Decision re: non-coverage of Roxanne Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd & Anor
Dear Australian Broadcasting Corporation,
I refer to the matter of Roxanne Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd & Anor, which was in front of the Federal Court in August 2025.
Requested information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
1. Any internal or external communications, reports, or briefing materials (including emails, memos, meeting minutes, planning documents) that discuss or mention the Court’s Online File, the judgment, or related filings in this case and address ABC editorial or programming considerations regarding:
- Whether or not to cover the case;
- Decisions to not report on it;
- Factors (e.g., legal, ethical, reputational, commercial) influencing coverage decisions.
2. Internal ABC Editorial Guidelines, policy documents, or briefing notes that specifically apply to decisions not to cover federal court cases generally, or this particular case, where such documentation exists.
Please consider documents from 1 June 2023 to present, encompassing all relevant internal deliberations surrounding coverage of the case.
Yours faithfully,
Kim S
ABC FOI 202526-020
Good afternoon Kim S
Thank you for your emil below.
It appears from the court file that you are referring to a court matter that was finalised on 23 August 2024 (rather than 2025).
The ABC covered the case at the time, including these stories:
Before judgment https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-09/n...
Day of judgment https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-23/n... and on the World Today https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/w...
On this basis, kindly confirm whether you are happy to withdraw your request?
Regarding point 1, editorial decision-making documents are the ABC's program material. Under the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act these documents are not subject to an access request under s 7(2). This includes documents you describe as ' all relevant internal deliberations surrounding coverage of the case'.
The ABC Editorial Policies are published online here: https://www.abc.net.au/edpols
Regarding point 2, there is no document matching the wording you have noted below.
Many thanks,
ABC FOI team
We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians
and Traditional Custodians of the lands where we live, learn and work.
This email, including any attachments, is intended only for the addressee. It is confidential and may contain privileged information. You should not read, copy, use or disclose it, or take any other action in reliance of the information contained in this email, without authorisation. If you have received the email in error, please immediately let the sender know by separate email or telephone and delete the email from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim S <[FOI #13490 email]>
Sent: Thursday, 14 August 2025 10:38 AM
To: FOI ABC <[ABC request email]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Decision re: non-coverage of Roxanne Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd & Anor
Dear Australian Broadcasting Corporation,
I refer to the matter of Roxanne Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd & Anor, which was in front of the Federal Court in August 2025.
Requested information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
1. Any internal or external communications, reports, or briefing materials (including emails, memos, meeting minutes, planning documents) that discuss or mention the Court’s Online File, the judgment, or related filings in this case and address ABC editorial or programming considerations regarding:
- Whether or not to cover the case;
- Decisions to not report on it;
- Factors (e.g., legal, ethical, reputational, commercial) influencing coverage decisions.
2. Internal ABC Editorial Guidelines, policy documents, or briefing notes that specifically apply to decisions not to cover federal court cases generally, or this particular case, where such documentation exists.
Please consider documents from 1 June 2023 to present, encompassing all relevant internal deliberations surrounding coverage of the case.
Yours faithfully,
Kim S
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #13490 email]
Is [ABC request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Australian Broadcasting Corporation? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments.
Dear ABC FOI Team,
Thank you for your response to my FOI request.
You are correct that Tickle v Giggle for Girls was finalised on 23 August 2024. This is my mistake. To clarify, my request relates to the appeal proceeding, Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle.
I note your reliance on s 7(2) of the FOI Act regarding “program material.” I accept that documents created for the purpose of producing or broadcasting specific content are exempt. However, my request concerns documents or files about non-coverage decisions. The OAIC FOI Guidelines confirm that the s 7(2) exemption must be interpreted narrowly and does not extend to administrative or policy documents. Documents addressing whether or not to cover particular classes of court cases or cases on particular topics are administrative in nature and remain subject to FOI.
Accordingly, I seek access to:
- Any documents, guidelines, policies, instructions, briefing notes or any staff communications (by whatever title) that provide direction on coverage or non-coverage of Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle.
- Any documents, guidelines, policies, instructions, briefing notes or any staff communications that that provide direction on coverage or non-coverage that would reasonably be expected to apply to this case, or to cases of a similar nature (for example, cases concerning gender identity, sex discrimination or women-only spaces).
To be clear, I am not seeking journalist notes, scripts, rundowns or other documents directly used in producing broadcast content.
I note your statement that “there is no document matching the wording” of my earlier request. Under s 15(2)(b) of the FOI Act, a request need only provide such information as is reasonably necessary for an agency to identify relevant documents. A literal title match is not required. In addition, s 15(3) requires agencies to take reasonable steps to assist applicants to make a valid request. I therefore request that the ABC interpret my request in substance, and work with me to identify any relevant documents that provide the type of direction or guidance described above, regardless of their formal title or whether this particular court case was specifically named, if the subject matter would to a reasonable person be understood as applying to Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle.
If any documents contain exempt matter, I request that non-exempt material be released under s 22 of the FOI Act. The Full Federal Court in Bachelard v Australian Federal Police [2025] FCAFC 5 confirmed that agencies should generally not assume an applicant does not want an edited copy, and that partial release is expected where practicable.
I also note that under s 24A and s 55D the ABC must take all reasonable steps to locate documents within scope, and would bear the onus in any review to demonstrate that adequate searches were undertaken.
If you consider that the scope of my request is unclear, or that processing it would involve a “practical refusal reason,” I request that you consult with me under s 24AB before refusing. I am happy to refine the scope cooperatively.
At this stage I do not wish to withdraw my request. Rather, I have refined it to ensure clarity and alignment with the FOI Act. Should the ABC maintain that no such documents exist or that all are exempt, I may seek internal review and, if necessary, OAIC review.
If in setting out this request I have mis-cited or misquoted any provision of the FOI Act, I ask that the ABC action the substance of the request in accordance with its obligations under the Act rather than treating any technical error as a ground for refusal.
Thank you again for your assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Kim S
ABC FOI 202526-020
Good afternoon Kim S
Thank you for your email of 20 August confirming there was an error in your original scope sent on 14 August 2025. On 20 August, you updated the wording of both parts of your scope to be:
[Requested information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)]
Accordingly, I seek access to:
[A] - Any documents, guidelines, policies, instructions, briefing notes or any staff communications (by whatever title) that provide direction on coverage or non-coverage of Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle. [Federal Court appeal case https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/acc...
[B] - Any documents, guidelines, policies, instructions, briefing notes or any staff communications that that provide direction on coverage or non-coverage that would reasonably be expected to apply to this case, or to cases of a similar nature (for example, cases concerning gender identity, sex discrimination or women-only spaces).
To be clear, I am not seeking journalist notes, scripts, rundowns or other documents directly used in producing broadcast content.
A decision on the request is due to be made by Monday 15 September 2025, subject to any extensions of time for consultation or by agreement.
So the ABC has adequate time to complete further searches against the revised wording, we would be grateful if you would consider granting a brief extension of time by agreement under s 15AA of the FOI Act, such as until 30 Sepetmber 2025. A maximum of 30 days can be agreed.
Please let us know by return email the new weekday date if you do agree to allow more time for processing.
This means the ABC has now ceased searches for the withdrawn scope of 14 August 2025, which was:
----
1. Any internal or external communications, reports, or briefing materials (including emails, memos, meeting minutes, planning documents) that discuss or mention the Court’s Online File, the judgment, or related filings in this case and address ABC editorial or programming considerations regarding:
- Whether or not to cover the case;
- Decisions to not report on it;
- Factors (e.g., legal, ethical, reputational, commercial) influencing coverage decisions.
2. Internal ABC Editorial Guidelines, policy documents, or briefing notes that specifically apply to decisions not to cover federal court cases generally, or this particular case, where such documentation exists.
Please consider documents from 1 June 2023 to present, encompassing all relevant internal deliberations surrounding coverage of the case.
----
By making a FOI request, you are providing personal information to the ABC. The ABC manages personal information in accordance with its Privacy Policy - available at https://help.abc.net.au/hc/en-us/article.... Personal information may be disclosed in the course of processing this request, such as for the purposes of consultation or internal reporting.
Many thanks,
ABC FOI team
We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians
and Traditional Custodians of the lands where we live, learn and work.
This email, including any attachments, is intended only for the addressee. It is confidential and may contain privileged information. You should not read, copy, use or disclose it, or take any other action in reliance of the information contained in this email, without authorisation. If you have received the email in error, please immediately let the sender know by separate email or telephone and delete the email from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim S <[FOI #13490 email]>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2025 7:59 PM
To: FOI ABC <[ABC request email]>
Subject: Re: FOI 020 - Acknowledgment of request
Dear ABC FOI Team,
Thank you for your response to my FOI request.
You are correct that Tickle v Giggle for Girls was finalised on 23 August 2024. This is my mistake. To clarify, my request relates to the appeal proceeding, Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle.
I note your reliance on s 7(2) of the FOI Act regarding “program material.” I accept that documents created for the purpose of producing or broadcasting specific content are exempt. However, my request concerns documents or files about non-coverage decisions. The OAIC FOI Guidelines confirm that the s 7(2) exemption must be interpreted narrowly and does not extend to administrative or policy documents. Documents addressing whether or not to cover particular classes of court cases or cases on particular topics are administrative in nature and remain subject to FOI.
Accordingly, I seek access to:
- Any documents, guidelines, policies, instructions, briefing notes or any staff communications (by whatever title) that provide direction on coverage or non-coverage of Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle.
- Any documents, guidelines, policies, instructions, briefing notes or any staff communications that that provide direction on coverage or non-coverage that would reasonably be expected to apply to this case, or to cases of a similar nature (for example, cases concerning gender identity, sex discrimination or women-only spaces).
To be clear, I am not seeking journalist notes, scripts, rundowns or other documents directly used in producing broadcast content.
I note your statement that “there is no document matching the wording” of my earlier request. Under s 15(2)(b) of the FOI Act, a request need only provide such information as is reasonably necessary for an agency to identify relevant documents. A literal title match is not required. In addition, s 15(3) requires agencies to take reasonable steps to assist applicants to make a valid request. I therefore request that the ABC interpret my request in substance, and work with me to identify any relevant documents that provide the type of direction or guidance described above, regardless of their formal title or whether this particular court case was specifically named, if the subject matter would to a reasonable person be understood as applying to Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle.
If any documents contain exempt matter, I request that non-exempt material be released under s 22 of the FOI Act. The Full Federal Court in Bachelard v Australian Federal Police [2025] FCAFC 5 confirmed that agencies should generally not assume an applicant does not want an edited copy, and that partial release is expected where practicable.
I also note that under s 24A and s 55D the ABC must take all reasonable steps to locate documents within scope, and would bear the onus in any review to demonstrate that adequate searches were undertaken.
If you consider that the scope of my request is unclear, or that processing it would involve a “practical refusal reason,” I request that you consult with me under s 24AB before refusing. I am happy to refine the scope cooperatively.
At this stage I do not wish to withdraw my request. Rather, I have refined it to ensure clarity and alignment with the FOI Act. Should the ABC maintain that no such documents exist or that all are exempt, I may seek internal review and, if necessary, OAIC review.
If in setting out this request I have mis-cited or misquoted any provision of the FOI Act, I ask that the ABC action the substance of the request in accordance with its obligations under the Act rather than treating any technical error as a ground for refusal.
Thank you again for your assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Kim S
-----Original Message-----
ABC FOI 202526-020
Good afternoon Kim S
Thank you for your emil below.
It appears from the court file that you are referring to a court matter that was finalised on 23 August 2024 (rather than 2025).
The ABC covered the case at the time, including these stories:
Before judgment https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-09/n...
Day of judgment https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-23/n... and on the World Today https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/w...
On this basis, kindly confirm whether you are happy to withdraw your request?
Regarding point 1, editorial decision-making documents are the ABC's program material. Under the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act these documents are not subject to an access request under s 7(2). This includes documents you describe as ' all relevant internal deliberations surrounding coverage of the case'.
The ABC Editorial Policies are published online here: https://www.abc.net.au/edpols
Regarding point 2, there is no document matching the wording you have noted below.
Many thanks,
ABC FOI team
We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians and Traditional Custodians of the lands where we live, learn and work.
This email, including any attachments, is intended only for the addressee. It is confidential and may contain privileged information. You should not read, copy, use or disclose it, or take any other action in reliance of the information contained in this email, without authorisation. If you have received the email in error, please immediately let the sender know by separate email or telephone and delete the email from your system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #13490 email]
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments.
Dear FOI ABC,
Thank you. I am fine with the extension to 30 September 2025.
I note you said you have “now ceased searches” for the original scope (though your first reply implied you would not be searching). I would still like you to consider documents from 1 June 2023 to present against the revised scope.
Yours sincerely,
Kim S