Phillip Tweedie
University Secretary
Director, University
Governance Office
xxx@xxx.xxx.xx

24 December 2025
Claire Fenwick
Via Email:  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx

FOI 2025000200 –Decision Notice
Dear Claire Fenwick

On 18 August 2025, the Australian National University received your request seeking access to documents
under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act).
On 19 September 2025 the ANU wrote to you advising that the request had then become “deemed, but that
it would continue to process it.
We apologise for the delay.

Scope of Request
The scope of your request was as follows:
“I understand the ANU conducted a review into the NCI (National Computing Infrastructure) culture
and organisation in 2023. The report from HBA is available on Right To Know.

I understand a second review, dubbed the Ashurst Report, was conducted into the same issue, and
the ANU received the report in July 2024.

However I have not been able to find a copy of this report. Could you please provide me a copy?

Could you also please provide any correspondence (emails, briefings, etc) regarding Dr Sean Smith's
departure from the ANU in December 2024?”

I have reviewed the original decision. In so doing, I have taken into account:
−  The terms of your request
−  Documentation relevant to your request
−  Advice from University staff with responsibility for matters relating to the documents to which you
sought access
−  The FOI Act 1982 (Cth) (“the Act”)
−  Guidelines published by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) under section
93A of the Act (the FOI Guidelines)
−  Relevant Court, Tribunal and OAIC decisions.

The Australian National University
Canberra 2600, ACT Australia

TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12002 (Australian University)
CRICOS Provider Code: 00120C

4. Decision
The University has located two documents to be within the scope of your request.
I have decided to exempt the two documents in full. Details of the documents and the exemptions claimed
are set out in the Attached Schedule and my reasons follow:
Section 42 – Legal Professional Privilege
Section 42 covers documents subject to legal professional privilege (“LPP”)
To attract LPP for a document:
−  There must be a legal advisor/client relationship.
−  The document must have been created for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice.
−  The advice to be given must be independent; and
−  The advice to be given must be confidential.
I am satisfied the document meets the above requirements as:
−  The document is a report provided by a private law firm.
−  The document was created by the law firm for the sole purpose of providing ANU with the outcome
of the law firm’s investigation and to provide confidential legal advice.
−  The private law firm was independent of ANU; and
−  The brief required confidentiality on the part of the law firm.
−  The report was kept confidential to the relevant officers of ANU with a need to know.
The ANU does not wish to release its claim for legal professional privilege.
On that basis I consider the document is exempt in its entirety

Section 45 – Confidentiality
This section exempts material, disclosure of which would found an action by another person for breach of
confidence.
To found such an action:
(a)  The information must be specifically identified – in this case it is a letter to Prof Smith.
(b)  The information must have the quality of confidentiality – the letter is marked “confidential” and it
contains matters relating to Professor Smith’s that is inherently confidential.
(c)  The material must have been communicated and received on the basis of a mutual undertaking of
confidentiality – the material is contained in the document which was marked “confidential” and
handed to Professor Smith and not communicated more widely
(d)  There is a risk of detriment of detriment to the Professor Smith if the material is disclosed.

On this basis I find that document 2 is exempt under this section.

The Australian National University
2
CRICOS Provider #00120C

Section 47F
In addition, I consider that document 2 is exempt under s. 47F.
This section conditionally exempts material that would amount to an unreasonable disclosure of personal
information.
The document contains personal information about Professor Smith and his employment. I consider it is
unreasonable to release such information, as:
(a)  The release of such information is likely to lead to embarrassment or stress and detriment to the
person concerned
(b)  The information is the type of information people would reasonably seek to keep confidential
(c)  The information was communicated in a confidential manner.
As such I consider this material is conditionally exempt from disclosure under s. 47F of the FOI Act.

Public Interest
Section 11A(5) provides that access to a conditionally exempt document must be given unless access to that
document would, at the time, be contrary to the public interest.
In considering the public interest, I have also considered, as required by s. 11B(1) the public interest to:
(a)  promote the objects of this Act-
(b)  inform debate on a matter of public importance.
(c)  promote effective oversight of public expenditure;
as well as any other relevant matters.
I note the release of the information, may, to some degree, promote the objects of the Act in releasing
information held by the ANU, but it is limited as it relates to one individual.
However, I have identified the following factors against disclosure:
S. 47F
−  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 not well known to
the public generally.
−  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.
Taking all these matters into consideration, on balance, I am of the view the public interest does not favour
the release of the material.
Accordingly, I have determined document 2 is also exempt under s. 47F.

The Australian National University
3
CRICOS Provider #00120C

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; and
−  Access to the documents could result in confusion or unnecessary debate.
I have not taken into account any of those factors in this review decision.

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
4
CRICOS Provider #00120C

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
5
CRICOS Provider #00120C

Document Outline