4 November 2025
Ms Lizzie Gillanders
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Ms Gillanders
DECISION – ABC FOI 202526-042
I refer to your email sent Wednesday 1 October 2025 seeking access under the
Freedom
of Information Act (Cth) 1982 (the
FOI Act) to:
(a) Any correspondence or record of correspondence exchanged between [former]
Managing Director David Anderson and [third party] referencing comments and
conducts made by [former] ABC Employee Paul Barry;
(b) Any correspondence or record of correspondence exchanged between ABC Pride
Activist [named employee] and [third party] referencing comments and conducts made
by ABC Employee Paul Barry
On Saturday 4 October 2025, by email, the timeframe for processing your request was
extended by agreement by 7 days under s 15AA of the FOI Act. Accordingly, a decision
on your request is due on Friday
7 November 2025.
Authorisation
I am authorised by the Managing Director of the ABC to make decisions about FOI
requests under s 23 of the FOI Act.
Decision
I have identified 2 documents that answer the scope of your request -
Documents 1 to 2.
These documents are described in
Schedule 1, attached. I have refused access to
Documents 1 and 2.
Material taken into account
In making my decision I have considered:
• the scope of your request
• the content of the document/s requested
• the FOI Act
• the guidelines issued by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
under s 93A of the FOI Act (
the Guidelines)
Locating and identifying documents
The search for documents included approaching the Managing Director’s Office and the
named current staff member.
Legal ABC Ultimo Centre, 700 Harris Street, Ultimo NSW 2007
GPO Box 9994 Sydney NSW 2001 |
Email: xxx.xxx@xxx.xxx.xx
link to page 2
I consider all reasonable steps were taken to identify and locate relevant documents
that answer your request. I am satisfied that the searches conducted were thorough
and all reasonable steps have been taken to locate the documents relevant to your
request. I find that the ABC is not in possession of further documents.
I have excluded duplicates of email chains (or annexures if applicable), where an earlier
part of an email or attachment is replicated in a longer email chain, such that a decision
is made on one version only.
Reasons for decision
s 47F – Personal Privacy – conditionally exempt
The Guidelines at paragraph 6.123 defines personal information as including
“
information about an identified individual or an individual who is reasonably
identifiable” which I take to include a person’s name, opinion, and or other identifying
information, such as contact details.
Paragraphs 6.135 and 6.137 of the Guidelines state that the personal privacy exemption
is designed to prevent the unreasonable disclosure of personal information.
In considering whether release of the personal information contained in the
documents is unreasonable, I have considered the following factors in accordance
with s 47F(2), including:
• 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 documents;
• the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources
1; • the current relevance of the information; and
• the circumstances in which the information was obtained and any expectation of
confidentiality.
In further considering whether it would be unreasonable to disclose personal
information without the consent of each individual, I have also had regard to the
following factors which were discussed in the IC review decision of ‘
FG’ and National
Archives of Australia [2015] AICmr 26:
• the nature, age and current relevance of the information ;
• any detriment that disclosure may cause the person to whom the information
relates;
• any opposition to disclosure expressed or likely to be held by that person;
• the circumstances in which the information was obtained;
• the fact that the FOI Act does not control or restrict any subsequent use or
dissemination of information released under the FOI Act;
1 See Re Jones and Commissioner of Taxatio
n [2008] AATA 834; ‘Q’ and Department of Human Servic
es [2012]
AICmr 30.
Page 2 of 5
link to page 3
• whether disclosure of the information might advance the public interest in
government transparency and integrity
2
Individuals named in the scope of the request hold a reasonable expectation that this
information would not be disclosed under FOI, including names, opinion, and contact
details. These emails were exchanged with an expectation of confidence. Only one
person named currently works at the ABC.
If the information was publicly disclosed under FOI, staff and third parties could be
exposed to unwarranted public criticism or targeted online abuse, including
cyberbullying. This detriment is not only possible, but a likely consequence. The FOI Act
places no limit on the dissemination of the information once it is released under FOI.
The ABC has a duty of care to protect the wellbeing of its staff, and disclosure of
identifying details and sensitive private matters in this context could result in a loss of
trust by employees in the ability of the ABC to protect their privacy and wellbeing.
I have found the protection of the relevant individuals’ personal privacy of their
personal information outweighs any public interest in disclosure of that information.
Although the former Managing Director of the ABC is known publicly, his views in this
context were shared with a third party about a private matter. It is my view that the
third party’s right to privacy and protecting that person from being bullied, online or
otherwise, outweighs any public interest in reading about private matters.
In my view, the elements of the exemption in s 47F are clearly met. The parties have not
consented to the release of this information under FOI. I consider it would be an
unreasonable disclosure of that information without each person’s consent. The
documents contain personal information, which is co-mingled with information about
affected third parties which is sensitive and private.
I am satisfied that granting access to the conditionally exempt material in the
documents
would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, I find
disclosure of the documents would be unreasonable. The 2 documents are therefore
conditionally exempt on balance under s 47F.
Had I not found the documents to be conditionally exempt in full under s 47F, it is my
view that s 47E(c) would have applied in the alternative to part of each document.
Review rights
Your review rights are set out in
Annexure A.
Yours sincerely
Ali Edwards
Head of Rights Management & FOI Decision Maker
xxx.xxx@xxx.xxx.xx
2 See ‘FG’ and National Archives of Australia
[2015] AICmr 26 [47]–[48].
Page 3 of 5
Schedule 1 – Document Schedule – FOI 202526-042
Access
Exemption
No.
Date
Description
Page/s
grant
decision
section/s
01
October
Email chain
2
Refused
47F – personal privacy
2022
02
October
Email chain
3
Refused
47F – personal privacy
2022
Page 4 of 5
Annexure A – Your Review Rights
If you are dissatisfied with this decision you can apply for Internal Review of the decision by the
ABC, or Information Commissioner (IC) Review. You do not have to apply for Internal Review
before seeking IC Review.
APPLICATION FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BY THE ABC
You have the right to apply for an internal review of the decision refusing to grant access to
documents. If you apply for an internal review, a delegate who is not the person who made the
initial decision will undertake a review and make a fresh decision.
You must apply in writing for an internal review of the decision
within 30 days of receipt of this
letter. No particular form is required, although it helps if you set out the reasons for review in
your application and include the decision under review.
Application for a review of the original decision should be emailed to:
xxx.xxx@xxx.xxx.xx
or posted to:
FOI team
ABC Legal
GPO Box 9994
SYDNEY NSW 2001
APPLICATION FOR INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (IC) REVIEW
Alternatively, you have the right to apply for a review by the Information Commissioner of the
decision refusing to grant access to documents. Your application must:
• be in writing;
• be made
within 60 days of receipt of this letter (the original decision or the internal
review decision, or a deemed refusal decision);
• give details of how notices may be sent to you (eg. an email address); and
• include a copy of the decision for which a review sought.
Please refer to the OAIC website the IC review process page for further information including the
online form for applying for IC review:
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/your-freedom-of-information-rights/freedom-
of-information-reviews
Alternatively, an application for IC Review can be emailed to:
xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx or
posted to:
Director of FOI Dispute Resolution
OAIC GPO Box 5218
Sydney NSW 2001
The Information Commissioner has a discretion not to undertake a review.
COMPLAINTS TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
You may complain to the Information Commissioner about action taken by the ABC in the
performance of functions, or exercise of powers, under the FOI Act. The Information
Commissioner may make inquiries for the purpose of determining whether or not to investigate
a complaint.
Complaints can be made in writing to:
OAIC - GPO Box 5218
Sydney NSW 2001
Page 5 of 5
