OFFICIAL
LEGAL, INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
CASA Ref: F25/31723
29 October 2025
Mr Mark Newton
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Mr Newton
ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
I refer to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) received on 20 October 2025
confirming the scope of your request for the following:
Please provide me with a copy of the document entitled "FS 24/02 - Summary of consultation on PIR
2511FS - CASA Class 5 Medical Self-Declaration Review Survey"
On 24 October 2025, CASA acknowledged your FOI request and notified you that a decision would be made
by COB 19 November 2025.
Summary of Decision
I am authorised under section 23 of the Act to make decisions in relation to FOI request. CASA holds 3
document (total ing 18 pages) that relates to your request. I have decided to refuse access to your under
section 47C of the Act.
Further details on my decision can be found at Attachment A.
Rights of Review
If you disagree or are not satisfied with any part of the decision, you are entitled to seek a review of the
decision made. There are two ways you can do this. You can ask for an internal review from within the
agency (CASA), or an external review by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (the OAIC).
Further information on how to apply for a review can be found in Attachment B.
Yours sincerely,
Sara McMul en
A/g Freedom of Information Officer
Legal Services Branch
Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
GPO Box 2005 Canberra ACT 2601 | Telephone: 131 757
1 of 6
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
ATTACHMENT A
REASONS FOR DECISION
The reasons for my decision are discussed below.
Material taken into account
In reaching my decision I have had regard to the following:
•
the terms of your request, dated 20 October 2025
•
searches and inquires undertaken by CASA’s Acting FOI Officer
•
the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act)
•
the FOI Guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner under section 93A of the Act (the
Guidelines).
•
Consultation with the relevant business area
Section 47C: Conditional exemption – deliberative processes
I have determined that all documents are exempt documents under section 47C of the Act.
Section 47C provides:
(1) A document is conditional y exempt if its disclosure under this Act would disclose matter
(deliberative matter) in the nature of, or relating to, opinion, advice or recommendation obtained,
prepared or recorded, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place, in the course of, or for
the purposes of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of:
(a) An agency; or
(b) A Minister; or
(c) The Government of the Commonwealth
(2) Deliberative matter does not include either of the fol owing:
(a) Operational information,
(b) Purely factual material
(3) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) Reports (including reports concerning the results of studies, surveys or tests) of scientific or
technical experts, whether employed within an agency or not, including reports expressing
the opinions of such experts on scientific or technical matters;
(b) Reports of a body or organisation prescribed by the regulations, that is established within an
agency;
(c) The record of, or a formal statement of the reasons for, a final decision given in the exercise
of a power or of an adjudicative function.
The OAIC guidelines provides the following 3-stage test for determining whether a document is exempt
under deliberative processes:
[6.46] this conditional exemption is characterised by a 3-stage decision making process reflecting the
statutory requirements. Firstly, the decision maker must be satisfied that information within the scope
of the request includes deliberative matter. Secondly, if the decision maker is satisfied, they are then
required to be satisfied that the deliberative matter was obtained, prepared or recorded in the course
of, or for the purposes of deliberative processes. Thirdly, the decision maker must be satisfied that
the deliberative processes were involved in the functions exercised by or intended to be exercised by
an Australian Government agency or minister. The decision maker must be satisfied that each of
these requirements is met.
The document subject to this exemption is a draft version of a document that is intended for eventual public
release. The material was col ected during a consultation process of which the data is stil being considered
as the relevant business area of CASA consider various options on how to present the information to the
public.
For the purpose of stage 1 of the Deliberative processes test, I am satisfied that the documents subject to
this exemption are deliberative matter.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
GPO Box 2005 Canberra ACT 2601 | Telephone: 131 757
2 of 6
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Stage 2 of the deliberative processes test requires an agency or minister to be satisfied that the deliberative
matter was obtained, prepared or recorded in the course of, or for the purposes of deliberative processes. As
I am satisfied of stage 1, I must therefore be satisfied of stage 2.
Paragraph [6.54] of the OAIC guidelines states the following:
[6.54] a deliberative process involves the exercise of judgement in developing and making a
selection from different options:
‘The action of deliberating, in common understanding, involves the weighing up or evaluation of the
competing arguments or considerations that may have a bearing upon one’s course of action. In
short, the deliberative process involved in the functions of an agency are its thinking processes of
reflection, for example, upon the wisdom and expediency of a proposal, a particular decision or a
course of action’.1
I am satisfied that the document was prepared for a deliberative matter, that is, the intent was to discuss
various options on how to proceed with presenting the consultation results with the public. As the document
is still a draft at this stage, there is no way of knowing whether the current draft wil be the final report
provided to the public.
As I am satisfied that both stages 1 and 2 are met, I must consider whether the documents identified as
being exempt under deliberative processes were involved in the functions exercised by or intended to be
exercised by an Australian Government agency or minister. I am satisfied that the deliberative process was
involved in the process undertaken in administering the functions of CASA.
As outlined in the OAIC guidelines at paragraph [6.56], a non-policy decision making process may also be a
deliberative process.
[6.56] the functions of an agency are usually found in the Administrative Arrangements Orders or in
the instrument or Act that established the agency. For the purposes of the FOI Act, the functions
include both policy making and the process undertaken in administering or implementing a policy.
The functions also extend to the development of policies in respect of matters that arise in the
course of administering a program. The non-policy decision making processes required when
carrying out agency, ministerial or governmental functions, such as code of conduct investigations
may also be deliberative processes.
I am satisfied that all 3 stages of the deliberative processes test are met.
The public interest test
As I have identified information to be exempt under section 47C, there is a requirement to consider the
application of the public interest test.
Section 11A(5) of the FOI Act provides:
The agency or Minister must give the person access to the document if it is conditionally exempt at a
particular time unless (in the circumstances) access to the document at that time would, on balance,
be contrary to the public interest.
Conditional y exempt material must be released unless, in the circumstances, access to that document at
this time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest as noted in section 11A(5). The Guidelines
state:
[6.236] The decision maker must determine whether access to a conditional y exempt document is,
at the time of the decision, contrary to the public interest, taking into account the factors for and
against disclosure. The timing of the request may be important. For example it is possible that
certain factors may be relevant when the decision is made, but would not be relevant if the request
were to be reconsidered some time later. In such circumstances a new and different decision could
be made
[6.238] To conclude that, on balance, disclosure of a document would be contrary to the public
interest is to conclude that the benefit to the public resulting from disclosure is outweighed by the
____
1 Re JE Waterford and Department of Treasury (No2) [1984] AATA 67 [58]; (1984) 5 ALD 588; British American Tobacco
Australia Ltd and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2012] AICmr 19 [15]-[22]
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
GPO Box 2005 Canberra ACT 2601 | Telephone: 131 757
3 of 6
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
benefit to the public of withholding the information. The decision maker must analyse, in each case,
where on balance the public interest lies based on the particular facts of the matter at the time the
decision is made.
Application of the public interest test and factors against disclosure
When weighing up the public interest for and against disclosure under subsection 11A(5) of the FOI Act, I
have taken into account relevant factors in favour of disclosure. I have considered the extent to which
disclosure would:
promote the objects of the FOI Act general y; and
al ow a person to access his or her personal information.
contribute to public awareness of how the agency handles survey results
I have identified factors against disclosure of the exempt/partial y exempt documents:
it could reasonably be expected to prejudice the ongoing deliberative process involved in the
creation of the document
The document will be available to the public by the end of 2025.
In weighing up the factors, I have determined that disclosure would not further promote the objects of the Act
and would rather prejudice the protection of CASA’s considerations for administrative practices of a
deliberative nature. On balance, I consider that the public interest favours the protection of the deliberative
matter and should therefore not be disclosed.
As such, I am satisfied that the documents identified in the schedule as being exempt or partial y exempt
under section 47C of the FOI Act.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
GPO Box 2005 Canberra ACT 2601 | Telephone: 131 757
4 of 6
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
ATTACHMENT B
INFORMATION ON RIGHTS OF REVIEW
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
Application for review of decision
The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) gives you the right to apply for a review of this decision.
Under sections 54 and 54L of the Act, you can apply for a review of this decision by:
(i)
an internal review officer within CASA;
(i )
the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (the OAIC).
Internal Review
If you apply for internal review, it wil be carried out by a different decision-maker who will make a fresh
decision on your application. An application for review must be:
made in writing;
made within 30 days of receiving this letter; and
sent to the email address shown in the letter.
No particular form is required, but it is suggested to set out in the application the grounds upon which you
consider the decision should be reviewed.
If the internal review officer decides not to grant you access to al of the documents which you have
requested access, you have the right to seek a review of that decision by the Information commissioner. You
will be further notified of your rights of review if and at the time you are notified of the internal review
decision.
Please note that if you apply for an internal review and a decision is not made by an internal review officer
within 30 days of receiving the application, you have the right to seek review by the Information
Commissioner for a review of the original FOI decision on the basis of a ‘deemed refusal;’ decision. An
application for Information Commissioner review in this situation must be made within 60 days of the date
when the internal review decision should be made (provided an extension of time has not been applied).
OAIC Review
Alternatively, if you wish to apply to the OAIC for a review of the decision, you must do so within 60 days of
receiving the decision letter. You can lodge your application in one of the fol owing ways:
Online: www.oaic.gov.au
Post: GPO Box 5288 SYDNEY NSW 2001
E-mail: xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
An application form is available on the website at www.oaic.gov.au. Your application should include a copy
of the notice of the decision that your are objecting to, and your contact details. You should also set out why
you are objecting to the decision.
You can also complain to the OAIC about how CASA handled your FOI request, or other actions the agency
took under the FOI Act. Or you can complain to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
GPO Box 2005 Canberra ACT 2601 | Telephone: 131 757
5 of 6
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
If you are unsatisfied with the action taken by CASA in relation to your FOI request, you can make a
complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Ombudsman wil consult with the Information
Commissioner before investigating a complaint about the handling of an FOI request.
Your enquiries to the Ombudsman can be directed to:
Phone: 1300 362 072
Email: xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
No particular form is required to make a complaint to the Ombudsman. The request should be in writing and
should set out the grounds on which it is considered that the action taken in relation to the request should be
investigated and identify CASA as the relevant agency.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
GPO Box 2005 Canberra ACT 2601 | Telephone: 131 757
6 of 6
OFFICIAL
