Engagement and use of an external consultant for Nixon Review work
Dear Australian National University,
Under FOI, I am requesting any documents and communications, including email, Signal, Teams or other messaging platforms, which document the decision to engage an external company, ‘Shapeshifters Creative’ to produce collateral in relation to the Nixon working groups. Specifically, I am requesting:
1. Any documents, or communications held by the University to engage an external consultant to provide a service already available through existing ANU staff areas; and copies of the due diligence undertaken to ensure there was no internal capability to complete this work, prior to the decision to engage an external consultant.
2. The invoices, terms of reference and scope of work undertaken by ‘Shapeshifters Creative’ for the Nixon project, including date of engagement and services.
3. Whether an exemption was sought for procurement of these external services; and who authorised the use of the consultant.
4. Any emails, documents, Signal or other messaging platforms held by the IVC Office or the IVC about the decision to use a third party to complete work for ANU; and why this decision has not been communicated transparently to the broader ANU staff community.
Yours faithfully,
Joyce Mayer
Good afternoon
On 24 October 2025, the Australian National University (the University)
received your request for access to documents under the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act).
The University has taken your request to be as follows:
‘I am requesting any documents and communications, including email,
Signal, Teams or other messaging platforms, which document the decision to
engage an external company, ‘Shapeshifters Creative’ to produce collateral
in relation to the Nixon working groups. Specifically, I am requesting:
1. Any documents, or communications held by the University to engage
an external consultant to provide a service already available through
existing ANU staff areas; and copies of the due diligence undertaken to
ensure there was no internal capability to complete this work, prior to
the decision to engage an external consultant.
2. The invoices, terms of reference and scope of work undertaken by
‘Shapeshifters Creative’ for the Nixon project, including date of
engagement and services.
3. Whether an exemption was sought for procurement of these external
services; and who authorised the use of the consultant.
4. Any emails, documents, Signal or other messaging platforms held by
the IVC Office or the IVC about the decision to use a third party to
complete work for ANU; and why this decision has not been communicated
transparently to the broader ANU staff community.
Your request has been assigned the case number 202500276.
Processing Timeframe
The statutory time frame for processing your request is 30 calendar days
from day after the date your request was received by the University. You
should therefore expect a decision from us by 23 November 2025.
This period of 30 days may be extended if we need to consult third
parties, impose a charge or for other reasons. We will advise you in
writing if this happens.
We will contact you using the email address you provided. Please advise if
you would prefer us to use an alternative means of contact. If you have
any questions regarding your request, please feel free to contact the FOI
Team via the functional email [1][ANU request email].
The FOI Team’s workload is currently at very high levels due the
unprecedented volume of FOI requests.
We are using our best endeavors to process all requests expeditiously
however there may be some slippage due to the current workload. We will
keep in touch with you and advise if there are any significant delays,
and, will, if necessary, seek extensions as permitted by the Act.
Yours sincerely
FOI Team
University Governance Office
The Australian National University
Email: [2][ANU request email]
Web: [3]https://www.anu.edu.au/freedom-of-inform...
TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12002 (Australian University) | CRICOS Provider
Code: 00120C | ABN: 52 234 063 906
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[ANU request email]
2. mailto:[ANU request email]
mailto:[ANU request email]
3. https://www.anu.edu.au/freedom-of-inform...
https://www.anu.edu.au/freedom-of-inform...
Dear Joyce Mayer,
Please find attached, correspondence regarding your request
Kind regards
FOI Team
University Governance Office
The Australian National University
Email: [1][ANU request email]
Web: [2]https://www.anu.edu.au/freedom-of-inform...
TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12002 (Australian University) | CRICOS Provider
Code: 00120C | ABN: 52 234 063 906
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[ANU request email]
mailto:[ANU request email]
2. https://www.anu.edu.au/freedom-of-inform...
https://www.anu.edu.au/freedom-of-inform...
Dear Australian National University,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Australian National University's handling of my FOI request 'Engagement and use of an external consultant for Nixon Review work'.
From the response, I am unable to ascertain if any steps were taken to identify documents or relevant parties to reasonable consider this request, which in accordance with s24AB(3) of the Act, should be been undertaken prior to a refusal. As noted, the request included a request for invoices, terms of reference and scope of work – which are inherently clear requests for documents.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/e...
Yours faithfully,
Joyce Mayer
Good afternoon,
I refer to the attached, Notice of Practical Refusal issued to you by the
University on 25 November 2025.
As no response has been received from you within the 14 Day response time
provided in the Notice, your request is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Kind regards
FOI Team
University Governance Office
The Australian National University
Email: [1][ANU request email]
Web: [2]https://www.anu.edu.au/freedom-of-inform...
TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12002 (Australian University) | CRICOS Provider
Code: 00120C | ABN: 52 234 063 906
From: Freedom of Information
Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2025 6:51 PM
To: [FOI #13924 email]
Subject: FOI 202500276- Notice of Practical Refusal
Dear Joyce Mayer,
Please find attached, correspondence regarding your request
Kind regards
FOI Team
University Governance Office
The Australian National University
Email: [3][ANU request email]
Web: [4]https://www.anu.edu.au/freedom-of-inform...
TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12002 (Australian University) | CRICOS Provider
Code: 00120C | ABN: 52 234 063 906
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[ANU request email]
mailto:[ANU request email]
2. https://www.anu.edu.au/freedom-of-inform...
https://www.anu.edu.au/freedom-of-inform...
3. mailto:[ANU request email]
mailto:[ANU request email]
4. https://www.anu.edu.au/freedom-of-inform...
https://www.anu.edu.au/freedom-of-inform...
Dear Australian National University,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to re-request an internal review of Australian National University's handling of my FOI request 'Engagement and use of an external consultant for Nixon Review work'.
From the response, I am unable to ascertain if any steps were taken to identify documents or relevant parties to reasonable consider this request, which in accordance with s24AB(3) of the Act, should be been undertaken prior to a refusal. As noted, the request included a request for invoices, terms of reference and scope of work – which are inherently clear requests for documents.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/e...
Yours faithfully,
Joyce Mayer
Ben (Right to Know) left an annotation ()
I have been asked to give my thoughts on this request. Here is my personal view:
Joyce sent a request for Internal Review on the 3rd of December, and the ANU responded on the 10th saying that they had not received a response. This is despite the original email (and proof that we sent it) on the website. This is why it's important for us to public not only the request and the documents but the conversation leading up to that!
According to the Information Commissioner, the FOI Act makes it clear that agencies "have a duty to take reasonable steps to assist a person make an FOI request that complies with the formal requirements" of the FOI Act.
The FOI Guidelines (that are made by the Information Commissioner) make clear that agencies should not wait until the practical refusal stage to help someone clarify their FOI request. It also says that a request must be "read fairly by the agency, being mindful not to take a narrow or pedantic approach".
An example of a good Practical Refusal Reason can be found here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s.... The reason I personally think it's a good example is that it:
- Explains what the authority has already done to try to identify the documents
- Explains clearly what the problems are with the request and what could be changed to make the request easier to process
- Provides an example of what the initial searches turned up (in this case, over 7,000 documents in their document management system).
In addition to an Internal Review, Joyce could also make a complaint to the Information Commissioner about the handling of the request. A complaint is different from an external review - you are not challenging the decision, but rather the way the request was handled. You can find more information about this process on the OAIC website: https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
Ben (Right to Know) left an annotation ()
I am confused by this troubling response. The authority simply says that the request "Does not provide such information concerning the document/s as is reasonably necessary to enable a responsible officer of this agency to identify the exact document/s you are seeking".
However the request asks for (in part):
2. The invoices, terms of reference and scope of work undertaken by ‘Shapeshifters Creative’ for the Nixon project, including date of engagement and services.
An invoice, Terms of Reference and scope of work, with a reference to the name of a vendor are extremely specific, and I don't know how you could be more specific!
It's also unclear from the request what steps (if any) have been taken by the officer in relation to the request. I might actually ask for that information.