Personal information has the same meaning as in the Privacy Act. Specifically, section
6 of the Privacy Act provides that personal information means information or an opinion
about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable whether
the information or opinion is true or not; and whether the information or opinion is
recorded in a material form or not.
Paragraph 6.125 of the FOI Guidelines states that personal information can include a
person’s name, address, telephone number, date of birth, medical records, bank
account details, taxation information and signature.
Paragraph 6.132 of the FOI Guidelines states that an individual is a natural person and
does not include a corporation, trust, body politic or incorporated association. Section
47F specifically extends to the personal information of deceased persons.
I am satisfied that the parts of the documents marked ‘s47F’include personal
information such as names of individuals.
Unreasonable Disclosure of Personal Information
Subsection 47F(2) of the FOI Act provides that in determining whether the disclosure
would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information, I 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.
Paragraph 6.133 of the FOI Guidelines states that:
The personal privacy exemption is designed to prevent the unreasonable invasion of
third parties’ privacy. The test of ‘unreasonableness’ implies a need to balance the
public interest in disclosure of government-held information and the private interest
in the privacy of individuals. The test does not, however, amount to the public interest
test of s 11A(5), which follows later in the decision making process. It is possible that
- 12 -
the decision maker may need to consider one or more factors twice, once to determine
if a projected effect is unreasonable and again when assessing the public interest
balance.
I note that the AAT, in Re Chandra and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1984]
AATA 437 at paragraph 51-52, stated that:
... 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 …
it is also necessary in my view to take into consideration the public interest recognised
by the Act in the disclosure of information … and to weigh that interest in the balance
against the public interest in protecting the personal privacy of a third party ...
Paragraphs 6.137 and 6.138 of the FOI Guidelines state:
6.137 Key factors for determining whether disclosure is unreasonable include:
the author of the document is identifiable
the documents contain third party personal information
release of the documents would cause stress on the third party
no public purpose would be achieved through release
6.138 As discussed in the leading s 47F IC review decision of ‘FG’ and National
Archives of Australia [2015] AICmr 26, other factors considered to be relevant
include:
the nature, age and current relevance of the information
any detriment that disclosure may cause to the person to whom the
information relates
any opposition to disclosure expressed or likely to be held by that person
the circumstances of an agency’s collection and use of the information
the fact that the FOI Act does not control or restrict any subsequent use or
dissemination of information released under the FOI Act
any submission an FOI applicant chooses to make in support of their
application as to their reasons for seeking access and their intended or likely
use or dissemination of the information, and
whether disclosure of the information might advance the public interest in
government transparency and integrity
Personal information about APS staff
In relation to personal information about APS staff not in the SES, Paragraph 6.148 –
6.149 of the FOI Guidelines states:
6.148 Previous IC review decisions, and previous versions of these Guidelines, expressed the
view that where a public servant’s personal information is included in a document
because of their usual duties or responsibilities, it will not be unreasonable to disclose
it unless special circumstances exist. Further, previous versions of the FOI Guidelines
considered that agencies and ministers should start from the position that including
the full names of staff in documents released in response to FOI requests increases
- 13 -
transparency and accountability of government and is consistent with the objects of the
FOI Act. The OAIC considered these issues in a position paper titled ’Disclosure of
public servant details in response to a freedom of information request’ published in
August 2020. [140] This paper noted the evolution of the digital environment and the
new risks for both public servants and citizens but confirmed the Information
Commissioner’s view that agencies and ministers should start from the position that
including the full names of staff in documents released in response to FOI requests
increases transparency and accountability of government and is consistent with the
objects of the FOI Act.
6.149 This position was considered but not accepted by Deputy President Forgie in Warren;
Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia and (Freedom of information) [2020] AATA 4557 -
external site(Warren). In Warren, Deputy President Forgie accepted that the words of s 47F
should be the starting point of any consideration, rather than any presumption that
disclosing the full names of staff in documents increases transparency and promotes
the objects of the FOI Act, or that absent special circumstances a public servant’s name
should generally be disclosed. Deputy President Forgie said:
… It is important to understand the exemptions in the context of the FOI Act as enacted. Its
objects, as set out in ss 3 and 3A, make no reference to accountability. Apart from objects
associated directly with accessibility to information held by the Commonwealth as a public
resource, the objects focus on the way in which accessibility promotes Australia’s representative
democracy. In particular, they focus on increasing public participation in “Government
processes” and on increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of “Government
activities”. The word “accountability” tends to blur that focus and take scrutiny to the level of
scrutiny of individual APS employees and contractors. The FOI Act’s objectives do not establish
a separate merits review process of the activities of individuals engaged in the Government’s
processes or activities.
I have considered the FOI Guidelines in my assessment of the reasonableness of
disclosure of APS staff personal information.
I am satisfied that the disclosure of personal information contained within the
documents would, in the circumstances, constitute an unreasonable disclosure of
personal information for the following reasons:
the individuals whose personal information is contained in the documents are
identifiable
release of this information would cause anxiety to the individuals concerned
no further public purpose would be achieved through the release of the
personal information noting that the personal information is included in the
document as a result of their employment circumstance
the information is current and has not lost its sensitivity through the passage of
time
the placing of the personal information of individuals who work for a
government department into the public domain has the potential to place those
individuals at risk of harassment, abuse, threats and intimidation. This would
be detrimental to the individuals concerned, and potentially also their families.
Mitigating this risk is even more important with the prevalence of social media
- 14 -
and technology allowing individuals to be more easily identifiable and
contactable in online environments
the individuals would not expect the information to be placed in the public
domain, and detriment may be caused to the individuals to whom the
information relates, and
the FOI Act does not control or restrict any subsequent use or dissemination of
information released under the FOI Act.
For the reasons outlined above, I have decided that the parts of the documents marked
‘s47F’ are conditionally exempt from disclosure under section 47F of the FOI Act.
Where a document is found to be conditionally exempt, the department must give
access to that document unless access to the document at this time would, on balance,
be contrary to the public interest. I have addressed the public interest considerations
below.
7.
Disclosure is not in the public interest
Pursuant to subsection 11A(5) of the FOI Act, the department must give access to
conditionally exempt documents unless access to the documents at that time would,
on balance, be contrary to the public interest. I have therefore considered whether
disclosure of the documents would be contrary to the public interest.
Paragraph 6.224 of the FOI Guidelines states:
The public interest test is considered to be:
something that is of serious concern or benefit to the public, not merely
of individual interest
not something of interest to the public, but in the interest of the public
not a static concept, where it lies in a particular matter will often depend
on a balancing of interests
necessarily broad and non-specific and
relates to matters of common concern or relevance to all members of the
public, or a substantial section of the public.
Factors favouring disclosure
Section 11B of the FOI Act provides that factors favouring access to documents in the
public interest include whether access to the documents would do any of the
following:
promote the objects of the FOI Act
inform debate on a matter of public importance
promote effective oversight of public expenditure, or
allow a person to access his or her own personal information.
- 15 -
Having regard to the above, I consider that disclosure of the conditionally exempt
information at this time:
would provide access to documents held by an agency of the Commonwealth
which would promote the objects of the FOI Act by providing the Australian
community with access to information held by the Australian Government.
would not inform debate on a matter of public importance
would not promote effective oversight of public expenditure, and
would not allow you access to your own personal information.
Factors weighing against disclosure
I consider that the following public interest factors weigh against disclosure of the
conditionally exempt information at this time, on the basis that disclosure:
s47B - Commonwealth - State relations
would adversely affect the administration of a continuing Commonwealth-
State project. Any impediment to the ability of the Commonwealth to work
collaboratively with states/territory stakeholders to deliver government
projects on time and to budget is against the public interest.
would damage the continued level of trust or co-operation in existing inter-
government working relationships. Any impediment to the ability of the
Commonwealth to work collaboratively with its state and territory counterparts
for the benefit of the Australian public is against the public interest.
would prejudice the attainment of outcomes of National Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Health Collaboration. Any impediment to the ability of the
Commonwealth to deliver its National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Health Collaboration programs/projects on time and to budget is against the
public interest.
would prejudice or impair the future flow of information from state and
territory governments to the Commonwealth. Any impediment to the ability of
the Commonwealth to work collaboratively with its state and territory
counterparts to the benefit of the Australian public is against the public interest.
s47E(c) - operations of agency
In considering the public interest in disclosing the names and contact details of the
departmental officers to you, I have taken into consideration the following factors that
weigh against disclosure of the conditionally exempt information at this time:
the type of work undertaken by the relevant officers
the fact that the relevant officers were not discharging powers or exercising
functions that impact on the rights and entitlements of members of the
community
- 16 -
the particular circumstances of the relevant officers such that the officers may
be vulnerable to, or at greater risk of harm, if their name and contact details are
disclosed, and
the fact that the relevant officers details are not publicly available, including in
the Government Online Directory
Having regard to these factors, I consider that release of the information to you:
could reasonably be expected to prejudice the ability of the department to
effectively manage its staff. Any impediment to the ability of the department
to manage its staff to meet its operational requirements and
regulatory/statutory obligations is contrary to the public interest.
could reasonably be expected to adversely impact the ability of the
department to attract, recruit and retain staff if a precedent of release of
employment information was established. Any impediment to the ability of
the department to meet its operational requirements and regulatory/statutory
obligations is contrary to the public interest.
s47F – personal privacy
could reasonably be expected to prejudice the protection of the relevant
individuals’ right to personal privacy, noting that the substance of the
documents has been released to you and disclosure of the personal information
would not provide you with any further insight into the workings of
government.
would not achieve any public purpose and, on balance, would harm the
individuals’ right to personal privacy, which would be contrary to the objects
of the Privacy Act 1988 and therefore against the public interest.
would prejudice the other commonwealth department’s ability to meet its
statutory obligations and responsibilities in relation to the work health and
safety of its employees. Any impediment to the ability of the department to
manage the health and safety of its staff would be contrary to the objects of the
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth), and therefore contrary to the public
interest.
could reasonably be expected to adversely impact the ability of the other
commonwealth department’s to attract, recruit and retain staff. Any
impediment to the ability of the department to meet its operational
requirements and/or meet its regulatory/statutory obligations is contrary to
the public interest.
In forming my decision, I confirm that I have not taken into account any of the
irrelevant factors set out in subsection 11B(4) of the FOI Act, which are:
(a) access to the document could result in embarrassment to the
Commonwealth Government, or cause a loss of confidence in the
Commonwealth Government;
- 17 -
(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.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, after weighing all public interest factors for and against
disclosure, I have decided that, on balance, disclosure of the conditionally exemption
information would be contrary to the public interest. I am satisfied that the benefit to
the public resulting from disclosure is outweighed by the benefit to the public of
withholding the information. I have therefore redacted the conditionally exempt
information from the documents released to you.
- 18 -
ATTACHMENT C.
YOUR REVIEW RIGHTS
If you are dissatisfied with my decision, you may apply for a review.
Internal review
You can request internal review within 30 days of you receiving this decision. An
internal review will be conducted by a different officer from the original decision
maker.
No particular form is required to apply for review although it will assist your case to
set out the grounds on which you believe that the original decision should be changed.
Applications for internal review can be made by:
Email:
xxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx
Mail:
FOI Unit (MDP 516)
Department of Health and Aged Care
GPO Box 9848
CANBERRA ACT 2601
If you choose to seek an internal review, you will also have a right to apply for
Information Commissioner review (IC review) of the internal review decision once it
has been provided to you.
Information Commissioner review or complaint
You have the right to seek Information Commissioner (IC) review of this decision. For
FOI applicants, an application for IC review must be made in writing within 60 days
of the decision. For third parties who object to disclosure of their information, an
application for IC review must be made in writing within 30 days of the decision.
If you are not satisfied with the way we have handled your FOI request, you can lodge
a complaint with the OAIC. However, the OAIC suggests that complaints are made to
the agency in the first instance.
While there is no particular form required to make a complaint to the OAIC, the
complaint should be in writing and set out the reasons for why you are dissatisfied
with the way your request was processed. It should also identify the Department of
Health and Aged Care as the agency about which you are complaining.
You can make an IC review application or make an FOI complaint in one of the
following ways:
online at www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/reviews-and-
complaints/
via email to xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
by mail to GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001, or
by fax to 02 9284 9666.
- 19 -
More information about the Information Commissioner reviews and complaints is
available on the OAIC website here: www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-
review-process.
Complaint
If you are dissatisfied with action taken by the department, you may also make a
complaint directly to the department.
Complaints to the department are covered by the department’s privacy policy. A form
for lodging a complaint directly to the department is available on the department’s
website here: www.health.gov.au/about-us/contact-us/complaints
