Dear Australian National University FOI Officers,

As per my rights under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, I would like a copy of any reports made from the September 2024 and March 2023 "ANYOU" staff engagement surveys. Please include ANU-wide reports as well as college/portfolio level reports.

Kind Regards,
Steve

Dear Freedom of Information,

Yes, I agree to this extension.

Yours sincerely,

Steve

Dear Australian National University FOI Officer,

I am writing to request an internal review of Australian National University's handling of my FOI request 'ANYOU survey reports from September 2024 and March 2023 (Reference: 202500034). A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a...

I acknowledge receipt of one document in full and another in part. However, I contest the decision to exempt information from the second document under section 47E(d) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (“the FOI Act”), and I respectfully request a review of this decision. Further, I request further searches be undertaken to identify relevant information.

1. Grounds for Review of the Conditional Exemption (s 47E(d))
Section 47E(d) provides that 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 agency operations.

The decision relies on general assertions about operational disruption and potential reduction in candour among survey participants. However, according to the OAIC Guidelines (paragraph 6.114), an agency must demonstrate a real and substantial risk of adverse effect—speculation or general concerns are insufficient.

In this case:
* No specific or direct evidence has been presented showing how the redacted material would impede workstreams or operational efficiency;
* The reference to ongoing workstreams is vague and not tied to the content being withheld;
* The argument about reduced frankness lacks evidentiary support, especially considering the aggregated, anonymised nature of survey data.

2. Public Interest Test Not Properly Applied
Even if the material is conditionally exempt, section 11A(5) of the FOI Act requires that access be given unless, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest.

The decision fails to adequately weigh factors in favour of disclosure, including:
* The strong public interest in institutional transparency and accountability;
* The importance of workplace culture information for current and prospective staff;
* The reduced sensitivity of aggregated survey data, which is unlikely to identify individuals or disrupt operations.

Per FOI Guidelines paragraph 6.19, factors in favour of access include promoting public oversight and discussion of public sector practices—goals directly served by release of the withheld material.

3. Inadequacy of the Document Search
In addition to challenging the partial exemption, I request a review of the adequacy of the document search conducted.

My request explicitly sought any reports made from the September 2024 and March 2023 ANYOU staff engagement surveys, including ANU-wide reports as well as college/portfolio-level reports.

The ANYOU survey was designed and administered with the explicit intent to produce results and insights not only at the institutional level but also at the college and portfolio level. If such reports were not identified or provided in the decision, I request that the University confirm:

a. Whether reports at the College/Portfolio level were ever produced for either the 2023 or 2024 survey waves; and
b. If such reports exist, provide copies in accordance with the FOI request;
c. If such reports do not exist, a clear written statement confirming they were never created.

This confirmation is necessary to determine whether the search conducted met the standard required under section 24A of the FOI Act, which requires agencies to take all reasonable steps to locate relevant documents.

Yours faithfully,

Steve Hanua

Dear Freedom of Information team,

I am writing because I was expecting a decision on this internal review today. Should I take your non-response to constitute "deemed affirmation" as per s54(D) of the FOI Act? This would mean that "the principal officer of the agency is taken to have made a decision personally affirming the original decision on the last day of the initial decision period".

It is of course possible that I have miscalculated the timeline by which I was expecting an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Hanua

Dear Freedom of Information,

First of all, thank you for releasing the university wide 2024 results.

I ask that you do continue to process this internal review. Please note that this request included "college/portfolio level reports" and that these remain unpublished as far as I can tell.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Hanua