Dear Australian National University FOI team,

Under a contract signed between the ANU and Nous Group in March 2024, Nous Group agreed to provide the ANU with an understanding of "how the Australian HE sector behaves and how the ANU situates itself through expert insight into the choices being made by universities." The final report, to be delivered on 6 May 2024, was to capture the "key insights, lessons and practical actions."

Under the FOI Act, I would like to request a copy of that report.

Yours faithfully,

Steve Hanua

Dear Australian National University FOI Team,

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 'Nous Group Final Report on the Australian HE Sector and how the ANU situates itself' (#202500088).

Grounds for Internal Review

1. Section 47C of the Act – Deliberative Material
The decision maker has made an error regarding the timing of the commissioned work and its relationship to any deliberative process about "Renew ANU."

The decision states that the material "constitutes advice or recommendations that have been procured from a third party for the purposes of supporting/guiding deliberations that have occurred as part of a deliberative process of the University – specifically, how it would approach and structure the Renew ANU initiative."

The commissioning of this work from the Nous Group commenced in mid-January 2024. The contract was signed in March 2024 with delivery in May 2024. At this time, the University had not yet decided to undertake any "Renew ANU" initiative. The report could not have been commissioned to inform deliberations about structuring an initiative that did not yet exist.

Under s 47C(1), deliberative matter must be obtained, prepared or recorded "in the course of, or for the purposes of, a deliberative process." Material obtained before there was a known requirement for deliberation cannot be deliberative matter.

The report was commissioned for general strategic understanding of the sector, not for any specific deliberative process about university restructuring. This is evident from the contract scope which sought understanding of "how the Australian HE sector behaves" - a broad analytical exercise, not deliberative matter.

2. Section 47 of the Act – Documents disclosing trade secrets or commercially valuable information

The decision maker has applied a blanket redaction to the entire report without conducting the required document-by-document, section-by-section analysis mandated by s 22 of the FOI Act.
Significant portions of any sector analysis would necessarily include information already in the public domain about the operations of universities in the sector.

Under s 47(1)(b), information has commercial value only if that value "would be, or could reasonably be expected to be, destroyed or diminished if the information were disclosed." Information already in the public domain cannot meet this test.

Section 22 requires agencies to provide edited copies where practicable. The decision maker has failed to consider whether public domain information could be separated from any genuinely commercially sensitive material.

3. Section 11A(5) - Public Interest Test
The decision identifies only one factor favouring disclosure (promoting the objects of the Act) but fails to properly consider other mandatory factors under s 11B(3):
* Inform debate on matter of public importance: University restructuring and strategic direction is clearly a matter of significant public interest to students, staff, and the broader community
* Promote effective oversight of public expenditure: The University is substantially publicly funded, and expenditure on external consultants warrants public scrutiny

Additional factors favouring disclosure not considered:
* Enhancing scrutiny of government decision-making (per s 3 objects)
* Revealing the reason for government decisions and contextual information
* Contributing to transparency in the use of public resources

Several factors cited against disclosure lack proper evidence or reasoning:
* "Chilling effect" claim: No evidence provided that disclosure would actually impact future deliberations, particularly given the report was not commissioned for deliberative purposes
* "Strategic initiatives still underway": Vague assertion without identifying what specific harm would result
* "Efficacy of advice" claim: No explanation of how disclosure would impact efficacy

The decision does not explain the relative weight given to factors or justify why factors against disclosure outweigh those favouring disclosure, as required by the Act.

Request for Fresh Decision
I request that the decision be set aside and a fresh decision made that:

* Recognizes that the Nous Group report was not commissioned for deliberative purposes and therefore s 47C does not apply
* Conducts a proper analysis under s 47 that separates public domain information from any genuinely commercially sensitive material
* Applies a proper public interest test that considers all relevant factors and provides adequate reasoning for the balancing exercise

The public interest strongly favours disclosure of this report, which was commissioned using public funds to analyse the public higher education sector.

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

I look forward to your reconsideration of this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Steve Hanua

Dear Freedom of Information team,

I am writing because I was expecting a decision on this internal review by now. Should I take your non-response to constitute "deemed affirmation" as per s54(D) of the FOI Act? This would mean that "the principal officer of the agency is taken to have made a decision personally affirming the original decision on the last day of the initial decision period".

Please confirm if you are affirming the original decision, or if you have merely neglected to undertake (or even acknowledge) this request for internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Hanua