Dear eSafety Commissioner,

I wish to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for documents relating to the decision to proceed with consultation in regard to social media age restrictions, by calling for expressions of interest for a consultation panel, on or about 5 May 2025.

The scope of the request is from 1 July 2024 to 6 May 2025, except as otherwise noted.

The specific documents within this scope that I am seeking are:

(1) documents relating to the office's understanding of when electoral caretaker provisions conclude, whether they relate specifically to this consultation or not;

(2) documents relating to the office's understanding of whether consultation on social media age restrictions could proceed during the caretaker conventions;

(3) any communication between (a) the eSafety Commissioner or her office and (b) any member of the House of Reps or Senate, or their office, or any candidate for such a position at the recent election, that took place between the issue of writs for the election on 31 March 2025 and the date of this request, being 6 May 2025.

(4) any documentation relating to the decision by the eSafety Commissioner or her office to call for expressions of interest for a consultation panel on or about 5 May 2025.

This request includes, but is not limited to:
* letters, faxes and emails;
* diary notes and calendar entries;
* records of phone or verbal conversations;
* SMSs and online messaging;
* records or minutes of meetings.

I do not require the names or details of individual public servants or staff of the office and these can be redacted, except in relation to references to Ms Julie Inman-Grant personally or in her capacity as eSafety Commissioner.

I *do* require the names of any current or former members of the federal House of Representatives or Senate who may appear in these documents. I do not require the names of staffers in their offices and any such individuals may be identified simply by reference to the member they work for.

I am happy to entertain requests to further narrow the scope to assist your office in processing this FOI promptly.

With thanks,

Greg Tannahill

Dear eSafety Commissioner,

Could you please confirm your receipt of my FOI request made 6 May 2025 relating to consultation on social media age limits?

Yours faithfully,

Greg Tannahill

Dear eSafety Commissioner,

I am once again seeking your confirmation of my FOI request made 6 May 2025 relating to consultation on social media age limits.

Please confirm you have received this request and are in the process of actioning it within the statutory timeframes.

Yours faithfully,

Greg Tannahill

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your confirmation of receipt.

I acknowledge that you intend to redact the names of public servants, and I am fine with this, with the exception of the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Smith herself, whose name (or references to her) should be retained.

Regarding your requests for clarification of scope:

In regards to point (3) I had assumed that there would be very few or zero communications in the relevant period given that the majority of it is unarguably within the caretaker period. However, to make it easier, how about I phrase it this way? I'm really only interested in two questions, being (1) whether any communications at all *occurred*, on any topic, and (2) whether any communications occurred relating to the "teen social media ban, the limit and scope of caretaker conventions, and whether to proceed on public consultation on any topic" (the relevant topics).

So please provide a list of all such communications, but if they don't relate to the relevant topics you may redact everything about them except the date they occurred and which minister, MP, senator or candidate's office they relate to. Further, if the communication is in the nature of a public enquiry or complaint of the sort the office handles in its normal workload (e.g. a candidate seeking help for a constituent about harassment online) you may omit it entirely.

In regards to point (4), I am interested in the choice of the date, in the sense of why May 5 (or thereabouts) rather than before the election, or rather than waiting until the election results were finalised and a cabinet (including a new Communications Minister) had been announced.

I want any discussion about whether that should be the date, including any internal communications directing employees to proceed on that date. I don't require discussion of whether there *should* be consultation, or what form that consultation should take, merely the decision for the public call to go out in the period between the federal election and the certification of results and the appointment of cabinet.

The thrust of my enquiry is as to whether eSafety felt that it was bound by caretaker conventions on that date (and why), and whether it thought that caretaker conventions prevented it from taking this action (and why), and as to whether a potential change of minister was relevant in the timing. I am open to options that reduce unnecessary effort on your part, if such options arise.

Yours sincerely,

Greg Tannahill

Dear FOI,

Yes, that understand appears to be correct. Please proceed. I look forward to receiving the relevant documents on or before the statutory deadline of 11 June.

With thanks,

Greg Tannahill

Dear FOI Coordinator,

This satisfies the terms of my request. You may consider this FOI request completed and closed.

Thank you for the work of yourself and your office on this request.

Yours sincerely,

Greg Tannahill