Dear FOI Officer,

I seek access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) to the following documents held by the Clean Energy Regulator.

Scope of request:

Documents created on or after 1 July 2025 that consider, refer to, or assess the implications of the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on climate change for the Regulator’s statutory functions, compliance activities, or regulatory decision-making.

This includes any documents that:

- discuss international climate law developments relevant to the Regulator;

- assess whether existing regulatory frameworks adequately address climate-related risk or emissions control in light of the Advisory Opinion; or

- provide internal guidance, analysis, or briefing on the relevance of the Advisory Opinion to the Regulator’s operations.

Document types:

This request is limited to:

a) final internal briefing documents; and

b) internal guidance or policy documents of general application.

Where a document was prepared but not finalised, this request includes the latest version of that document.

Exclusions:

This request does not seek any personal information or duplicate copies of documents.

Extension of time:

I agree to an 8-day extension of time under s 15AA of the FOI Act to offset the processing days lost over the government's shut down period from 25 December 2025 to 1 January 2026 inclusive.

Dear Clean Energy Regulator,

An acknowledgement of this request was due 8 January 2026. Please confirm my request is being processed.

Yours faithfully,

Emily

Dear CER - Freedom of Information,

Thank you for acknowledging my request. Your agency is still required to adhere to the statutory deadline of 2 February 2026. Under s 14A of the Electronic Transactions Act, my request was taken to be received when it entered the CER's email system and was capable of being retrieved. Actual awareness or reading of the request is not required when determining time of receipt. Further, an FOI applicant should not be disadvantaged by the CER's email and IT systems.

Yours sincerely,

Emily

Dear FOI Coordinator,

I apply for internal review under Part VI of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) of the decision dated 2 February 2026 in relation to FOI request FOI 251225.

Grounds for internal review:

The basis for this application is that the reasons provided for the decision are insufficient to meet the requirements of section 26 of the FOI Act, particularly in circumstances where access has been refused on the basis that no documents exist under s 24A.

While the decision states that “extensive searches” were undertaken and that “all reasonable steps” were taken to locate relevant documents, it does not provide reasons of the kind required by the FOI Act or the OAIC’s FOI Guidelines.

In particular, the OAIC’s FOI Guidelines provide that where a decision is made under s 24A on the basis that documents do not exist, the statement of reasons should explain why the decision-maker is satisfied that the documents are known not to exist, and should do more than merely assert that searches were conducted (FOI Guidelines, [3.147]). The Guidelines further indicate that the reasons should describe the steps taken to find the documents and note any limitations on those searches (FOI Guidelines, [3.147]–[3.160]).

The decision in this matter does not provide any meaningful explanation of:

a) how the scope of the request was interpreted or applied by the CER;

b) which business areas were consulted and why those areas were considered relevant;

c) the CER’s understanding of its own statutory functions for the purposes of determining whether documents of the kind sought would ordinarily exist; or

d) why, as a matter of institutional responsibility, it is said that no documents exist concerning the implications of the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion for the Regulator’s statutory functions, compliance activities, or regulatory decision-making.

For example, the decision does not explain whether the absence of documents reflects an institutional position that consideration of international climate law developments — including due diligence obligations discussed by the ICJ — is a policy function undertaken elsewhere within government rather than within the CER, or whether some other limiting assumption informed the searches that were conducted.

In the absence of this kind of explanation, the reasons provided do not enable me to understand *why* the CER is satisfied that no relevant documents exist, nor to assess whether the conclusion reached under s 24A is legally and factually justified. In my submission, this falls short of the standard required by s 26 of the FOI Act as explained in the OAIC’s FOI Guidelines.

Proposed resolution:

If the CER is able to respond to this email by Friday 13 February 2026 (ie. to treat this as just a follow up question regarding the decision ) and provide adequate and substantive reasons explaining why no documents exist that are relevant to the Regulator’s consideration of the due diligence obligations and related issues discussed in the ICJ Advisory Opinion — including clarification of how the request was interpreted and why such matters fall outside the CER’s document holdings — I would be prepared to consider withdrawing this internal review application.

Otherwise, I seek that the decision be set aside and the matter reconsidered in accordance with the requirements of ss 24A and 26 of the FOI Act on or before 5 March 2026.

Yours faithfully,

Emily