5 June 2025
Greg Tannahill
eSafety ref: FOI 25134
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Mr Tannahill
Freedom of information request - Decision on access
I refer to your request to the eSafety Commissioner (eSafety) on 6 May 2025 for access to
documents under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). Specifically, you have
requested access to:
I wish to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for documents relating to the
decision to proceed with consultation in regard to social media age restrictions, by calling for
expressions of interest for a consultation panel, on or about 5 May 2025.The scope of the request is
from 1 July 2024 to 6 May 2025, except as otherwise noted.
The specific documents within this scope that I am seeking are:
1. documents relating to the office's understanding of when electoral caretaker provisions conclude,
whether they relate specifically to this consultation or not;
2. documents relating to the office's understanding of whether consultation on social media age
restrictions could proceed during the caretaker conventions;
3. any communication between (a) the eSafety Commissioner or her office and (b) any member of
the House of Reps or Senate, or their office, or any candidate for such a position at the recent
election, that took place between the issue of writs for the election on 31 March 2025 and the date
of this request, being 6 May 2025.
4. any documentation relating to the decision by the eSafety Commissioner or her office to call for
expressions of interest for a consultation panel on or about 5 May 2025.
This request includes, but is not limited to:
* letters, faxes and emails;
* diary notes and calendar entries;
* records of phone or verbal conversations;
* SMSs and online messaging;
* records or minutes of meetings.
I do not require the names or details of individual public servants or staff of the office and these can
be redacted, except in relation to references to Ms Julie Inman-Grant personally or in her capacity
as eSafety Commissioner.
I *do* require the names of any current or former members of the federal House of Representatives
or Senate who may appear in these documents. I do not require the names of staffers in their offices
and any such individuals may be identified simply by reference to the member they work for.
On 27 May 2025, you confirmed our understanding of the scope of items (3) and (4), as follows:
A list of all communications between:
- the eSafety Commissioner or her office, and
- any member of the Australian House of Representatives or Senate, or their office, or any candidate
for such a position at the recent election, that took place between the issue of writs for the
Commonwealth general election on 31 March 2025 and 6 May 2025.
Email: xxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Where relevant communications relate to consultation about social media age restriction measures
under the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth), the list should include:
- the date of the communication
- the identity of the sender and recipient, and
- a brief description of the communication.
For relevant communications on all other topics, the list does not need to include a description of
the relevant communications.
For item 4, we understand the scope of your request to be documents relating to the choice of 5 May
2025 specifically as the date for the consultation callout.
Decision
I am authorised under section 23(1) of the FOI Act to make decisions under that Act.
I have identified 12 documents that fall within the scope of your request. I have decided to:
• grant access to 10 documents in full (with irrelevant material removed); and
• grant access to 2 documents in part under s 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
Pursuant to section 22 of the FOI Act, I have redacted the following information from the
documents that is irrelevant to the scope of your request:
• information contained in documents which are otherwise responsive to items 1, 2 or 4
of your request that does not relate to the consultation on the social media minimum
age and/or eSafety’s consideration of caretaker conventions
• consistent with the wording of your request and our acknowledgement of 12 May 2025,
the names and other personal information of public servants (except for eSafety
Commissioner Julie Inman Grant).
Searches for documents
The FOI Act requires that all reasonable steps must be taken to find documents relevant to an
FOI request.
Searches for documents were undertaken by the eSafety’s Commissioner’s office, Strategic
Communications Team, Social Media Age Restriction Team and the Regulatory Operations
Branch across eSafety’s various communications and document management systems,
including Microsoft Outlook and SharePoint.
I am therefore satisfied that all reasonable steps were taken to find documents relevant to
your request.
Material taken into account
In making my decision, I have considered the following:
• the scope of your request
Email: xxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
• the documents in scope of your request
• the relevant provisions of the FOI Act, including sections 11A, 11B, 17, 22 and 47E(d)
• advice from eSafety personnel
• the guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under section 93A of
the FOI Act (FOI Guidelines).
Reasons for decision
The attached schedule of documents provides a description of each document and my decision
on access for each one. The reasons for my decisions are outlined below.
Section 17 of the FOI Act – requests involving the use of computers
The information sought in item 3 of your request (being a list of communications) does not
exist in discrete form in documents of eSafety.
Under section 17 of the FOI Act, if an FOI request is made for a document that could be
produced by using a computer ordinarily available to the agency for retrieving or collating
stored information, an agency is required to deal with the request as if it was a request for
written documents to which the FOI Act applies.
The FOI Guidelines [at 3.204] explain that section 17 may require an agency to produce a written
document of information that is stored electronically and not in a discrete form, if it does not
appear from the request that the applicant wishes to be provided with a computer tape or
disk on which the information is recorded. The obligation to produce a written document arises
if:
• the agency could produce a written document containing the information by using a
computer or other equipment that is ordinarily available to the agency for retrieving or
collating stored information (section 17(1)(c)(i)), or making a transcript from a sound
recording (section 17(1)(c)(ii)); and
• producing a written document would not substantially and unreasonably divert the
resources of the agency from its other operations (section 17(2)).
If those conditions are met, the FOI Act applies as if the applicant had requested access to
the written document and it was already in the agency’s possession.
The information responsive to item 3 of your request is not held in a discrete form by eSafety
but is able to be produced in a written document through the use of a computer.
Pursuant to section 17 of the FOI Act, eSafety has used its computer systems to produce a
document that contains the following information:
Email: xxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
• a list of all communications between eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant (or her
office) and any member of the Australian House of Representatives or Senate, or their
office, or any candidate for such a position at the recent election, dated between 31
March 2025 and 6 May 2025
• the date, sender, recipient and subject of each communication.
Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act – agency operations
Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditionally exempt 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.
Documents 9 and 10 contain correspondence related to recurring internal eSafety meetings
with Microsoft Teams meeting links.
I consider the release of recurring Teams meeting links and codes would, or could reasonably
be expected to, have a substantial and adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of
the operations of eSafety. Disclosure of this information would provide the general public with
access to internal meeting information, potentially facilitating unauthorised access to internal
meetings and sensitive government information. To provide access to these meetings would
circumvent the established methods of communication eSafety has established with the
broader public, and compromise the conduct and confidentiality of eSafety’s business.
I therefore consider documents 9 and 10 are conditionally exempt from release in part under
section 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
As section 47E is a conditional exemption, I am required to apply the public interest test
outlined in section 11A of the FOI Act. The public interest test is addressed below.
Public interest considerations – section 47E(d)
Under section 11A of the FOI Act, access to a document covered by a conditional exemption
must be given unless access to the document would, on balance, be contrary to the public
interest.
Section 11B(3) of the FOI Act sets out matters favouring access that must be taken into account
in considering whether release is in the public interest.
For the material identified above as conditionally exempt under s 47E(d), I consider that
disclosure would generally promote the objectives of the FOI Act by facilitating access to
government-held information.
Against release, for the material identified as conditionally exempt from disclosure under
section 47E(d) of the FOI Act, I consider that there is strong public interest in preserving the
efficiency and security of eSafety’s communications and authorities, which would be
undermined by the disclosure of login links and details for internal calls. I also consider this
Email: xxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
particular information (a link and login details to an internal meeting) to be of very little public
interest or value outside of eSafety use.
On balance, I consider there are overriding public interest factors against disclosure of the
material identified as conditionally exempt. I have therefore decided this material is exempt
from disclosure under section 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
I have not taken into account any of the ‘irrelevant factors’ set out in section 11B(4) of the FOI
Act.
Further information about caretaker conventions
In your email of 12 May 2025, you noted that:
The thrust of my enquiry is as to whether eSafety felt that it was bound by caretaker
conventions on that date (and why), and whether it thought that caretaker conventions
prevented it from taking this action (and why), and as to whether a potential change of
minister was relevant in the timing.
eSafety operates pursuant to the caretaker conventions during an election period in
accordance with th
e Guidance on Caretaker Conventions prepared and published by the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
In November 2024, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 passed
the Parliament with bipartisan support from the major parties. In December 2024, the Bill
received Royal Assent. Each of these steps occurred before the announcement of the election.
eSafety has sought expressions of interest from members of the Australian community, experts
and online service providers, in being consulted on the implementation of the age restriction
legislation.
Consultation through this group will commence later this month and continue in the lead up
to the social media minimum age obligations commencing in December 2025 and beyond.
Disclosure log and review rights
Section 11C of the FOI Act requires agencies to publish documents released to members of the
public on their website within 10 days of release, except if they contain personal or business
information that would be unreasonable to publish.
I am of the view that the documents do not contain personal or business information that
would be unreasonable to publish. Accordingly, the documents will be published on eSafety’s
disclosure log.
Email: xxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Please see enclosed information about your review rights.
Yours faithfully
Manager, Legal – Business Services
Attachments
1. Schedule of documents
2. Rights of review
Email: xxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
ATTACHMENT 1: SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS
Number
Date
Description
Decision on access
Exemptions or deletions
1
28/03/2025
Internal email correspondence
Release in full
s 22
2
26/03/2025
Internal email correspondence
Release in full
s 22
3
9/04/2025
Internal email correspondence
Release in full
s 22
4
28/03/2025
Internal email correspondence
Release in full
s 22
5
20/12/2024
Internal email correspondence
Release in full
s 22
Various
Document created pursuant to s 17 of the FOI Act:
6
List of correspondence between the Office of the
eSafety Commissioner and Commonwealth Release in full
Departments
7
24/04/2025
- Internal email correspondence
8/05/2025
Release in full
s 22
8
Various
Internal Microsoft Teams correspondence
Release in full
s 22
9
23/11/2023
- Internal email correspondence
17/04/2025
Release in part
s 22; s 47E(d)
10
16/04/2025
- Internal email correspondence
29/04/2025
Release in part
s 22; s 47E(d)
Number
Date
Description
Decision on access
Exemptions or deletions
11
Updated
Internal Jira matter summary
7/05/2025
Release in full
s 22
12
Updated
Internal Jira matter summary
7/05/2025
Release in full
s 22
