Dear eSafety FOI Coordinator,

I wish to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for the following documents:

* Any documents relating to professional qualifications to make classifications or deemed classifications of media:
- where those qualifications are held by the eSafety Commissioner;
- or held by people delegated by her to make decisions as to classifications or deemed classifications of media;
- or held by people otherwise employed by the Office who hold powers to classify media under the Online Safety Act.

By "qualifications", I specifically mean:
* Past employment which evidences work relating to classification decisions;
* Formal training or education of any sort relating to classification decisions;
* Completion of any "approved training" of the sort referred to in sections 17AA(1), 22M(3)(a) or 22S of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, or otherwise of any training formally approved under that Act.

The list of people who this applies to can be interpreted to include anyone currently holding a delegation, or anyone who has made a classification decision under a delegation within the last 24 months.

I do not require any personal details of delegates other than their name and the position they hold or held at eSafety (which they would be required to publicly provide in any case in the course of making a classification decision). You may redact contact details, email addresses, and any personal information not directly relevant to their qualifications.

I will be satisfied with a summary of the qualifications in table form, if it is easier for your office and better protects the privacy of individuals, providing it clearly identifies the delegate and clearly specifies the nature and source of any qualification, and the year it was undertaken, to a degree sufficient for a third party to verify that qualification.

This is a separate request to my previous request relating to training undertaken by the Commissioner, and you may treat it as a new request. I wish to receive correspondence relating to this request via the Right to Know website.

Yours faithfully,

Greg Tannahill

Dear eSafety FOI Coordinator,

Could you please confirm your receipt of the FOI request, sent to this address by me on Monday 3 June 2024, relating to the media classification qualifications of the Commissioner and her delegates?

Yours faithfully,

Greg Tannahill

Dear FOI Coordinator,

Thank you. Please note that in this case I do require the names and roles of public servants associated with the Office of the eSafety Commissioner who hold statutory delegations relating to the classification of media, so that they can be matched and (if necessary) verified against their qualifications.

I note that these names and roles would be a matter of public record in the event that a decision under such a delegation was challenged and thus they should not be subject to a privacy exemption.

As previously stated, I do not require identifying information other than names and roles of delegates. You may redact contact details, email addresses, etc.

However, in the event that the response to my FOI is "no delegate employed by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner holds any relevant qualifications in classification of media", then that would be a complete and sufficient response to my request and you would be free to omit individual names.

Yours sincerely,

Greg Tannahill

Dear Mr Downie, and eSafety,

If am understanding you correctly, you are refusing to provide documents because you believe that a decision as to whether material is likely to receive a classification is not the same as a deemed classification decision, and that technical distinction is the sole basis of your refusal.

If so, you are surely aware that this is not a sufficient reason to refuse an FOI. It is obvious that I nevertheless am seeking documents relating to people that make decisions about whether material is likely to receive a classification, and the FOI Act imposes a positive obligation on you to provide the documents I am seeking rather than relying on technicalities.

Further, the FOI Act requires that you provide a response as soon as practical, and not later than the 30 day deadline. If this was the response you intended to make, it should have been provided immediately upon your receipt of the request, and delaying until the statutory deadline to provide it is both in breach of the law, and evidence of a clear intention to frustrate the FOI process.

So, firstly, I wish to appeal the result of this FOI request. Please consider this a formal request for internal review.

But secondly, if I do not receive a swift and immediate response to the internal review, I will additionally lodge a second FOI with slightly amended wording to seek the relevant documents, as is my right to do so, in addition to, if I see fit, further FOIs with a broader scope, to ensure that my request is not further frustrated by your office.

I would like to obtain the result of my FOI with the least waste of your office's resources possible, and would like to cooperate to achieve that, if you are inclined.

With thanks,

Greg Tannahill

Dear eSafety,

Further to my previous email requesting a formal internal review of your decision, I note specifically that you have a person holding the position "Manager, Illegal and Restricted Content", who on 16 April issued a statement of reasons relating to material regarding the Wakeley stabbing, and in that statement of reasons the person said:

(a) "I am a delegate of the eSafety Commissioner for the purposes of section 109 of the Online Safety Act"; and
(b) "I am satisfied that the requirements for giving a removal notice under section 109 have been met. [...] I am satisfied that [...] if the film were to be classified, the film would likely be classified RC (refused classification)."

This person is clearly, per my original request, a person delegated by the eSafety Commissioner to make decisions as to classifications or deemed classifications of media. Regardless of whether the person themselves were classifying or deeming a classification, they were a delegate, and they made a decision as to the classification of media.

If the eSafety holds any records as to this person's qualifications, they should be divulged under the FOI, and if eSafety does not then it is obliged to say that they have no such records. And the same for any other person so delegated.

I look forward to your prompt provisions of the documents you are required to produce under law.

With thanks,

Greg Tannahill

Dear eSafety,

Please confirm your receipt of my request for internal review, sent 2 July 2024, relating to your FOI decision of 2 July 2024 regarding classification training and qualifications.

With thanks,

Greg Tannahill

Dear eSafety,

Thank you for this clarification.

If what you are saying is that, in regard to people holding s109 delegations of the sort referred to in the Statement of Reasons of your Manager, Illegal and Restricted Content of 16 April, and making decisions of the sort that that Statement of Reasons refers to, that eSafety holds no documents speaking to their qualifications regarding classification or lack of such qualifications...

... or that, in other words, to the best of eSafety's documentary record, no person working in eSafety who makes decisions under a s109 delegation has any specialist training or qualification relating to media classification, including relevant past employment...

... then that satisfies my FOI request, and I am happy to (a) withdraw my request for internal review and (b) give you comfort that at this time I have no further FOIs relating to this topic.

Please let me know if I have misunderstood. Otherwise, thank you for your attention to this matter and you may consider this file closed.

With thanks,

Greg Tannahill