Our reference: FOIREQ21/00028
John Doe
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Your Freedom of Information Request - FOIREQ21/00028
Dear John Doe,
I refer to your request for access to documents made under the Freedom of Information Act
1982 (Cth) (the FOI Act) and received by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
(OAIC) on 23 February 2021.

In your email you seek access to the following:
“…correspondence, meeting notes, and decision / approval papers relating to the the OAICs
guidance and advice "Disclosure of public servant's names adn contact details in response to FoI
requests.

I do not request copies of documents relating to drafts of the guidelines, only those in respect of
the published guideline…”

On 4 March 2021, I wrote to you to seek clarification on the scope of your FOI request:
“…Thank you for correspondence of 23 February 2021. I am writing to seek clarification on the
scope of your FOI request.
In your request you seek access to:

“…I request disclosure of correspondence, meeting notes, and decision / approval
papers relating to the the OAICs guidance and advice "Disclosure of public servant's
names adn contact details in response to FoI requests.
I do not request copies of documents relating to drafts of the guidelines, only those in
respect of the published guideline.”
From the scope of your request, it appears that you are seeking access to documents relating to
the OAIC’s position paper - Disclosure of public servants’ name and contact details in response
to FOI requests. However, the second part of your request says you are not seeking copies of
documents ‘relating to drafts of the guidelines, only those in respect of the published guideline.’
The OAIC has power under the FOI Act to issue Guidelines – the OAIC’s position paper is not a
Guideline. As noted at the end of the Executive Summary in the position paper, the OAIC is in the
process of updating parts 3 and 6 of the FOI Guidelines to reflect the position expressed in the
position paper. The OAIC has not yet published Guidelines in response to the position paper.
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

As a result, I have interpreted your request to be for access to documents relating only to the
position paper; and only to the published position paper.
You also say you are not seeking documents relating to drafts of the ‘guidelines’. I interpret your
use of the word ‘guideline’ to be a reference to the OAIC’s position paper. However, until the
position paper was published, it was a draft. Therefore, all documents generated before the
position paper was published necessarily ‘relate to drafts’. If your request is interpreted in this
way, there wil  be no documents within the scope of your request.
The OAIC has published 49 consultation responses from Australian Government agencies and
members of the public. They can be accessed at the fol owing links:
-  https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/consultations/disclosure-of-public-servants-
names-and-contact-details/
-  https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/consultations/disclosure-of-public-servants-
names-and-contact-details/submissions/
In order for the OAIC to efficiently process your request, can you please clarify the fol owing:
Whether the OAIC has correctly interpreted the scope of your request above. That is, that you
are only seeking access to documents relating to the published position paper, and that you are
not seeking access to documents regarding the draft versions of the OAIC’s position paper. For
clarity, this wil  likely result in no documents being found.
I would be grateful to receive your response by 8 March 2021…”
As the OAIC did not receive a response from you to our correspondence of 4 March 2021, I
also wrote to you on 11 March 2021. In my correspondence, I stated:
“…I refer to my correspondence sent to you on 4 March 2021 regarding the scope of your FOI
request- FOIREQ21/00028
In my correspondence, I advised you of the OAIC’s interpretation of your request and I asked you
to confirm that the OAIC has correctly interpreted the scope of your request by 8 March 2021. I
note that I have not received a response from you to date.
Unless the OAIC receive a response from you, we wil  interpret the scope of your request as
outlined in my correspondence of 4 March 2021. Please note, this may result in no documents
being found for the reasons I have mentioned in my previous correspondence of 4 March 2021.
If you wish to provide further clarification in relation to the OAIC’s interpretation on the scope of
your FOI request, please do so in writing by return email to this address…”
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 one document within in the scope of your request. I have decided to grant
you access to the document in ful .
2

This document is the Position Paper – Disclosure of public servants’ names and contact details
in response to FOI requests. This document is available on the OAIC’s website at:
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/guidance-and-advice/public-servants-names-and-
contact-details/.
Material taken into account
In making my decision, I have had regard to the fol owing:
•  your FOI request dated 23 February 2021
•  the FOI Act, in particular s 24A
•  the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the
FOI Act (the FOI Guidelines),
•  Clifford Chance Lawyers and National Competition Council (Freedom of information)
[2020] AICmr 26 (26 June 2020) and Timmins and Attorney-General’s Department
[2015] AICmr 32 (28 April 2015)
•  the searches conducted by the OAIC’s Executive and Freedom of Information
Regulatory Group.
Scope of your request and searches for documents
As set out above, in your email you seek access to:
“…correspondence, meeting notes, and decision / approval papers relating to the the OAICs
guidance and advice "Disclosure of public servant's names adn contact details in response to FoI
requests.

I do not request copies of documents relating to drafts of the guidelines, only those in respect of
the published guideline…”
On reading your request, I considered the scope of your request to be unclear. I wrote to you
on two separate occasions to invite you to confirm the scope of your request. You did not
respond to my correspondence.
I have set out my communication with you about the scope of the request above. In my
correspondence I explained that I considered that you are seeking access to documents
relating to the OAIC’s position paper. I explained that under the FOI Act the Information
Commissioner has the power to issue FOI Guidelines. The FOI Guidelines are issued by the
Information Commissioner under s 93A of the FOIA Act. The OAIC’s position paper are not FOI
Guidelines issued under the FOI Act. I also informed you that the OAIC is in the process of
updating Parts 3 and 6 of the FOI Guidelines to reflect the position paper. These updates are
not yet published.
3

I advised you that as the OAIC has not yet published ‘Guidelines’, I had interpreted your
request to be for access to documents relating to the position paper. As you specifically
excluded documents relating to drafts of the ‘guidelines’ and requested access to documents
in respect of the published ‘guideline’, I advised you that I had interpreted your request as a
request for access to documents in respect of the published position paper.
Further, as you had specifically excluded documents relating to drafts of the ‘guidelines’, I
advised that until the position paper was published, it was in draft form. Further, all
documents generated before the position paper was published necessarily ‘relate to drafts’ of
the position paper. I advised that if your request is interpreted in this way, there will be no
documents within the scope of your request.
To assist you to clarify the scope of your request, I provided you with hyperlinks to the OAIC’s
position paper and submissions provided in response to the position paper. However, I did not
receive a response to my email. I followed up my email a week later but did not receive a
response to my follow up email.
The FOI Guidelines explain at [3.26]:
. . it is implicit in many provisions of the [FOI] Act that findings, including inferences from
known facts, may need to be made. The fol owing examples are il ustrative:
... in making a decision about release of documents, it is implied that the decision maker must
first make findings about the scope of the request and the documents in the agency’s
possession that fal  within that scope. .
The FOI Guidelines further explain at [3.54]:
A request should be interpreted as extending to any document that might reasonably be taken
to be included within the description the applicant has used. A request for a ‘file’ should be
read as a request for al  of the documents contained in the file, including the file cover
The FOI Guidelines at [3.110]:
A request can be described quite broadly and must be read fairly by an agency or minister,
being mindful not to take a narrow or pedantic approach to its construction.
The Information Commissioner has recently considered the scope of an FOI request in Clifford
Chance Lawyers and National Competition Council (Freedom of information) [2020] AICmr 26
(26 June 2020). In Clifford Chance, the Commissioner considered a decision of the former
Information Commissioner McMillan, Timmins and Attorney-General’s Department [2015]
AICmr 32.  In Timmins, former Information Commissioner McMillan considered a decision to
refuse a request for the most recent summary of the work undertaken and work still remaining
to be completed on the ALRC Report 112, Secrecy Laws and Open Government in Australia,
tabled in Parliament on 11 March 2010. The Department had given access to one document in
part (based on s 22 of the FOI Act) and the issue for Commissioner McMillan’s consideration
was whether two further documents, which that document referred to as Attachments A and
B, fell within the scope of the applicant’s request. Commissioner McMillan said:
4

. . I begin by commenting that it is regrettable that this issue of scope has become a contested
issue to be resolved by an IC review decision. This partial y stems from the precise and helpful
way the applicant framed his request – ‘the most recent summary of the work undertaken and
work stil  remaining to be completed .. ’. Had he framed his request more broadly – ‘al
documents recording the government’s consideration of the ALRC report’ – there would have
been less room for argument about whether the attachments fell within the scope of the
request.
. . the FOI Act requires only that an applicant ‘provide such information concerning the
document as is reasonably necessary to enable a responsible officer of the agency ..  to identify
it’ (s 15(2)(b)). The Guidelines that I have issued under s 93A of the FOI Act supplement that
section by advising that ‘a request should be interpreted as extending to any document that
might reasonably be taken to be included within the description that the applicant has used’.
In Timmins, Information Commissioner McMillan found that Attachment A fell within the
scope of the applicant’s request and that Attachment B did not. In relation to Attachment B,
Professor McMillan had said at para 21 that:
It was a draft ‘Options Paper’ dated April 2012 that was being prepared for consultation with
other government agencies on options for legislative reform. It was clear from the brief that
further work was required to finalise the consultation paper, and that it was attached to the
brief to il ustrate the work underway. Attachment B embodied work being undertaken by the
Department, rather than (as requested by the applicant) ‘the most recent summary’ of work
being undertaken.
The other variable is the terms of the applicant’s request. An applicant may ask for a specific
document, or for documents that contain information of a specified kind or that deal with a
particular topic. With that in mind, the FOI Act requires only that an applicant ‘provide such
information concerning the document as is reasonably necessary to enable a responsible
officer of the agency ..  to identify it’ (s 15(2)(b)). The Guidelines that I have issued under s 93A
of the FOI Act supplement that section by advising that ‘a request should be interpreted as
extending to any document that might reasonably be taken to be included within the
description that the applicant has used’.
Findings
Your request is for correspondence, meeting notes, and decision/ approval papers relating to
the OAIC’s guidance and advice ‘Disclosure of public servant's names and contact details in
response to FOI requests’. As explained to you previously, no Guidelines have been published.
Your description of the guidelines is in fact the title of the position paper. Accordingly, I have
interpreted the scope of your request as a request to access to documents relating to the
position paper. Importantly, you have specifical y excluded documents that relate to drafts of
the guidelines [position paper] and only seek access to documents in respect of the published
guideline [position paper].
To find documents that may fall within the scope of your request, I co-ordinated searches by
writing to staff in the OAIC’s Freedom of Information Regulatory Group and members of the
OAIC Executive who were responsible for the position paper and therefore most likely to hold
documents within scope of your request. Relevant staff conducted searches for documents
across the OAIC’s document storage system, Content Manager, and email accounts.
5

Staff located documents relating to the position paper. After close consideration of these
documents, I formed the view that these documents do not fall within the scope of your
request. The documents that were located by staff related to draft versions of the position
paper. They do not relate to the published position paper. Documents related to the approval
process were identified, however, these documents related to the draft position paper, not the
published position paper. After reviewing the documents located, I consider that one
document is within the scope of your FOI request, the published position paper.
Based on my interpretation of your request and the search results, I have identified one
document within in the scope of your request. I have decided to grant you access to the
document in ful .
Your review rights are outlined on the following page.

Yours sincerely,
Joseph Gouvatsos
Lawyer
25 March 2021

6

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.
Applications for internal reviews can be submitted to:
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Alternatively, you can submit your application by email to xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx, or by fax on
02 9284 9666.
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, or an internal review
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, and the Information
Commissioner is satisfied that in the interests of administration of the Act it is desirable that
my decision be considered by the AAT, the Information Commissioner may decide not to
undertake an IC review.
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 IC review can be submitted online at:
7

https://forms.business.gov.au/smartforms/servlet/SmartForm.html?formCode=ICR_10
Alternatively, you can submit your application to:
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Or by email to xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx, or by fax on 02 9284 9666.
Accessing your information
If you would like access to the information that we hold about you, please
contact xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx. More information is available on the Access our information page
on our website.
Disclosure log
Section 11C of the FOI Act requires agencies to publish online documents released to members
of the public within 10 days of release, except if they contain personal or business information
that would be unreasonable to publish.
The documents I have decided to release to you do not contain business or personal
information that would be unreasonable to publish. As a result, the documents wil be
published on our disclosure log shortly after being released to you.

8

Document Outline