www.oaic.gov.au

GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001

P +61 2 9284 9800 F +61 2 9284 9666
E xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Enquiries 1300 363 992 TTY 1800 620 241
ABN 85 249 230 937

Our reference: FOIREQ18/00066
Mr Ned Caractacus

By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Mr Caractacus
Your Freedom of Information request
I refer to your request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (the
FOI Act), received by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) on 4 June 2018.
You requested access to:
I would like a copy of the records of the OAIC's inquiries with the Department of Human
Services in response to media reports that Centrelink had released personal information into
the public domain, as referred to in this media release:
https://apac01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oaic.gov.au%2F
media-and-speeches%2Fstatements%2Fcentrelink-debt-recovery-
system&data=01%7C01%7Cenquiries%40oaic.gov.au%7C69de7a036a9e4073b15808d5c9f4e61
9%7Cea4cdebd454f4218919b7adc32bf1549%7C1&sdata=g5sU%2FbE241Z78rQ45bJcFg%2FHM
l0tkRx%2BinDYjisRjpQ%3D&reserved=0
In particular, I would like copies of any analysis, including email, memos, policy papers, file
notes or similar, setting out the reasoning for the Commissioner's view that Centrelink's
disclosure of personal information about [identified individual] to the media was permitted by
APP 6.2(a)(ii).
I would also like a copy of any submissions made to the OAIC by Centrelink or the Department
of Human Services in relation to this matter.
Decision
I am an officer authorised under s 23(1) of the FOI Act to make decisions in relation to FOI requests.
On the 16 July 2018, subsequent to notice of third party consultation, you made a request to the
OAIC to treat the two parts of your request as separate requests to enable you faster access to
documents fal ing within the scope of the first part of your request ("copies of any analysis,
including email, memos, policy papers, file notes or similar, setting out the reasoning for the
Commissioner's view that Centrelink's disclosure of personal information about [identified
individual] to the media was permitted by APP 6.2(a)(ii)").
www.oaic.gov.au | 1

Both parts of your request include documents containing personal information which it appeared to
the OAIC that the person concerned might reasonably wish to make a contention. At the time of your
16 July 2018 request, the period for processing your FOI request had already been extended by 30
days to al ow time to consult. Consequently, the OAIC has, for the sake of brevity, continued to deal
with your request as one whole.
I have identified 49 documents within the scope of your request. I have decided to grant access to
three documents in ful  and three in part.  I have decided to refuse access in full to 43 documents.
In making this decision, I have relied on the fol owing exemptions in the FOI Act:
•  Legal professional privilege (s 42)
•  Certain operations of an agency exemption (s 47E(d))
•  Personal privacy (s 47F)
A schedule of documents, which details my decision in relation to each document, can be found at
the end of this letter.
The documents, or parts thereof, which I have decided you should have access to will be provided
fol owing this decision letter.
Reasons for decision
Material taken into account
In making my decision, I have had regard to the fol owing:
•  your Freedom of Information request dated 4 June 2018
•  the documents at issue
•  the FOI Act
•  submissions received from two Commonwealth agencies
•  relevant case law, in particular John Hilvert and Australian Bureau of Statistics (Freedom of
Information) [2017] AICmr 43, Nick Xenophon and Australian Bureau of Statistics (Freedom of
Information) [2017] AICmr 42, DZ and Commonwealth Ombudsman [2014] AICmr 137 and
‘NW’ and Screen Australia (Freedom of Information) [2018] AICmr 15
•  the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the FOI Act
to which regard must be had in performing a function or exercising a power under the FOI
Act (the FOI Guidelines), in particular paragraphs [5.126]-[5.154], [6.4]-[6.28] and [6.120]-
[6.123].
Documents subject to legal professional privilege (s 42)
Section 42 exempts a document if it is of such a nature that it would be privileged from production
in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege (LPP) and privilege has not been
waived. Under the Guidelines, in determining whether a document is subject to LPP, I must look at
the purpose of the communication and whether:
•  There is a lawyer-client relationship
2 | P a g e

link to page 3 •  The communication was for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice or for use in
connection with litigation
•  The advice is independent
•  The advice is confidential.
I have identified 36 documents that are exempt in full on this basis. The majority of these
documents involve communications between the OAIC’s internal legal adviser and other officers of
the OAIC, as well as communications with external legal advisers, and were made in circumstances
of confidentiality. I am satisfied that the purpose of these communications was to give and/or
receive confidential and independent legal advice, and that these documents attract legal
professional privilege, unless privilege has been waived. From my examination of the documents, it
is apparent that the legal advice was communicated in an independent legal adviser-client
relationship between the OAIC and the legal advisers. I am satisfied that privilege has not been
waived.
One other document (document 4 in the attached schedule) contains meeting notes prepared by an
OAIC officer which sets out confidential legal advice discussed in a meeting between senior OAIC
officers and in-house counsel.  Five other documents (documents 5, 30, 32, 34, 46 in the attached
schedule) contain a table prepared by the OAIC’s in-house lawyers which discusses confidential
legal advice. It is apparent that the notes and table were prepared for the dominant purpose of
providing legal advice to a limited group of OAIC officers. I am satisfied that these documents attract
legal professional privilege, and that privilege has not been waived.
For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied that these documents are exempt in ful  under s 42(1)
of the FOI Act.
Parts of documents subject to legal professional privilege (s 42)
A number of the documents, or parts thereof (documents 1, 8, 9 and 27 in the attached schedule)
found to be within the scope of the request contain information provided by DHS in response to the
Commissioner’s preliminary inquiries into al egations of a privacy breach and contain references to
legal advice. DHS contends that these references are legal y privileged material. In ‘NW’ and Screen
Australia (Freedom of Information)1, the former Australian Information Commissioner held that
privilege can extend to a document that records the substance of a privileged communication
between a client and legal adviser, such as copies or summaries of the privileged communication.
From my examination of the documents, I am satisfied that the relevant material contains the
substance of the privileged legal advice. I am of the view that the material attracts legal professional
privilege, unless privilege has been waived. From my examination of the documents I note that
documents have been disclosed by senior officers at DHS to a limited group of officers within the
OAIC. I am satisfied that DHS has not waived its privilege over the relevant material, and that
material is therefore exempt under s 42(1).
Part of document one in the attached schedule contains legal advice obtained by the Department of
Human Services (DHS), which DHS subsequently disclosed to the OAIC and the Australian Federal
Police (AFP). DHS contends that that privileged has not been waived over this document on the
basis that it was provided on a confidential basis with an express indication that it did not wish to
waive privilege and I accept these submissions. I have also considered whether a statement made
by the former Minister of Human Services, the Hon Alan Tudge MP, in Question Time on 28 February

1 [2018] AICmr 15.
3 | P a g e

link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 4 2017 about obtaining legal advice on the release of personal information amounts to waiver of
privilege. I have had regard to a submission from DHS that there was no disclosure of the substance
or conclusion of the legal advice, with reference to John Hilvert and Australian Bureau of Statistics
(Freedom of Information)2 and Nick Xenophon and Australian Bureau of Statistics (Freedom of
Information)3.  On this basis, I find that there has been no waiver of privilege and that the part of the
document containing legal advice is exempt.
Though I am satisfied that the legal y privileged documents described above are exempt documents
under Division 2 of the FOI Act, the FOI Guidelines at [5.134] provide:
Agencies are advised not to claim exemption for a document under s 42 unless it is
considered that ‘real harm’ would result from releasing the document. A ‘real harm’
criterion is not an element of the common law doctrine of legal professional privilege, but
has been acknowledged within government as a relevant discretionary test to apply in FOI
administration.
I have considered whether real harm would arise in the event of disclosure of the legal y privileged
documents. The rationale for the doctrine of legal professional privilege is that it ‘exists to serve the
public interest in the administration of justice by encouraging ful  and frank disclosure by clients to
their lawyers’.4  In other words, the doctrine is critical to the development of sound Commonwealth
policy and robust law-making. I have considered the legal advice canvassed in these documents,
which has been used to inform the Commissioner’s preliminary inquiries into this matter, and I am
satisfied that the disclosure of confidential interactions between lawyer and Commonwealth as
client would harm the administration of justice in this instance, by discouraging ful  and frank
disclosure. In my assessment, this harm is to an extent that is distinguishable from mere
inconvenience. In this matter, the confidential legal advice from legal advisers was in practical
terms, critical to the Commissioner’s decision-making process. Its disclosure would harm the ability
of both Commonwealth agencies to engage freely in legal discourse, and in doing so, harm the
development of sound decision-making on the part of the Commissioner and her delegates.
I therefore find in the present case, the potential harm is real, and the ground for non-disclosure
strong. I am satisfied that the relevant documents are exempt and access to these documents, or
parts thereof, is refused.
Certain operations of agencies exemption (s 47E(d))
I have decided 11 documents are conditional y exempt from disclosure under s 47E(d) of the FOI Act,
as indicated in the Schedule.
Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act provides:

2 [2017] AICmr 43, [21] and [22].
3 [2017] AICmr 42.
4 The High Court has repeatedly affirmed the public interest in maintaining confidentiality of legal advice:
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 30 March 2017, 2711-2713 (Hon. George Brandis), referring to
Grant v Downs [1976] HCA 63per Stephen, Mason and Murphy JJ; Waterford v Commonwealth [1987] HCA 25 per
Mason and Wilson JJ; and Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow J in Esso Australia Resources Limited v
Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 67.
4 | P a g e

link to page 5 Public interest conditional exemptions – certain operations of an agency
A document would be conditional y exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or
could reasonably be expected to …
(d) have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the
operations of an agency.
The FOI Guidelines explain:
For the grounds in ss 47E(a)–(d) to apply, the predicted effect needs to be reasonably
expected to occur… There must be more than merely an assumption or al egation that
damage may occur if the document were to be released.
…An agency cannot merely assert that an effect would occur following disclosure. The
particulars of the predicted effect should be identified during the decision making
process, including whether the effect could reasonably be expected to occur.5
A number of the documents or parts thereof (documents 1, 8, 9, 27, 42, 47, 48) in the attached
schedule) found to be within the scope of the request contain information provided by DHS to the
OAIC in response to the Commissioner’s preliminary inquiries into allegations of a privacy breach.
Based on the information before me, it is apparent that DHS provided its submissions in the context
of Commissioner-initiated preliminary inquiries with an expectation that they would not be
disclosed. These documents were the subject of consultation with DHS, which submits that the
release of its submissions would or could reasonably be expected to substantial y and adversely
affect the OAIC’s ability to conduct such inquiries, given that DHS provides comprehensive and
candid information to the OAIC. Noting that the OAIC’s inquiries were preliminary in nature, and
focussed on whether to commence an investigation, I am of the view that reliance on DHS providing
detailed and comprehensive information freely and expeditiously was highly facilitative of the
OAIC’s ability to efficiently consider the relevant issues.
DHS has referred to DZ and Commonwealth Ombudsman [2014] AICmr 137, where it was found that
disclosure of certain material could adversely affect the willingness of agencies to cooperate with an
investigative body (the Ombudsman in that case). I am of the view that there is a very real prospect
that if confidential submissions obtained with the cooperation of agencies were to be released
under FOI, agencies would be less forthcoming in their provision of material in similar
circumstances in the future. The OAIC would be likely to receive less information from agencies
relating to matters it conducts inquiries into. The OAIC is reliant on preliminary information from
parties to determine whether or not there is a sound basis to investigate a matter. A scarcity of
comprehensive material from parties will have an adverse impact on the OAIC’s ability to conduct
those preliminary inquiries efficiently.
For these reasons I am satisfied that giving access to this material could reasonably be expected to
substantial y adversely affect the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the OAIC and
that the material is conditional y exempt under s 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
Two other documents in scope comprise a letter dated 20 March 2018, and draft of that letter
created sometime in February 2018, from the OAIC to DHS, outlining the OAIC’s view of the matter

5  FOI Guidelines,[6.101] and [6.103].
5 | P a g e

link to page 6 (documents 6 and 7 in the attached schedule). The contents of the letter set out information that
summarise DHS’s submissions and the OAIC’s view regarding whether or not to investigate the
matter. As noted above, it is apparent that DHS provided its submissions in the context of
Commissioner-initiated preliminary inquiries with an expectation that they would not be disclosed.
Two other documents in scope (documents 2 and 45 [duplicate] in the attached schedule) comprise
an executive brief, parts of which reveal DHS’s confidential submissions, while other parts set out
the OAIC’s strategy in relation to the conduct of its inquiries and its preliminary views on the matter.
I am satisfied that giving access to these documents could reasonably be expected to have a
substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the OAIC. The
OAIC’s ability to indicate its views to a respondent entity and engage in a dialogue whereby that
entity may draw the OAIC’s attention to matters it has not yet considered al ows the OAIC to
formalise its views on the basis of the best available information and in accordance with a correct
interpretation of the law. Likewise, the OAIC’s ability to set out various views, al ows for it to
effectively canvass al  issues potential y relevant to a decision and propose strategies for
efficaciously progressing preliminary inquiries. Disclosure of such material would adversely affect
the OAIC’s ability to candidly and freely consider al  potential submissions and strategies.
For these reasons, I consider that these documents are conditional y exempt in ful  under s 47E(d).
Personal privacy exemption (s 47F)
I have decided that parts of document 1 and 27 are conditional y exempt under s 47F of the FOI Act
which provides that documents are conditional y exempt if disclosure would involve the
unreasonable disclosure of personal information.
The personal information in parts of document 1 and 27 relates to a person concerned with an
al eged privacy breach. Having regards to matters that may be relevant to whether the disclosure
would be unreasonable, I have had regard to the matters summarised by the Australian Information
Commissioner in ‘FG’ and National Archives of Australia6, including any detriment that disclosure
may cause to the person to whom the information relates, any opposition likely to be held by that
person and whether the disclosure of information might advance the public interest in government
transparency and integrity.
Fol owing my examination of the documents, I find that the information would likely cause
detriment to the person to whom the information relates, and that person would be likely to oppose
the release of the information. I also find that there would be no advancement of the public interest
in government transparency and integrity if this information was disclosed.
For these reasons I consider parts of document 1 and 27 conditional y exempt under s 47F.
Public interest test
An agency cannot refuse access to a conditional y exempt document unless giving access would, on
balance, be contrary to the public interest (s 11A(5)).

6 [2015] AICmr 26 at [47].
6 | P a g e

link to page 7 The public interest factor favouring disclosure for documents conditional y exempted under s 47E(d)
in this case is that disclosure would promote the objects of the FOI Act. In particular, disclosure
would al ow scrutiny of government decision making and scrutiny of government operations.
Against this factor I must balance the factors against disclosure. The FOI Act does not specify any
factors against disclosure, however the FOI Guidelines provide a non-exhaustive list of factors
against disclosure. I am satisfied that in this case there are three public interest factors outlined in
the guidelines against disclosure:
•  disclosure could reasonably be expected to impede the flow of information to a regulatory
agency
•  disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice an agency’s ability to obtain
confidential information
•  disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice an agency’s ability to obtain similar
information in future.
Additional y, I consider there is a substantial public interest in protecting the efficiency and efficacy
of the OAIC’s privacy investigation process. For documents conditional y exempted under s 47E(d), I
consider that the public interest factors against disclosure outweigh the public interest factor in
favour of disclosure.
On this basis, I refuse access to documents, or parts thereof, conditional y exempted under s 47E(d).
For documents conditional y exempted under s 47F, I must balance the public interest factor(s)
favouring disclosure – disclosure would promote the objects of the FOI Act – against the public(s)
interest factor against disclosure – in this case, disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice
the protection of an individual’s right to privacy.
In weighing these factors, I give greater weight to the factors against disclosure. I particularly give
regard to the potential to prejudice the protection of the individual’s right to privacy. I am satisfied
that giving full access to those parts of document 1 and 27 at this time, without deleting the
personal information, would be contrary to the public interest.
Disclosure log
Section 11C of the FOI Act requires agencies to publish documents released through an FOI request
on our website within 10 days of release, except when the documents contain personal or business
information that it would be unreasonable to publish.
The documents being released to you do not contain any personal or business information that
would be unreasonable to publish. As a result, they wil  be published on our disclosure log7 shortly
after those documents are provided to you.
Your review rights are outlined on the fol owing page.
Yours sincerely


7  See https://oaic.gov.au/about-us/access-our-information/foi-disclosure-log/.
7 | P a g e

Cate Cloudsdale
Legal Services

3 August 2018

8 | P a g e

If you disagree with my decision
Internal review
You have the right to apply for an internal review of my decision under Part VI of the FOI Act.  An
internal review wil  be conducted, to the extent possible, by an officer of the OAIC who  was not
involved in or consulted in the making of my decision. If you wish to apply for an  internal review,
you must do so in writing within 30 days. There is no application fee for  internal review.
If you wish to apply for an internal review, please mark your application for the attention of  the FOI
Coordinator and state the grounds on which you consider that my decision should be  reviewed.
Further Review
You have the right to seek review of this decision by the Information Commissioner and the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
You may apply to the Information Commissioner for a review of my decision (IC review). If you  wish
to apply for IC review, you must do so in writing within 60 days. Your application must  provide an
address (which can be an email address or fax number) that we can send notices  to, and include a
copy of this letter. A request for IC review can be made in relation to my  decision, or an internal
review decision.
It is the Information Commissioner’s view that it will usually not be in the interests of the
administration of the FOI Act to conduct an IC review of a decision, made by the agency that the
Information Commissioner heads: the OAIC. For this  reason, if you make an application for IC review
of my decision, it is likely that the Information Commissioner will decide (under s 54W(b) of the FOI
Act) not to undertake an IC review on the basis that it is desirable that my decision be considered by
the AAT.
Section 57A of the FOI Act provides that, before you can apply to the AAT for review of an FOI
decision, you must first have applied for IC review.
Applications for internal review or IC review can be submitted to:
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Alternatively, you may submit your application by email to xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx, or by fax on  02 9284
9666.
9 | P a g e

Schedule of documents – Freedom of information request no. FOIREQ18/00066

Document
Page
No.
Date
Description
Decision
Exemption
no.
No.
pages
on access
1
1-5
5
12 May 2017
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
1A
6
1
5 May 2017
Attachment A to letter of 12.5.2017
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
1B
7-12
6
16 March 2017
Attachment B to letter of 12.5.2017
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
42 (in part)
-

Attachments to Attachment B:

-
Access
1B.a
13-14
2
2 March 2017
Attachment B.a
granted in
N/a
part
Access
1B.b
15-16
2
9 February 2017
Attachment B.b
47F  (in part)
granted in

part
Access
1B.c
17-19
3
26 February
2017
Attachment B.c
granted in  47F (in part)
part
1300 363 992
T +61 2 9284 9749
GPO Box 5218
www.oaic.gov.au
xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
F +61 2 9284 9666
Sydney NSW 2001
ABN 85 249 230 937

Document
Page
No.
Date
Description
Decision
Exemption
no.
No.
pages
on access
1B.d
20-23
4
22 February
2017
Attachment B.d
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
1B.e
24-25
2
9 February 2017
Attachment B.e
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
42 (in part)
Access
1B.f
26-32
7
1 January 2017
Attachment B.f
granted in
N/a
full
Access
1B.g
33-48
16
22 February
2005
Attachment B.g
granted in
42 (in part)
part
Access
1B.h
49-51
3
21 October 2016
Attachment B.h
granted in
N/a
full
Access
1B.i
52-69
18
February 2014
Attachment B.i
granted in
N/a
full
2
70-75
6
14 July 2017
Executive Brief
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
3
76-89
14
27 November
2017
Legal advice
Exempt in
42
full
4
90-91
2
30 November
2017
Meeting notes A Conlon
Exempt in
42
full

2

Document
Page
No.
Date
Description
Decision
Exemption
no.
No.
pages
on access
5
92-96
5
Undated
Comparison table
Exempt in
full
42
6
97-104
8
February 2018
Draft letter from OAIC to DHS
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
7
105-110
6
20 March 2018
Letter from OAIC to DHS
Exempt in
full
47E(d)
8
111-112
2
28 March 2018
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
42 (in part)
9
47E(d)
113-118
6
27 April 2018
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
full
42 (in part)
Access
10
119-122
4
23 May 2018
Letter from OAIC to DHS
granted in
N/a
full
Access
11
123-124
2
December 2010
Case note L v Commonwealth Agency
granted in
N/a
full
12
125-129
5
25 October 2017
Internal email OAIC Legal from Caren Whip to
Exempt in
Reshma Bargon
full
42
13
130-133
4
25 October 2017
Email from OAIC Legal to counsel
Exempt in
full
42
14
134-138
5
30 October 2017
Email from OAIC Legal to counsel
Exempt in
42
full

3

Document
Page
No.
Date
Description
Decision
Exemption
no.
No.
pages
on access
15
139-150
12
22 February
2005
AGS advice to DHS
Exempt in
full
42
16
151-165
15
3 November
2017
Draft legal advice
Exempt in
full
42
17
166-180
15
3 November
2017
Draft legal advice
Exempt in
full
42
18
181-182
2
8 November
Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to Annan Boag Exempt in
2017
(copy to Clare Gregory)
full
42
19
183-184
2
10 November
2017
Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to counsel
Exempt in
full
42
20
185-189
5
13 November
2017
Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to counsel
Exempt in
full
42
21
190-193
4
13 November
Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to DR Privacy
Exempt in
2017
(Andrew Solomon and Annan Boag)
full
42
22
194-208
15
13 November
2017
Draft legal advice
Exempt in
full
42
23
209-213
5
13 November
2017
Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to counsel
Exempt in
full
42
24
214-227
14
27 November
2017
Draft legal advice
Exempt in
full
42

4

Document
Page
No.
Date
Description
Decision
Exemption
no.
No.
pages
on access
25
228-241
14
27 November
2017
Legal advice
Exempt in
full
42
26
242
1
30 November
Email from principal lawyer (Caren Whip) to OAIC
Exempt in
2017
lawyer (Reshma Bargon).
full
42
27
243-247
5
12 May 2017
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
27A
248
1
5 May 2017
Attachment A to letter of 12.5.2017
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
27B
249-254
6
16 March 2017
Attachment B to letter of 12.5.2017
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
42 (in part)

Attachments to Attachment B:
Exempt in
-
full
Access
27B.a
255-256
2
2 March 2017
Attachment B.a
granted in
N/a
full
Access
27B.b
257-258
2
9 February 2017
Attachment B.b
granted in 47F (in part)
part
Access
27B.c
259-261
3
26 February
Attachment B.c
47F (in part)
2017
granted in
part

5

Document
Page
No.
Date
Description
Decision
Exemption
no.
No.
pages
on access
27B.d
262-265
4
22 February
2017
Attachment B.d
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
27B.e
266-267
2
9 February 2017
Attachment B.e
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
42 (in part)
28
268-269
2
1 December
Email from OAIC lawyer (Reshma Bargon) to
Exempt in
2017
principal lawyer (Caren Whip).
full
42
29
270
1
14 December
OAIC Legal to AS, AB, AF, TP and AC (copy to OAIC
Exempt in
2017
legal RM)
full
42
30
271-275
5
Undated
Comparison table
Exempt in
full
42
31
276
1
11 January 2018
Internal email, OAIC Legal
Exempt in
full
42
32
277-281
5
Undated
Comparison table
Exempt in
full
42
33
282
1
14 February
2018
OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to Deputy Commissioner
Exempt in
full
42
34
283-287
5
Undated
Comparison table
Exempt in
full
42
35
288
1
19 February
2018
OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to Angelene Falk
Exempt in
full
42

6

Document
Page
No.
Date
Description
Decision
Exemption
no.
No.
pages
on access
36
289-302
14
27 November
2017
Advice (final)
Exempt in
full
42
37
303
1
2 March 2018
OAIC Legal to Angelene Falk (copying Andrew
Exempt in
Solomon and Alexandra Conlon)
full
42
38
304-311
8
February 2018
Draft letter from OAIC to DHS with comments
Exempt in
full
42
Email from HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Lex Holcombe,
39
Exempt in
312
1
11 April 2018
cc: Yasmin Love, Katelyn Ewart) to OAIC Legal
full
42
(Caren Whip).
40
313-320
8
11 April 2018
Draft legal advice in response decision to cease
Exempt in
preliminary inquiries
full
42
Email from Andrew Solomon to OAIC Legal (Caren
41
Whip)
Exempt in
321
1
27 April 2018
Copies to Melanie Drayton, Amie Grierson,
full
42
Angelene Falk
42
322-327
6
27 April 2018
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
full
47E(d)
43
328
1
17 May 2018
OAIC Legal to Amie Grierson
Exempt in
full
42
44
329-341
13
May 2018
Commissioner brief: DHS disclosure of information Exempt in
in response to media criticism
full
42
45
342-347
6
14 July 2017
Executive brief
Exempt in
full
47E(d)

7

Document
Page
No.
Date
Description
Decision
Exemption
no.
No.
pages
on access
46
348-352
5
Undated
Comparison table
Exempt in
full
42
47
353-354
8
28 March 2018
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
full
47E(d)
48
355-360
6
27 April 2018
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
full
47E(d)
49
361-368
7
May 2018
Draft letter from OAIC to DHS
Exempt in
full
42

8

Document Outline