Change to $5 note

H made this Freedom of Information request to Reserve Bank of Australia

2 followers

The request was partially successful.

Dear Reserve Bank of Australia,

I seek access to all documents, including communication between the RBA and Ministers and Ministerial offices, in relation to the Bank's decision to change the design of the $5 note as per the announcement today.

https://www.rba.gov.au/media-releases/20...

Yours faithfully,

Dear H,

I refer to your request below and advise that in its current form it would be too broad to process (only because you have not cited a date range for a search for documents).

We have also received other requests for the same material, citing various start dates, with the earliest being from 22 May 2022. Ahead of us sending you a formal practical refusal notice, we can avoid the need to do that if you would be willing to also use 22 May 2022 as a commencement date for your request.

Could you please let me know asap if this approach would be agreeable to you, and if so, we will formally acknowledge your request and commence processing of it.

Yours sincerely

Phil Lomas | FOI Officer
RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA | 65 Martin Place, Sydney NSW 2000
p: +61 2 9551 9744 | e: [RBA request email] | w: www.rba.gov.au

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your email and my apologies for not including a date range. I confirm that the date range is 22 May 2022 until the date of my request.

Thanks for your assistance with this, it is greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Dear H,

Thank you for your message and clarification.

Accordingly, in terms of the FOI Act, I confirm receipt of your request and advise that processing of it commenced today 3 February 2023.

Please be advised that, consistent with the provisions of the Information Publication Scheme, the Bank’s policy is to release all documents provided to applicants under the FOI Act 1982 on the Bank’s FOI disclosure log close to the same time they are provided to the applicant. The publication of any FOI related documents on our website will also be notified to the Bank’s RSS feed subscriber list.

Yours sincerely

Phil Lomas | FOI Officer
RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA | 65 Martin Place, Sydney NSW 2000
p: +61 2 9551 9744 | e: [RBA request email] | w: www.rba.gov.au

show quoted sections

Dear H,

Following discovery of documents relevant to your request, we have
identified a document that could potentially be damaging to the
international relations of the Bank (in terms of section [1]33(a)(iii))
were it to be disclosed.

The information pertains to two other central banks and we intend to
consult with them individually (in terms of section [2]15(7) and (8)) to
ascertain if they would agree the document should be exempt in terms of
section 33(a)(iii).

Accordingly, in terms of section 15(8), the processing time applicable to
your request is extended by a further 30 days.

Yours sincerely

Phil Lomas | FOI Officer

RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA | 65 Martin Place, Sydney NSW 2000

p: 02 9551 9744| e: [RBA request email] | w: www.rba.gov.au

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,
To avoid the need for third party consultation I'm happy for the information referred to above to be redacted in the documents provided to me.

This is on the basis that the FOI is finalised within the original timeframe.
Yours sincerely,

Dear H,

In addition to your request, we are also processing two others in the same terms and they have been similarly advised of the existence of the information.

To be able to facilitate your request, we would need these other two applicants to agree to the same terms. I will advise them of your advice to us (anonymously of course) and if they similarly agree, we can proceed accordingly.

Yours sincerely

Phil Lomas | FOI Officer
RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA | 65 Martin Place, Sydney NSW 2000
p: 02 9551 9744| e: [RBA request email] | w: www.rba.gov.au

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,
Thanks for your reply.
Regardless of what the applicants in your other FOIs decide (noting that I am not aware of the scope or any details of these requests) I am confirming that the information you referred to can be redacted or treated as irrelevant under s.22 for the purposes of my request.

Whilst this may mean you still need to consult in relation to the other 2 requests the bank has received it means there is no longer a need to consult in respect of my request and it can continue to be progressed within the required time frame.

Thank you!

Yours sincerely,

Dear H,

We chose to process the requests together because they arrived at the same time and (were then) on the same subject and covered the same discovered documents.

My intention was to maintain consistency in processing, but on reflection I accept your contention that your subsequently revised request can, and should, be processed separately and we will do so (thus the need for consultation is removed and the request can be processed on the original time frame).

Yours sincerely

Phil Lomas | FOI Officer
RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA | 65 Martin Place, Sydney NSW 2000
p: +61 2 9551 9744 | e: [RBA request email] | w: www.rba.gov.au

show quoted sections

image001.png

45K Download
RBAFOI 222332 documents for release.pdf

1.0M Download View as HTML

Dear H,

I refer to your recent request seeking all documents since 22 May 2022
relating to the Reserve Bank’s decision in relation to future design of
the $5 banknote.

I advise that we have identified 14 documents relevant to your request and
I detail them below:

I have decided to release 9 of them to you and they are attached to this
email. They are sorted in date order (naming convention YYMMDD TTTT, where
TTTT is the actual time of an email or 0000 in the case of a non-email
document) and 6 of them are released to you in full, with only staff names
below Deputy Head of Department level and contact details (emails and/or
phone numbers) redacted for all staff. In the current environment
surrounding the Bank, we make redactions to that personal information in
terms of section [1]37 of the FOI Act (personal safety) but, as they do
not involve the removal of any substantive information relating to the
request, we consider that the application of section 37 in this manner is
unique and it would be misleading to say the documents have been ‘redacted
in terms of section 37’.

We have made a further redaction to document 4 in terms of section [2]22
to remove material not relevant to your request (there was a single dot
point that covered issues related to banknote security features in
relation to all notes that was unrelated to the changes to the design of
the note).

We have made a further redaction to document 7 in terms of section [3]45
(material received in confidence) to remove information provided to the
RBA in confidence that, if disclosed, would found an [4]action, by a
person (other than an [5]agency or the Commonwealth), for breach of
confidence.

We have also made further redactions to document 8 in the following terms:

[6]Section 47F (personal privacy)
The document contains references to personal contact between the RBA and
various people external to the RBA (both recent and historic) in relation
to banknotes, detailing much personal information about them. I have
decided that it is unreasonable to disclose the personal information of
these people as they are entitled to expect that the matters and manner of
engagement with the RBA would not be made public. As section 47F is a
public interest conditional exemption, I must consider the public interest
factors in favour of disclosure and whether factors favouring access to
the document would do any of the following from [7]S11B:

(a) promote the objects of this Act (including all the matters set out in
sections 3 and 3A (disclosure would not do this);
(b) inform debate on a matter of public importance (as the material
relates to a small number of people and the material is personal to them,
disclosure would not do this);
(c) promote effective oversight of public expenditure (the material does
not concern public expenditure); or
(d) allow a person to access his or her own [8]personal information
(disclosure would not do this).

I have taken these factors into account and have considered whether access
to the personal information of the people mentioned in the note would, on
balance, be contrary to the public interest. It is my view that the
factors favouring access in S11B (as well as any other factors) do not
outweigh my aforementioned view that disclosure would not be in the public
interest. Accordingly, in my view, denial of access to the information is
appropriate in terms of section 47F and the public interest test in
section [9]11(A)(5).

Section [10]22 (irrelevant material)
One section of the document that was not relevant to the specifics of the
request relates to observations made by the RBA about the approach of a
third party in how they manage Indigenous copyright issues. Those
observations were independent of and did not relate to the decision to
discontinue featuring the reigning monarch on the $5 note and are
therefore not relevant to the request. We also redacted the material
previously intended to be consulted on in terms of section 33 as per your
earlier correspondence with our FOI officer.

Documents to which access has been denied

Documents 10 and 11:

Documents 10 and 11 contain legal advice provided to the RBA’s Note Issue
Department about a range of issues surrounding banknotes and are both
exempt from release as they are subject to legal professional privilege in
terms of section [11]42(1).

Documents 12 and 13

Section [12]47C(1) Public interest conditional exemptions — deliberative
processes
Document 12 is a draft document (draft board paper) that is clearly
deliberative in nature and represents deliberative matter in terms of this
exemption – it is a working draft that was prepared in the course of
creating an appropriate ‘final’ and as such I have determined it should be
denied from release.

Document 13 is the ‘final’ of document 12 (a board paper presented to the
October meeting of the Reserve Bank Board) and I have determined that
denial of access under this part is appropriate because the paper contains
summary analysis and interpretations and assessments of relevant data and
other information provided to the Reserve Bank Board that led to a
decision of the Board in relation to the $5 note. The document therefore
constitutes deliberative matter in terms of the FOI Act.

As section 47C is a public interest conditional exemption, I am required
to consider factors in favour of disclosure against whether access to
the [13]documents would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest
([14]s11A(5)). In applying the public interest test, I have considered the
public interest factors in favour of disclosure, being the factors set out
in section [15]11B(3) of the FOI Act:

a. whether disclosure would promote the objects of the FOI Act (including
whether disclosing the documents would increase public participation in
RBA processes, with a view to promoting better-informed decision-making
and/or increase scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the RBA’s
activities); in relation to this factor I have noted the characteristics
and content of the documents and have formed the view that disclosure of
them would not of itself promote these objects, and in fact could
reasonably be expected to have the opposite effect of curtailing the
Board’s ability to access and consider information pertinent to its
responsibilities;

b. whether disclosure would inform debate on a matter of public
importance; for the same reasons as given in a. above, I have formed the
view that disclosure of the documents would not additionally inform debate
on a matter of public importance, mostly because the decision has been
taken and will not be reversed, and also by reason that the RBA’s numerous
public discussions and releases of information outline its thinking in
relation to the topic at issue;

c. whether disclosure would promote effective oversight of public
expenditure; given the nature and content of the documents, this factor is
not relevant; and

d. whether disclosure would allow a person to access his or her own
personal information; given the nature and content of the documents, this
factor is also not relevant.

In this instance the factors in section 11B(3) of the FOI Act (as detailed
above), when applied to the documents, do not favour disclosure, with the
result that release of the documents would, on balance, be contrary to the
public interest. I have therefore determined that release of the documents
would not be in the public interest and deny access to them.

Document 14

Document 14 is a draft document that led to a subsequent ‘final’ which has
been included in the documents for release (document 6). This document is
deliberative in nature and represents deliberative matter in terms of this
exemption – it is a working draft that was prepared in the course of
creating an appropriate ‘final’ and as such I have determined it should be
denied from release. I further considered the public interest test and my
findings are the same as noted above for documents 12 and 13.

In terms of the FOI Act you have rights to review of my decision if you
are dissatisfied with it, as detailed below.
Internal review

Under section 54 of the FOI Act, you may apply in writing to the Reserve
Bank of Australia for an internal review of my decision. The internal
review application must be made within 30 days of the date of this email,
and be lodged in one of the following ways:

email: [16][RBA request email]

post: Attn FOI Officer, SD, Reserve Bank of Australia, GPO Box 3947,
Sydney NSW 2001

Where possible, please attach reasons why you believe review of the
decision is necessary. The internal review will 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 email, and be lodged in one of the following ways:

online:
[17]https://forms.business.gov.au/smartforms...

email: [18][email address]

Yours sincerely

Anthony Dickman | Secretary
RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA | 65 Martin Place, Sydney NSW 2000
p: +61 2 9551 9744 | e: [19][RBA request email] | w: [20]www.rba.gov.au

Disclaimer

This e-mail message (along with any attachments) is intended only for the
named addressee and could contain information that is confidential or
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that
any dissemination, copying or use of any of the information is prohibited.
Please notify us immediately by return e-mail if you are not the intended
recipient and delete all copies of the original message and attachments.
This footnote also confirms that this message has been checked for
computer viruses.

References

2 followers

Right to Know

Change to $5 note

2 Attachments

Want to know something?

Act on what you've learnt

Requests like this

Love letters to the RBA

Documents related to Banknote Distribution Agreement between The Reserve Bank of Australia and NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED

Research on the probability that the cash rate would hit 0%

Communication between the Treasurer and Governor

Conflicts of interest

Documents on Private Briefings

Meetings with Meriton

Factual Information Regarding the Cleanliness of RBA Polymer Notes in $AUD

Academic Panel

Style Guide/Writing Guide for the Reserve Bank of Australia

Right to Know