On 26 September 2025, the decision maker sought advice from the Australian Public
Service Commission (APSC) on release of the free text comments.
On 2 October 2025, the APSC returned the following response:
The OAIC have identified that some of the information requested and identified
for release under FOI includes material that could identify individual
employees. We agree that it would be appropriate to exempt this material from
release under section 47F of the FOI Act. A decision could be made to provide
the free text comments and redact identifying information/terms under s47F.
Request timeframe
Your FOI request was received by the OAIC on 22 September 2025. Therefore, the
decision on your FOI request falls due by 22 October 2025.
Decision
I am an officer authorised under section 23(1) of the FOI Act to make decisions in
relation to FOI requests on behalf of the OAIC.
Subject to the provisions of the FOI Act, I have made a decision to:
• grant access in part to two documents
Searches undertaken
The FOI Act requires that all reasonable steps be taken to locate documents within
scope of an FOI request.
The following line areas of the OAIC conducted searches for documents relevant to
your request:
• People and Culture
A search was conducted in the following OAIC document storage system:
• The online APSC Qualtrics Census Coordinator system
Having consulted with the relevant line areas and, having reviewed the search and
retrieval efforts, I am satisfied that a reasonable search has been undertaken for your
request.
2
Reasons for decision
Material taken into account
In making my decision, I had regard to the following:
• your FOI request dated 22 September 2025
• consultation with relevant line area in the OAIC
• consultation with ASPC in relation to release of the documents
• the FOI Act
• the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under
section 93A of the FOI Act to which regard must be had in performing a function
or exercising a power under the FOI Act (FOI Guidelines)
Access to edited copies with irrelevant and exempt matter
deleted (section 22)
In accordance with section 22 of the FOI Act, an agency must consider whether it is
possible to prepare an edited copy of the documents subject to an FOI request, where
material in the documents has been identified as exempt, or irrelevant, to the request.
I have determined that an FOI Act exemption applies to this material.
I have also identified that the following material within the documents is irrelevant (out
of scope) of your request:
•
material which does not constitute the 2025 OAIC APS Census free text
comments
The exempt and irrelevant material has been removed in accordance with section 22 of
the FOI Act.
Section 47F - personal privacy – conditional exemption
A document is conditionally exempt under section 47F(1) of the FOI Act where
disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information of any
person, including a deceased person. This exemption is intended to protect the
personal privacy of individuals.
Firstly, I must consider whether information in the documents falling within scope of
your request is personal information. Subsequently, I must consider whether release of
any personal information identified would be an unreasonable disclosure.
Personal information
Section 4 of the FOI Act provides that the definition of personal information in the
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) also applies to the FOI Act. The term personal information is
defined in section 6(1) of the Privacy Act to be:
3
… information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is
reasonably identifiable:
(a) whether the information or opinion is true or not;
(b) whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not.
I am satisfied that there are two types of personal information contained in the
documents falling within scope of your request:
• information provided by census participants about themselves and known to a
number of parties, which, for that reason, would identify the census participant;
and
• opinions expressed by census participants about other parties, which, given the
relatively small size of the OAIC as an agency, readily identify the parties about
whom the opinions are expressed.
Whether disclosure would be unreasonable
The FOI Guidelines explain at paragraph 6.133 that
the test of ‘unreasonableness’ in
section 47F ‘implies a need to balance the public interest in disclosure of government-
held information and the private interest in the privacy of individuals.
In determining whether the disclosure of the census free text would involve an
unreasonable disclosure of personal information, the FOI Guidelines provide the
following considerations at paragraph 6.135:
a. the extent to which the information is well known
b. whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be
associated with the matters in the document
c. the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources
d. any other matters the agency or Minister considers relevant.
I consider the following considerations to be relevant:
• the information is not well known
• the persons to whom the information relates are not known to be associated
with the matters in the documents
• the information is not available from publicly accessible sources
The FOI Guidelines at paragraph 6.137 further describe the key factors for determining
whether disclosure is unreasonable:
a. the author of the document is identifiable
b. the documents contain third party personal information
c. release of the documents would cause stress on the third party
d. no public purpose would be achieved through release.
I consider the following considerations to be relevant:
4
• authors of the material are potentially identifiable
• the documents contain third party personal information
• release of the information would cause stress on the third parties
• given that the APSC publishes on their website a broad range of information from
the annual census that is informative without revealing personal information, no
further public purpose would be achieved through release.
Consistent with
FG and National Archives of Australia [2015] AICmr 26, the FOI
Guidelines at paragraph 6.138 explain that other relevant factors include:
•
the nature, age and current relevance of the information
•
any detriment that disclosure may cause to the person to whom the
information relates
•
any opposition to disclosure expressed or likely to be held by that person
•
the circumstances of an agency’s collection and use of the information
•
the fact that the FOI Act does not control or restrict any subsequent use
or dissemination of information released under the FOI Act
•
any submission an FOI applicant chooses to make in support of their
application as to their reasons for seeking access and their intended or
likely use or dissemination of the information, and
•
whether disclosure of the information might advance the public interest in
government transparency and integrity
I consider the following factors to be relevant:
• The information is of current relevance
• There is identifiable detriment that would be caused to the persons to whom the
information relates
• Participants in the survey and those subject to comments and opinions in the
survey would likely express opposition to disclosure of this information
• The circumstances of the agency’s collection and use of the information are
subject to strong advice from the APSC to have regard for personal privacy and
the purpose for collection turns on the APS census eliciting information from
participants in a way that expressly does not risk disclosure of their personal
information
• The FOI Act imposes no restriction on the use of this information
• The applicant has not provided (and is not obliged to provide) any reasons for
seeking this information and has not explained (nor is obliged to explain) their
intended or likely use or dissemination of the information, and
• Given that the APS census results are already published on the APSC website,
disclosure of the free text information would not advance any further the public
interest in government transparency and integrity.
I therefore consider this material to be conditionally exempt under section 47F of the
FOI Act.
5
As section 47F is a conditional exemption, I am required to apply consideration of a
public interest test.
My consideration of the public interest test, in respect of all the material subject to
conditional exemptions in these documents, is discussed below.
Section 47F – personal privacy - public interest considerations
Section 11A(5) provides that where a document is considered to be conditionally
exempt, an agency must give the person access to that document unless the FOI
decision maker would, on balance, would be contrary to the public interest.
As section 47F is a conditional exemption, I am required to apply a public interest test.
This means that I must balance factors for and against disclosure in light of the public
interest.
Paragraph 6.224 of the FOI Guidelines provides that:
The public interest is considered to be:
• something that is of serious concern or benefit to the public, not merely
of individual interest
• not something of interest to the public, but in the interest of the public
• not a static concept, where it lies in a particular matter will often depend
on a balancing of interests
• necessarily broad and non-specific and
• related to matters of common concern or relevance to all members of
the public, or a substantial section of the public.
Factors favouring access
Paragraph 6.229 of the FOI Guidelines sets out 4 factors favouring access that must be
considered if relevant. They are that disclosure would:
a
. promote the objects of the FOI Act
b. inform debate on a matter of public importance
c. promote effective oversight of public expenditure
d. allow a person to access his or her personal information (s 11B(3)).
Of these factors, I consider the following to be relevant:
promote the objects of the FOI Act
Whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest
Paragraph 6.233 of the FOI Guidelines sets out public interest factors against access,
including the following:
6.233 A non-exhaustive list of factors against disclosure is provided below.
6
Public interest factors against access
…….
a. could reasonably be expected to prejudice the protection of an
individual’s right to privacy….
b. could reasonably be expected to prejudice the fair treatment of
individuals and the information is about unsubstantiated allegations of
misconduct or unlawful, negligent or improper conduct…
i. could reasonably be expected to prejudice an agency’s ability to
obtain similar information in the future….
n. could reasonably be expected to prejudice the management function
of an agency
In considering the information in documents subject to this request, I consider that the
following factors do not favour disclosure, where disclosure of the relevant material
could reasonably be expected to:
• prejudice the privacy interests of individuals whose personal information
appears in the documents
• disseminate personal opinions about individuals that would reasonably
be likely to cause them distress or would potentially have a negative
impact on their relationships with other staff and, consequently, their
ability to execute their normal management duties
• where staff would likely be concerned about disclosure of their personal
information, hinder the collection of frank advice in the future that would,
in turn, have a negative impact on the ability of the agency to obtain
feedback for the purpose of agency improvement
• prejudice the ability of the Department to comply with its health and
safety obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act)
In balancing these factors for and against access, I have given weight to the importance
of promotion of the objects of the FOI Act.
However, I have balanced this with the need to protect the personal information of
individuals, who would not expect their personal information, including opinions
expressed by or about them, to be made publicly available through the process of the
APS census.
The purpose of the APS census, as conducted by the Australian Public Service
Commission (APSC), is to elicit feedback from staff which will inform improvement
processes of agencies. It is described on the APSC website at 2025 APS Employee
Census as follows:
7
The APS Employee Census (the Census) is an annual survey used to collect
anonymous attitude, opinion, and perception information on matters in the
workplace. It has been conducted since 2012 and is an opportunity for you to
share your views on your experience of working in your agency and the broader
Australian Public Service (APS)
The APSC also publishes the following information for participants at 2025 APS
Employee Census:
Who will see my response?
Your data is provided to your agency in de-identified, aggregated reports.
Responses are only available if 10 or more respondents have responded from
your unit. Your full, individual response will not be made available to your
agency. No identifying information (e.g. name or email address) is attached to
your response.
Will my responses be disclosed to anyone?
The Commission and Ipsos produce reports and make them available to
agencies. Results are reported for groups of respondents that can be formed by
a combination of demographic information such as gender, age, or where the
respondent works within the agency. The Commission and Ipsos may provide
other parties with de-identified datasets of results. Responses within these
datasets will not be reasonably attributable to any specific individual. There are
strict filters in place so that when there are less than 10 responses (or 30
responses for free text questions), no data will show through any reporting
products. ….
It is clear that staff, in completing the APS census, are assured that the information they
will provide will not be shared to the effect that they will be individually identified or
have their personal information disseminated.
The documents under consideration themselves include the following advice:
Your responsibilities when using this dashboard
Employees with access to this dashboard must be aware of and abide by the
following conditions:
Comments are not available where the cohort being viewed has less than 30
responses, as information contained in comments can pose heightened risks to
individual’s privacy. For this reason, this threshold is higher than the less than 10
responses that is applied across other parts of the Census.
While efforts have been made to remove identifying names from comments,
there may be circumstances that events or people are recognisable. You must
protect respondent’s anonymity by ensuring you are following good practice
when analysing, downloading or sharing these results.
8
When applying filters and downloading responses, it may be possible to isolate
an individual’s response outside of this platform. Doing this is a violation of the
commitment made to employees in the Participant Information Sheet. Ensure
you are compliant with the Employee Census privacy information by only
downloading what is necessary for analysis and storing this information carefully
with restricted access. It is strongly recommended that any comments you share
outside the platform have been reviewed and any further de-identification
completed that may be required in your organisational context (for example,
removing examples of situations that are known in the organisation).
In this statement, the APSC has expressed concern that material only be downloaded
to action what is necessary for analysis and that it be stored within a restricted access
arrangement.
While this statement cannot, and does not, prohibit consideration for FOI release, it
does provide strong evidence of how critical it is to protect personal information from
wide dissemination such as an FOI applicant would be free to enact if granted access.
Further to this, the APSC supports and describes a “speak-up culture”, as being one
that is grounded in the concept of psychological safety and that supports an
environment where staff can feel
safe and supported to raise concerns, contribute
ideas and challenge the status quo without fear of negative consequences. More
information about this can be found here: Building a speak up culture in the APS |
Australian Public Service Commission.
I consider that there are negative consequences of disclosure of information that would
potentially or actually disclose the identities of participants in the APS Census, contrary
to advice provided to them that their personal information will be afforded protection.
There would also be negative consequences of disclosure of information that
constitutes opinions, whether true or not, about staff, identifiable either singly or
through being part of a small cohort, in respect of their work performance.
Where staff may be identified by their roles and negative opinions are expressed about
their performance in those roles, disclosure of this personal information into the
uncontrolled public domain would likely cause them detriment in the form of
psychological harm. The harm would potentially include disruption of their
relationships with, and the morale of, staff working to and with them, and impede their
ability to enact their roles with the degree of confidence and authority required to do so.
Disclosure could also potentially damage their reputations and future employment
prospects.
I consider that, in relation to the material I have found to be exempt, disclosure of this
material would not significantly contribute to enhancing the scrutiny of government
decision making or inform debate. Results of the APS agency-wide census are
published on the APSC website to the extent that material does not identify individuals
and disclose their personal information.
9
Further, disclosure of personal information would be reasonably likely to discourage
participation in the Census, or participants would tailor their responses to take into
account potential disclosure, and this would produce a chilling effect on the provision
of frank advice that is essential to inform agency improvement.
I also place weight on the OAIC’s responsibility to comply with its health and safety
obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act), with regard to the
psychological harm that would reasonably likely follow disclosure.
While you have an interest in receiving access to the exempt material in the documents,
I do not consider disclosure to be a matter of public interest and I consider that the
need to protect the personal privacy of individuals outweighs the factors in favour of
disclosure.
On balance, I consider the public interest factors against disclosure to be more
persuasive than the public interest factors favouring disclosure. I am satisfied that the
public interest is to withhold the exempt material.
I have had regard to section 11B(4) of the FOI Act, which provides factors that are not to
be taken into account.
I am releasing material that I do not consider to be personal information as it does not
actually or potentially identify an individual author, or authors, and that does not
express an opinion about an individual, or individuals, who are readily identifiable.
I have exempted material that potentially identifies individual participants, whether
their feedback is positive or negative.
I am also releasing material where, although the material constitutes opinions about
parties and potentially and broadly identifies staff subject to that feedback by their
roles, the feedback is essentially positive and, therefore, would not be likely to cause
harm or detriment to those individuals.
Release of documents
The relevant documents and a schedule of those documents are enclosed for release.
Please see the following page for information about your review rights.
Yours sincerely
Marguerite Wilson-Foreman
Assistant Director
FOI & Privacy
Governance, Risk and Compliance
Enabling Services Branch
22 October 2025
10
If you disagree with my decision
Internal review
You have the right to apply for an internal review of my decision under Part VI of the FOI
Act. An internal review will be conducted, to the extent possible, by an officer of the
OAIC who was not involved in or consulted in the making of my decision. If you wish to
apply for an internal review, you must do so in writing within 30 days. There is no
application fee for internal review.
If you wish to apply for an internal review, please mark your application for the attention
of the FOI Coordinator and state the grounds on which you consider that my decision
should be reviewed.
Applications for internal review can be submitted email to xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx.
Alternatively, you can submit your internal review application by post to:
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5288
SYDNEY NSW 2001.
Further review
You have the right to seek review of this decision by the Information Commissioner and
the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).
You may apply to the Information Commissioner for a review of my decision (IC review).
If you wish to apply for IC review, you must do so in writing within 60 days. Your
application must provide an address (which can be an email address or fax number)
that we can send notices to and include a copy of this letter. A request for IC review can
be made in relation to my decision, or an internal review decision.
Please note: It is the Information Commissioner’s view that it will usually not be in the
interests of the administration of the FOI Act to conduct an IC review of a decision, or
an internal review decision, made by the same agency which the Information
Commissioner heads: the OAIC. For this reason, if you make an application for IC
review of my decision, and the Information Commissioner is satisfied it is not in the
interests of administration of the FOI Act, and it is desirable that my decision be
referred or considered by the ART, the Information Commissioner may decide not to
undertake an IC review (refer section 54W of the FOI Act).
Section 57A of the FOI Act provides that, before you can apply to the ART for review of
an FOI decision, you must first have applied for IC review.
Applications for IC review can be submitted online at: IC Review application online
form.
Alternatively, you can submit your application to:
11
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5288
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Or by email to xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx.
12
