Docusign Envelope ID: 621013A1-017E-40E1-A9D2-D7B308A25269
Phillip Tweedie
University Secretary
Director, University
Governance Office
xxx@xxx.xxx.xx
5 December 2025
Isabella Fairfax Chisolm
Via Email:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
SUBJECT FOI 202500160– Decision Notice
Dear Isabella Fairfax Chisolm,
On 20 July 2025, the Australian National University received your request seeking access to
documents under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act)
.
On 19 November 2025, the University contacted you and advised that significant delays were being
experienced in the processing of your request and that your request was currently considered to
be a deemed refusal. You were further advised that the university was continuing to process your
request, and a decision would be provided as soon as possible.
Further, a notice of consult delay was issued to you on 19 November 2025, providing a new
decision date of 18 September 2025.
On 20 November 2025, the University submitted a request for extension of time under section
15AC of the Act to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) which was
subsequently declined.
1. Scope of Request
I have taken your request to be as follows:
I am writing to request access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
The Australian National University
Canberra 2600, ACT Australia
TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12002 (Australian University)
CRICOS Provider Code: 00120C
Docusign Envelope ID: 621013A1-017E-40E1-A9D2-D7B308A25269
I seek access to the following documents held by the University, covering the period from 1 July
2022 to the present:
1. The current and any previous employment contracts, performance agreements, or related
documents for the Vice-Chancellor that specify Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), performance
targets, strategic objectives, or any similar performance metrics.
2. Any documents submitted to, received by, or generated by the University Council or its
Remuneration Committee concerning the Vice-Chancellor’s performance, including performance
reviews, evaluations, outcome summaries, or correspondence relating to the assessment of KPIs.
3. Any performance assessment forms, reports, or records completed using the University’s online
systems, such as eForms, Focus, or any other performance management platform, concerning the
Vice-Chancellor’s performance.
4. Any summary reports or recommendations provided to Council or a senior governance body
related to the Vice-Chancellor’s eligibility for bonus payments, contract renewal, or other
remuneration outcomes based on performance assessment since 1 July 2022.
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a decision on your request for access under the
Act.
2.
Authority to Make Decision
I am an officer authorised under section 23 of the Act to make decisions in respect of requests to
access documents or to amend or annotate records.
3. Relevant Material
In reaching my decision I referred to the following:
• The terms of your request
• Documents relevant to the request
• Advice from University staff with responsibility for matters relating to the documents
to which you sought access
• Advice from third parties on consultation
• The Act
• Guidelines published by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)
under section 93A of the Act (the FOI Guidelines)
The Australian National University
2
CRICOS Provider #00120C
Docusign Envelope ID: 621013A1-017E-40E1-A9D2-D7B308A25269
4. Decision
ANU has located seven (7) documents with one (1) attachment, relevant to your request.
I have decided document 1 is a partially exempt document and will be released to you with the
appropriate redactions, for the reasons discussed below.
Documents 2-7 are fully exempt documents and will not be supplied to you for the reasons
discussed below.
4.1 Section 22 of the Act – Irrelevant to request, impractical to provide edited version of
document
I have determined that document 1 contains material which is outside the scope of your request,
and these parts of the document have been redacted in accordance with section 22 of the Act. No
information, which relates to you or your request, was identified in the redacted parts of the
document. Accordingly, the information was deemed irrelevant and therefore excluded from
disclosure.
4.2 Section 45 of the Act – Documents containing material obtained in confidence
Section 45 of the Act provides that:
(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would found an action,
by a person (other than an agency, the Commonwealth, or Norfolk Island), for breach of
confidence.
Documents 2-6a contain sensitive material that was supplied on the understanding of
confidentiality for a specific purpose. The information in the documents was provided on the
understanding of confidentiality and that the information would not be disseminated beyond the
personnel involved in the matters about which it was prepared, namely a function of the
University’s Performance Review and assessment of ANU Executive staff. Disclosure of the
information contained in the document could undermine the ability of the University to obtain
information of a similar nature and quality in the future.
I have determined that if the University were to disclose the information, the disclosure could
result in claims against the University. In making my decision I considered the following factors:
The Australian National University
3
CRICOS Provider #00120C
Docusign Envelope ID: 621013A1-017E-40E1-A9D2-D7B308A25269
(a) The information identified as confidential is inherently confidential and not
publicly available;
(b) The information was provided for a specific purpose;
(c) The information was provided on the understanding of confidentiality and that
the information would not be disseminated further; and
(d) The University is under an implied obligation to keep this information
confidential.
Accordingly, I consider the information identified within documents 2-6a to be exempt from
disclosure under section 45 of the Act.
Further, section 45 is not a conditional exemption and consideration of whether non-disclosure
would be contrary to the public interest is not required.
4.3 Section 47E(c) of the Act – Certain Operations of Agencies
Section 47E(c) of the Act provides that a document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under
this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the
management or assessment of personnel by the Commonwealth or by an agency.
Documents 2-7 have been prepared for a specific purpose – that being discussions regarding the
Performance Review and assessment of ANU Executive staff for the consideration of the relevant
personnel who are involved in a mechanism of the University that manages staff (Section 47E(c) of
the Act.
I consider it important that negotiations in relation to employment, particularly at a senior level be
conducted in a confidential manner to enable a frank exchange of views around the employment
and unbiased feedback around employment issues.
If specific employment issues were made public relevant parties would be less willing to give
candid advice and it may discourage some worthy candidates from putting their names forward for
high level positions.
The Australian National University
4
CRICOS Provider #00120C
Docusign Envelope ID: 621013A1-017E-40E1-A9D2-D7B308A25269
On this basis I consider that the documents 2-7 are conditionally exempt under section 47E(c) on
the grounds that disclosure would or could reasonably be expected to impede the University’s
ability to effectively manage its personnel.
The Public Interest – s47E(c)
Even though I have decided that documents 2-7 are conditionally exempt under section 47E(c) and
(d), I am also required to consider whether disclosing this information would, on balance, be
contrary to the public interest. If I am not satisfied of that, access must be given.
Section 31B of the Act provides that a document is exempt if it is conditionally exempt under
Division 3, and access to the document would also, on balance, be contrary to the public interest
for the purposes of section 11A(5) of the Act.
I have weighed the factors in favour of disclosure versus those against it.
I have identified the following factor for disclosure:
➢ it would promote the objects of the Act, as described in section 3.
I have identified the following factors against disclosure:
➢ disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the protection of the right to privacy
of the individuals
➢ disclosure would have the effect of inhibiting frank and free discussion around
employment issues
➢ disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the management function of the
University;
➢ disclosure could have a potential harm to staff morale, the integrity of the performance
management system, and the overall ability of the agency to function effectively;
➢ disclosure of the documents would not inform debate on a matter of public importance;
➢ disclosure would not provide an oversight of public expenditure; and
➢ disclosure of conditionally exempt material would not allow a person to access his or her
own personal information.
On balance, I consider that the public interest favours maintaining the ability of the University to
maintain the confidence of persons when they engage in providing information to the University
The Australian National University
5
CRICOS Provider #00120C
Docusign Envelope ID: 621013A1-017E-40E1-A9D2-D7B308A25269
for the purposes of managing University staff/personnel, ensuring the best outcome for University
employees and the ANU.
4.5
Section 47F of the Act – Personal Privacy
Section 47F of the Act provides that material is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act
would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person.
The information considered exempt under this section of the Act contains personal information
about former Vice Chancellors of the University.
I have decided that the disclosure of this personal information would be an unreasonable
disclosure of personal information about that person.
As there has been significant public scrutiny and Media attention regarding the former Vice
Chancellor, disclosure of personal information has potential to cause significant harm and distress
should the information be disclosed
The Act states that, when deciding whether the disclosure of the personal information would be
‘unreasonable’, I must have regard to four factors set out in section 47F(2) of the Act. I have
therefore considered each of these factors below:
• The extent to which the information is well known
• 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
• The availability of the information from publicly available resources
• Any other matters that the agency or the Minister considers relevant
I am satisfied that the disclosure of the redacted information within the documents would involve
an unreasonable disclosure of personal information about those individuals whose identity is able
to be ascertained and is “personal information” within the meaning of the
Privacy Act 1988.
The information is the type of information that ordinary people would not wish to have disclosed,
particularly noting the release under FOI is release to the world.
This information is not available from publicly accessible sources.
The Australian National University
6
CRICOS Provider #00120C
Docusign Envelope ID: 621013A1-017E-40E1-A9D2-D7B308A25269
I have decided that the information referred to above is conditionally exempt under section 47F of
the Act. Access to a conditionally exempt document must generally be given unless it would be
contrary to the public interest to do so.
The Public Interest- Section 47F
Section 31B of the Act provides that material is exempt if it is conditionally exempt under
Division 3, and access to the material would also, on balance, be contrary to the public interest for
the purposes of s.11A(5) of the Act.
In applying this test, I have weighed the factors in favour of disclosure against those against it.
I do not consider that access to the information about individuals would promote the objects of the
Act, as described in section 3 to any significant degree.
I have identified the following factors against disclosure:
• The disclosure of personal information which is conditionally exempt under section 47F(1)
of the FOI Act could reasonably be expected to prejudice the protection of those
individuals' right to privacy The personal information which is conditionally exempt under
section 47F(1) is the type of information a person would wish to keep private and is not
well known to the public generally.
• Disclosure of personal information around the performance review and assessment
processes may inhibit honest exchange of information about candidates, thus adversely
affecting the recruitment process and potentially on-going working relationships.
• Disclosure of personal information could reasonably be expected to cause significant harm
and stress;
• This information is not available from publicly accessible sources. I have had regard to the
fact that disclosure of information under the FOI Act must be considered to be a disclosure
to the world at large and not just to you as the applicant.
• The University is committed to complying with its obligations under the
Privacy Act 1988,
which sets out standards and obligations that regulate how the University must handle and
manage personal information. It is firmly in the public interest that the University uphold
the rights of individuals to their own privacy and meets its obligations under the
Privacy
Act 1988. I consider that this factor weighs heavily against disclosure of the personal
information contained within the document.
Balancing all of the above relevant public interest considerations, I have concluded that the
disclosure of the conditionally exempt information in the documents is not in the public interest
and therefore the material is exempt from disclosure under the FOI Act.
The Australian National University
7
CRICOS Provider #00120C
Docusign Envelope ID: 621013A1-017E-40E1-A9D2-D7B308A25269
Irrelevant matters
I have also had regard to section 11B(4) of the Act which sets out the factors which are irrelevant
to my decision, which are:
• Access to the documents could result in embarrassment to the Commonwealth
Government, or cause a loss of confidence in the Commonwealth Government.
• Access to the documents could result in any person misinterpreting or misunderstanding
the documents.
• The authors of the documents were (or are) of high seniority in the agency to which the
request for access to the documents was made.
• Access to the documents could result in confusion or unnecessary debate.
I have not taken into account any of those factors in this decision.
A copy of the document schedule is enclosed with this letter.
Your review rights are outlined on the following page.
Yours sincerely
Mr Phillip Tweedie
University Secretary
Director, University Governance Office
Australian National University
The Australian National University
8
CRICOS Provider #00120C
Docusign Envelope ID: 621013A1-017E-40E1-A9D2-D7B308A25269
Your review rights
If you are dissatisfied with my decision, you may apply for internal review or Information
Commissioner review of the decision. We encourage you to seek internal review as a first step as it
may provide a more rapid resolution of your concerns
Application for Internal Review of Decision
Section 54A of the Act, gives you the right to apply for an internal review of my decision.
It must be made in writing within 30 days of receipt of this letter, no particular form is required but
it is desirable to set out in the application the grounds on which you consider the decision should
be reviewed.
The application should be addressed to Freedom of Information at
xxx@xxx.xxx.xx.
Application for Information Commissioner Review of decision
Under section 54L of the FOI Act, you may apply to the Australian Information Commissioner to
review my decision. An application must be made in writing within 60 days of the date of this
letter, and be lodged in one of the following ways:
Form: either online form or downloadable form available at
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/your-freedom-of-information-
rights/freedom-of-information-reviews/information-commissioner-review
email:
xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Post: Director of FOI Dispute Resolution, GPO Box 5288, Sydney NSW 2001
More information is available on the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner website.
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/your-freedom-of-information-rights/freedom-
of-information-reviews
The Australian National University
9
CRICOS Provider #00120C
