Dear Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry,

I request Document 134 in LEX-29913 to be released in full - https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/def...

In particular the page is titled "INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT - REPORT TO GOVERNMENT BY 30 SEPTEMBER 2023" claims a s 47C(1) exemption.

(1) A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would disclose matter ( deliberative matter ) in the nature of, or relating to, opinion, advice or recommendation obtained, prepared or recorded, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place, in the course of, or for the purposes of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of:
(a) an agency; or
(b) a Minister; or
(c) the Government of the Commonwealth.

The redaction under "Implementation options to explore could include:" in the document does not fit this criteria.

As the OAIC states:

"'Deliberative matter’ is a shorthand term for ‘opinion, advice and recommendation’ and ‘consultation and deliberation’ that is recorded or reflected in a document.

At the time the document was created that list of "options to explore could include" is for a panel that had yet to be formed or selected. According to their published TOR, the panel were able to determine their own approach to their task. They were appointed on an "Independent" basis and not subject to any directions within that document. There were no parts of that document the panel were required to consider. (TOR link below)

As such, at the time of creation it was not a deliberative matter that was for an agency, a Minister, the Government of the Commonwealth. No one was required to consider it and no decision was to be made from it.

As the OAIC advice states "if the material was obtained BEFORE there was a known REQUIREMENT that the material WOULD be considered during a deliberative process, that material would not be deliberative matter."

There was and remains, no "requirement" to consider that section of the document. The language is clear - "options to explore COULD include". As there is no requirement for that part of the document to be considered, the exemption cannot be relied upon.

It was merely something a panel may wish to explore in the future, which comes under "purely factual" material and not any matter under deliberation. There is also no evidence that this list was provided to the panel.

Given the Panel's independence, 6.66 in the OAIC guide is made out and it was not "matter that was not obtained, prepared or recorded in the course of, or for the purposes of, a deliberative process."

Please release the document in full.

Yours faithfully,

SF

Panel TOR - https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/def...

Dear Foi,

I would like to note that the document requested was discussed at senate estimates.

Relevantly the minister said as per Hansard:

Senator Watt: I don't think it would be fair, and we're not necessarily doing this, but it's not as if the
department was giving me advice that these are the things we should do.

It is clear that the minister did not consider the briefing this to be deliberative material.

No response required, but please take this into account when providing a decision.

Yours sincerely,

SF

Dear Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry's handling of my FOI request 'Page 337 of 342 of Document 134 in LEX-29913'.

There is still too much not disclosed here.

For example, the title of page 5 claims a s 47C(1) exemption. I find it difficult to accept that the title of a page contains deliberate material. Even accepting the reasoning of the previous decision maker, information on 'what' the minister was briefed on is not deliberative material. All titles and headings should be released. These are not "opinion, advice or recommendation obtained". Even if somehow they are, it is in the public interest to know the matters the department is briefing the minister on (even if an exemption is claimed on the substance of that advice or option). Knowing what the department is briefing the minster could not prejudice any government process.

Page 5 also has 4 boxes under "What we are hearing". Assumedly, there is a 5th box there with a title and content. Assuming the content is titled correctly, the missing "What we are hearing" box would also be classed as factual information. 47C(b) specifically excludes factual information as being deliberative.

All s 47C claims should be reviewed against whether they are deliberative, factual and if public interest claims are appropriate.

The claims for 47F exemptions are accepted and do not need to be further explored.

Yours faithfully,

SF