Dear Australian Public Service Commission,

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), I request any and all documents sent or received by, or prepared for, or prepared by, or made use of by each of:

a) Gordon de Brouwer,
b) Peter Woolcott,
c) Helen Wilson,
d) Rina Bruinsma,
e) Grant Lovelock,
f) Jo Talbot,
g) Charmaine Sims,
h) any occupants, whether in a substantive or acting capacity, of the role of Assistant Commissioner, Integrity, Performance and Employment policy,

in respect of inadequate investigations, or in respect of reports of inadequate investigations, relating to misconduct in the Australian Public Service, or any kinds of unlawful conduct by officials in the Australian Public Service (including agency heads and statutory office holders), from 1 January 2020 to 29 August 2023.

Yours faithfully,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your email.

In your email you note that the scope of my request “is too broad and the Commission is unable to process it in its current form.”

It is not clear what the statutory basis of your statement is.

The only ground for refusing to process an FOI request is set out in section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act), which relates to a diversion of the resources of an agency.

In order to invoke section 24, the work involved in processing a request for documents under the FOI Act would substantially AND unreasonably divert the resources of the entire agency from its other operations: FOI Act, s 24AA(1)(a).

A request can be described quite broadly and must be read fairly by an agency, being mindful not to take a narrow or pedantic approach to its construction: ‘BI’ and Professional Services Review [2014] AICmr 20.

I have made a valid request for access to documents. It is a narrow request, in that I have identified the people with which the request is associated, the timeframe for the search (which is relatively short), and the subject matter.

Specifically, I have requested access to documents sent or received by, or prepared for or by, or made use of by 7 named individuals, as well as an officeholder, in an agency of some 380 people. Moreover, I have narrowed the request for documents to a very small class – namely documents in respect of inadequate investigations (i.e. investigations not conducted according to law), or in respect of reports of inadequate investigations (i.e. reports of investigations not conducted according to law), relating to misconduct in the Australian Public Service, or any kinds of unlawful conduct by officials in the Australian Public Service (including agency heads and statutory office holders).

There is, therefore, no basis for claiming that the documents are not sufficiently identified.

As a Commonwealth integrity agency, the response to my FOI request should be that there are no documents that fall within the scope of the request because Commonwealth integrity agencies should not be conducting inadequate investigations (i.e. investigations not conducted according to law). That being said, a set of materials has come to my attention that has prompted me to make this FOI request.

I cannot imagine that processing a request for a very narrow class of documents – documents in respect of inadequate investigations (i.e. investigations not conducted according to law), or in respect of reports of inadequate investigations (i.e. reports of investigations not conducted according to law), relating to misconduct in the Australian Public Service, or any kinds of unlawful conduct by officials in the Australian Public Service (including agency heads and statutory office holders) – pertaining to 7 people and an officeholder in an agency of some 380 people would substantially AND unreasonably divert the resources of the entire agency from its other operations.

Unless you can identify a lawful ground to support your statement that my request “is too broad and the Commission is unable to process it in its current form”, you must, with respect, process my request as it stands.

If you are claiming a practical refusal ground, please provide me with formal notification of that fact, in accordance with subsection 24AB(2) of the FOI Act. In other words, please give me written notice stating the following:

a) an intention to refuse access to a document in accordance with a request;

b) the practical refusal reason;

c) the name of an officer of the agency or member of staff of the Minister (the contact person) with whom the applicant may consult during a period;

d) details of how the applicant may contact the contact person;

e) that the period (the consultation period) during which the applicant may consult with the contact person is 14 days after the day the applicant is given the notice.

If you are not claiming a practical refusal ground, please process my FOI request as it stands.

Of course, if you are about to claim that processing a request in respect of documents in the possession of 7 identified individuals and an office holder about inadequate investigations (i.e. investigations not conducted according to law), or in respect of reports of inadequate investigations (i.e. reports of investigations not conducted according to law), relating to misconduct in the Australian Public Service, or any kinds of unlawful conduct by officials in the Australian Public Service (including agency heads and statutory office holders) would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the entire Australian Public Service Commission from its other operations, then the Australian Public Service Commission is in deeper trouble than I thought.

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear FOI,

If you are going to claim a practical refusal ground for refusing to process my FOI request, would you please provide me with:

a) the representative sample of documents that have been assessed to determine that there is a practical refusal ground: Paul Farrell and Prime Minister of Australia (Freedom of information) [2017] AICmr 44; GD’ and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet [2015] AICmr 46; Farrell and Department of Immigration and Border Protection (No. 2) [2014] AICmr 121; ‘DC’ and Department of Human Services [2014] AICmr 106; Farrell and Department of Immigration and Border Protection (No. 2) [2014] AICmr 121; ‘DC’ and Department of Human Services [2014] AICmr 106; and ‘AP’ and Department of Human Services [2013] AICmr 78; and

b) an indication of the number of documents that are likely to be released in the light of the sample exercise undertaken: Paul Farrell and Prime Minister of Australia (Freedom of information) [2017] AICmr 44 [25]; and

c) in the light of the assessment of the sample, an indication of the complexity of the potential decision, the number of exemptions required, the topic and content of the documents, and the number of consultations required and effort required to contact third parties based on available contact details: Dreyfus and Attorney-General (Commonwealth of Australia) (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 995 [57] (Justice Jagot, currently of the High Court of Australia, sitting as a Presidential Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal).

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear Ms McIntyre,

Firstly, thank you for processing my FOI request. Obviously, the statements made, on 6 September 2023, that the scope of my request is too broad and that the APSC “is unable to process it in its current form” are not true.

Secondly, the decision to refuse access on the basis on s 24A seems incorrect.

It is public knowledge that the acting Commonwealth Ombudsman, Penny McKay, sent Mr Peter Woolcott, the Public Service Commissioner, a letter (https://docdro.id/KxHOwyk) on 18 March 2022 notifying him that, after conducting a preliminary inquiry under s 7A of the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth), she had commenced an investigation into Kate McMullan’s handling of a public interest disclosure investigation.

According to Ms McKay, the public interest disclosure had a reference of PID-2020-400006, which is the same reference for the disclosure allocated to the APSC in relation to recruitment decisions in the Federal Court Statutory Agency (https://docdro.id/YAB3yIZ).

It’s obvious that Ms McKay’s letter is a document received by Peter Woolcott in respect of an inadequate investigation, or in respect of a report of an inadequate investigation, relating to misconduct in the Australian Public Service, or any kinds of unlawful conduct by officials in the Australian Public Service (including agency heads and statutory office holders), from 1 January 2020 to 29 August 2023.

I request an internal review of your decision on the basis that your claim that there are no documents within the scope of my request is untrue. Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

Yours faithfully,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear Dipali,

Thank you for letting me know. I hope to hear from you soon.

Wishing you a safe and relaxing holiday break.

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear Georgia,

Reference: MR23/01428

Thanks for your email of 30 May 2024. I noticed that you sent a similar email to another FOI applicant (Marius) and I have decided to follow their example in providing you with a screen shot of my "My Requests" page on RTK to show that I made the original FOI request to the APSC on 30 August 2023.

Like Marius, I note that it is not possible to upload screen shots on RTK because RTK only permits the entry of plain text context and does not permit me to attach anything to those entries (like documents or images).

Like Marius, I have uploaded the screen shot of my "My Requests" page via the OAIC's queries webpage, which allows me to upload content.

I submitted the screen shot at about 2:40 pm today. The form reference is VBNJWBWP and the submission reference is 56921509. Please let me know if you need anything more from me. Like Marius, I wouldn't want my IC review request finalised on account of a misunderstanding.

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear FOI Officer (Australian Public Service Commission),

I appreciate you reaching out to me by email on June 5, 2024.

In response to my FOI request dated 30 August 2023, Melanie McIntyre refused access to the documents that I requested. In Melanie McIntyre's decision, which was sent to me on 28 September 2023, Melanie stated that the documents cannot be found or do not exist.

I applied for internal review on 28 September 2023. In my application for review, I noted that Melanie's decision could not be correct because there are documents that have been published by the APSC pursuant to other FOI decisions that demonstrate that the documents that I requested do exist. Plainly, Melanie's decision was not true.

Despite drawing attention to the fact that there are actually documents within the APSC's possession that are within scope of my request, on 30 October 2023, Amanda Harmer of the APSC again refused to provide access to the documents because the documents cannot be found or do not exist.

I was prepared to believe that Melanie had made a mistake in providing her decision but after demonstrating that there are documents in scope of my request, I find it hard to believe that Amanda's decision was a mistake. In my opinion, Amanda was deceptive.

I applied for IC review of Amanda Harmer's decision because I was able to demonstrate that what Amanda communicated in her decision was plainly false. There are obviously documents within scope of my request. I provided links to some of those documents in my internal review request, which I invite you to again refer to. There are also other documents that have been published by the APSC demonstrating that there are in fact documents in the possession of the APSC that are within the scope of my request: e.g.

https://archive.org/download/pid-2020-40...

There are others too.

The problem is that I do not just how many there are. Perhaps there will be documents that were sent to the APS Commissioner about the preliminary inquiry referred to in the Senate estimates pocket brief. There is likely to be a document relating to the outcome of the investigation that was commenced by Penny McKay, the acting Commonwealth Ombudsman. The fact is that only officials in the APSC know just how many documents there are in the scope of my request. What I can say with certainty is that both Melanie McIntyre's and Amanda Harmer's claims that there are no documents that can be found or that there are no documents that exist are not true.

The community does not know exactly what documents the Commonwealth government has but members of the community are entitled to apply to access them. A fundamental presumption of the FOI Act is that Commonwealth officials will be honest when dealing with FOI requests and will not falsely claim that there are no documents when documents do in fact exist. I am disappointed that I was lied to by Amanda Harmer. In reaching out to me you have asked me what action the APSC can take to resolve my concerns. I ask the APSC to engage with my FOI request honestly, and with integrity and good faith. When officials in integrity agencies lie, obfuscate or deliberately mislead members of the community about the existence of documents, they erode public confidence and trust in their agencies and in the public service. They also show a contempt for their statutory obligations. That's not appropriate. The Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes said as much (and in a more eloquent way than I have).

To resolve this matter, please see to it that a lawful and, above all, truthful decision is made in relation to the documents that I requested on 30 August 2023.

Yours faithfully,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear Georgia,

Reference: MR23/01428

I refer to Melanie McIntyre’s submissions about MR23/01428, which were sent to me via www.righttoknow.org.au on 4 September 2024: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i....

Ms McIntyre correctly notes, in her submissions (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...), that I have applied for IC review of Amanda Harmer’s internal review decision. In that decision, Amanda Harmer stated that the APSC did not have the documents requested and refused access under section 24A of the FOI Act.

At [15] of her submissions, Ms McIntyre notes “that many of the documents sought by the Applicant appear to have already been released by the Commission”.

But if “many of the documents sought by the Applicant appear to have already been released by the Commission”, then Ms McIntyre would be accepting that the basis of my IC review application is true (the basis was that Amanda Harmer’s decision to refuse access to documents on the ground that no such documents exist is false).

Section 55D of the FOI Act provides that an agency has the onus of establishing that a decision given in respect of a request or application is justified. Melanie McIntyre has admitted that “many of the documents sought by the Applicant appear to have already been released by the Commission”, which means that not only has she failed to establish that the decision given, on internal review, in respect of the request is justified, she has established the opposite of what was stated on internal review by Amanda Harmer is actually true. Therefore, Amanda Harmer's decision must be set aside and a lawful and truthful decision must be made.

I have applied to the APSC for access to documents under the FOI Act and am entitled to receive a truthful and lawful decision from the decision maker. As I explained in my email to the APSC on 6 June 2024:

“The problem is that I do not just how many [documents] there are. Perhaps there will be documents that were sent to the APS Commissioner about the preliminary inquiry referred to in the Senate estimates pocket brief. There is likely to be a document relating to the outcome of the investigation that was commenced by Penny McKay, the acting Commonwealth Ombudsman. The fact is that only officials in the APSC know just how many documents there are in the scope of my request. What I can say with certainty is that both Melanie McIntyre's and Amanda Harmer's claims that there are no documents that can be found or that there are no documents that exist are not true.

The community does not know exactly what documents the Commonwealth government has but members of the community are entitled to apply to access them. A fundamental presumption of the FOI Act is that Commonwealth officials will be honest when dealing with FOI requests and will not falsely claim that there are no documents when documents do in fact exist. I am disappointed that I was lied to by Amanda Harmer. In reaching out to me you have asked me what action the APSC can take to resolve my concerns. I ask the APSC to engage with my FOI request honestly, and with integrity and good faith. When officials in integrity agencies lie, obfuscate or deliberately mislead members of the community about the existence of documents, they erode public confidence and trust in their agencies and in the public service. They also show a contempt for their statutory obligations. That's not appropriate. The Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes said as much (and in a more eloquent way than I have).”

Ms McIntyre’s duty under the IC review is to demonstrate that Ms Harmer’s IR decision is justifiable. She has conceded that it is not justifiable. Instead of apologising, setting aside Ms Harmer’s false decision, and providing lawful reasons and access to the documents requested, Ms McIntyre has proceeded to demand, at [18]-[19], that my IC review application be dismissed because my application for IC review is causing delays. This is bizarre and does not address what Ms McIntyre should be doing under the FOI Act for the purposes of this IC review (which is to is to demonstrate to the Information Commissioner that Ms Harmer’s IR decision is justifiable).

Ms McIntyre’s submissions are also an abuse of process because she is extending an IC review application in full and conceded knowledge that Ms Harmer’s decision is untrue. If anybody is a source of delay and inefficiency, it is Ms McIntyre, and, as the General Counsel of the APSC, she should be rebuked for wasting resources.

Before I end this email, I would like to draw paragraph 7 of Ms McIntyre’s submissions to your attention. The Directions as to certain procedures to be followed by agencies and ministers on IC review make clear that the “OAIC expects that applicants and agencies will engage with the IC review process, with respect and courtesy”: Directions, paragraph 2.7. Ms McIntyre advances unsubstantiated, irrelevant and disrespectful allegations in that paragraph of her submissions. I think Ms McIntyre should be also rebuked for the disrespectful, irrelevant and unsubstantiated allegations she has levelled against me.

I am most disappointed with Ms McIntyre. I expected a more dignified, relevant and professional set of submissions from the General Counsel of the APSC.

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear FOI,

Reference: MR23/01428

Please find my submissions in response to Melanie McIntyre's submissions posted online: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i....

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear Georgia,

Reference: MR23/01428

I am emailing you to let you know that I have drawn my submissions to the attention of the APSC's FOI team: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear Australian Public Service Commission,

Freedom of information request for response to director at the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman

I refer to the document published on the FOI Disclosure Log of the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman with identifier FOI-2025-80009: https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/asse...

On pages 2 – 9 of that document, there is a report, from the director of the Ombudsman’s PID team, relating to the handling of a public interest disclosure investigation by an official in the APSC in 2020. The document sets out “comments and suggestions to the APSC under s 12(4) of the Ombudsman Act 1976” in relation to the Ombudsman’s investigation into the handling of the aforementioned public interest disclosure investigation.

On page 9 of FOI-2025-80009, the Ombudsman’s PID team director made the following request:

“I would be grateful if the APSC would provide a response to the comments and suggestions we have made by 20 January 2023.”

Under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), I request the correspondence sent by the APSC to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in response to the comments and suggestions made by the PID team’s director (in the Ombudsman's office).

Please provide the requested document to me by return email.

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear Assistant Commissioner Barber (Australian Public Service Commission),

APSC reference: LEX 1414

I am writing to request a complete internal review of your handling of my FOI request.

Please pass this internal review request to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

Yours faithfully,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear Meka Larsen,

Reference: MR23/01428

I refer to Melanie McIntyre’s further submissions about MR23/01428, which were sent to me via www.righttoknow.org.au on 1 July 2025: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

In her submission, Melanie McIntyre has claimed that the Australian Public Service Commission has taken all reasonable steps to locate documents within the scope of my request, and that there are no document within scope. I demonstrated, in my email to the Australian Public Service Commission, dated 28 September 2023, that the claim is demonstrably false.

In my email of 28 September 2023, which is published on Right to Know (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...), I noted:

“Firstly, thank you for processing my FOI request. Obviously, the statements made, on 6 September 2023, that the scope of my request is too broad and that the APSC “is unable to process it in its current form” are not true.

Secondly, the decision to refuse access on the basis on s 24A seems incorrect.

It is public knowledge that the acting Commonwealth Ombudsman, Penny McKay, sent Mr Peter Woolcott, the Public Service Commissioner, a letter (https://docdro.id/KxHOwyk ) on 18 March 2022 notifying him that, after conducting a preliminary inquiry under s 7A of the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth), she had commenced an investigation into Kate McMullan’s handling of a public interest disclosure investigation.

According to Ms McKay, the public interest disclosure had a reference of PID-2020-400006, which is the same reference for the disclosure allocated to the APSC in relation to recruitment decisions in the Federal Court Statutory Agency (https://docdro.id/YAB3yIZ ).

It’s obvious that Ms McKay’s letter is a document received by Peter Woolcott in respect of an inadequate investigation, or in respect of a report of an inadequate investigation, relating to misconduct in the Australian Public Service, or any kinds of unlawful conduct by officials in the Australian Public Service (including agency heads and statutory office holders), from 1 January 2020 to 29 August 2023.

I request an internal review of your decision on the basis that your claim that there are no documents within the scope of my request is untrue. Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.”

The letter (https://docdro.id/KxHOwyk) from on 18 March 2022 notifying him that, after conducting a preliminary inquiry under s 7A of the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth), she had commenced an investigation into Kate McMullan’s handling of a public interest disclosure investigation is proof that Melanie McIntyre’s submissions of 1 July 2025 are false.

I also noticed that you referred to another decision made by the APSC – LEX 629.

The request in LEX 627, which is published online ( https://archive.org/details/pid-2020-400... ), is essentially the same as my FOI request.

The request in LEX 627 was worded:

“Under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) I request access to any and all documents that a) were sent, or b) received, or c) were prepared, or d) were in any way handled by each of [names officials or position] that V) advert to, or X) address, or Y touch upon the subject of, or Z) relate to the inadquacy of Kate McMullan’s public interest disclosure investigation, or the inadequacy of the report of Kate McMullan’s public interest disclosure investigation, into allegations of misconduct in respect of the recruitment of registrars in the Federal Court of Australia Statutory Agency.”

According to Melanie McIntyre’s submissions of 1 July 2025, the Australian Public Service Commission released a document in response to LEX 627.

Specifically, Melanie McIntyre states:

“9. The line area assessed that these documents were outside the
scope of the Applicant’s request on the basis that they did not relate to “inadequate
investigations, or reports in respect of inadequate investigations, relating to
misconduct in the Australia Public Service, or any kinds of unlawful conduct by
officials in the Australian Public Service,” and instead, the scope of LEX 627 related
to “investigation about recruitment practices.”

10. The Commission acknowledges that it made a decision pursuant to section 55G of
the FOI Act in respect of the IC review (MR23/01311) for LEX 627 and released a
document in part. This document comprises feedback from the Commonwealth
Ombudsman following an investigation, provided under subsection 12(4) of the
Ombudsman Act 1976, and has been published on the Commission’s FOI disclosure
log.”

The document referred to by Melanie McIntyre, which is the feedback from the Commonwealth Ombudsman following an investigation, provided under subsection 12(4) of the Ombudsman Act 1976 is also published on the disclosure log on the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

That document is obviously within the scope of my FOI request.

In relation to that subsection 12(4) decision, Melanie McIntyre has stated, in her submissions of 1 July 2025 that:

“11. The Commission raises that the Applicant is in possession of an un-redacted copy of
this document. The Commission makes this assertion on the basis that the document
was sent to the Commission by the Applicant in their request for an internal review on
28 September 2023, and is document 25g of the document bundle provided to OAIC
by the Commission.”

Melanie McIntyre’s statement is demonstrably false.

The document that I drew to the attention of the APSC on 28 September 2023 is, firstly, not unredacted, and secondly, not the subsection 12(4) decision from the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The document that I drew to the attention of the APSC on 28 September 2023 was a letter (https://docdro.id/KxHOwyk) dated 18 March 2022 notifying Peter Woolcott, the Australian Public Service Commissioner that, after conducting a preliminary inquiry under s 7A of the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth), the acting Commonwealth Ombudsman had commenced an investigation into Kate McMullan’s handling of a public interest disclosure investigation.

Obviously these two documents are not the same.

They bear different dates.

They don’t have the same number of pages.

They were created and signed by different people (one by Penny McKay, the other by Carmen Miragaya).

As I already noted, the subsection 12(4) document is plainly within the scope of my request because it is “in respect of inadequate investigations, or in respect of reports of inadequate investigations, relating to misconduct in the Australian Public Service, or any kinds of unlawful conduct by officials in the Australian Public Service (including agency heads and statutory office holders), from 1 January 2020 to 29 August 2023.”

Specifically, the subsection 12(4) document is in respect of the inadequate public interest disclosure investigation that Kate McMullan conducted relating to misconduct in the Australian Public Service (specifically, unlawful recruitment in the Federal Court).

Melanie McIntyre’s statement, in her submissions at paragraph 12, which is:

“[The subsection 12(4) decision from the Commonwealth Ombudsman” was not considered within scope of the Applicant’s request as it does not relate to ‘inadequate investigations, or reports in respect of inadequate investigations, relating to misconduct in the Australia Public Service, or any kinds of unlawful conduct by officials in the Australian Public Service,’ and instead, relates to ‘investigation about recruitment practices’”

is obviously disingenuous.

Melanie McIntyre repeatedly pointed out, in her submissions of 4 September 2024 (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1... ) that Kate McMullan’s investigation was conducted under the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 applies to disclosable conduct (PID Act, s 26), which is defined to mean, amongst other things:

1. conduct that constitutes maladministration (PID Act, s 29),

2. conduct that contravenes laws of the Commonwealth (PID Act, s 29), and

3. conduct that is an abuse of public trust (PID Act, s 29).

A public interest disclosure cannot be made about lawful recruitment practices. For Melanie McIntyre to suggest that the Ombudsman’s investigation of Kate McMullan’s mishandled public interest disclosure investigation was about ‘investigation about recruitment practices’ is shamelessly disingenuous.

I would be like the NACC saying that the current corruption investigations it has on, 5 of which relate to unlawful recruitment, do not relate to misconduct in the Australian Public Service (the serious or systemic corrupt kind) but are actually “investigations about recruitment practices.”

That kind of manipulative statement that Malenie McIntyre has advanced in her submissions would make Sir Humphrey Appleby blush in shame.

The facts are clear.

As I noted, as early as 28 September 2023, there was, in fact, at least one document within scope, which has, incidentally, been published on the APSC’s FOI disclosure log, and is also available elsewhere on the internet (e.g. https://archive.org/details/2021-104592-... ).

There is yet another document within scope – the subsection 12(4) report issued by Carmen Miragaya at the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, which has been published on the APSC’s FOI disclosure log, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s disclosure log, and is available for download elsewhere on the internet (https://archive.org/details/pid-2020-400... ).

The APSC’s claim that there are no documents within the scope of my request is clearly false because I have demonstrated that there are documents within the scope of my request and that those documents are also published on the APSC’s own FOI disclosure log. Only the APSC’s officials know how many more there are.

Melanie McIntyre has the onus of proving that the access refusal decision made by Amanda Harmer on internal review is justifiable. In the light of the evidence, it is clearly not. Therefore, Melanie McIntyre has failed to convince the OAIC that the searches conducted in the last two years have met the requirements of the FOI Act.

In the light of the facts and the law, Melanie McIntyre’s submissions of 1 July 2025 must not be taken seriously.

Receiving a lawful decision from the General Counsel in a Commonwealth integrity agency should not be this difficult. Nor should it take two years to receive a decision made according to law.

I would like the APSC to conduct lawful searches for the documents requested and to then make a decision on access to those documents according to law. Ultimately, I would like access to the documents that I have requested.

I will draw these submission to the attention of Melanie McIntyre and notify of that fact soon.

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear FOI,

Reference: MR23/01428

For the attention of Melanie McIntyre – General-Counsel, Australian Public Service Commission

I refer to Melanie McIntyre’s submissions, sent to me on 1 July 2025: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...

I have prepared submissions to the OAIC refuting the thesis of Melanie McIntyre’s submissions. Please find my submissions set out here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear Meka Larsen,

Reference: MR23/01428

I have drawn my submissions to the attention of Melanie McIntyre in the Australian Public Service Commission: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

This is an email notifying you of that fact.

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear Meka Larsen

Reference: MR23/01428

This email is response to your correspondence of 8 August 2025.

The purpose of this email is to set out my concerns about your proposal to recommend a decision be made under s 54W(b) of the FOI Act.

My FOI request

On 30 August 2023, I requested access to any and all documents sent or received by, or prepared for, or prepared by, or made use of by each of:

a) Gordon de Brouwer,
b) Peter Woolcott,
c) Helen Wilson,
d) Rina Bruinsma,
e) Grant Lovelock,
f) Jo Talbot,
g) Charmaine Sims,
h) any occupants, whether in a substantive or acting capacity, of the role of Assistant Commissioner, Integrity, Performance and Employment policy,

in respect of inadequate investigations, or in respect of reports of inadequate investigations, relating to misconduct in the Australian Public Service, or any kinds of unlawful conduct by officials in the Australian Public Service (including agency heads and statutory office holders), from 1 January 2020 to 29 August 2023.

Decisions from the Australian Public Service Commission

On 27 September 2023, Melanie McIntyre, the General Counsel at the APSC, issued a decision: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...

In her decision, Melanie McIntyre refused to grant access to the requested documents because no such documents existed or the documents could not be found.

On 28 September 2023, I applied for internal review of Melanie McIntyre's decision: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

In my internal review request, I noted that there were at least two documents within the scope of my request because those documents had been published online: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

The documents in question can be accessed using the following links:

a) https://docdro.id/KxHOwyk
b) https://docdro.id/YAB3yIZ

On 30 October 2023, Amanda Harmer affirmed Melanie McIntyre's decision: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...

Amanda Harmer affirmed Melanie McIntyre's decision even though I had demonstrated and proved that the claim that no documents exist or documents cannot be found was false.

Submissions

I made submissions to the OAIC on IC review MR23/01428 on 4 September 2024 and 3 July 2025.

My submissions of 4 September 2024 can be found here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

My submissions of 3 July 2025 can be found here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

I continue to rely on both submissions.

Importantly, I have demonstrated to the OAIC that the internal review decision made by Amanda Harmer is false.

General objects of the FOI Act and the inappropriateness of your proposal in light of the objects of the FOI Act

One of the general objects of the FOI Act is that the Parliament intends that functions and powers given by the FOI Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost: FOI Act, s 3(4).

In your notice, you have alluded to the fact that if a decision is made under s 54W(b) of the FOI Act to close the IC review, I will have an opportunity to apply to the ART, but that I will be forced to pay an application fee. The application fee is $1,148.

Any discretion exercised under s 54W(b) is not an unfettered one; it is subject to the principles of statutory interpretation.

In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best achieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other interpretation: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AA.

Having regard to an individual’s duties and responsibilities, upholding the APS Value in subsection 10(2) of the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) requires you to act in a way that is right and proper, as well as technically and legally correct or preferable: Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2022 (Cth), s 14(e).

When it comes to the exercise of powers under statutes, the context of the exercise of the power must be considered at first instance, and not merely if there is some ambiguity in the wording of the provision. As the High Court said in CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384, 408:

“The modern approach to statutory interpretation (a) insists that the context be considered in the first instance, not merely at some later stage when ambiguity might be thought to arise, and (b) uses 'context' in its widest sense to include such things as the existing state of the law and the mischief which, by legitimate means such as those just mentioned, one may discern the statute was intended to remedy. Instances of general words in a statute being so constrained by their context are numerous … In particular, as McHugh JA pointed out in Isherwood v. Butler Pollnow Pty Ltd , if the apparently plain words of a provision are read in the light of the mischief which the statute was designed to overcome and of the objects of the legislation, they may wear a very different appearance.”

You are obligated, by statute and case law propounded by the High Court of Australia, to exercise powers in a way that gives effect to an interpretation of a provision that best achieves the purpose or object of an enactment. In the case of an exercise of s 54W(b), the relevant official in the OAIC must exercise the discretion in a manner that best achieves the object of the FOI Act that requires facilitating and promoting public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.

An exercise of the discretion in a way that forces me to pay $1,148 for a decision that is not demonstrably false is contrary to the object of facilitating and promoting public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.

An exercise of the discretion in a way that forces me to pay $1,148 for access to documents that I have proved do exist and are in the possession of the Australian Public Service Commission is contrary to the object of facilitating and promoting public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.

With respect, your proposal is not a legally sound one. Your proposal is contrary to the explicit object of the FOI Act. The exercise of a discretion in a way that fails to BEST achieve the purpose set out in subsection 3(4) of the FOI Act would be unlawful for falling foul of both s 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), as well as your statutory duty to act in a way that is right and proper, as well as technically and legally correct or preferable, which is set out in the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2022 (Cth). Your proposal is precisely that – a proposal to exercise a discretion in a way that, in light of the circumstances (a request for access to an eight page document) does not BEST achieve the purpose set out in subsection 3(4) of the FOI Act would be unlawful for falling foul of both s 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth).

Contingencies assumed and unsupported claims of identity or similarity

In your correspondence of 8 August 2025, you stated:

“The decision under review is of a level of complexity that would be more appropriately handled through the procedures of the ART. In particular this IC review is part of a larger cohort of complex and interrelated matters currently before the OAIC involving the same or similar FOI requests … Given this, it would be more efficient for the related matters to be progressed together.”

To the extent that you are suggesting that my FOI request is the same or similar to FOI requests that you have sent your copied-and-pasted correspondence to on Right to Know (for example, https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a... , or https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/r... , or https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i... ), my FOI request is clearly not the “same or similar” to those requests. The documents requested by those other applicants are totally different to what I have requested.

I am only aware of one other request that is similar to mine and I am aware of it because my attention was drawn to it by Melanie McIntyre is submissions that she made to you on 1 July 2025: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...

It seems that you are personally aware that there are, in fact, documents that meet the terms of my FOI request in the possession of the APSC because you seem to have asked Melanie McIntyre why she had not granted access to the Ombudsman's section 12(4) report: see page 3 of Melanie McIntyre's submissions to the OAIC - https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...

You have simply assumed that the ART will invariably bunch together all of the applications for review. You do not have the institutional authority to determine what the ART will do. You do not have the institutional authority to assume that the ART will exercise its powers in a way that you think might best effect a purpose you appear wedded to. With respect, your suggestion that the power under s 54W(b) will be exercised in anticipation of a contingent event (“for the related matters to be progressed together” by the ART) over which you have not control or say is baseless. It's little more than pie in the sky.

The exercise of powers made according to law are not made on the basis of pie in the sky. There are grounds for judicial review of such decisions.

Since you have assumed that the ART will invariably act in a way that you have no control over, and since that assumption is based on the premiss that my FOI request is the “same or similar” to a “larger cohort of complex and interrelated matters currently before the OAIC”, for which no coherent or persuasive evidence has been provided, your proposal to request a person to exercise a discretionary power under s 54W(b) is, with respect and clearly, baseless (in that it is based on assumptions over which you have not control and which may not be effect, and an equivalence drawn between my request and a “larger cohort of complex and interrelated” FOI requests that you allege are the “same or similar” to mine).

Suggestion that the APSC would appeal any decision made by the Information Commissioner

In your notice, dated 8 August 2025, you noted the following in support of your view that the IC review should be ended:

“I consider there to be a significant likelihood that any decision made by the Information Commissioner or their delegate under s 55K of the FOI Act in this IC review would be appealed by one or both of the parties, in light of the views the parties have expressed to date on the disclosure or non-disclosure of the material at issue.”

You have provided no evidence in support of your claim. It is nothing more than a hunch that, conveniently, helps you dump the work that you have so far been tasked with. Dumping your work is not reason enough to force me into a position to fork out $1,148 to receive a lawful and truthful decision under section 26 of the FOI Act, as well as any documents pursuant to that lawful and truthful decision.

I also disagree with your assessment. It is highly unlikely that the APSC would appeal any decision made in respect of MR23/01428 because doing so would:

a) expose the APSC to public ridicule in relation to Kate McMullan's mishandled PID investigation, and

b) expose Melanie McIntyre to the ire of the Administrative Review Tribunal for using the FOI process as a platform to publish defamatory imputations about my character (as to which, please see Melanie McIntyre's submission of 4 September 2024 - https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1... , as well as my submissions of 4 September 2024 in response to Melanie McIntyre's submissions - https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i... ), and

c) expose both Melanie McIntyre and Amanda Harmer to the criticisms of the Administrative Review Tribunal, which usually publishes its decisions to the world, in respect of the deliberately and demonstrably false claims made pursuant to section 24A of the FOI Act.

If the APSC appealed a decision by the Information Commissioner or one of her delegates, the APSC would be forced to concede that Melanie McIntyre and Amanda Harmer abused the FOI process to advance false statements about the existence, or otherwise, of documents in the APSC's possession.

As it happens, more and more documents have been published on the internet in the last two years that are clearly within the scope of my FOI request. The only question is how many more documents are there within the APSC's possession that the APSC does not want to admit the existence of.

In my opinion, which I have supported with good reasons, the APSC will not appeal any decision of the OAIC. You, on the other hand, have not supported your claim with any reasons.

Would you kindly explain on what basis you have formed the view that there is “a significant likelihood that any decision made by the Information Commissioner or their delegate under s 55K of the FOI Act in this IC review would be appealed by one or both of the parties, in light of the views the parties have expressed to date on the disclosure or non-disclosure of the material at issue.”

Even if the APSC did appeal the Information Commissioner's decision, which it would do so at the risk of drawing public attention to a botched integrity investigation, the cost of the appeal should fall on the Commonwealth, with its near unlimited budget. I should not have to bear that cost. That is, in the light of the explicit objects of the FOI Act, most unfair.

My view of your proposal

It seems to me that you are personally aware that Amanda Harmer's internal review decision is plainly wrong and demonstrably false. It also seems to me that you have made some luke-warm attempts to get Melanie McIntyre to admit that her decision is, in the light of all the evidence, plainly false. It is also clear to me that Melanie McIntyre has obstreperously refused to engage with you in good faith.

Having not succeeded in getting the APSC's General Counsel to play ball, it seems to me that you are just giving up and refusing to exercise your functions and powers under the FOI Act according to law.

With all of your knowledge that the Parliament intends that functions and powers given by the FOI Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost (FOI Act, s 3(4)), as well as the circumstances of my IC review application, it seems to me that you are trying to rid the Information Commissioner of her duty to make a decision is respect of this IC review application.

Are you afraid of Melanie McIntyre? Has she disparaged you, or made denigratory remarks about your character, much as she has unlawfully done in respect of my character? Is it because you are an EL1 official, and that you feel outgunned by Melanie McIntyre, a Senior Executive Band 1 official? Are you overwhelmed by the nature of the task? Are you worried that, if the Information Commissioner makes a decision, that decision is, in the light of all the evidence at hand, going to expose the deceptions of the APSC, including the falsehoods recorded in Amanda Harmer's decision notice?

It seems to me that you are deliberately undermining the statutory obligations that the Parliament has placed on the Information Commissioner and the staff supporting her.

It seems to me that you are intent on rewarding the APSC's abuses of of the FOI process, and penalising me.

Your proposal effectively rewards public servants who abuse their statutory obligations under the FOI Act.

Your proposal effectively rewards public servants who use the FOI process as a platform for advancing falsehood.

Your proposal effectively rewards public servants who use the FOI process as a platform for denigrating members of the community with defamatory imputations.

Your proposal rewards those public servants who spurn the reasonable overtures of the OAIC's officials with irrelevancies, spin and delay.

Is this the message you want to send to the Australian Public Service? Is this the message you want to sent to the Australian community?

So much for the Information Commissioner's priorities, in the 2025-26 financial year, to progress complaint investigations and highlight systemic underperformance by individual agencies, particularly in relation to agencies’ refusal rates, compliance with statutory timeframes, disclosure log practices and information publication scheme compliance: https://www.oaic.gov.au/about-the-OAIC/o...

So much for the OAIC's commitment to integrity and the new APS value of stewardship, which includes “having proper regard to known and reasonably foreseeable implications of decisions and other actions”: Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2022 (Cth), s 17A - https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2022L000...

Is that what this is all about? Having waited for two years, and done nothing of substance, are you now trying to rid yourself of the seeming burden of drawing attention to the APSC's abuses of the law? Have you lost your nerve? You should be better than that. You should be stronger than that. You are an official of a Commonwealth Integrity Agency. You should know better. You should undertake your tasks without fear or favour. You should always ensure that your conduct is scrupulously lawful.

If you feel overwhelmed by this task, please approach the Information Commissioner, or your supervisor, and ask for help.

If you feel like this review is above your ken, seek support.

Seek the guidance of the Information Commissioner or your supervisor if your must.

Do not, with cynical and devious intent, try to present your actions as actions calculated to ensure the efficient administration of the FOI Act.

Do not, with cynical and devious intent, penalise me for your weaknesses.

Do not, with cynical and devious intent, force me to pay for access to reasons for decision, which are lawful and truthful, when I was and am entitled to such reasons for no price at all under the FOI Act.

Do not, with cynical and devious intent, force me to pay for access to documents that, in the light of mounting evidence, embarrass the APSC and its officials.

In the light of the evidence, your proposal to recommend that my IC review application be terminated is unprincipled.

In the light of the law, including the objects of the FOI Act, your proposal to recommend that my IC review application be terminated is unprincipled and unlawful.

Conclusion

In light of the circumstances and the fact that the substance of the document is already in the public domain, it would be both inappropriate and, in the light of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) and High Court authority, unlawful to exercise the power under s 54W(b) to close the IC review and force me to pay $1,148 to secure my rights to a lawful decision under the FOI Act because such an exercise of power would fail to BEST achieve the purpose set out in subsection 3(4) of the FOI Act, which is to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.

Contrary to your claims, the matter is not complex. I have proved that Amanda Harmer's decision is false. You are well aware that it is false.

Much of your justifications, Ms Larsen, are based on, first, contingencies over which neither she nor I have any control, and, second, on the dubious statement that my FOI request is the “same or similar” to a “larger cohort of complex and interrelated matters currently before the OAIC”, which Ms Larsen has not supported with any evidence. Ms Larsen's notification letter is merely a cookie-cutter letter, which has been sent to others, devoid of context and loaded with unwarranted assumptions.

It seems to me that you are trying to weasel out of undertaking your duties and functions under the law and, in the process, penalising me for your lack of courage and industry.

In the circumstances, an exercise of a discretion under s 54W(b) would be both inappropriate and, in the light of authority, unlawful.

The IC review should be handled by the OAIC.

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear Australian Public Service Commission,

Reference: MR23/01428

Please find my submissions to the OAIC's Meka Larsen set out here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen

Dear Meka Larsen

Reference: MR25/01054

This email is response to your correspondence of 8 August 2025.

The purpose of this email is to set out my concerns about your proposal to recommend a decision be made under s 54W(b) of the FOI Act.

My FOI request

On 30 March 2025, I requested access to the correspondence sent by the APSC to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in response to the comments and suggestions made by the PID team’s director (in the Ombudsman's office): https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

Decisions from the Australian Public Service Commission

On 29 April 2025, Kylie Barber of the APSC issued a decision: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...

In her decision, Ms Barber refused to grant access to the requested document because she claimed conditional exemptions applied.

On 3 May 2025, I applied for internal review of Kylie Barber's decision: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

On 30 May 2025, Melanie McIntyre affirmed Kylie Barber's decision: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...

IC review

On 8 June 2025, I applied for IC review of Melanie McIntyre's decision of 30 May 2025.

My reasons for seeking IC review were set out on Right to Know: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

I continue to rely on those reasons for seeking IC review.

General objects of the FOI Act and the inappropriateness of your proposal in light of the objects of the FOI Act

One of the general objects of the FOI Act is that the Parliament intends that functions and powers given by the FOI Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost: FOI Act, s 3(4).

I have requested a single document (just one)

In your notice, you have alluded to the fact that if a decision is made under s 54W(b) of the FOI Act to close the IC review, I will have an opportunity to apply to the ART, but that I will be forced to pay an application fee. The application fee is $1,148.

Any discretion exercised under s 54W(b) is not an unfettered one; it is subject to the principles of statutory interpretation.

In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best achieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other interpretation: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AA.

Having regard to an individual’s duties and responsibilities, upholding the APS Value in subsection 10(2) of the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) requires you to act in a way that is right and proper, as well as technically and legally correct or preferable: Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2022 (Cth), s 14(e).

When it comes to the exercise of powers under statutes, the context of the exercise of the power must be considered at first instance, and not merely if there is some ambiguity in the wording of the provision. As the High Court said in CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384, 408:

“The modern approach to statutory interpretation (a) insists that the context be considered in the first instance, not merely at some later stage when ambiguity might be thought to arise, and (b) uses 'context' in its widest sense to include such things as the existing state of the law and the mischief which, by legitimate means such as those just mentioned, one may discern the statute was intended to remedy. Instances of general words in a statute being so constrained by their context are numerous … In particular, as McHugh JA pointed out in Isherwood v. Butler Pollnow Pty Ltd , if the apparently plain words of a provision are read in the light of the mischief which the statute was designed to overcome and of the objects of the legislation, they may wear a very different appearance.”

You are obligated, by statute and case law propounded by the High Court of Australia, to exercise powers in a way that gives effect to an interpretation of a provision that best achieves the purpose or object of an enactment. In the case of an exercise of s 54W(b), the relevant official in the OAIC must exercise the discretion in a manner that best achieves the object of the FOI Act that requires facilitating and promoting public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.

An exercise of the discretion in a way that forces me to pay $1,148 for a decision is respect of access or otherwise to one (1) document is contrary to the object of facilitating and promoting public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.

With respect, your proposal is not a legally sound one. Your proposal is contrary to the explicit object of the FOI Act. The exercise of a discretion in a way that fails to BEST achieve the purpose set out in subsection 3(4) of the FOI Act would be unlawful for falling foul of both s 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), as well as your statutory duty to act in a way that is right and proper, as well as technically and legally correct or preferable, which is set out in the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2022 (Cth). Your proposal is precisely that – a proposal to exercise a discretion in a way that, in light of the circumstances (a request for access to an eight page document) does not BEST achieve the purpose set out in subsection 3(4) of the FOI Act would be unlawful for falling foul of both s 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth).

Contingencies assumed and unsupported claims of identity or similarity

In your correspondence of 8 August 2025, you stated:

“The decision under review is of a level of complexity that would be more appropriately handled through the procedures of the ART. In particular this IC review is part of a larger cohort of complex and interrelated matters currently before the OAIC involving the same or similar FOI requests … Given this, it would be more efficient for the related matters to be progressed together.”

You have not identified which other matter my FOI request is related to.

You have not identified how my request for access to an eight page document is the “same or similar” to other FOI requests. So far as I can see on Right to Know, this is the only request for correspondence sent by the APSC to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in response to the comments and suggestions made by the PID team’s director (in the Ombudsman's office)

To the extent that you are suggesting that my FOI request is the same or similar to FOI requests that you have sent your copied-and-pasted correspondence to on Right to Know (for example, https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a... , or https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/r... , or https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i... ), my FOI request is clearly not the “same or similar” to those requests. The documents requested by those other applicants are totally different to what I have requested.

Even if there are the “same or similar” FOI requests (which I note that you have failed to identify), you have simply assumed that the ART will invariably bunch together all of the applications for review on the basis of a dubious claim that the FOI requests are the “same or similar”.

You do not have the institutional authority to determine what the ART will do. You do not have the institutional authority to assume that the ART will exercise its powers in a way that you think might best effect a purpose you appear wedded to. With respect, your suggestion that the power under s 54W(b) will be exercised in anticipation of a contingent event (“for the related matters to be progressed together” by the ART) over which you have not control or say is baseless. It's little more than pie in the sky.

The exercise of powers made according to law are not made on the basis of pie in the sky. There are grounds for judicial review of such decisions.

Since you have assumed that the ART will invariably act in a way that you have no control over, and since that assumption is based on the premiss that my FOI request is the “same or similar” to a “larger cohort of complex and interrelated matters currently before the OAIC”, for which no evidence has been provided, your proposal to request a person to exercise a discretionary power under s 54W(b) is, with respect and clearly, baseless (in that it is based on assumptions over which you have not control and which may not be effect, and an equivalence drawn between my request and a “larger cohort of complex and interrelated” FOI requests, which you have provided no evidence of existing, that you allege are the “same or similar” to mine).

Suggestion that the APSC would appeal any decision made by the Information Commissioner

In your notice, dated 8 August 2025, you noted the following in support of your view that the IC review should be ended:

“I consider there to be a significant likelihood that any decision made by the Information Commissioner or their delegate under s 55K of the FOI Act in this IC review would be appealed by one or both of the parties, in light of the views the parties have expressed to date on the disclosure or non-disclosure of the material at issue.”

You have provided no evidence in support of your claim. It is nothing more than a hunch that, conveniently, helps you dump the work that you have so far been tasked with. Dumping your work is not reason enough to force me into a position to fork out $1,148 to potentially receive one document from the APSC.

I also disagree with your assessment. It is highly unlikely that the APSC would appeal any decision made in respect of MR23/01428 because doing so would expose the APSC to public ridicule in relation to Kate McMullan's mishandled PID investigation.

It would also expose the APSC to the ire of the ART because the APSC has already partially published criticisms from the Ombudsman's office about the inadequacies of Kate McMullan's PID investigation:

Furthermore, the inadequacies of Kate McMullan's PID investigation are public knowledge, with the substance of her failures released under the FOI Act by officials in the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman: see, for example -

https://archive.org/details/pid-2020-400...

https://archive.org/details/pid-2020-400...

https://archive.org/details/pid-2020-400...

https://archive.org/details/pid-2020-400...

https://archive.org/details/pid-2020-400...

https://archive.org/details/pid-2020-400...

https://archive.org/details/lex-520-aust...

https://archive.org/details/lex-520-aust...

https://archive.org/details/lex-547-aust...

https://archive.org/details/lex-550-aust...

In my opinion, which I have supported with good reasons, the APSC will not appeal any decision of the OAIC. You, on the other hand, have not supported your claim with any reasons.

Would you kindly explain on what basis you have formed the view that there is “a significant likelihood that any decision made by the Information Commissioner or their delegate under s 55K of the FOI Act in this IC review would be appealed by one or both of the parties, in light of the views the parties have expressed to date on the disclosure or non-disclosure of the material at issue.”

Even if the APSC did appeal the Information Commissioner's decision, which it would do so at the risk of drawing public attention to a botched integrity investigation, the cost of the appeal should fall on the Commonwealth, with its near unlimited budget. I should not have to bear that cost. That is, in the light of the explicit objects of the FOI Act, most unfair.

No attempt made to even engage with the IC review

The IC review application in MR25/01054 was submitted to the OAIC in June 2025. It seems to me that no attempt has even been made on your part, Ms Larsen, to engage with the substance of the IC review request.

It seems to me that all you have done is, on some demonstrably flimsy premisses, determined that you are going to recommend that someone exercise a discretion in a way that undermines the objects of the FOI Act to get rid of work, and, in the process, force me to pay $1,148 for a single (1) document.

It seems to me that you are deliberately undermining the statutory obligations that the Parliament has placed on the Information Commissioner and the staff supporting her by sending me some hackneyed, copy-and-paste correspondence, which you have also sent to a whole raft of other access applicants of Right to Know.

In the light of the evidence, your proposal to recommend that my IC review application be terminated is unprincipled.

In the light of the law, including the objects of the FOI Act, your proposal to recommend that my IC review application be terminated is unprincipled and unlawful.

Conclusion

In light of the circumstances and the fact that the substance of the document is already in the public domain, it would be both inappropriate and, in the light of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) and High Court authority, unlawful to exercise the power under s 54W(b) to close the IC review and force me to pay $1,148 to secure my rights to a lawful decision under the FOI Act because such an exercise of power would fail to BEST achieve the purpose set out in subsection 3(4) of the FOI Act, which is to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.

Contrary to your claims, the matter is not complex. It is an IC review request in respect of one (1) document, and the grounds in supporting of access to that document are clearly articulated in my IC review request. Moreover, there is a raft of documents that demonstrate that it is practically useless for the APSC to claim that the requested document would or could have a substantial adverse effect on the operations of the APSC or any other agency because the information and documents about Kate McMullan's inadequate PID investigation have been released under the FOI Act by officials in the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and those documents are published online.

Much of your justifications, Ms Larsen, are based on, first, contingencies over which neither she nor I have any control, and, second, on the dubious statement that my FOI request is the “same or similar” to a “larger cohort of complex and interrelated matters currently before the OAIC”, which Ms Larsen has not supported with any evidence. Ms Larsen's notification letter is merely a hackneyed, cookie-cutter letter, which has been sent to others, devoid of context and loaded with unwarranted assumptions.

It seems to me that you are trying to weasel out of undertaking your duties and functions under the law and, in the process, penalising me for your lack of courage and industry.

In the circumstances, an exercise of a discretion under s 54W(b) would be both inappropriate and, in the light of authority, unlawful.

The IC review should be handled by the OAIC.

Yours sincerely,

Louis Verhuizen