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: FOIREQ18/00067
HW
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear HW
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 refer to the decision made by the Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner last week
that the Department of Human Services’ act of disclosing the personal information of a once
recipient of social security payments such that those details could be used (including by a
Minister of the Crown) to publicly humiliate and abuse that person does not constitute an
interference with the privacy of an individual for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988 (that
decision is set out here:
https://apac01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Foaic.gov.au%2Fme
dia-and-speeches%2Fstatements%2Fcentrelink-debt-recovery-
system&data=01%7C01%7Cenquiries%40oaic.gov.au%7C5623f6975b604fa3adb708d5c9fa3
2fc%7Cea4cdebd454f4218919b7adc32bf1549%7C1&sdata=nJEvbRD4O10Icv1K7eZc3eh4SeT
rIFS8NF6qKx%2FD5Kw%3D&reserved=0)
That decision has been universal y condemned by Australian privacy practitioners (within
both the public and private sectors) and is widely considered to be a decision made not in
the public interest and according to law, but another decision made in the personal,
political and career interests of the Acting Commissioner who is seeking to curry favour with
the Government in order to sure up her position. See, for example, the views set out here:
https://apac01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canberratime
s.com.au%2Fpolitics%2Ffederal%2Fludicrous-privacy-decision-on-blogger-s-details-
released-20180530-
p4zifr.html&data=01%7C01%7Cenquiries%40oaic.gov.au%7C5623f6975b604fa3adb708d5c9
fa32fc%7Cea4cdebd454f4218919b7adc32bf1549%7C1&sdata=BtlPCMIY957Y3A%2Fqst2jhor
U9jXxfXLuYp1EzNtPc6o%3D&reserved=0
and
https://apac01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2
Fnews%2F2018-05-31%2Fprivacy-precedent-what-can-the-government-reveal-about-
us%2F9816700&data=01%7C01%7Cenquiries%40oaic.gov.au%7C5623f6975b604fa3adb708
www.oaic.gov.au |
1
d5c9fa32fc%7Cea4cdebd454f4218919b7adc32bf1549%7C1&sdata=RqQTy%2FCAdkgcyOsvq
y3K2Q4DiQEhnJHCEp1FWunow9Y%3D&reserved=0
Noting the rather unorthodox but unsurprising refusal by the Acting Commissioner to
publish reasons in support of her decision, I request, under the FOI Act, any memos,
recommendations or any other documents held by the OAIC that set out any reasoning as to
why the conduct at issue does, or does not, constitute a contravention of the Privacy Act
1988. Relevant documents wil include those provided to the former Information and Privacy
Commissioner, Mr Timothy Pilgrim, the current Acting Information and Privacy
Commissioner, Ms Angeline Falk or any relevant delegate.
Decision
I am an officer authorised under s 23(1) of the FOI Act to make decisions in relation to FOI requests.
I have identified 64 documents within the scope of your request. I have decided to grant access to
three (3) documents in ful and three (3) in part. I have decided to refuse access in full to 58
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, wil be provided
to you 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].
www.oaic.gov.au |
2
link to page 3
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
• 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 44 documents that are exempt 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.
Two documents (documents 4 and 6 in the attached schedule) contains 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 documents (documents 7, and 39-42 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 (documents 2, 10, 12, 16, 38, 55, 57 and 58 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
1 [2018] AICmr 15.
www.oaic.gov.au |
3
link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 4
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 2 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 privilege has not been waived over this document on the basis
that it was provided on a confidential basis with an express indication that DHS did not wish to
waive privilege. 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
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 Australian Information Commissioner (IC) review
cases,
John Hilvert and Australian Bureau of Statistics (Freedom of Information) 2 and
Nick Xenophon
and Australian Bureau of Statistics (Freedom of Information3). 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 under s
42(1).
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 full 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.
2 [2017] AICmr 43 (at [21] and [22].
3 [2017] AICmr 42.
4The 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.
www.oaic.gov.au |
4
link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5
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 16 documents, or parts thereof, are conditional y exempt from disclosure under
s 47E(d) of the FOI Act,
5 as indicated in the Schedule.
Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act provides:
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…
6
Eleven documents and/or parts thereof (documents 2, 10, 12, 16, 38, 46, 49, 55, 57, 58 and 62 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 al egations 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 Ombudsman7, 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,
5 Documents 044 and 074.
6
FOI Guidelines [6.101] and [6.103].
7 [2014] AICmr 137.
www.oaic.gov.au |
5
link to page 6
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.
Four documents in scope comprise a letter dated 20 March 2018 (duplicated), and draft of that letter
created sometime in February 2018, from the OAIC to DHS, outlining the OAIC’s view of the matter
(documents 8, 9, 47, 62 in the attached schedule). The contents of the letter set out information that
would reveal 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.
One other document in scope (document 3 in the attached schedule) is 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, or parts thereof, are conditional y exempt under
s 47E(d).
Personal privacy exemption (s 47F)
I have decided that parts of documents 2, 16 and 38 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 2, 16 and 38 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 Australia8, including any detriment that disclosure
may cause to the person to whom the information relates, any opposition likely to be held by that
8 [2015] AICmr 26 at [47].
www.oaic.gov.au |
6
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 documents 2, 16 and 38 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)).
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, or parts thereof, 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 parts of 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 documents 2, 16 and 38 at this time, without deleting the
personal information, would be contrary to the public interest.
www.oaic.gov.au |
7
link to page 8
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 log9 shortly
after those documents are provided to you.
Your review rights are outlined on the fol owing page.
Yours sincerely
Cate Cloudsdale
Legal Services
3 August 2018
9 See https://oaic.gov.au/about-us/access-our-information/foi-disclosure-log/.
www.oaic.gov.au |
8
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.
www.oaic.gov.au |
9
Schedule of documents – Freedom of information request no. FOIREQ18/00067
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.
Decision
Exemption
no.
No.
pages
Date
Description
on access
1
1-7
7
27 March 2017
Letter from L Burney to OAIC
Exempt
in full
42
2
8-12
5
12 May 2017
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
2A
13
1
5 May 2017
Attachment A to letter of 12.5.2017
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
2B
14-19
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
2B.a
20-21
2
2 March 2017
Attachment B.a
granted in
N/a
full
Access
2B.b
22-23
2
9 February 2017
Attachment B.b
granted in 47F (in part)
part
Access
2B.c
24-26
3
26 February
2017
Attachment B.c
granted in 47F (in part)
part
2B.d
27-30
4
22 February
2017
Attachment B.d
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
2
2B.e
47E(d)
31-32
2
9 February 2017
Attachment B.e
Exempt in
full
42 (in part)
Access
2B.f
33-39
7
1 January 2017
Attachment B.f
granted in
N/a
full
Access
2B.g
40-55
16
22 February
42 (in part)
2005
Attachment B.g
granted in
part
Access
2B.h
56-58
3
21 October 2016
AttachmentB.h
granted in
N/a
full
Access
2B.i
59-76
18
February 2014
AttachmentB.i
granted in
N/a
full
3
77-82
6
14 July 2017
Executive Brief
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
4
83-87
5
Undated
Notes A Conlon
Exempt in
42
full
5
88-101
14
27 November
2017
Legal advice
Exempt in
42
full
6
102-103
2
30 November
2017
Meeting notes A Conlon
Exempt in
42
full
7
104-108
5
Undated
Comparison table
Exempt in
full
42
3
8
109-116
8
February 2018
Draft letter from OAIC to DHS
Exempt in
full
47E(d)
9
117-122
6
20 March 2018
Letter from OAIC to DHS
Exempt in
full
47E(d)
10
123-124
2
28 March 2018
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
42 (in part)
11
125-129
5
18 April 2018
Memorandum C Whip
Exempt in
42
full
12
47E(d)
130-135
6
27 April 2018
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
full
42 (in part)
Access
13
136-139
4
23 May 2018
Letter from OAIC to DHS
N/a
granted in
full
14
140-142
3
26 September
2017
Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to Annan Boag Exempt in
42
full
15
143-149
7
6 April 2017
Letter and legal advice from L. Burney
Exempt in
42
full
16
150-154
5
12 May 2017
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
16A
47E(d)
155
1
5 May 2017
Attachment A to letter of 12.5.2017
Exempt in
full
16B
47E(d)
156-161
6
16 March 2017
Attachment B to letter of 12.5.2017
Exempt in
full
42 (in part)
4
16B
Attachments to Attachment B:
-
-
Access
16B.a
162-163
2
2 March 2017
Attachment B.a
granted in
N/a
full
Access
16B.b
164-165
2
9 February 2017
Attachment B.b
granted in 47F (in part)
part
Access
16B.c
166-168
3
26 February
2017
Attachment B.c
granted in 47F (in part)
part
16B.d
169-172
4
22 February
2017
Attachment B.d
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
16B.e
47E(d)
173-174
2
9 February 2017
Attachment B.e
Exempt in
full
42 (in part
17
175-177
3
27 September
2017
Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to Annan Boag Exempt in
full
42
18
178-181
4
11 October 2017 Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to Annan Boag Exempt in
full
42
19
182-185
4
11 October 2017 Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to Annan Boag Exempt in
full
42
20
186-187
2
11 October 2017 Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to Annan Boag Exempt in
full
42
5
Access
21
188-189
2
May 2008
Privacy Commissioner Case Note
granted in
N/a
B v Hotel
full
Access
22
190-191
2
December 2010
Case note
L v Commonwealth Agency
granted in
N/a
full
23
192-196
5
25 October 2017
Internal email OAIC Legal from Caren Whip to
Exempt in
Reshma Bargon
full
42
24
197-200
4
25 October 2017
Email from OAIC Legal to counsel
Exempt in
full
42
25
201-205
5
30 October 2017
Email from OAIC Legal to counsel
Exempt in
full
42
26
206-217
12
22 February
2005
AGS advice to DHS
Exempt in
full
42
27
218-232
15
3 November
2017
Draft legal advice
Exempt in
full
42
28
233-247
15
3 November
Exempt in
2017
Draft legal advice
full
42
29
248-249
2
8 November
Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to Annan Boag Exempt in
2017
(copy to Clare Gregory)
full
42
30
250-251
2
10 November
2017
Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to counsel
Exempt in
full
42
31
252-256
5
13 November
2017
Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to counsel
Exempt in
full
42
6
32
257-260
4
13 November
Email from OAIC Legal (Caren Whip) to DR Privacy
Exempt in
2017
(Andrew Solomon and Annan Boag)
full
42
33
261-275
15
13 November
2017
Draft legal advice
Exempt in
full
42
34
276-289
14
27 November
2017
Draft legal advice
Exempt in
full
S 42
35
290-303
14
27 November
2017
Legal advice
Exempt in
full
S 42
36
304
1
30 November
Email from OAIC Legal to OAIC Legal, copying
Exempt in
2017
Alexandra Conlon
full
S 42
37
305-311
7
6 April 2017
Letter and legal advice from L. Burney
Exempt in
full
S 42
38
312-316
5
12 May 2017
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
38A
317
1
5 May 2017
Attachment A to letter of 12.5.2017
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
38B
318-323
6
16 March 2017
Attachment B to letter of 12.5.2017
47E(d)
42 (in part)
Attachments to Attachment B:
-
Access
38B.a
324-325
2
2 March 2017
Attachment B.a
granted in
N/a
full
7
Access
38B.b
326-327
2
9 February 2017
Attachment B.b
granted in 47F (in part)
part
Access
38B.c
328-330
3
26 February
47F (in part)
2017
Attachment B.c
granted in
part
38B.d
331-334
4
22 February
2017
Attachment B.d
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
38B.e
335-336
2
9 February 2017
Attachment B.e
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
42 (in part)
39
337-341
5
Undated
Comparison table
Exempt in
42
full
40
342-346
5
Undated
Comparison table
Exempt in
full
42
41
347-351
5
Undated
Comparison table
Exempt in
full
42
42
352-356
5
Undated
Comparison table
Exempt in
full
42
43
357-370
14
27 November
2017
Advice (final)
Exempt in
full
42
44
371-378
8
February 2018
Draft letter from OAIC to DHS with comments
Exempt in
full
42
45
379-380
2
6 April 2018
OAIC Legal to Andrew Solomon
Exempt in
full
42
8
46
381-382
2
28 March 2018
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
full
47E(d)
47
383-388
6
20 March 2018
Letter from OAIC to DHS
Exempt in
full
47E(d)
48
389-396
8
11 April 2018
Draft legal advice in response decision to cease
Exempt in
preliminary inquiries
full
42
49
397-402
6
27 April 2018
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
42 (in part)
50
403-407
5
18 April 2018
Memorandum
Exempt in
full
42
51
408-410
3
12 April 2018
Draft notes from meeting 12 April 2018
Exempt in
full
42
52
411-423
13
May 2018
Commissioner brief: DHS disclosure of information Exempt in
in response to media criticism
full
42
53
424-429
6
14 July 2017
Executive brief
Exempt in
full
47E(d)
54
430-434
5
Undated
Comparison table
Exempt in
full
42
55
435-436
2
28 March 2018
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
42 (in part)
56
437-441
5
18 April 2018
Memorandum
Exempt in
full
42
57
442-447
6
27 April 2018
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
42 (in part)
9
58
448-453
6
27 April 2018
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
47E(d)
full
42 (in part)
59
454-458
5
18 April 2018
Memorandum
Exempt in
full
42
60
459-460
2
28 March 2018
Letter from DHS to OAIC
Exempt in
full
47E(d)
61
461-468
8
11 April 2018
Draft legal advice
Exempt in
full
42
62
469-474
6
20 March 2018
Letter from OAIC to DHS
Exempt in
full
47E(d)
63
475-482
8
11 April 2018
Draft legal advice
Exempt in
full
42
64
483-490
8
May 2018
Draft letter from OAIC to DHS
Exempt in
full
42
10
Document Outline