Attachment 1
FOI 56/2024-25/08
NOTICE OF DECISION
Section 30
Freedom of Information Act 1992 (the FOI Act)
Applicant:
Mr Matthew Russel
PO Box 556
CLOVERDALE WA 6985
Decision Maker: Lara Lynch – Coordinator Records
Date of decision: 08/07/2025
Decision:
That, in relation to your FOI Application (FOI 56/2024-25/08), the fol owing
decision has been made for the reasons set out:
• Access GRANTED to 24 documents in ful
• Access GRANTED to 38 documents in an edited format
• Access REFUSED to 7 documents under the provisions of the FOI Act,
Schedule 1 Clause 3(1) Personal Information
Al relevant comments are described in the Schedule of Documents, which wil
be released with documents upon payment of any fees incurred during the FOI
process. Relevant third parties were consulted, and their views considered
during the decision-making process.
1. Background
On 21 May 2025 the City of Belmont (the City) received your Freedom of Information (FOI)
application for access to documents relating to the City of Belmont Arts and Culture Strategy
(the Application).
Your Application requested the fol owing documents from 01 January 2022 to the 21 May 2025.
(a) Draft and final versions of the Arts and Culture Strategy, including any consultant-prepared
reports.
(b) Communication, engagement, or consultation plans associated with the strategy.
(c) Raw or processed data col ected through Culture Counts or any other evaluation tools used
at City-run events or during the strategy development.
(d) Internal meeting agendas, minutes, notes or working documents where the strategy was
discussed.
(e) Correspondence (emails, letters, memos) between staff, consultants, and elected members
relating to the development of the strategy.
(f) Presentation slides or supporting materials prepared for Information Forums, Council or
Briefings, workshops, or public engagement sessions.
(g) Community feedback summaries, consultation reports, survey results, or written
submissions received as part of the strategy’s development.
(h) Project briefs, scoping documents, consultant reports, survey results, or written submissions
received as part of the strategy’s development.
(i) The audio recording of the Agenda Briefing Forum at which the Arts and Culture Strategy
was discussed.
- 2 -
2. Contacts with Applicant
You paid for your Application on the 26 May 2025, and the City emailed you your receipt on 27
May along with a request for you to provide an Australian address to make your application
valid as required under the FOI Act. The FOI Officer also requested the scope of the
application be reviewed in order to reduce the scope to a more manageable size as is permitted
under the FOI Act.
On 6 June 2025 your application became valid when you informed the City of your Australian
address and advised the City of the reduced scope of your Application. (please refer to the
agreed terms of your application).
The City’s FOI Officer acknowledged receipt and confirmed validity of your Application on 11
June 2025.
On 25 June 2025 an estimate of charges was sent to you requesting 25% deposit of the
estimate fees total ing $82.50 (25% of $330), which you paid on the same day.
3. Agreed Terms of your Application
Through the reduced scope of your Application as per your request of 6 June 2025, the agreed
terms of your Application were to access the fol owing documents relating to the Arts and
Culture Strategy 2025.
(a) Draft versions of the Strategy created between 30 July 2023 – 30 April 2025, including any
with tracked changes, annotation, or consultant feedback
(b) Internal emails between City officers, consultants, and/or elected members discussing
changes to the draft Strategy
(c) Internal memos, briefing notes or meeting notes relating to the draft.
(d) Consultant reports or community consultation summaries that influenced changes to the
draft from July 2023 – December 2023
(e) The audio recording of the Agenda Briefing Forum where the draft or final Strategy was
discussed or presented on 20 May 2025
4. The requested documents under the Agreed Terms of your Application
The initial search of City records discovered 69 documents within scope of the Application as
per the Schedule of documents.
Further searches were undertaken in an archival system where emails are stored. This search
indicated that there were thousands of possible documents to be reviewed which might fal
under item (b) of the Application’s refined scope. As reviewing and assessing these records
would involve a substantial and unreasonable portion of the City’s resources, the City has
decided not to deal with these documents under Section 20 the FOI Act.
Notwithstanding the City’s decision to not progress with this portion of the Application under
section 20 of the FOI Act, the City continued assessing the 69 records within scope of the
Application.
If, after the release of the 69 documents that can be released, the Applicant wishes to seek
access to the records exempt from the Application under section 20 of the FOI Act, the
Applicant may choose to submit a separate application for the additional documents noting the
requirement to provide a scope that can be accommodated by the City.
- 3 -
Of the 69 documents processed under this application 7 documents have been determined as
being exempt in their entirety, 38 have been redacted and 24 documents are being released
without any redactions.
5. The exemptions
I have considered the fol owing exemption in Schedule 1 of the FOI Act:
• Clause 3, Personal Information
Clause 3:
(1) Matter is exempt matter if its disclosure would reveal personal information
about an individual (whether living or dead).
(2) Matter is not exempt under subclause (1) merely because its disclosure would
reveal personal information about the applicant.
(3) Matter is not exempt matter under subclause (1) merely because its disclosure
would reveal, in relation to a person who is or has been an officer of an agency,
prescribed details relating to –
(a) the person
(b) the person’s positions or functions as an officer, or
(c) things done by the person in the course of performing functions as an officer
(4) Matter is not exempt matter under subclause (1) merely because its disclosure
would reveal, in relation to a person who performs, or has performed, services for
an agency under a contract for services, prescribed details relating to –
(a) the person;
(b) the contract, or
(c) things done by the person in performing services under the contract
(5) Matter is not exempt matter under subclause (1) if the applicant provides evidence
establishing that the individual concerned consents to the disclosure of the matter to
the applicant.
(6) Matter is not exempt matter under subclause (1) if its disclosure would, on balance
be in the public interest.
The purpose of the exemption in clause 3(1) is to protect the privacy of individuals about whom
information may be contained in documents held by State and Local Government agencies.
The term ‘personal information’ is defined in the Glossary to the FOI Act as meaning
information or an opinion, whether true or not, about an individual, whether living or dead –
(a) whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information or
opinion; or
(b) who can be identified by reference to an identification number or other identifying
particulars such as a finger print, retina print or body sample.
(Reference:
https://www.oic.wa.gov.au/en-au/FTP021What is personal information?) In this case, the documents contain information about identifiable individuals which consists of
their names, signatures, image, direct contact details, opinions etc. In my view, al of that
information consists of ‘personal information’, as defined in the FOI Act, which is on its face
exempt under clause 3(1) of the Schedule 1 to the FOI Act. The personal information has been
redacted from the documents and the redacting is notated on the documents.
The exemption in clause 3(1) is, however, subject to a number of limits which are set out in
clauses 3(2) - 3(6) of Schedule 1 of the FOI Act.
- 4 -
In this case clause 3(3) applies
“Matter is not exempt under subclause (1)… in relation to a
person who is or has been an officer of the agency…things done by the person in the course of
performing functions as an officer.” Hence, the prescribed details of the City’s officers (names
and positions) are released.
Clause 3(5) “Matter is not exempt matter under subclause (1) if the applicant provides evidence
establishing that the individual concerned consents to the disclosure of the matter to the
applicant” is also applicable in this instance. Your personal details in any document have been
retained.
The other limit on exemption that I consider might apply is clause 3(6), which provides that
“
matter is not exempt under clause 3(1) if its disclosure would, on balance, be in the public
interest.”
Public interest
The term ‘public interest’ is defined in
DPP v Smith [1991] 1 VR 63 AT [75]:
The public interest is a term embracing matters, among others, of standards of human conduct
and of the functioning of government and government instrumentalities tacitly accepted and
acknowledged to be for the good order of society and for the wel being of its members. The
interest is therefore the interest of the public as distinct from the interest of an individual or
individuals…
The application of the public interest test in clause 3(6) involves identifying the public interest
factors for and against disclosure and weighing them against each other to determine where
the balance lies.
I have identified public interest factors both in favour and against disclosure of the requested
documents.
In relation to the factors favouring disclosure, I consider the fol owing are relevant:
• Individuals being able to exercise their rights of access under the FOI Act.
• Information wil assist the applicant in some way.
In relation to the factors against disclosure, I consider that the fol owing is relevant:
• Protecting the privacy of individuals
In weighing the competing factors for and against disclosure of the exempt matter, I consider
that the public interest in protecting the privacy of third parties outweighs the public interest
favouring disclosure of third-party information in this case.
Thus, I am of the opinion that disclosure of the third-party information would not, on balance, be
in the public interest and that the limit on the exemption in clause 3(6) does not apply.
Therefore, I have decided to refuse access to the third-party information that has been redacted
from the documents.
Clause 4 - Trade secrets, commercial and business information
(1) Matter is exempt matter if its disclosure would reveal trade secrets of a person.
(2) Matter is exempt matter if its disclosure —
(a) would reveal information (other than trade secrets) that has a commercial value to a
person; and
(b) could reasonably be expected to destroy or diminish that commercial value.
- 5 -
(3) Matter is exempt matter if its disclosure —
(a) would reveal information (other than trade secrets or information referred to in
subclause (2)) about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs
of a person; and
(b) could reasonably be expected to have an adverse effect on those affairs or to
prejudice the future supply of information of that kind to the Government or to
an agency.
(4) Matter is not exempt matter under subclause (1), (2) or (3) merely because its
disclosure would reveal information about the business, professional, commercial or
financial affairs of an agency.
(5) Matter is not exempt matter under subclause (1), (2) or (3) merely because its
disclosure would reveal information about the business, professional, commercial or
financial affairs of the applicant.
(6) Matter is not exempt matter under subclause (1), (2) or (3) if the applicant provides
evidence establishing that the person concerned consents to the disclosure of the
matter to the applicant.
(7) Matter is not exempt matter under subclause (3) if its disclosure would, on balance, be
in the public interest.
The purpose of this exemption is to protect any commercial or business information provided to
the agencies by third parties and information about third parties dealing with government.
In this case, some documents contain commercial information about businesses, and such
information is exempt under clause 4(3)(a) and (b). The exempt commercial information has
been redacted from such documents, and the exemption is notated on the relevant documents.
However, this exemption is subject to certain limits. In this case clause 4(7) applies which
provides that “
matter is not exempt under subclause (3) if its disclosure would, on balance, be
in the public interest”. I have identified public interest factors both in favour and against disclosure of the exempt
matter:
In relation to the factors favouring disclosure, I consider the fol owing is relevant:
• Individuals being able to exercise their rights of access under the FOI Act.
In relation to the factors against disclosure, I consider that the fol owing is relevant:
• Protecting the privacy of business
In weighing the competing factors for and against disclosure of the exempt matter, I consider
that the public interest in protecting exempt commercial information outweighs the public
interest favouring disclosure, under clause 4(3)(a) and (b). Hence, I have decided to refuse
access to the commercial information that has been redacted and notated on the relevant
documents.
6. Findings on questions of fact
I have decided to release 24 documents in ful , 38 documents in an edited (redacted) format in
accordance with s.24 of the FOI Act, redacting exempt matter and refuse release of 7
documents due to exemption clause 3(1) personal information.
The Schedule of Documents identifies those documents from which personal and commercial
or business information has been redacted. Editing is noted on the documents with reference to
Schedule 1 of the FOI Act.
- 6 -
Sections of some documents have been redacted as they are duplicates and have been
provided via other documents. Details are provided in Schedule of Documents.
7. Right of review
If you are unsatisfied with this decision, you have the right to apply for an internal review of the
decision. An application for internal review of a decision must be lodged with the agency within
30 days after being given this written notice of decision. An application for internal review must:
o Be in writing.
o Contain details of the decision to be reviewed.
o Nominate a return address in Australia for correspondence.
o Contain any other particulars that wil assist the officer conducting the review.
There is no lodgement fee to apply for, or any charges for dealing with, an internal review of a
decision.
An internal review is conducted by a senior officer of the organisation who is not the person, or
a subordinate of the person, making the original decision. For the City of Belmont this is the
Director Corporate & Governance. The internal review wil be completed and you wil be
advised of the outcome within 15 days of making an application for internal review. The internal
review wil confirm, vary or reverse the original decision. The address for lodgement of an
internal review is:
The Chief Executive Officer
City of Belmont
LMB 379
CLOVERDALE WA 6985
Alternatively, a request for an internal review may be lodged in person at the City of Belmont
Civic Centre, 215 Wright Street, Cloverdale.
Should you have any further queries regarding the FOI Act or your rights of review you may
contact the Office of the Information Commissioner on (08) 6551 7888.
Al other queries regarding your application should be addressed to Lara Lynch, FOI Co-
ordinator at the City of Belmont on (08) 9477 7229.
