Dear John Smith,

I refer to your request seeking:

declaration of interest forms submitted by the Governor, Deputy Governor, Assistant Governor (Economic), Assistant Governor (Financial Markets) and Assistant Governor (Financial System).

In terms of the FOI Act 1982, I confirm receipt of your request and advise that processing of it commenced on 1 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: 02 9551 9744| e: [RBA request email] | w: www.rba.gov.au

show quoted sections

Dear John Smith

I refer to your recent request seeking:

Declaration of Interest forms submitted by the Governor, Deputy Governor,
Assistant Governor (Economic), Assistant Governor (Financial Markets) and
Assistant Governor (Financial System)

I advise that declarations for the Governor and Deputy Governor are
already publicly available – see
[1]https://www.rba.gov.au/about-rba/account....

I have considered whether it would be appropriate to release declarations
made by the three Assistant Governors you cite and have decided to deny
access to those declarations in terms of section [2]47E(c) and (d) and
also section [3]47F of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).  My
reasons are detailed below.

Denial of access in terms of section 47E(c) and (d) (a substantial adverse
effect on the management or assessment of personnel and a substantial
adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of operations) is
appropriate, as in my view the personal financial information of our
Assistant Governors should remain private. In forming this view, I note
that they are not members of the Reserve Bank Board (and therefore are not
subject to the same requirements for disclosure as the Governor and the
Deputy Governor, who provide their declarations to the Treasurer).
Although we make these declarations available on our website, the public
can have confidence that oversight of the risks of conflicts of interest
are managed by an overseeing authority (in this case, the Treasurer) and
that any potential issues are mitigated/removed accordingly. That the
information is also available widely does not contribute to or influence
that oversight and if the Assistant Governors’ declarations to the
Governor were to be made public, there would also be no change to their
oversight. The Assistant Governors’ declarations are made to the Governor,
who assumes a like for like responsibility (vis a vis that between the
Treasurer and the Governor and Deputy Governor) for identifying any
potential conflicts and ensuring they are mitigated and/or removed. This
level of accountability exists for the Assistant Governors and is entirely
comparable to that between the Treasurer and the Governor and Deputy
Governor and is, in my view, sufficient to ensure that the duties of these
roles are able to be carried out without any conflicts of interest being
present. Public release of the information would not, in my view, make any
difference to this accountability and therefore I can see no compelling
reason to make the information public.

Were the information to be disclosed, it is my view that future management
or assessment of personnel would be curtailed and could potentially limit
the pool of available candidates for the roles. This would, clearly, be a
substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel in
terms of this section. Further, I believe the curtailing of the potential
pool of candidates for these roles would also represent a substantial
adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of
the Reserve Bank. Not having the most extensive pool of applicants from
which to draw is evidently undesirable, and any circumstance that
adversely affects that pool should be avoided.

I further find that disclosure of these declarations would be an
unreasonable disclosure of [4]personal information in terms of section
47F. As mentioned above, I do not believe that disclosure of the
information would provide any additional level of safety or confidence to
the public that the roles are not subject to any conflicts of interest –
the already present arrangement whereby the Governor has that
responsibility and oversight is, in my view, sufficient to assure the
public that these risks are being managed appropriately.

As both section 47E and section 47F are public interest conditional
exemptions, 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 [5]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,
and arrangements in place are already appropriate, 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 [6]personal information
(disclosure would not do this).

                           
I have taken these factors into account and have considered whether access
to the declarations of the Assistant Governors 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 both section 47E and 47F and the public
interest test in section [7]11(A)(5)

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: [8][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:
[9]https://forms.business.gov.au/smartforms...

email: [10][email address]

Yours sincerely

Anthony Dickman | Secretary
RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA | 65 Martin Place, Sydney NSW 2000
p: +61 2 9551 9744 | e: [11][RBA request email] | w: [12]www.rba.gov.au

show quoted sections