fa 241200265 decision record.PDF.pdf

5 February 2025
Oliver Smith
BY EMAIL:  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
In reply please quote:
FOI Request:
FA 24/12/00265
File Number:
FA24/12/00265
Dear Oliver Smith
Freedom of Information (FOI) request – Decision
On 4 December 2024, the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) received a request for
access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act).
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a decision on your request for access under the
FOI Act.
1
Scope of request
You have requested access to the following documents:
Under the FOI Act, I seek a copy of the Ministerial Brief provided to the office of Home
Affairs Minister Tony Burke on 10/9/24 with the Brief PDR No. MS24-001157.
2
Authority to make decision
I am an officer authorised under section 23 of the FOI Act to make decisions in respect of
requests to access documents or to amend or annotate records.
3
Relevant material
In reaching my decision I referred to the following:
•  the terms of your request
•  the documents relevant to the request
•  the FOI Act
•  Guidelines published by the Office of the Information Commissioner under section 93A
of the FOI Act (the FOI Guidelines)
•  advice from Departmental officers with responsibility for matters relating to the
documents to which you sought access

6 Chan Street Belconnen ACT 2617
PO Box 25 Belconnen ACT 2616 • www.homeaffairs.gov.au

4
Documents in scope of request
The Department has identified three documents as falling within the scope of your request. These
documents were in the possession of the Department on 4 December 2024 when your request
was received.
Attachment A is a schedule which describes the relevant documents and sets out my decision
in relation to each of them.
5
Decision
The decision in relation to the documents in the possession of the Department which fall within
the scope of your request is as follows:
•  Exempt three documents in full from disclosure
6
Reasons for Decision
Where the schedule of documents indicates an exemption claim has been applied to a document
or part of document, my findings of fact and reasons for deciding that the exemption provision
applies to that information are set out below.
6.1  Section 22 of the FOI Act – irrelevant to request
Section 22 of the FOI Act provides that if giving access to a document would disclose information
that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to the request, it is possible for the Department
to prepare an edited copy of the document, modified by deletions, ensuring that the edited copy
would not disclose any information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to  the
request.
On 5 December 2024, the Department advised you that its policy is to exclude the personal
details of officers not in the Senior Executive Service (SES), as well as the mobile and work
telephone numbers of SES staff, contained in documents that fall within scope of an FOI request.
I have decided that parts of document marked ‘s22(1)(a)(ii)’ would disclose information that could
reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to your request. I have prepared an edited copy of the
document, with the irrelevant material deleted pursuant to section 22(1)(a)(ii) of the FOI Act.
The remainder of the document has been considered for release to you as it is relevant to your
request.
6.2  Section 42 of the FOI Act – Legal Professional Privilege
Section 42 of the FOI Act provides that a document is an exempt document if it is of such a nature
that it would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional
privilege.
I am satisfied that the documents comprise confidential communications passing between the
Department and its legal advisers, for the dominant purpose of giving or receiving legal advice.
- 2 -

In determining that the communication is privileged, I have taken into the consideration the
following:
•  there is a legal adviser-client relationship
•  the communication was for the purpose of giving and/or receiving legal advice;
•  the advice given was independent and
•  the advice was given on a legal-in-confidence basis and was therefore confidential.
The content of these documents are not part of the rules, guidelines, practices or precedents
relating to the decisions and recommendations of the Department. The documents do not fall
within the definition of operational information and remain subject to legal professional privilege.
I have decided that document one is exempt from disclosure under section 42 of the FOI Act.
6.3  Section 47C of the FOI Act – Deliberative Processes
Section 47C of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure
would disclose deliberative matter relating to the deliberative processes involved in the functions
of the Department.
‘Deliberative matter’ includes opinion, advice or recommendation obtained, prepared or
recorded, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place, in the deliberative processes of an
agency.
‘Deliberative processes’ generally involves “the process of weighing up or evaluating competing
arguments or considerations”1  and the ‘thinking processes –the process of reflection, for
example, upon the wisdom and expediency of a proposal, a particular decision or a course of
action.’2
The documents  contain advice, opinions and recommendations prepared or recorded in the
course of, or for the purposes of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of
Department, being the section 198AE exemption with respect to section 198AD. I am satisfied
that this deliberative matter relates to a process that  was undertaken within government to
consider whether and how to make or implement a decision. 3
Disclosure of this deliberative information could reasonably be expected to inhibit full and frank
advice from the Department to its Minister, and, as a result, full consideration by the Government
on any potential future consideration of section 198AE exemption with respect to section 198AD.
Disclosure of some deliberative information, on which a decision has not yet been taken, could
also reasonably be expected to prejudice consultations with relevant stakeholders.
Section 47C(2) provides that “deliberative matter” does not include purely factual material. I have
had regard to the fact that “purely factual material” does not extend to factual material that is an
integral part of the deliberative content and purpose of a document, or is embedded in or
intertwined with the deliberative content such that it is impractical to excise it.4 A factual summary
prepared to aid a complex issue may be classed as purely factual material, but may also be of a
character as to disclose a process of section involving opinion, advice or recommendation. As


1
Dreyfus and Secretary Attorney-General’s Department (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 962 [18]
2
JE Waterford and Department of Treasury (No 2) [1984] AATA 67
3
Dreyfus and Secretary Attorney-General’s Department (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 962
4
Dreyfus and Secretary Attorney-General’s Department (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 962 [18]
- 3 -

such, a conclusion which involves a deliberative process may well prevent material from being
purely factual5.
I am further satisfied that the factors set out in subsection (3) do not apply in this instance.
I have decided that the information is conditionally exempt under section 47C of the FOI Act.
Access to a conditionally exempt document must generally be given unless it would be contrary
to the public interest to do so. I have turned my mind to whether disclosure of the information
would be contrary to the public interest, and have included my reasoning in that regard below.
6.4  Section 47E of the FOI Act – Operations of Agencies
Section  47E(d) of the FOI Act provides that documents are conditionally exempt if disclosure
would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and
efficient conduct of the operations of an agency.
I consider that the disclosure of the parts of  document one marked ‘s47E(d)’  would, or could
reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct
of the operations of the Department.
Managing the security and integrity of Australia's borders is integral to the operations of the
Department. Any prejudice to the effectiveness of the operational methods and procedures used
in undertaking that role would result in a substantial adverse effect on the operations of the
Department.
Any disclosure resulting in the prejudice of the effectiveness of the Department’s operational
methods and procedures would result in the need for this Department, and potentially its law
enforcement partners, to change those methods and/or procedures to avoid jeopardising their
future effectiveness.
I have decided that parts of the documents are conditionally exempt under section 47E(d) of the
FOI Act. Access to a conditionally exempt document must generally be given unless it would be
contrary to the public interest to do so.  I have turned my mind to whether disclosure of the
information would be contrary to the public interest, and  have included my reasoning in that
regard below.
6.5  Section 47F of the FOI Act – Personal Privacy
Section 47F of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure
under the FOI Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information of any
person. ‘Personal information’ means information or an opinion about an identified individual, or
an individual who is reasonably identifiable, whether the information or opinion is true or not, and
whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not (see section 4 of the FOI
Act and section 6 of the Privacy Act 1988).
I consider that disclosure of the information marked ‘s47F’  in the documents would disclose
personal information relating to third parties. The information within the documents would
reasonably identify a person, either through names, positions or descriptions of their role or
employment circumstance.


5
Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Others (1984) 1 FCR 150

- 4 -

The FOI Act states that, when deciding whether the disclosure of the personal information would
be ‘unreasonable’, I must have regard to the following four factors set out in s.47F(2) of the
FOI Act:
•  the extent to which the information is well known;
•  whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be (or to have been)
associated with the matters dealt with in the document;
•  the availability of the information from publicly available resources;
•  any other matters that I consider relevant.
I have considered each of these factors below.
The information relating to the third parties is not well known and would only be known to a limited
group of people with a business need to know. As this information is only known to a limited
group of people, the individuals concerned are not generally known to be associated with the
matters discussed in the document. This information is not available from publicly accessible
sources.
I do not consider that the information relating specifically to the third parties would be relevant to
the broader scope of your request, as you are seeking access to PDR No. MS24-001157 rather
than information which wholly relates to other individuals.
I am satisfied that the disclosure of the information within the documents would involve an
unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a number of individuals.
I have decided that the information referred to above is conditionally exempt under section 47F
of the FOI Act. Access to a conditionally exempt document must generally be given unless it
would be contrary to the public interest to do so. I have turned my mind to whether disclosure of
the information would be contrary to the public interest, and have included my reasoning in that
regard below.
6.6  The public interest – section 11A of the FOI Act
As I have decided that the documents or parts thereof  are  conditionally exempt, I am now
required to consider whether access to the conditionally exempt information would be contrary
to the public interest (section 11A of the FOI Act).
The documents or parts thereof which are conditionally exempt must also meet the public interest
test in section 11A(5) before an exemption may be claimed in respect of that part.
In summary, the test is whether access to the conditionally exempt the documents or parts thereof
would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.
In applying this test, I have noted the objects of the FOI Act and the importance of the other
factors listed in section 11B(3) of the FOI Act, being whether access to the document would do
any of the following:
(a)  promote the objects of this Act (including all the matters set out in sections 3 and 3A)
(b)  inform debate on a matter of public importance
(c)  promote effective oversight of public expenditure
(d)  allow a person to access his or her own personal information.
- 5 -

Having regard to the above I am satisfied that:
•  Access to the documents would promote the objects of the FOI Act.
•  The subject matter of the documents  may  have a general characteristic of public
importance.
•  No insights into public expenditure will be provided through examination of the
documents.
•  You do not require access to the documents in order to access your own personal
information.
I have also considered the following factors that weigh against the release of the conditionally
exempt information in the documents:
•  Disclosure of the conditionally exempt information under section 47C of the FOI Act
could reasonably be expected to prejudice the ability of Departments across
government to provide full and honest advice to stakeholders in future proposals to
legislative amendments.
•  A Ministerial Submission plays an important role in the relationship between a
Department and its Minister. Its purpose is to provide frank and honest advice. It is
inherently confidential between the Department and its Minister and the preparation of
a Ministerial Submission is essentially intended for the audience of that Minister alone.
A precedent of public disclosure of advice given as a part of a Ministerial Submission
would result in:
o
concerns existing in the open and honest nature of advice being provided which
may then hinder future deliberations and decision making processes for the
Department and the Government as a whole and
o
future Ministerial Submissions being prepared with a different audience in mind,
which would compromise the quality of the advice being prepared for the Minister.
•  I consider that the public interest in protecting the process of the provision of free and
honest confidential advice by a Department to its Minister has, on balance, more
weight, than the public interest that might exist in disclosing the deliberative matter.
Endangering the proper working relationship that a Department has with its Minster
and its ability to provide its Minister with honest advice confidentially would be contrary
to the public interest.
•  Disclosure of the parts of the documents that are conditionally exempt under section
47E(d) of the FOI Act could reasonably be expected to prejudice law enforcement
functions and, as a result, the ability of the Department to protect the integrity of
Australia's visa programs. I consider there to be a strong public interest in ensuring
that the ability of the Department to conduct its law enforcement functions is not
compromised or prejudiced in any way. I consider that this would be contrary to the
public interest and that this factor weighs strongly against disclosure.
•  Disclosure of personal information which is conditionally exempt under section 47F of
the FOI Act could reasonably be expected to prejudice the protection of third parties’
right to privacy. It is firmly in the public interest that the Department uphold the rights
of individuals to their own privacy, and this factor weighs strongly against disclosure.
•  I am satisfied that if the Department were to release personal information without that
person’s express consent to do so, it would seriously undermine public confidence in
the Department’s ability to receive, retain and manage personal information. I consider
- 6 -

such a loss of confidence to be against the public interest, and this factor weighs
strongly against disclosure.
I have also had regard to section 11B(4) which sets out the factors which are irrelevant to my
decision, which are:
a)  access to the document could result in embarrassment to the Commonwealth
Government, or cause a loss of confidence in the Commonwealth Government
b)  access to the document could result in any person misinterpreting or misunderstanding
the document
c)  the author of the document was (or is) of high seniority in the agency to which the
request for access to the document was made
d)  access to the document could result in confusion or unnecessary debate.
I have not taken into account any of those factors in this decision.
Upon balancing all of the above relevant public interest considerations, I have concluded that the
disclosure of the conditionally exempt information in the documents would be contrary to the
public interest and it is therefore exempt from disclosure under the FOI Act.
7
Legislation
A copy of the FOI Act is available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A02562. If you
are unable to access the legislation through this website, please contact our office for a copy.
8
Your review rights
Internal review
You do not have the right to seek an internal review of this decision. This is because section
54E(b) of the FOI Act provides that, when an agency is deemed to have refused an FOI request
under section 15AC of the FOI Act, the applicant does not have the right to seek an internal
review of the deemed decision.
The Department was deemed to have refused your request under section 15AC of the FOI Act
because it did not make this decision within the statutory timeframes for the request.
While the Department has now made a substantive decision on your request, section 15AC of
the FOI Act continues to apply to your request, which means that any request you make for
internal review will be invalid.
Information Commissioner review
You can instead request the Australian Information Commissioner to review this decision. If you
want to request an Information Commissioner review, you must make your request to the Office
of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) within 60 days of being notified of this
decision.
You can apply for an Information Commissioner review at: Information Commissioner review
application form on the OAIC website.
- 7 -

If you have already applied for an Information Commissioner review, there is no need to make a
new review request. The OAIC will contact you shortly to give you an opportunity to advise
whether you wish the review to continue, and to provide your reasons for continuing the review.
You can find more information about Information Commissioner reviews on the OAIC website.
9
Making a complaint

You may make a complaint to the Australian Information Commissioner if you have concerns
about how the Department has handled your request under the FOI Act. This is a separate
process to the process of requesting a review of the decision as indicated above.

You can make an FOI complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
(OAIC) at: FOI Complaint Form on the OAIC website.
10
Contacting the FOI Section
Should you wish to discuss this decision, please do not hesitate to contact the FOI Section at
xxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.

Yours sincerely,

Electronically signed

Peter
Position number: 00003356
Authorised Decision Maker
Department of Home Affairs

- 8 -