Freedom of Information reforms
Ben Fairless made this Freedom of Information request to eSafety Commissioner
Dear eSafety Commissioner,
I am requesting documents held by eSafety that relate to the ability, or inability, of the agency to process a large number of Freedom of Information requests.
This is also a request for documents that contain suggestions, ideas, or briefs discussing potential changes to the Freedom of Information Act.
The time period for this request is the previous 12 months.
If any part of this request may cause a practical refusal, please provide a list of identified documents as part of the consultation request.
Please treat as irrelevant duplicates of correspondence, where the final correspondence includes the entire thread (for example, I do not require each email in a conversation if the final email contains all the previous conversations). I also don’t require the personal information of individuals or businesses that are not part of the public service or the government.
Yours faithfully,
Ben Fairless
PS: This request is made in my personal capacity as a member of the public, and not on behalf of my employer.
OFFICIAL
Dear Applicant
I am writing to acknowledge your request under the Freedom of Information
Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act) received on 11 September 2025.
Unless you request otherwise, we will redact the names and personal
information of public servants on relevance grounds pursuant to section 22
of the FOI Act. We will also proceed on the basis that you do not require
duplicates or drafts of material in scope.
The FOI Act allows 30 days for processing your request. This period may be
extended for charges and third-party consultation. We will let you know if
this occurs.
We will contact you at the email address above unless you advise
otherwise. Any documents released to you as part of this decision will be
published on our disclosure log unless one of the relevant exceptions
apply. Further information about the FOI Act, including eSafety’s
publication obligations, is available on our website at
[1]https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/corp....
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
[2]eSafety logo Email-Signautre
[3]Email-Footers icons3[4]esafety.gov.au
[5]Email-Footers iconsT[6]Email-Footers iconsF[7]Email-Footers iconsL
eSafety acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout
Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and community.
We pay our respects to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, and
to Elders past, present and emerging.
Dear FOI Coordinator,
Thanks for acknowledging my request. I don’t appreciate you automatically excluding information under section 22, especially when the FOI Guidelines don’t permit this (see 3.54 of the Freedom of Information Guidelines). Without further explanation as to why the names of government officials are irrelevant to the scope of an applicant’s request, it is unlikely that the application of s 22 is appropriately justified.
Please ensure you amend your templates and procedures so that you are compliant with both the law and the guidelines.
I’m happy to discuss any exclusions you want to make under section 22, however it is ultimately up to me as the applicant to decide if something is irrelevant to the scope of my request.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Fairless
OFFICIAL
Dear Applicant
I write in relation to the above request.
While we are close to a decision in this matter, it now appears unlikely that we will be able to provide you with a decision today. However, we are confident of being able to provide you with a decision tomorrow. We apologise for this delay.
To this end, we ask that you please advise whether you would be minded to agree to an extension of time under section 15AA of the FOI Act, extending the due date to 14 October 2025. We will, of course, provide you with a decision as soon as we are able.
Separately, noting your email below concerning section 22, we ask that you please confirm whether you are content for eSafety to exclude draft documents from your request (where final versions of the same documents are also in scope) as set out in our acknowledgement.
We look forward to receiving your response.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
esafety.gov.au
eSafety acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respects to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, and to Elders past, present and emerging.
OFFICIAL
Dear Applicant
Thank you for your patience.
Please find a decision and statement of reasons in the above matter attached.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
esafety.gov.au
eSafety acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respects to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, and to Elders past, present and emerging.
Dear FOI Team,
I have received your decision and will review it in more detail. This email is not a request for internal review, which may come down the line.
I would like to point out that your decision letter does not comply with section 26(1)(b) of the FOI Act, which requires the name and position of the decision maker to be provided.
This is quite concerning. The decision maker is a delegate of the Commissioner. For them to omit their name is unreasonable, and combined with the attempted use of s.22 earlier in this request raises red flags about the attitude of the agency as it relates to FOI and transparency.
I would appreciate receiving a decision letter that meets the requirements under the Act.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Fairless