Dear Australian Broadcasting Corporation,
Dear Australian Broadcasting Corporation,

This is a Freedom of Information Request for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 1982

I seek access to the following:

(a) Any correspondence or record of correspondence exchanged between Managing Director David Anderson and Kate Doak referencing comments and conducts made by ABC Employee Paul Barry;
(b) Any correspondence or record of correspondence exchanged between ABC Pride Activist Manda Hatter and Kate Doak referencing comments and conducts made by ABC Employee Paul Barry

Yours faithfully,

Lizzie Gillanders

Dear FOI ABC,

Thankyou for your response. I can wait until you have time to fully review my request.

Yours sincerely,

Lizzie Gillanders

Dear FOI ABC,

Yes.

Yours sincerely,

Lizzie Gillanders

Dear Australian Broadcasting Corporation,

I am writing to request an internal review of Australian Broadcasting Corporation's handling of my FOI request 'Correspondence internally re comments and conduct made by ABC Employee Paul Barry.'.

Dear FOI Decision-Maker,

Pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (the FOI Act), I request an internal review of the decision dated 4 November 2025 made by Ali Edwards, Head of Rights Management & FOI Decision Maker, concerning my request for access to correspondence involving the former ABC Managing Director, an ABC staff member, and a third party.

1. Misapplication of section 47F (personal privacy)
The decision refuses both identified documents in full under s 47F on the basis that disclosure would constitute an “unreasonable disclosure of personal information.” I submit that this exemption has been applied too broadly and contrary to OAIC guidance and case law.
1. Nature of the information
• The documents concern work-related communications between current or former senior ABC personnel and external parties.
• Information of this nature is professional rather than personal.
• The FOI Guidelines (para 6.152) state that “the disclosure of a public servant’s name and position title is not unreasonable” and that “generally, work-related information about a public servant is not considered to be unreasonable to disclose.”
• In Re James and Australian National University [2015] AICmr 55, the Commissioner held that correspondence about an employee’s professional conduct within an agency was not inherently private.
2. Unreasonableness analysis
• The decision conflates an expectation of confidentiality with unreasonableness of disclosure. As the Guidelines note (para 6.139), the test is objective and requires balancing all relevant circumstances.
• The reasoning relies heavily on hypothetical risk of “online abuse.” That concern, while understandable, is speculative and has been rejected as insufficient in similar cases (e.g. ‘FG’ and National Archives of Australia [2015] AICmr 26 [49]–[51]).
3. Professional context
• Senior executives of the ABC act in a public-facing capacity within a taxpayer-funded institution. Their professional correspondence about ABC business attracts a reduced expectation of privacy (see Re Stewart and Department of Human Services [2013] AICmr 12 [34]–[38]).
Accordingly, the decision misapplies s 47F to material that is not truly “personal information” or, if it is, would not be unreasonable to disclose.

2. Failure to consider partial access (section 22)
Under s 22(1) of the FOI Act, an agency must grant access to any reasonably separable part of a document that is not exempt.
The decision refuses both documents in full without demonstrating that redaction was considered. The FOI Guidelines (para 3.98) make clear that agencies “should always consider whether it is practicable to release edited copies.”
Given that much of the content appears to relate to workplace or factual matters, the ABC should have considered releasing redacted copies removing only names or genuinely personal identifiers. Failure to consider this constitutes a further error.

3. Insufficient public-interest assessment (section 11A(5))
Even if the information were conditionally exempt, disclosure must still be assessed under s 11A(5) to determine whether release would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.
The decision’s analysis is cursory. It asserts that privacy outweighs transparency but does not weigh the significant public-interest factors favouring disclosure, including:
• promoting accountability and transparency in the operations of the national broadcaster (Guidelines [6.19(a)]);
• informing public debate about the impartiality and governance of a taxpayer-funded institution; and
• ensuring public confidence in how ABC management handles workplace and conduct matters involving senior staff.
OAIC precedent makes clear that agencies must demonstrate how they have balanced competing factors, not merely assert that one outweighs the other (see ‘BA’ and Merit Protection Commissioner [2014] AICmr 32 [20]–[21]).

4. Alternative exemption cited (section 47E(c))
The decision briefly states that s 47E(c) (substantial adverse effect on management or assessment of personnel) “would have applied in the alternative.” That conclusion is unsupported by reasoning or evidence. The OAIC has held that agencies must identify the specific adverse effect anticipated and demonstrate how it could reasonably occur (‘IN’ and Department of Human Services [2015] AICmr 23 [39]–[42]). No such analysis appears here.

5. Requested outcome
I respectfully request that the ABC, on internal review:
1. Re-examine the two identified documents and release any separable portions in accordance with s 22;
2. Reconsider the application of s 47F in light of OAIC authority distinguishing professional from personal information; and
3. Conduct a fresh and transparent public-interest analysis under s 11A(5), explicitly weighing the transparency considerations above.
4. I engage my right under S54C for the review to be conducted by a person other than that who made the original decision, and who is senior to, or at least the same level as the original decision-maker.

6. Procedural matters

This request is made within the 30-day period prescribed by s 54B of the FOI Act.
 Please confirm receipt of this request by return email and advise the expected timeframe for internal review completion.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/co...

Yours faithfully,

Lizzie Gillanders