20250317 FOI Decision Letter to GIPAgoomar.pdf

Part 2 of my FOI request
A contract was entered into, on 29 November 2024, with Emeritus Professor John McMil an for the
professor to prepare an inquiry report - see contract CN4123324 on www.tenders.gov.au.
Under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth), I request access to the following documents:
a) the terms of reference (howsoever described - e.g. brief, instructions, request etc.) for the inquiry
report for Emeritus Professor John McMil an to prepare; and
b) the inquiry report.’

6.  On 28 February 2025 I wrote to you formally acknowledging your FOI request.

Decision on your FOI request
7.  I am authorised under subsection 23(1) of the FOI Act by the MPC to make FOI decisions.

8.  Searches for documents that fall within the scope of your FOI request were conducted by
me and I have found four documents.

9.  Attachment A to this letter is a schedule of the four documents.

10. I have decided that parts of the four documents are exempt for one or more of the reasons
set out in Attachment B to this letter.   I have therefore decided to release the four
documents to you with redactions.

11. During the processing of your request I consulted third parties potentially affected by the
release of the documents.  One of those third parties has until Wednesday, 16 April 2025 to
seek a review of my decision after which time (subject to the outcome of any such review) I
will provide you with the redacted documents.

Website Publication
12. Subject to certain exceptions, s. 11C of the FOI Act requires agencies to publish online any
information released in response to freedom of information requests. This publication is
known as a ‘disclosure log’. The disclosure log requirement does not apply to personal
information about any person if it would be unreasonable to publish the information or to
information about the business, commercial, financial or professional affairs of any person if
publication of that information would be unreasonable. The MPC is not required to consult
you on any decision to publish information that is released to you and the decision to publish
information is not subject to review internally by the MPC or externally by the Australian
Information Commissioner.  Any person can however, make a complaint to the Australian
Information Commissioner about how an agency handles an FOI request.

13. I have decided that the information released to you wil  not be published. This is because the
documents you have requested contain personal information of third parties. While it may be
2

reasonable to disclose general information provided by the MPC, I think it would be
unreasonable to publish specific information relating to third parties.

Review rights
14. You are entitled to seek review of this decision. Your review rights are set out at
Attachment C.

Contacts
15. If you require clarification on matters in this letter please contact me by telephone on (02)
8239 5326 or by email at xxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xx.

Yours sincerely

Mark Davidson
Authorised FOI decision-maker

3

REASONS FOR DECISION
ATTACHMENT B
Material taken into account
1.  In making my decision, I had regard to the following:

•  the terms of your request
•  the content of the documents to which you sought access
•  the relevant provisions of the FOI Act
•  FOI guidelines issued by Australian Information Commissioner under section 93A of the FOI
Act (FOI Guidelines) and published on the website of the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner (OAIC) at https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-guidelines/
•  the views of the third parties consulted by me under section 27A of the FOI Act
•  the requirements of section 72B of the Public Service Act 1999
•  the decisions of the Australian Information Commissioner in:
o  BA and Merit Protection Commissioner [2014] AICmr 9
o  ‘PU’ and Merit Protection Commissioner (Freedom of information) [2019] AICmr 4
(18 January 2019) and
o  'VE' and Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Freedom of information)
[2020] AICmr 41 (13 August 2020).
Background

2.  The MPC is an Independent Statutory Officer established under subsection 49(1) of the Public
Service Act 1999 (the PS Act). The MPC is however for the purposes of the FOI Act, an
Agency.

3.  Staff necessary to assist the MPC in the carrying out of her functions are employees of the
Australian Public Service Commission (the APSC).1   Section 50 of the PS Act sets out the
MPC's functions. The MPC delegates her functions and powers under the PS Act and Public
Service Regulations. Under subsection 49(3) of the PS Act the MPC may engage consultants
to assist in the performance of her functions.

4.  On 23 September 2024 the MPC received a complaint alleging a third party had breached the
APS Code of Conduct.  The practice upon receipt of such complaints is to firstly carry out an
assessment as to whether the complaint warrants further inquiry and if so, carry out that inquiry.

5.  The MPC engaged Professor McMil an under subsection 49(3) of the PS Act to undertake the
assessment and recommend whether the complaint warranted further inquiry.

6.  On 25 November 2024, Professor McMil an made a recommendation to the MPC’s Delegate.
On 27 November 2025 the MPC’s Delegate decided parts of the complaint warranted further
inquiry and other parts did not.


1 Subsection 49(2) of the PS Act.
5

7.  Professor McMil an undertook the inquiry and reported his findings to the Delegate on 9 January
2025 that the al egations were not sustained and there were no breaches of the APS Code of
Conduct.

8.  Section 72B of the PS Act provides the MPC, her delegates and staff amongst others are
entrusted persons and they must not disclose protected information.2  Protected information is
information obtained by an entrusted person in connection with the performance of functions or
duties under subsections 50(1) or (2), section 50A or any other provision of the PS Act or
Regulations prescribed.3  Whilst section 72B permits the MPC to disclose protected information
under certain conditions, subsection 72B(6) provides:

‘The Merit Protection Commissioner must not disclose the name of an individual, or any other material
that would enable an individual to be identified, in protected information that is disclosed under
subsection (5), unless the Merit Protection Commissioner is satisfied that the disclosure is fair and
reasonable in all the circumstances.’

9.  An unauthorised disclosure of protected information is a criminal offence.4  Because of this
protection, in my view, it was Parliament’s intention in making section 72B of the PS Act to set a
high bar for the release of protected information including personal information or any other
information that would enable a person to be identified.
Section 22 - Access to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant matter deleted
10.  Section 22(2) of the FOI Act requires an agency to give an applicant access to an edited copy of
a document, with the exempt matter deleted, if it is reasonably practicable for the agency to
prepare the edited copy, having regard to:

the nature and extent of the modification (s 22(1)(c)(i)), and

the resources available to modify the document (s 22(1)(c)(i )).
Section 47C - deliberative material
11.  Section 47C of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditional y exempt from disclosure if it
would disclose certain matter of a deliberative nature. Essentially, deliberative matter is content
that is in the nature of, or relating to:

a.  an opinion, advice or recommendation  that has been  obtained, prepared  or recorded  or
b.  a consultation  or deliberation that has taken place

in the course of, or for the purposes  of, a deliberative process  of the agency,  a
Minister  or the Government  of the Commonwealth.

12.  Deliberative matter does not include operational information (as defined by section 8A of the
FOI Act) or purely (i.e. merely) factual information. Moreover, subsection 47C(3) of the FOI Act
provides that the conditional exemption does not apply to certain reports and records,  including
the record of, or a formal statement of the reasons for, a final decision given in the exercise of a
power or of an adjudicative function (s 47C(3)).

2 See subsection 72B(2) of the PS Act.
3 See subsection 72B(1) of the PS Act.
4 See section 122.4 of the Criminal Code.
6

13.  Section 47C is a conditional exemption and access to a document must be given unless in the
circumstances giving access would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. Therefore
the main requirements of this public interest conditional exemption are that a document:
a.  contains or relates to ‘deliberative matter’ (s 47C(1))
b.  was prepared for a ‘deliberative purpose’ (s 47C(1))
c.  the material is not ‘purely factual’ or non-deliberative (s 47C(2)), and
d.  it would be ‘contrary to the public interest’ to give access at this time (s 11A(5)).

14.  In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision of Wood; Secretary, Department of Prime
Minister and Cabinet and (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 945 (‘Wood’), Deputy
President Forgie explains that the meanings of the words ‘opinion’, ‘advice’ and
‘recommendation’ al  involve consideration, followed by the formation of a view either about a
certain subject or about a course of action and the subsequent transmission of that view.5

15.  As noted  at paragraph  6.54 of the FOI  Guidelines:

A  deliberative process involves the exercise  of judgement in developing  and
making a selection from  different  options: The action of deliberating,  in
common  understanding,  involves the weighing  up or evaluation of the
competing  arguments or considerations  that may have  a bearing upon one's
course  of action. In short,  the deliberative processes involved in the functions
of an  agency are  its thinking processes  - the processes of reflection, for
example,  upon the wisdom and expediency  of a proposal, a particular
decision or a course  of action.
16.  Paragraph  6.63 of the FOI  Guidelines  states the following:

Where material was gathered as a basis for intended deliberations, it may be
deliberative matter. However, 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.
17.  Numerous parts of document two contain Professor McMil an’s assessment of the complaint
leading to his recommendation to the Delegate on the question of whether the complaint
warrants further inquiry. It is not a statement of reasons leading to the final decision of the
Delegate. Numerous parts of document two contains Professor McMil an’s opinions, his
evaluation of information, his consideration of the issues and his recommendation to the
Delegate.

18.  None of these parts of document two to which I refer contain purely factual material.  Where the
parts contains factual material it 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.6

19.  In my view, numerous parts of document two contains deliberative material and formed part of
the deliberative process involved in the Delegate of the MPC carrying out one of the statutory

5 At [39].
6 FOI Guidelines at [6.70].
7

functions of the MPC. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the document falls within the scope of the
conditional exemption in section 47C of the FOI Act.

20.  Numerous parts of document four are of a similar nature to document two.  Whilst it contains
Professor McMil an’s findings, they are not the final decision of the Delegate.  As such
numerous parts of the content of document four contains Professor McMil an’s opinions, his
evaluation of the evidence, his consideration of the issues and his recommendation to the
Delegate.

21.  None of these parts of document four to which I refer contain purely factual material.  Where the
parts contains factual material it 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.7

22.  In my view, numerous parts of document four contains deliberative material and formed part of
the deliberative process involved in the Delegate of the MPC carrying out one of the statutory
functions of the MPC.

23.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that the document falls within the scope of the conditional exemption
in section 47C of the FOI Act.

Section 47E - documents affecting certain operations of agencies
24.  Section 47E conditionally exempts a document where disclosure would, or could reasonably be
expected to, prejudice or have a substantial adverse effect on certain identified agency
operations.

25.  Two of the grounds for this conditional exemption are where the document’s disclosure under
the FOI Act would, or could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the

•  management or assessment of personnel by the Commonwealth or an agency.8
•  on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency.9

26.  To apply this conditional exemption the documents must relate to the management of personnel
including discipline.10  The complaint al eged a breach of the APS Code of Conduct. The
complaint was subject of a response from the MPC by way of assessing it and then
investigating some parts of the complaint. Information was gathered and witnesses and the
person subject of the complaint were interviewed.  Such a process in my view relates to the
discipline and therefore management of personnel.  The process is also forms part of the
process of the MPC as an agency.11

27.  ‘Would or could reasonably be expected’ requires the decision maker to assess the likelihood of
the predicted or forecast event, effect or damage occurring after disclosure of a document. The
use of the word ‘could’ is less stringent than ‘would’ and requires analysis of the reasonable

7 FOI Guidelines at [6.70].
8 See subsection 47E(c) of the FOI Act.
9 See subsection 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
10 FOI Guidelines at [6.103].
11 As defined in section 4 of the FOI Act.
8

expectation rather than the certainty of an event, effect or damage occurring. It may be a
reasonable expectation that an effect has occurred, is presently occurring, or could occur in the
future.12

28.  ‘Substantial adverse effect’ requires the expected effect to be both ‘substantial’ and ‘adverse.’
The term ‘substantial adverse effect’ broadly means ‘an adverse effect which is sufficiently
serious or significant to cause concern to a properly concerned reasonable person.’13

29.  The predicted effect must arise from the disclosure of the document being assessed.  The
decision maker may also need to consider the context of the document and the integrity of a
system that may require those documents, such as witness statements required to investigate a
workplace complaint.14

30.  The AAT has accepted that candour is essential when an agency seeks to investigate staff
complaints. In such cases staff may be reluctant to provide information and cooperate with
investigators if they are aware that the subject matter of those discussions may be disclosed
through the FOI process.15

31.  This conditional exemption may also apply to a document that relates to a complaint made to an
investigative body. Disclosure of this type of information could reasonably affect the wil ingness
of people to make complaints to the investigative body, which would have a substantial adverse
effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the investigative body’s operations. Further,
disclosure of information provided in confidence by parties to a complaint or investigation may
reduce the wil ingness of parties to provide information relevant to a particular complaint and
may reduce their wil ingness to participate fully and frankly with the investigative process. In
such cases the investigative body’s ability to obtain al  information would be undermined and
this may have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the
investigative body’s operations.16

32.  In my view, disclosure of the documents would have a substantial and adverse impact on the
assessment of personnel in Code of Conduct investigations undertaken by the MPC and a
similar impact on operations of the MPC in carrying out her statutory functions. Those impacts
are:

•  Complainants should not be deterred from making legitimate complaints. Complainants
have an expectation of privacy and confidentiality.  Should it be known that their name or
other identifying details or the content of their complaint is released under FOI, they would
either not engage in making complaints or may engage very differently thereby impacting
efficient and effective complaint response processes. Similar arguments can be made for
witnesses and those subject of the al egations. This is all the more so where the al egations
are not sustained.
•  to be effective, Code of Conduct investigations require frankness and candour from
complainants, witnesses and those subject of the allegations. Often confidential material is
gathered from these sources. In my view the parties have a legitimate expectation their
information wil  be kept confidential. If parties to a complaint knew that material from a Code

12 FOI Guidelines at [6.14 and 6.15].
13 See Re Thies and Department of Aviation [1986] AATA 141 at [24].
14 FOI Guidelines at [6.105].
15 FOI Guidelines at [6.106].
16 FOI Guidelines at [6.114].
9

investigation would be released through FOI, they would engage very differently with the
process or not at al . This is all the more so where the allegations are not sustained.

33.  Parts of all four documents contain information that would, or could reasonably be expected to
have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel by the
Commonwealth or an agency and the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an
agency.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that parts of the four documents fall within the scope of the
conditional exemption in section 47E of the FOI Act.
Section 47F – personal privacy
34.  Section 47F of the FOI Act conditionally exempts documents where disclosure would involve
the unreasonable disclosure of personal information of any person (including a deceased
person). This exemption is intended to protect the personal privacy of individuals.17

35.  Section 47F is a conditional exemption so access must be granted unless a document contains
‘personal information’, disclosure in response to the applicant’s FOI request would be
‘unreasonable’ (s 47F(1)), and it would be ‘contrary to the public interest’ to release the material
at the time of the decision (s 11A(5)).18

36.  Personal information under the FOI Act has the same meaning as that in the Privacy Act 1988.
Personal information can include a person’s name and signature19 and there must be a
connection between the information and the person.  This is a question of fact and depends on
the context and circumstances.20

37.  In assessing whether a disclosure under the FOI Act would involve an unreasonable disclosure
of personal information, section 47F(2) provides that a decision maker must have regard to:

•  the extent to which the information is wel  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 accessible sources, and
•  any other matters that the agency or minister considers relevant.

38.  The FOI Guidelines explain that other relevant factors include:

•  the nature, age and current relevance of the information
•  any detriment that disclosure may cause to the person to whom the information relates
•  any opposition to disclosure expressed or likely to be held by that person
•  the circumstances of an agency’s col ection and use of the information
•  the fact that the FOI Act does not control or restrict any subsequent use or
dissemination of information released under the FOI Act

17 FOI Guidelines at [6.119].
18 'VE' and Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Freedom of information) [2020] AICmr 41 (13 August 2020) at
[19].
19 'VE' and Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Freedom of information) [2020] AICmr 41 (13 August 2020) at [21-
22] and the FOI Guidelines at [6.125].
20 FOI Guidelines at [6.131].
10

•  any submission an FOI applicant chooses to make in support of their application as to
their reasons for seeking access and their intended or likely use or dissemination of the
information, and
•  whether disclosure of the information might advance the public interest in government
transparency and integrity.21

39.  The FOI Guidelines explain that the test of ‘unreasonableness’ under s 47F implies a need to
balance the public interest in disclosure of government-held information and the private interest
in the privacy of individuals.22

40.  In this case, numerous parts of all four documents contain personal information in the form of
the names and/or other information that would reasonably identify the complainant, witnesses,
the person subject of the complaint. There is also personal information in document one in the
form of the name and signature of a person who witnessed the contract for Professor McMil an
and the signatures of the persons who executed and witnessed the contract for the MPC.  The
information to which I refer does say something about each person in the sense there is a
connection between the information and the individuals. I am also guided by section 72B of the
PS Act which prohibits the MPC from disclosing the name of an individual, or any other material
that would enable an individual to be identified, in protected information that is disclosed.

41.  In my view detriment would be caused by the disclosure of the personal information of the
complainant, witnesses and especially the person subject of the allegations. For the
complainant, the fact they made the complaint would become widely and possibly publically
known when it is not. For the witnesses, the fact they provided information to the investigation
when this is not widely nor publical y known. For the person subject of the allegations, the
publication of the allegations may adversely impact their reputation especially in circumstances
where the al egations were not sustained. It would not be fair and reasonable to release
personal information in these circumstances.

42.  It would also not be fair and reasonable to release personal information for the following
reasons. The person subject of the al egations has strongly objected to the release of the
documents for reasons including protection of their personal information. It is also relevant the
MPC col ected the information confidentially and only for the purpose of the Code of the
Conduct investigation. The information was never intended to be published or become widely
known.  Disclosure of the information would not advance the public interest in government
transparency and integrity noting the allegations were not sustained. The purpose of executing
or witnesses the contract was never intended to include the disclosure of names or signatures
through the FOI Act. Given these circumstances it is also relevant that the FOI Act does not
control or restrict any subsequent use or dissemination of information released under the FOI
Act.

43.  I am therefore of the view it would be unreasonable to disclose the personal information or any
information that would reasonably identify any individuals in the content of the four documents.
Accordingly I am satisfied parts of the four documents fall within the scope of the conditional
exemption in section 47F of the FOI Act.


21 FOI Guidelines at [6.138].
22 FOI Guidelines at [6.133].
11

Applying the public interest test

44.  Subsection 11A(5) of the FOI Act provides that when a document is conditionally exempt under
a conditional exemption in Division 3 of Part IV of the FOI Act, access must be given to the
document unless, in the circumstances, giving access would, on balance, be contrary to the
public interest (ss 11A(5)).

45.  Subsection 11A(5) of the FOI Act provides that when a document is conditionally exempt under
a conditional exemption in Division 3 of Part IV of the FOI Act, access must be given to the
document unless, in the circumstances, giving access would, on balance, be contrary to the
public interest (ss 11A(5)).

46.  I have regard to the FOI Guidelines on what the public interest is considered to be.23

47.  I have identified the following factors favouring disclosure and have included my comments re
same:
•  promote the objects of the FOI Act

I accept disclosure of the four documents might be seen to promote the objects of the FOI Act
as it would reveal the reasons for decision and any background or contextual information that
informed the decision and may be seen to enhance the scrutiny of the decision making process.

•  inform debate on a matter of public importance

I also accept disclosure of the four documents might inform debate on a matter of public
importance as the matter involves allegations of a breach of the APS Code of Conduct.

•  promote effective oversight of public expenditure

I accept disclosure of the four documents might promote effective oversight of public
expenditure in responding to a complaint al eging a breach of the APS Code of Conduct.

48.  I have also identified the following factors against disclosure (and have included my comments
re same), as it:

•  could reasonably be expected to prejudice the protection of an individual’s right to privacy

The documents relate to an assessment and investigation of a complaint alleging a breach of the
APS Code of Conduct. The documents contain personal information of the complainant,
witnesses, the individual subject of the al egations and others who executed or witnessed
document one. The allegations were not sustained meaning no breach of the APS Code of
Conduct was found. In my view release of the documents could reasonably be expected to
prejudice the protection of the individuals involved in this matter right to privacy.

•  could reasonably be expected to prejudice the fair treatment of individuals and the
information is about unsubstantiated al egations of misconduct or unlawful, negligent or
improper conduct

23 FOI Guidelines at [6.224].
12

The information in the four documents relate to unsubstantiated allegations of a breach of the
APS Code of Conduct, noting some of the allegations were assessed as not warranting inquiry.
In my view release could reasonably be expected to prejudice the fair treatment of individuals
as it would be unfair to release documents relating to allegations found not sustained.

•  could reasonably be expected to impede the flow of information to the police or another law
enforcement or regulatory agency, could reasonably be expected to prejudice an agency’s
ability to obtain confidential information and could reasonably be expected to prejudice an
agency’s ability to obtain similar information in the future.

The MPC is a regulatory agency in the sense it has certain statutory functions to investigate
allegations of a breach of the APS Code of Conduct and has review functions which include
upholding the APS Employment Principles and quality employment decision making in the APS.
In my view, complainants or applicants may not come forward and witnesses and those subject
of allegations may not engage with frankness and candour in Code of Conduct investigations or
at all if they knew their personal information or confidential information they provide would be
disclosed in an FOI request. This would impact investigations or reviews undertaken by the
MPC to the extent that the investigation or review may not be as well informed as it could be
thereby impacting the quality of decision making.  For the same reasons this would impact future
investigations or reviews undertaken by the MPC.

49.  I have also had regard to the MPC’s obligations under section 72B of the PS Act.

Ensure no irrelevant factor is considered

50.  I have considered subsection 11B(4) of the FOI Act and the FOI Guidelines at paragraphs
[6.234] and [6.235].  I have not taken into account those factors listed in that information.

Weigh the relevant factors to determine where the public interest lies

51.  In weighing the factors for and against disclosure, I give greater weight to the factors against
disclosure, in particular the potential impact of disclosure on the persons involved in the matter,
on their privacy and interests.

52.  I also consider disclosure would reasonably be expected to prejudice the MPC’s management
of personnel by way of carrying out the statutory function of investigations alleged breaches of
the Code of Conduct.

53.  I consider that it is important that an agency such as the MPC ensure the privacy and
confidentiality of information it receives from parties involved in such an investigation and that
the parties are able to engage in a frank and candid manner with the investigation. Such
investigations play an important role in upholding integrity in the APS by responding to
complaints and making the correct decision based on al  information.

13

54.  I am satisfied that disclosure could reasonably be expected to deter complainants, witnesses
and those subject of al egations from engaging in future investigations with sufficient frankness
and candour or at all, which could adversely impact the MPC’s ability to thoroughly and properly
investigate complaints and make the correct decision.  I note again the al egations in this matter
were not sustained and consequently there was no finding of a breach of the APS Code of
Conduct.  I also consider the disclosure of the content of documents two and four which
contains deliberative material would similarly impact the MPC’s ability to carry out her statutory
function.

55.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that giving access to the part of the four documents would, on
balance, be contrary to the public interest.
Conclusion
56.  I have therefore decided the four documents are to be released to you with redactions of those
numerous parts having regard to the conditional exemptions in sections 47C, 47E(c) and (d)
and 47F.

57.  There are parts of documents one and three where the name, signature and other personal
information of individuals have not been redacted. These individuals were consulted and did
not object to the release of their personal information.

14

ATTACHMENT C
Your review rights

If you are dissatisfied with my decision, you may apply for internal review or Information
Commissioner review of the decision.

Internal review

Under section 54 of the FOI Act, you may apply in writing to xxxx@xxx.xxx.xx for an internal review
of my decision. The internal review application must be made within 30 days of the date of this letter.
Where possible please attach reasons why you believe review of the decision is necessary. The
internal review wil  be carried out by another officer within 30 days.

Information Commissioner review

Under section 54L of the FOI Act, you may apply to the Australian Information Commissioner to
review my decision. An application for review by the Information Commissioner must be made in
writing within 60 days of the date of this letter, and be lodged in one of the following ways:
online: https://forms.business.gov.au/smartforms/servlet/SmartForm.html?formCode=ICR 10
email: xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
post:  GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001
More information about Information Commissioner review is available on the Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner website. Go to https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/reviews-
and-complaints/information-commissioner-review/.
FOI Complaints
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your FOI request, please let us know what we
could have done better. We may be able to rectify the problem. If you are not satisfied with our
response, you can make a complaint to the Australian Information Commissioner. A complaint to the
Information Commissioner must be made in writing. Complaints can be lodged in one of the following
ways:
online: https://forms.business.gov.au/smartforms/servlet/SmartForm.html?formCode=ICCA 1
email: xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
post: GPO Box 5218 Sydney 2001
More information about complaints is available on the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner at https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/reviews-and-complaints/make-an-
foi-complaint/.
If you are not sure whether to lodge an Information Commissioner review or an Information
Commissioner complaint, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has more
information at: https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/reviews-and-complaints/.

15