Download original attachment
(PDF file)

This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Documents evidencing departmental consultations and deliberations'.


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ONE NATIONAL CIRCUIT 
BARTON 
      
FOI/2021/118IR 
 
 
 
 
 
INTERNAL REVIEW DECISION AND REASONS  
UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 
     FOI 
 
REQUEST BY:  Trav S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DECISION BY:  Mr John Reid PSM 
First Assistant Secretary 
Government Division 
  
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx 
 
 
Dear Trav S 
 
I refer to your emails of 15 and 16 September 2021 in which you requested internal review of 
the decision (the primary decision) dated 24 August 2021 by Mr Peter Rush, Assistant 
Secretary, Parliamentary and Government Branch, Department of the Prime Minister and 
Cabinet (the Department) under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). 
 
Under section 54(2) of the FOI Act, an applicant is entitled to apply for an internal review of a 
decision refusing to give access to a document in accordance with a request. 
 
Authorised decision maker 
 
Section 54C(2) of the FOI Act provides that an agency must arrange for a person (other than 
the person who made the primary decision) to review the decision. I am authorised to make 
this decision in accordance with arrangements approved by the Department’s Secretary under 
section 23 of the FOI Act. 
 
Internal review decision 
 
I have decided to affirm the primary decision to refuse access, in full, to the documents 
relevant to your FOI request on the grounds that they are: 
 
  exempt under section 42 of the FOI Act; and 
  conditionally exempt under sections 47C, 47E(d), 47F and 47G of the FOI Act and 
disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. 
 
In reaching my decision I have had regard to: 
  your FOI request of 20 July 2021; 
Postal Address:  PO Box 6500, CANBERRA ACT 2600 
Telephone: +61 2 6271 5849   Fax: +61 2 6271 5776   www.pmc.gov.au   ABN:  18 108 001 191 
 
  the primary decision; 
  your request for internal review; 
  the FOI Act; and 
  the ‘Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under section 93A 
of the Freedom of Information Act 1982’ (the FOI Guidelines).  
 
Background 
 
The FOI request  
 
On 20 July 2021, you made a request under the FOI Act to the Department in the following 
terms:  
 
Please refer FOI/2021/007 and in particular Mr Rush’s statement regarding 
documents prepared for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister - Senator 
the Hon Jan McLucas.    
  
Relevantly, Mr Rush states “the matter continued to be the subject of consultations 
and deliberations which were not finalised as at the date the Hon Jan McLucas ceased 
in the role of PSPM.”   
  
1.  We would like to review the documents relevant to, and showing, the department’s 
consultations and deliberations during Senator McLucas’s tenure as PSPM.    
  
2.  We would also like to review the documents relevant to, and showing, the 
department’s consultations and deliberations during Senator the Hon Dr Andrew 
Leigh's tenure as PSPM.   
  
Please accept these requests for information under the FOI Act. 
 
The primary decision 
 
On 24 August 2021, the Department notified you of the primary decision on your FOI 
request.  
 
The decision-maker identified 31 documents relevant to your FOI request. 
 
The decision-maker decided to refuse access, in full, to the requested documents, on the 
grounds that they contain material that is exempt under the following provisions: 
  Section 42 of the FOI Act (legally privileged information); 
  Section 47C of the FOI Act (deliberative material); 
  Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act (proper and efficient operations of an agency); 
  Section 47F of the FOI Act (personal information); and 
  Section 47G of the FOI Act (business information). 
 
 
2 
 
The internal review request 
 
On 15 September 2021, you sent the Department an email in the following terms: 
 
Part 1  regarding the Section 42(1) exemption claimed over documents 2-3, 5-12, 19-
20 and 26 
 
Section 42(2) of the FOI Act provides that a document is not an exempt document 
because of subsection (1) if the person entitled to claim legal professional privilege in 
relation to the production of the document in legal proceedings waives that claim.  
The FOI Guidelines at paragraph 5.144 confirms that a document is not exempt if the 
person entitled to claim LPP waives that privilege.  Section 5.145 provides LPP is the 
client’s privilege to assert or waive.  Section 5.146 provides waive of privilege may be 
express or implied.   
 
The Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) was one of the 
stakeholders entitled to claim LPP over some of the requested documents.  AusAID 
decided to release documents to the public some time ago.  
 
Please refer to your department’s 19 March 2012 email ‘Subject:  HOSM for CRG 
Contractors in Iraq [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]’ to AusAID informing ‘here’s draft text 
for your consideration, that we propose to brief the new PSPM, Senator Jan McLucas 
with soon’.  Please also refer to your department’s 11 April 2012 email ‘Subject:  
Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal (Iraq) Declaration [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
providing a written agreement with AusAID to ‘settle the declaration on the basis of 
thatt advice, and brief PSPM next week.  Fingers crossed!’.   
 
The FOI Guidelines at Section 5.147 provide the High Court has held that waive of 
LPP will occur where there earlier disclosure is inconsistent with the confidentiality 
protected by the privilege.  This inconsistency test has been more recently affirmed by 
the High Court as the appropriate test for determining whether privilege has been 
waived.  It is immaterial that the client did not intend to waive the privilege.   
 
The FOI Guidelines at paragraph 5.141 recommends agencies and minister consider 
that in ‘Taggart and Civil Aviation Safety Authority (FOI) [2016] AATA 327, Forgie 
DP decided that additional material that was not the substantive content of privileged 
emails, such as the email subject line, address block, salutation, classification, closing 
words and signature block was not privileged material and therefore not exempt under 
s42.’  We assure the purpose of the FOI Act will be served by disclosing edited copies 
of the documents - even if editing would leave only a skeleton of the former document.  
This will provide substance to due public scrutiny of government’s administrative 
decision-making.  
 
The FOI Guidelines at paragraph 5.142 provides that LPP does not apply to a 
communication that is not confidential.  Paragraph 5.146 provides privilege may be 
waived in circumstances where the communication has been widely distributed, the 
content of the legal advice in question has been disclosed, and a person has publicly 
announced their reliance on the legal advice in question in a manner that discloses the 
substance of the legal advice.   
 
Relevantly documents titled ‘Subject:  HOSM for CRG Contractors in Iraq 
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]’ and  ‘Subject:  Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal 
(Iraq) Declaration [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]  were  widely distributed.  Including to 
 
3 
 
members of the public, parliamentarians, officials, academics and journalists.  The 
content of the advice, including the text of the proposed ‘amendment of HOSM (Iraq) 
declaration 2004 to extend to specific commercial contractors’  has been disclosed.  
The department's recommendations for the PSPM, and the amendment’s purpose, key 
points and other details are disclosed.  Very relevantly, they support the medal's 
extension.   Members of the public have publicly announced their reliance on the 
substance of the legal advice 
 
On 16 September 2021, you sent the Department a second email in the following terms: 
 
Part 2 regarding conditional exemptions claimed under Sections 47C(1),  47E(d), 
47F(1) and 47G(1) of the FOI Act.   
 
After careful consideration of all relevant factors, we have decided that, on balance, 
the factors favouring disclosure outweigh the factors against disclosure.  Accordingly, 
we are of the view that disclosure of the requested documents, would be in the public 
interest.  Disclosure will promote Australia's representative democracy by 
contributing towards increasing public participation in government processes, with a 
view to promoting better-informed decision-making; and increasing scrutiny, 
discussion, comment and review of the government's activities.  
 
On 11 April 2012, the department provided a written agreement to AusAID to perform 
an act.  Namely ‘settle the declaration on the basis of that advice, and brief PSPM 
next week. Fingers crossed!’.  Relevantly at that time the department’s 
recommendations, key points and other details favourably supported the medal’s 
extension.  Of significant concern, FOI inquiries subsequently revealed the 
department failed to act in accordance with their agreement.  As a result, PSPM 
McLucas was not briefed and a proposed legislative amendment was unreasonably 
withheld from the lawful decision-maker.   
 
Failing to comply with a written agreement, and withholding documents from a 
Minister may be serious breaches of the Australian Public Service Act.  APS 
employees must act honestly and with integrity and with care and diligence.  Members 
of the public adversely affected by this omission are entitled to scrutinise the decisions 
leading to the omission.  The department has not satisfactorily explained why they 
failed to act and we seek to documentary evidence from that time to scrutinise the 
department's decision-making.   
 
To reduce the complexity and burden please exclude the following documents from the 
review and remove them from the Schedule of Documents.  Of the documents that 
remain, please seperate them in line with the original FOI request so it is clear which 
documents relate to which PSPM's tenure.  Thank you for your time.  
 
1.  HOSM application forms & attachments submitted by the public 
 
2.  The 5 December 2012 emails between a member of the public and the department 
with ‘Subject:  Thanks For Update’ 
 
3.  The 2013 letter from a member of the public seeking Foreign Minister Carr's 
‘support for a proposed amendment to the Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal 
(HOSM) declaration for Iraq.’   
 
 
4 
 
3.  The 22 April 2013 letter titled ‘Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal’ from 
Senator Adam Bandt MP to Dr Leigh 
 
4.  The 27 May 2013 letter Reference C13/27986 from PSPM Dr Leigh to Adam Bandt 
MP 
 
5.  The 27 May 2013 letter from PSPM Dr Leigh seeking the Foreign Minister's input 
 
6.  The 26 June 2013 letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs Bob Carr to PSPM 
Dr Leigh 
 
On 16 September 2021, the Department responded to both the 15 September and 16 
September 2021 emails as follows: 
 
Dear Trav S  
 
Thank you for your email below, received by the Department of the Prime Minister 
and Cabinet (the Department).  
 
It is not clear in respect of which decision you are seeking internal review. Please 
provide the Department’s reference number for the decision, or provide a copy of the 
decision, in respect of which you are seeking internal review. 
 
On 16 September 2021, you sent the Department a third email as follows: 
 
Hi, the department identified 31 documents meeting the terms of this request. Please 
refer to FOI/2021/118 and in particular the Schedule of Documents. 
 
Reasons  
 
I have considered your submissions in support of your request for internal review, however I 
am satisfied that the primary decision remains the correct and preferable decision, and I agree 
with the primary decision-maker’s findings and the reasons underpinning those findings. 
 
Having reviewed the documents which the primary decision-maker found to be exempt under 
section 42 of the FOI Act, I agree with the primary decision-maker’s findings. The 
Department is entitled to claim legal professional privilege over the relevant documents and 
the Department has not waived that privilege. 
 
Having reviewed the documents which the primary decision-maker found to be conditionally 
exempt under sections 47C, 47E(d), 47F and 47G of the FOI Act, I also agree with the 
primary decision-maker’s findings that it would not be in the public interest to release those 
documents. The public interest in maintaining the integrity and reputation of the Humanitarian 
Overseas Service Medal and associated administration processes outweighs the public interest 
that would be served by releasing these documents. In addition, it is not in the public interest 
to release documents that contain the personal and business information of third parties, 
where such information is not in the public domain and where release would, or could 
reasonably be expected to, adversely affect the personal privacy and business interests of 
those third parties 
 
I have therefore decided to affirm the primary decision to refuse access, in full, to the 
documents relevant to your FOI request on the grounds that they are: 
 
5 

 
 
  exempt under section 42 of the FOI Act; and 
  conditionally exempt under sections 47C, 47E(d), 47F and 47G of the FOI Act and 
disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. 
 
Review rights 
 
Information about your rights of review under the FOI Act is available at 
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/reviews-and-complaints/information-
commissioner-review/. 
 
Complaint rights  
 
You may make a complaint to the Information Commissioner about the Department’s actions 
in relation to this decision. Making a complaint about the way the Department has handled an 
FOI request is a separate process to seeking review of the Department’s decision. Further 
information about how to make a complaint is available at https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-
of-information/reviews-and-complaints/make-an-foi-complaint/.  
 
Yours sincerely 
 
 
 
John Reid PSM 
First Assistant Secretary  
Government Division 
 
15 October 2021 
 
6