Download original attachment
(PDF file)

This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'OAIC findings against PM&C'.


 
Our reference: FOIREQ21/00277 
D Forker 
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx 
Freedom of Information Request – FOIREQ21/00277 
Dear Mr Forker 
I refer to your request for access to documents made under the Freedom of Information 
Act  1982  (Cth)  (FOI  Act)  and  received  by  the  Office  of  the  Australian  Information 
Commissioner (OAIC) on 27 November 2021. 
Scope of your request 
In your request you seek access to the following: 
I note the Guardian newspaper recently reported, on 17 November 2021, on 
contraventions of the FOI Act engaged in by the Department of the Prime Minister and 
Cabinet here: 
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardi
an.com%2Faustralia-news%2F2021%2Fnov%2F17%2Fprime-ministers-department-
breached-foi-laws-over-release-of-brittany-higgins-
documents&data=04%7C01%7Clegal%40oaic.gov.au%7Cbbe72c13823046ac6290
08d9b14f0c08%7Cea4cdebd454f4218919b7adc32bf1549%7C0%7C0%7C637735775934
834946%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJB
TiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=2pyJpNPYc2wySmdo5V9%2BWB
XqezlzYloDoM5H5IK5lI8%3D&reserved=0 
Under the FOI Act, I seek a copy of any document contained within the OAIC email 
accounts of Angelene Falk and/or Elizabeth Hampton that relates or refers to the above 
article. 
On 3 December 2021, the OAIC acknowledged receipt of your request and sought 
your advice as follows: 
In order to process your request as efficiently as possible, I will exclude duplicates and 
early parts of email streams that are captured in later email streams from the scope of 
this request, unless you advise me otherwise. 
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 you have not advised us otherwise with regard to the scope of your request, we 
continued to process your request as stated in our acknowledgement letter of 3 
December 2021. 
I have interpreted the terms of your request broadly to include any document 
contained within the OAIC email accounts of Ms Falk and/or Ms Hampton that relates 
or refers to the article and refers to the two FOI complaints about the Department of 
Prime Minister and Cabinet (the Department), that are the subjects of the 
investigations referred to in the linked article.  
On 13 December 2021, Ms Emma Liddle wrote to you to advise that the OAIC was 
required to conduct third party consultation pursuant to s 27A of the FOI Act in 
relation to documents which we have identified to contain personal information of 
third parties. 
On 14 and 17 January 2022, the OAIC conducted third party consultation with two 
third party individuals and the Department respectively in relation to documents 
which we have identified to fall within the scope of your request. I have taken their 
responses and submissions into consideration. 
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 39 documents comprising 251 pages falling within the scope of your 
request. They include email correspondence involving the Information 
Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner in two FOI complaints about the 
Department, CP21/01673 and CP18/01243, that are the subjects of the article linked 
in your request. 
I have decided to give you access to: 
•  10 documents in full, and  
•  29 documents in part. 
Please refer to the schedule of documents attached to the decision. 
Reasons for decision 
Materials taken into account 
In making my decision, I have had regard to the following: 
2 
 
•  your freedom of information request of 27 November 2021 
•  searches conducted by the relevant line area 
•  the documents in issue 
•  the FOI Act 
•  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 (FOI Guidelines) 
Irrelevant material – s 22 
Section 22(1)(a)(ii) of the FOI Act provides that an agency may prepare an edited 
copy of a document by deleting information ‘that would reasonably be regarded as 
irrelevant to the request for access’. 
I have examined the documents at issue. I have identified the following categories of 
irrelevant material: 
•  Duplicates and early parts of email streams that are captured in later email 
streams 
•  Any material relating to FOI complaints files other than CP21/01673 and 
CP18/01243 
•  Any material relating to FOI requests that are not the subjects of CP21/01673 
and CP18/01243 
•  Media articles that are not related to the linked article referred to in your FOI 
request 
•  Email correspondence relating to third party consultations between third 
parties and the Department for the FOI request that was the subject of 
CP18/012343 
Having regard to the terms of your request, I am satisfied that the material listed 
above fall outside the scope of your request and is therefore redacted under 
s 22(1)(a)(i) of the FOI Act. Please refer to the schedule of documents where the 
irrelevant material is identified.  
Documents subject to deliberative processes – s 47C 
I have decided that material in 1 document is exempt in part under s 47C of the FOI 
Act. 
The material that I have found to be exempt under s 47C can be described as a 
deliberation and advice provided during an internal consultation as part of the 
OAIC’s investigation in CP18/012343. 
3 
 
The FOI Guidelines and previous IC review decisions1 provide that the main 
requirements of s 47C conditional exemption are that a document: 
•  contains or relates to ‘deliberative matter’ that was prepared for a 
‘deliberative purpose’ (s 47C(1)) 
•  the material is not ‘purely factual’ or non-deliberative (s 47C(2)), and 
•  it would be ‘contrary to the public interest’ to give access at this time (s 
11A(5)) 
Deliberative matter 
The term ‘deliberative matter’ is a shorthand term for opinion, advice, 
recommendation, consultation and deliberation that is recorded or reflected in a 
document.2 
The FOI Guidelines at [6.66] provides a non-exhaustive list of material that is not 
deliberative matter, where not already excluded as operational information, purely 
factual or a scientific report: 
•  content that is merely descriptive 
•  incidental administrative content 
•  procedural or day to day content 
•  the decision or conclusion reached at the end of the deliberative process 
•  matter that was not obtained, prepared or recorded in the course of, or for 
the purposes of, a deliberative process 
In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision of Wood; Secretary, Department of 
Prime Minister and Cabinet and (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 945 (Wood), 
Deputy President Forgie explains that the meaning of the words ‘opinion’, ‘advice’ 
and ‘recommendation’ all involve consideration, followed by the formation of a view 
either about a certain subject or about a course of action and the subsequent 
transmission of that view.3 
In this case, the relevant material includes internal consultation and feedback 
provided by the Deputy Commissioner to the case officer in CP18/012343. It reflects 
 
1 FOI Guidelines [6.52]-[6.88]; William Summers and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (Freedom 
of information) [2018] AICmr 9; Dan Conifer and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (No. 2) 
(Freedom of information) [2017] AICmr 117; Allister McCaffrey and Australian National University 
(Freedom of information) [2017] AICmr 77; ‘KV’ and Indigenous Land Corporation (Freedom of 
Information) [2017] AICmr 17 and John Quinn and Australian Taxation Office [2016] AICmr 94. 
2 Parnell and Attorney-General’s Department [2014] AICmr 71 [38]. 
3 Wood; Secretary, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 945 
[39]. 
4 
 
early thinking and consideration the Department’s submissions and 
recommendations to the OAIC, the weighing of options and subsequent changes in 
the OAIC’s investigative approach in CP18/012343.  
Furthermore, I am satisfied that the material is neither operational information nor 
purely factual materials and amounts to more than merely procedural or day to day 
content. It is material that comprises deliberations that inform the OAIC’s conducts 
in investigating FOI complaints. Therefore, I am satisfied that the relevant material is 
deliberative and is conditionally exempt under s 47C of the FOI Act. 
The public interest test – s 11A(5)  
An agency cannot refuse access to conditionally exempt documents unless giving 
access would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest (s 11A(5)). 
In the AAT case of Utopia Financial Services Pty Ltd and Australian Securities and 
Investments Commission (Freedom of information) [2017] AATA 269, Deputy President 
Forgie explained that:4 
… the time at which I make my decision for s 11A(5) requires access to be 
given to a conditionally exempt document “at a particular time” unless doing 
so is, on balance, contrary to the public interest. Where the balance lies may 
vary from time to time for it is affected not only by factors peculiar to the 
particular information in the documents but by factors external to them. 
In this case, I must consider whether disclosure of the deliberative material at this 
time would be contrary to the public interest. 
Section 11B(3) of the FOI Act lists factors that favour disclosure when applying the 
public interest test. The FOI Guidelines at [5.138] include a non-exhaustive list of 
further factors that favour disclosure. I consider the public interest factor favouring 
disclosure in this case is that disclosure would promote the objects of the FOI Act. 
The public interest factor favouring disclosure must be balanced against any public 
interest factors against disclosure. The FOI Act does not specify any factors against 
disclosure, however the FOI Guidelines at [6.22] provide a non-exhaustive list of 
factors against disclosure. 
 
4 Utopia Financial Services Pty Ltd and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Freedom of 
information) [2017] AATA 269 [133]. 
5 
 
In Rovere and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2015] AATA 462,5 the 
AAT said that in relation to pre-decisional communications, a frankness and candour 
claim cannot be a public interest factor against access. The Information 
Commissioner reads Rovere as authority that a confidentiality or candour claim 
carries no weight by itself but must be related to some particular practice, process, 
policy or program in government. 
The FOI Guidelines at [6.82] further provide: 
The Information Commissioner considers that frankness and candour in 
relation to the s 47C conditional exemption may have some application as 
one public interest factor against disclosure in combination with other 
factors, and possibly as the sole factor where the public interest is clearly, 
heavily weighted against disclosure of a document of a minister, or a 
document that would affect the effective and efficient functioning of 
government. 
In this case, I consider that disclosure of the deliberative material, which involves 
internal deliberations of the Department’s submissions and recommendations, 
would have an adverse impact on the OAIC’s engagement with other government 
departments and its ability to carry out its investigative functions under the FOI Act. 
Additionally, I find that disclosure of the deliberative material would have an adverse 
impact on the frank and open discussion of deliberative material between OAIC’s 
officers, particularly where that reflects early thinking and consideration of other 
Department’s submissions, weighing up options and subsequent changes to the 
OAIC’s investigative approach. 
On balance, in this case, I am satisfied that the public interest factors against 
disclosure outweigh the public interest factor in favour of disclosure. 
As a result, I have decided that, at this time, giving you access to the deliberative 
material would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. Please refer to the 
schedule of documents where the exempted material is identified. 
Certain operations of agencies – s 47E(d) 
I have decided that material in 17 documents are exempt in part under s 47E(d) of 
the FOI Act. 
 
5 As per Popple SM in Rovere and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2015] AATA 462 at [42] 
and [48]-[53]. In Dreyfus and Secretary Attorney-General’s Department (Freedom of Information) [2015] 
AATA 962 at [100] Bennett J appears to give her approval to the position taken by Popple SM in Rovere. 
6 
 
The material that I have found exempt under s 47E(d) can be described as the work 
mobile telephone numbers of various senior officers of the FOI Regulatory Group and 
Strategic Communications of the OAIC. 
Under s 47E(d) of the FOI Act, a document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure 
could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and 
efficient conduct of the operations of an agency. 
Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act states: 
A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or 
could reasonably be expected to, do any of the following: 
… 
(d) have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of 
the operations of an agency. 
The FOI Guidelines at [6.101] provides: 
For the grounds in ss 47E(a)–(d) to apply, the predicted effect needs to be 
reasonably expected to occur. The term ‘could reasonably be expected’ is 
explained in greater detail in Part 5. There must be more than merely an 
assumption or allegation that damage may occur if the document were to be 
released. 
Additionally, at [6.103] the FOI Guidelines further explain: 
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. Where the conditional exemption is relied upon, the 
relevant particulars and reasons should form part of the decision maker’s 
statement of reasons, if they can be included without disclosing exempt 
material (s 26, see Part 3). 
Functions and powers of the OAIC  
In order to determine whether disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, 
have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the 
operations of the OAIC, I have taken into consideration the functions and activities of 
the OAIC. 
Due to the nature of the relevant material, I have had regard to: 
7 
 
•  the Australian Information Commissioner’s freedom of information powers 
and regulatory powers, under the Australian Information Commissioner Act 
2010 (Cth) (AIC Act) and the FOI Act, and 
•  the OAIC’s FOI complaint handling processes 
The OAIC is an independent statutory agency within the Attorney-General’s portfolio, 
established under the AIC Act. The OAIC comprises the Australian Information 
Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner (both offices currently held by 
Angelene Falk), the FOI Commissioner (office currently vacant), and the staff of the 
OAIC. 
The OAIC is established under s 5 of the AIC Act. Section 5 also provides that the 
Information Commissioner is the Head of the OAIC for the purposes of the Public 
Service Act 1999 (Cth). Section 5 further provides that for the purposes of the Public 
Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2019 (Cth) the Information 
Commissioner is the accountable authority of the OAIC. 
Under the AIC Act and the FOI Act, the Information Commissioner has a range of 
freedom of information functions and powers, including assessing and managing 
vexatious declaration applications made by Commonwealth agencies, making 
decisions on Information Commissioner reviews, and investigating and reporting on 
freedom of information complaints. 
The OAIC has a dedicated FOI complaints service platform that operates through our 
website, mail and telephone systems in an integrated manner to ensure all FOI 
complaints are received and managed holistically in an efficient and effective 
manner. Each FOI complaint is allocated to a specific officer in the OAIC’s FOI Dispute 
Resolution team who will communicate with each complainant via their own contact 
details or to the FOI Dispute Resolution email address. However, the work mobile 
telephone numbers of the officer is not provided to complainants to be contacted 
directly. 
Consideration 
In ‘WN’ and Inspector General of Taxation [2020] AICmr 70, the Information 
Commissioner accepted that: 
…unsolicited calls to IGT employees’ direct telephone numbers and work 
mobile telephone numbers will fall outside will fall outside the integrated 
service platform and would not be electronically recorded, adversely affecting 
accountability, transparency, quality assurance and the provision of support to 
employees in relation to those calls. While I have taken into account the 
applicant’s submissions in this regard, on balance I find that this circumstance 
8 
 
could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the 
proper and efficient conduct of the IGT’s operations. 
In this case, I am satisfied that the work mobile telephone numbers of the relevant 
senior officers are not public information and are not known to be associated with 
the OAIC’s FOI complaints handling process. Furthermore, given the seniority of the 
relevant officers, I find that disclosure of their work mobile telephone numbers 
would enable FOI complainants or the general public to contact officers who are not 
responsible for their complaint matters and expose the officers to work, health and 
safety issues by way of unsolicited and vexatious phone calls that could include 
threats to their health and safety. Additionally, unsolicited calls to senior officers’ 
work mobile telephone numbers that fall outside the integrated service platform will 
impede communication between senior officers and, thereby, adversely affect the 
performance of their official duties and responsibilities. 
Therefore, I am satisfied that the work mobile telephone numbers of senior officers 
at the OAIC are conditionally exempt under s 47E(d) of the FOI Act. 
The public interest test – s 11A(5) 
I apply the same public interest test as described above. 
In this case, I must consider whether disclosure of the work mobile telephone 
numbers of OAIC’s senior officers at this time would be contrary to the public 
interest. 
Section 11B(3) of the FOI Act lists factors that favour disclosure when applying the 
public interest test. The FOI Guidelines at [5.138] include a non-exhaustive list of 
further factors that favour disclosure. I consider the public interest factor favouring 
disclosure in this case is that disclosure would promote the objects of the FOI Act. 
I must then balance the factor favouring disclosure against the factors against 
disclosure. The FOI Act does not specify any factors against disclosure, however the 
FOI Guidelines at [6.22] provide a non-exhaustive list of factors against disclosure. 
In this case, I am satisfied that disclosure of work mobile telephone numbers of 
senior officers could be reasonably be expected to harm the interests of those 
individuals and to impede the administration of justice by adversely affecting 
performance of their official duties and responsibilities.  
On balance, in this case, I am satisfied that the public interest factors against 
disclosure outweigh the public interest factor in favour of disclosure. 
9 
 
As a result, I have decided that, at this time, giving you access to the material, which I 
have found to be conditionally exempt under s 47E(d) of the FOI Act, would, on 
balance, be contrary to the public interest. Please refer to the schedule of documents 
where the exempted material is identified. 
Personal privacy exemption – s 47F 
I have decided that 14 documents are exempt in part under s 47F of the FOI Act. 
The material that I have found to be exempt under s 47F can be described as the 
names and contact details of two third party individuals and the mobile number of 
an employee of the Department.  
Section 47F of the FOI Act conditionally exempts documents where disclosure would 
involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information of any person. This 
exemption is intended to protect the personal privacy of individuals. 
Personal information 
In the FOI Act, personal information has the same meaning as in the Privacy Act 1988 
(Cth) (Privacy Act). Under s 6 of the Privacy Act, personal information means: 
… information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is 
reasonably identifiable: 
a) whether the information or opinion is true or not; and 
b) whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not 
I am satisfied that the name and contact details of individuals is personal 
information for the purposes of the FOI Act. 
Would disclosure involve an unreasonable disclosure of personal information? 
In determining whether disclosure of personal information would be unreasonable, s 
47F(2) of the FOI Act requires me to have regard to the following matters: 
•  the extent to which the information is well known 
•  whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be (or to 
have been) associated with the matters dealt with in the document 
•  the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources 
•  any other matters I consider relevant. 
The documents in issue contain: 
10 
 
•  names and contact details of an individual who lodged a FOI complaint about 
the Department 
•  mobile number of an employee of the Department, and  
•  name of an individual who is not known to be associated with either 
CP21/01673 or CP18/01243.  
Based on internet searches I have conducted, I am satisfied that the individuals to 
whom the information relates are not known to be associated with CP21/01673 or 
CP18/01243 and their personal information is not available from publicly accessible 
sources. 
I also note that one of the third party individuals objected to the disclosure of their 
personal information in response to formal consultation pursuant to s 27A of the FOI 
Act on the basis that release of the individual’s personal information would cause 
significant stress.6 Furthermore, given the terms of your request, I consider that no 
public purpose would be achieved through the release of the personal information of 
the third party individuals.7 
On this basis, I consider that disclosure of this material would be an unreasonable 
disclosure of personal information. 
Therefore, I am satisfied that the personal information of third party individuals is 
conditionally exempt under s 47F of the FOI Act. 
The public interest test – s 11A(5) 
I apply the same public interest test as described above. 
In this case, I must consider whether disclosure of the two third-party individuals’ 
personal information at this time would be contrary to the public interest. 
Section 11B(3) of the FOI Act lists factors that favour disclosure when applying the 
public interest test. The FOI Guidelines at [5.138] include a non-exhaustive list of 
further factors that favour disclosure. I consider the public interest factor favouring 
disclosure in this case is that disclosure would promote the objects of the FOI Act. 
I must then balance the factor favouring disclosure against the factors against 
disclosure. The FOI Act does not specify any factors against disclosure, however the 
FOI Guidelines at [6.22] provide a non-exhaustive list of factors against disclosure. 
 
6 FOI Guidelines [6.142]. 
7 Re McCallin and Department of Immigration [2008] AATA 477. 
11 
 
In this case, I am satisfied that disclosure of the third-party individuals’ personal 
information could be reasonably be expected to prejudice the protection of their 
right to privacy and impede the administration of justice by affecting the public’s 
willingness to lodge complaints with the OAIC. 
On balance, in this case, I am satisfied that the public interest factors against 
disclosure outweigh the public interest factor in favour of disclosure. 
As a result, I have decided that, at this time, giving you access to the material, which I 
have found to be conditionally exempt under s 47F of the FOI Act, would, on balance, 
be contrary to the public interest. Please refer to the schedule of documents where 
the exempted material is identified. 
Please see the following page for information about your review rights and 
information about the OAIC’s disclosure log. 
Yours sincerely 
 
 
Nora Truong 
Legal Services 
27 January 2022 
 
12 
 
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 will 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. 
 
13 
 
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: 
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 
xxx@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 it would be unreasonable to publish.  
Where the third party objected to the disclosure of their personal information, or 
where I have considered it is unreasonable to disclose personal information in my 
decision, an edited version of the documents with the personal information removed 
will be published on the OAIC’s disclosure log within 10 working days. 
 
 
 
14