OFFICIAL
CSIRO
csiro.au
xxx@xxxxx.xx
ABN 41 687 119 230
11 August 2025
Our ref: FOI 2025/50
Hubert Farnsworth
Via Email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Applicant
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST – DECISION FOI 2025/50
Your request
I refer to your request of 10th July 2025, under which you sought access under the
Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) to:
“Minutes, pre-reading, supplemental documents and presentations relating to the “Sydney
Consolidation Project” from ET153, ET152 and ET161.
Work product, documents, models and presentations related to the investigation/discussion of
alternative central Sydney arrangements such as: taking up a presence at a university, shared
working spaces, embedding with a corporate col aborator, committing to a smal er location or
reducing the current physical footprint. Limiting these documents to just the Sydney Eveleigh
site”
You explicitly removed personally identifiable information and content which was commercial-in-
confidence from the scope of your request.
I subsequently sought your clarification. In my view, your request could have been interpreted
narrowly to mean ‘formal documents prepared for the purpose of informing, or consulting with, a
decision-maker or stakeholder about changes to CSIRO’s Sydney offices’. Alternatively, your
request could have been interpreted broadly to capture any documents which discuss the Eveleigh
closure. The latter interpretation would have captured emails which included minor administrative
and logistical discussions and would likely resulted in a ‘practical refusal’ on the grounds that the
request was too large.
On 25 July you agreed that the narrower interpretation was the correct interpretation.
After extensive searches and liaison with relevant people throughout CSIRO, I have identified 20
documents in relation to your FOI request.
Decision maker CSIRO
Australia’s National Science Agency
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
I am an authorised decision maker under section 23 of the FOI Act. This letter sets out my decision
and reasons for the decision in relation to your application.
Decision
I have decided that you should be provided with access to 17 documents either in full or with minor
redactions (s 22). I have decided that one document is exempt in its entirety (s 47(1)(b)) and two
documents are conditionally exempt in their entirety (s 47E(c)).
Reasons for decision
My findings of fact and reasons for deciding that the exemption provision applies to a document or
part of a document are set out below.
Materials taken into account
The materials, information and advice to which I have had reference in making this decision are:
i. the terms of your FOI request;
ii.
the content of the document in issue;
iii. the relevant provisions of the FOI Act;
iv. guidelines issued by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of
the FOI Act (the Guidelines) and
v. relevant case law.
Exemptions Claimed
Section 22
You wil note that parts of 14 (out of 17) of the documents that you have been provided with have
been redacted pursuant to s 22, which al ows agencies to edit documents to remove material which
would reasonably regarded as irrelevant.
Most of these redactions relate to names, contact details and personal information, which I have
regarded as irrelevant because you explicitly removed them from the scope of your request.
Some of these redactions relate to the rental amounts CSIRO may be liable to pay under past,
existing, or future arrangements. I have regarded these details as irrelevant because you explicitly
excluded content which was ‘commercial in confidence’ from the scope of your request. CSIRO
regards this information as confidential, and releasing it would have a significant effect on CSIRO’s
commercial interests.
Section 47(1)(b) Information having a commercial value
Section 47(1)(b) exempts from release information which has a commercial value which would be,
or could reasonably be expected to be, destroyed or diminished if the information was released.
CSIRO
Australia’s National Science Agency
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
I have decided that one document is exempt in its entirety for this reason. The document is entitled
‘High Level Scoping Study’ and it was prepared by a third party to inform CSIROs’ real estate needs
and strategy. The authors of the document have highlighted the commercial value of the
information contained within the document, and I agree with that assessment. Releasing the
document would deprive CSIRO of the benefits or advantages it might otherwise obtain as the
procurer of this report. Ideally, CSIRO would be able to leverage this report to make sensible,
informed, and commercially sound decisions as an owner and tenant of property. If the report was
publicly available, CSIRO would not be able to do so.
Section 47E(c) Assessment and Management of Personnel
Section 47E(c) provides that a document is conditionally exempt where disclosure would or could
be reasonably expected to; have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of
personnel by…an agency.
Two documents consist of individual responses to consultations with staff about the Sydney
Consolidation Project. In my view, section 47E(c) does not apply to summaries of the themes that
emerged from consultations. But it should apply to consultation responses which have not been
aggregated and are stil represented as the discrete views of individuals.
Consultations of this nature are generally undertaken with explicit assurances of confidentiality and
an unspoken expectation of confidentiality. Publicly releasing the responses – verbatim – that
individual staff gave would be inconsistent with that genuine and reasonable expectation.
Undermining that expectation of confidentiality would impact detrimental y on staff morale with a
loss of trust in management to protect the information that staff provide. It would also be
reasonably likely to impede future consultations on important organisational matters.
I am satisfied that the detriment is more than mere embarrassment to the employees involved, and
the material if disclosed would have a substantial adverse effect on the future relationship between
management and staff.
I am therefore satisfied that two documents are conditional y exempt under s 47E(c).
The public interest test: s 47E(c)
In balancing the public interest in this case, I have considered the fol owing factors in favour of
disclosure:
i. promoting the objects of the Act, particularly in increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment
and review of the Government's activities (s 3(2)(b) FOI Act)
I do not place significant weight on this factor. To the extent that understanding the views of staff
would enhance transparency, that is already achieved by the disclosure of content which
summarises the general themes that emerged from staff consultation.
Against disclosure, I have taken into account the public interest in maintaining the ability for CSIRO
staff to engage frankly and freely with management about important organisational matters. This
ensures employees maintain trust in interacting with CSIRO management and their co-workers and
that consultations about important organisational matters are as robust as possible. Frank and
robust consultation helps lead to the best outcomes and ultimately leads to a safer, happier, more
CSIRO
Australia’s National Science Agency
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
accountable and more productive workforce, which better enables CSIRO to perform its duties for
the benefit of the Australian public.
Accordingly, the public interest test is satisfied. The public interest test being satisfied, the material
which I conditional y exempted under s 47E(c) is exempt from disclosure under the FOI Act.
Rights of Review
In accordance with section 26(1)(c) of the FOI Act, a statement setting out your rights of review
under the Act is at Attachment A.
Yours sincerely
Mitchel Tucker
Legal Counsel
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
CSIRO
Australia’s National Science Agency
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Attachment A
Review rights
You are entitled to seek review of this decision.
Internal Review
Firstly, under section 54 of the FOI Act, you may apply for an internal review of the decision. Your
application must be made by whichever date is the later between:
30 days of you receiving this notice; or 15 days of you receiving the documents to which you have
been granted access.
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 in the
application the grounds on which you believe that the original decision should be overturned. An
application for a review of the decision should be addressed to:
xxx@xxxxx.xx
If you choose to seek an internal review, you wil subsequently have a right to apply to the Australian
Information Commissioner for a review of the internal review decision.
External review by the Australian Information Commissioner
Alternatively, under 54L of the FOI Act, you may seek review of this decision by the Australian
Information Commissioner without first going to internal review. Your application must be made
within 60 days of you receiving this notice.
The Information Commissioner is an independent office holder who may review decisions of
agencies and Ministers under the FOI Act. More information is available on the Information
Commissioner's website
www.oaic.gov.au.
You can contact the Information Commissioner to request a review of a decision online using the
link
Contact us | OAIC or by writing to the Information Commissioner at:
GPO Box 2999
Canberra ACT 2601
Complaints to Ombudsman or Information Commissioner
You may complain to either the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Information Commissioner
about action taken by CSIRO in relation to the application. The Ombudsman wil consult with the
Information Commissioner before investigating a complaint about the handling of an FOI request.
Your enquiries to the Ombudsman can be directed to:
CSIRO
Australia’s National Science Agency
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Phone 1300 362 072 (local call charge)
E
mail xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Your enquiries to the Information Commissioner can be directed to:
Phone 1300 363 992 (local call charge)
Online via link
Contact us | OAIC
There is no particular form required to make a complaint to the Ombudsman or 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 CSIRO
as the relevant agency.
CSIRO
Australia’s National Science Agency
OFFICIAL
Document Outline
