Freedom of Information reforms
Ben Fairless made this Freedom of Information request to eSafety Commissioner
Dear eSafety Commissioner,
I am requesting documents held by eSafety that relate to the ability, or inability, of the agency to process a large number of Freedom of Information requests.
This is also a request for documents that contain suggestions, ideas, or briefs discussing potential changes to the Freedom of Information Act.
The time period for this request is the previous 12 months.
If any part of this request may cause a practical refusal, please provide a list of identified documents as part of the consultation request.
Please treat as irrelevant duplicates of correspondence, where the final correspondence includes the entire thread (for example, I do not require each email in a conversation if the final email contains all the previous conversations). I also don’t require the personal information of individuals or businesses that are not part of the public service or the government.
Yours faithfully,
Ben Fairless
PS: This request is made in my personal capacity as a member of the public, and not on behalf of my employer.
OFFICIAL
Dear Applicant
I am writing to acknowledge your request under the Freedom of Information
Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act) received on 11 September 2025.
Unless you request otherwise, we will redact the names and personal
information of public servants on relevance grounds pursuant to section 22
of the FOI Act. We will also proceed on the basis that you do not require
duplicates or drafts of material in scope.
The FOI Act allows 30 days for processing your request. This period may be
extended for charges and third-party consultation. We will let you know if
this occurs.
We will contact you at the email address above unless you advise
otherwise. Any documents released to you as part of this decision will be
published on our disclosure log unless one of the relevant exceptions
apply. Further information about the FOI Act, including eSafety’s
publication obligations, is available on our website at
[1]https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/corp....
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
[2]eSafety logo Email-Signautre
[3]Email-Footers icons3[4]esafety.gov.au
[5]Email-Footers iconsT[6]Email-Footers iconsF[7]Email-Footers iconsL
eSafety acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout
Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and community.
We pay our respects to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, and
to Elders past, present and emerging.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Fairless <[8][FOI #13640 email]>
Sent: Thursday, 11 September 2025 2:55 PM
To: FOI <[9][email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Freedom of Information reforms
[You don't often get email from
[10][FOI #13640 email]. Learn why this is
important at [11]https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]
Dear eSafety Commissioner,
I am requesting documents held by eSafety that relate to the ability, or
inability, of the agency to process a large number of Freedom of
Information requests.
This is also a request for documents that contain suggestions, ideas, or
briefs discussing potential changes to the Freedom of Information Act.
The time period for this request is the previous 12 months.
If any part of this request may cause a practical refusal, please provide
a list of identified documents as part of the consultation request.
Please treat as irrelevant duplicates of correspondence, where the final
correspondence includes the entire thread (for example, I do not require
each email in a conversation if the final email contains all the previous
conversations). I also don’t require the personal information of
individuals or businesses that are not part of the public service or the
government.
Yours faithfully,
Ben Fairless
PS: This request is made in my personal capacity as a member of the
public, and not on behalf of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[12][FOI #13640 email]
Is [13][eSafety Commissioner request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to eSafety Commissioner? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[14]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
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:
[15]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all
copies of the original message.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/corp...
2. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...
4. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...
5. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...
6. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...
7. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...
8. mailto:[FOI #13640 email]
9. mailto:[email address]
10. mailto:[FOI #13640 email]
11. https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific...
12. mailto:[FOI #13640 email]
13. mailto:[eSafety Commissioner request email]
14. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
15. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
Dear FOI Coordinator,
Thanks for acknowledging my request. I don’t appreciate you automatically excluding information under section 22, especially when the FOI Guidelines don’t permit this (see 3.54 of the Freedom of Information Guidelines). Without further explanation as to why the names of government officials are irrelevant to the scope of an applicant’s request, it is unlikely that the application of s 22 is appropriately justified.
Please ensure you amend your templates and procedures so that you are compliant with both the law and the guidelines.
I’m happy to discuss any exclusions you want to make under section 22, however it is ultimately up to me as the applicant to decide if something is irrelevant to the scope of my request.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Fairless