Phillip Tweedie
University Secretary
Director, University
Governance Office
xxx@xxx.xxx.xx
2 February 2026
Zara Evans
Via Email:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
SUBJECT FOI 202500299– Decision Notice
Dear Zara Evans,
On 24 November 2025, the Australian National University received your request seeking access to
documents under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act)
.
Scope of the Request
Your request was as follows:
“… a copy of any reports made from the ANU 2025 "ANYOU" staff engagement/pulse
survey. Please include:
•
ANU-wide reports as well as college/portfolio level reports prepared for distribution
to University Leaders.
•
The communications plan for sharing the Pulse 2025 results with the NTEU and
broader staff community.
•
A copy of the slide-deck produced for the University Leadership Group meeting in
November 2025.
•
A copy of the slide-deck produced for the Strategic Leadership Group meeting in
November 2025.”
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a decision on your request for access under the
Act.
The Australian National University
Canberra 2600, ACT Australia
TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12002 (Australian University)
CRICOS Provider Code: 00120C
1. Authority to Make Decision
I, Phillip Tweedie, am an officer authorised under section 23(1) of the FOI Act to make decisions in
relation to FOI requests.
2. Relevant Material
In reaching my decision I referred to the following:
• The terms of your request.
• Documents relevant to the request.
• Advice from University staff with responsibility for matters relating to the documents to
which you sought access.
• The Act.
• Guidelines published by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)
under section 93A of the Act
(the FOI Guidelines).
3. Decision
The University has located four (4) documents relevant to your request, which are outlined in the
attached Document Schedule.
I have decided Document 1 and Document 4 are fully released and will be provided to you in their
entirety.
Document 2 and Document 3 are partially released under section 47C, 47E(c), and 47E(d) of the FOI
Act.
I refuse access to your request for various College/Portfolio reports under Section 24A as the
documents do not exist.
The Australian National University
2
CRICOS Provider #00120C
4. Detailed Reasons for Decision
Section 24A — Documents Do Not Exist
I have considered whether certain requested documents exist under section 24A of the FOI Act.
You requested "…college/portfolio level reports..." The University utilises the
Culture Amp platform
for its employee engagement surveys. As noted in the University’s public FAQs, Culture Amp is a
web-based analytics platform where data is securely stored and processed. For the 2025 ANYOU
survey, the University did not centrally generate or hold static, discrete reports for individual
Colleges or Portfolios. Instead, relevant Deans and Directors were granted direct access to a "live"
digital dashboard to view results for their specific areas. Except for a unique report produced for
the Services Portfolio (Document 4), no other individual portfolio reports were created as discrete
records. After conducting a thorough search, I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been
taken to find these documents and they do not exist.
Section 47C — Deliberative Process (Conditional Exemption)
I have decided that Documents 2 and 3 are conditionally exempt in part under section 47C of the
FOI Act. This section protects "deliberative matter," which includes opinions, advice, and
recommendations prepared for the deliberative functions of an agency.
Specifically, I have applied this exemption to the
"To be considered" sections of the action-
planning slides. These entries represent preliminary advice and potential options submitted to the
University's senior leadership for debate and evaluation. They are not factual records of what has
been decided, but rather the internal "working-out" and advice provided to facilitate executive
decision-making. I have released all factual survey scores to ensure maximum transparency.
Section 47E — Certain operations of agencies
I have also considered whether parts of
Documents 2 and 3 are exempt under section 47E, which
protects the management of personnel (47E(c)) and the proper and efficient conduct of operations
(47E(d)).
The Australian National University
3
CRICOS Provider #00120C
Section 47E(c) – Management or Assessment of Personnel
I have applied redactions to the
"Key Takeaways" and qualitative summary text boxes in
Documents 2 and 3. While the raw survey results and scores are released, the specific executive
interpretations of these results are sensitive. Releasing these unvarnished assessments would have
a substantial adverse effect on the management of personnel by discouraging frank internal
critique and assessment in future survey cycles.
Section 47E(d) – Proper and Efficient Conduct of Operations
In addition to the deliberative nature of the material, I find that disclosing the
"To be considered"
options in Document 3 would have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct
of the University’s operations. In the interest of transparency, I have released all information
regarding actions marked as
"Underway", as these reflect established factual progress. However,
disclosing pre-decision strategies that may never be adopted may cause unnecessary confusion
among the staff community, thereby prejudicing the University’s ability to manage its strategic
planning and cultural reform process effectively.
The Public Interest Test (Section 11B)
As the exemptions under sections 47C and 47E are conditional, I must grant access unless
disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. In making this determination, I
have considered the factors set out in section 11B(3) of the Act.
Factors in Favour of Disclosure:
• Promoting the objects of the Act by providing transparency regarding the 2025 ANYOU
survey data and meeting objectives.
• Informing the public and staff community of the specific progress and actions currently
"Underway" at the University.
The Australian National University
4
CRICOS Provider #00120C
Factors against disclosure:
• There is a substantial public interest in ensuring that the University’s senior leadership can
receive candid, robust, and unvarnished advice. For the University to function effectively,
officers must be able to provide high-level, critical analysis of internal issues. If these
briefings were released, it would create a "chilling effect" where future analysis is
"sanitised" to avoid public controversy, thereby damaging the quality of University
decision-making and governance.
• These documents represent a "working-out" stage. Releasing preliminary thoughts or
proposed strategies that have not yet been adopted could cause unnecessary confusion
among the staff community and undermine the University's planned "Next Steps" (as
outlined in Document 1). The public interest is better served by the University having the
"safe space" to deliberate on sensitive cultural issues before making final decisions.
• The public interest in transparency has already been significantly met by the University's
decision to publish the 2025 Staff Survey Overall Results on the internal ANYOU website.
This provides the community with the factual outcomes of the survey. The additional
public benefit of disclosing the internal deliberations is negligible when compared to the
harm that such disclosure would cause to the University’s internal administrative and
personnel management processes.
Balancing the public interest factors for and against disclosure
After balancing all the above relevant public interest considerations in relation to the matters at
hand, I consider that the public interest factors that are against disclosure
outweigh the factors in
favour of disclosure. Consequently, and overall, I have decided that:
• disclosure would have a substantial adverse effect on the University’s management and
assessment of personnel; and
• access to the material would be contrary to the public interest by undermining multiple
individuals’ privacy, as well as the University’s obligations to protect the privacy of
individuals.
The Australian National University
5
CRICOS Provider #00120C
I have therefore concluded that disclosure of the conditionally exempt portions of
Documents 2
and 3 under sections 47C, 47E(c), and 47E(d) of the FOI Act is not in the public interest.
Contact officer
If you would like to discuss revising your request or have any questions, please contact our office
via email in the first instance vi
a xxx@xxx.xxx.xx quoting
FOI 202500299 as your reference number
in the subject line.
Your review rights are outlined on the following page.
Yours sincerely
Phillip Tweedie
University Secretary
Director, University Governance Office
Australian National University
Encl.
1. Schedule of Documents – Ref. 202500299
2. Document package – Ref. 202500299
The Australian National University
6
CRICOS Provider #00120C
Your review rights
If you are dissatisfied with my decision, you may apply for internal review or Information
Commissioner review of the decision. We encourage you to seek internal review as a first step as it
may provide a more rapid resolution of your concerns
Application for Internal Review of Decision
Section 54A of the Act, gives you the right to apply for an internal review of my decision.
It must be made in writing within 30 days of receipt of this letter, no particular form is required but
it is desirable to set out in the application the grounds on which you consider the decision should
be reviewed.
The application should be addressed to Freedom of Information at
xxx@xxx.xxx.xx.
Application for Information Commissioner Review of decision
Under section 54L of the FOI Act, you may apply to the Australian Information Commissioner to
review my decision. An application must be made in writing within 60 days of the date of this
letter, and be lodged in one of the following ways:
Form: either online form or downloadable form available at
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/your-freedom-of-information-
rights/freedom-of-information-reviews/information-commissioner-review
email:
xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Post: Director of FOI Dispute Resolution, GPO Box 5288, Sydney NSW 2001
More information is available on the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner website.
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/your-freedom-of-information-rights/freedom-
of-information-reviews
The Australian National University
7
CRICOS Provider #00120C
