1. Under s 55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I set aside the decision of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (the Department) of 24 June 2021. I substitute my decision that:

• Duplicate information is irrelevant to the request.
  • Staff names, contact details and email addresses for operational mailboxes[1] are not irrelevant to the request.
  • The following material is not conditionally exempt under s 47E(c):

• − Correspondence to and from the applicant (including attachments) except for the names of witnesses and/or complainant/s
  • − A transcript of an interview with the applicant, except for the names of witnesses and/or complainant/s

• The remaining material the Department maintains is conditionally exempt under s 47E(c) is conditionally exempt under that provision and disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.
  • The following material is not conditionally exempt under s 47E(d):

• − Material on page 28 that relates to the Department's counselling service
  • − Correspondence to and from the applicant (including attachments)[2]
  • − A transcript of an interview with the applicant[3]

• Email addresses for operational mailboxes which the Department deleted under s 22 and maintains is conditionally exempt under s 47F, is not personal information or conditionally exempt under s 47F.
  • Personal information of the investigator, the Ambassador, and 2 staff members[4] who corresponded with the applicant about the investigation is not conditionally exempt under s 47F.
  • The remaining information, including personal information of other staff members and witnesses/complainant/s, which the Department maintains is conditionally exempt under s 47F is conditionally exempt under that provision and disclosure would be contrary to the public interest (to the extent that this material has not already been found to be exempt under s 47E(c)).

1. This decision discusses the application of various exemptions to documents relating to a workplace investigation and a decision by the Department not to renew/continue the applicant's employment. It is primarily of interest to the parties in relation to the specific documents sought but may also have broader application in similar circumstances.

1. In summary, the applicant requested access to certain documents relating to an investigation of the applicant and a decision not to renew/continue their employment.
2. The Department identified documents totalling 134 pages, applying exemptions under ss 42, 47E(c), 47E(d), 47F, and deletions under s 22. The Department released one document in full (Document 6) and 10 documents in part (Documents 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18) applying ss 22, 42, 47E(c), 47E(d), and 47F. The Department found 14 documents are exempt in full (Documents 3-5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19-25) under

ss 22(1)(a)(ii), 42, 47E(c), 47E(d), and 47F. 3. The applicant seeks full release of the documents. The applicant's submissions did not address the exemptions specifically but provided relevant background and contextual information about the circumstances and focused on the need for transparency and accountability in the circumstances. I have considered these submissions below. 4. The issues to be decided in this IC review are: * whether certain material is irrelevant (s 22) * whether certain material and documents are conditionally exempt under ss 47E(c), 47E(d), and 47F of the FOI Act, and if so, whether giving the applicant access to the conditionally exempt material at this time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest (s 11A(5)) 5. The Department found material in several documents to be exempt under ss 47E(c) and 42 of the FOI Act.[5] However, given I find this material to be exempt under s 47E(c) below, it is unnecessary for me to consider if this material is exempt under s 42. 6. In an IC review of an access refusal decision, the agency bears the onus of establishing that its decision is justified or that I should give a decision adverse to the applicant.[6] 7. In making my decision, I have had regard to the following: * the Department's decision and reasons for decision of 24 June 2021 * the FOI request * the documents at issue * the FOI Act[7] * the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the FOI Act[8] to which agencies must have regard in performing a function or exercising a power under the FOI Act,[9] and * the parties' submissions.

1. The Department maintains that names and contact details of departmental staff, email addresses of operational mailboxes and copies of emails that are included elsewhere in the documents (duplicates) are irrelevant to the request.
2. The FOI Guidelines note that a request should be interpreted as extending to any document that might reasonably be taken to be included within the description the applicant has used. [10]

1. The Department maintains that staff names, contact details and email addresses of operational mailboxes, included in the document are irrelevant to the applicant's request based on its policy advised to the applicant. It is now well established[11] that agencies cannot unilaterally decide that material is irrelevant to a request. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the applicant agreed to the exclusion of these details from the scope of his request, nor is it apparent from the terms of the FOI request that staff names are irrelevant.

1. In their request, the applicant said, 'Any duplicate material may be excluded'. Therefore, based on my review of the FOI request, I consider the applicant agreed to remove duplicates from the scope of their request.

1. Having considered the scope of the request, previous decisions and guidance, I consider:
   • staff names, contact details and email addresses for positional mailboxes[12] are relevant
     • duplicate material is irrelevant
2. The Department maintains staff names and contact details, and email addresses for operational mailboxes are also conditionally exempt under s 47F. I have considered this claim below.

1. Subsection 47E(c) of the FOI Act provides that a document is exempt if its disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel by the Commonwealth or by an agency.
2. In summary, the Department submitted the exempt material comprises details of the assessment of the complaint in relation to the Locally Engaged Staff (LES) Code of Conduct and associated processes. In particular, the material includes specific details about the handling of the complaint and subsequent investigation.
3. The Department maintains disclosure would have a substantial adverse effect on the Department's ability to manage its personnel because investigations are undertaken with the expectation of confidentiality given complaints pertaining to employment are sensitive in nature. Further, the Department takes allegations of sexual harassment seriously and has obligations to staff who report potential instances of harassment. The Department maintains the view that disclosure of the material could reasonably be expected to prejudice the Department's ability to manage personnel in the future.
4. I have reviewed an unedited copy of the documents, and I consider that the material the Department claims is conditionally exempt under s 47E(c) is comprised of records of communication relating to complaints and/or formal investigations concerning the applicant. Given the content and context of the material, I am satisfied that the documents relate to the management and assessment of personnel.
5. Recent IC review and AAT decisions have found that the disclosure of evidence provided in the context of investigations of workplace incidents could reasonably be expected to affect the willingness of people to provide evidence for future workplace investigations which, in turn, would have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of the agency's personnel.[13]
6. Similarly, in this case, based on my consideration of the documents and the nature of the allegations, I accept that staff may provide less fulsome answers or significantly reduce their candour if such participation could result in the release of the information without their consent. This could, in turn, undermine faith in the Department's ability to manage sensitive matters with the requisite level of sensitivity, and significantly impact their ability to investigate complaints, adversely impacting the overall management of personnel, including by impacting the Department's ability to deal with allegations of harassment.
7. In these circumstances I accept that disclosure of this material could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the Department's ability to manage and assess its personnel by prejudicing the Department's ability to manage, assess and investigate complaints by and about staff members.
8. However, some of the documents include correspondence between the Department and the applicant. In my view disclosing these communications to the applicant, which are already in their knowledge and/or possession, could not reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the Department's ability to manage and assess its personnel. Noting the context, I accept that the names of witnesses and complainants in these parts of the documents are conditionally exempt under s 47E(c).
9. In addition, the determination and recommendations in the investigation report[14] pertain to the applicant and do not refer specifically to complainants or witnesses. Similarly (as above at [23]), I do not consider that disclosure of this material would have the impact the Department claims.

1. I am satisfied that the documents are conditionally exempt under s 47E(c) of the FOI Act except for the material referred to above at [23] - [24].

Certain operations of agencies exemption (s 47E(d))

1. A document will be conditionally exempt if its 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 (s 47E(d)).
2. Given that I have found material about the complaints and the investigation is conditionally exempt under s 47E(c), it is unnecessary for me to consider if the same material would be conditionally exempt under s 47E(d).
3. As noted above, some of the documents include correspondence between the Department and the applicant. In my view, as noted above under s 47E(c), disclosing these communications to the applicant, which are already in their knowledge and/or possession, could not reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the Department's operations.
4. The remaining material which the Department found to be conditionally exempt under this provision consists of material on page 28 that relates to the Department's counselling service for staff.
5. The Department submitted that disclosure of this information would enable access to a service available only to employees at a cost to the Department, therefore prejudicing the Department's ability to provide support services for its employees. Given the deleted material has already been given to the applicant, and includes phone numbers which are publicly available, I do not accept the Department's submission that disclosure of this information would enable access to a service available only to employees at a cost to the Department, or that it would have the impact the Department claims.

1. For the above reasons, I do not consider that disclosure of the correspondence between the Department and the applicant, including the material on page 28 that relates to the Department's counselling service, is conditionally exempt under s 47E(d).

1. This provision applies where the 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)).
2. In some parts of the documents the Department has applied multiple exemptions including s 47F in a global manner. To the extent that I have found material to be exempt or conditionally exempt under other provisions, it is unnecessary for me to consider this material under s 47F.

Whether the documents contain personal information

1. The Department advised it found names, signatures, addresses, birth dates and biographical information of third parties as well as opinions of witnesses to be conditionally exempt under s 47F.
2. 'Personal information' under the FOI Act has the same meaning as in the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). Based on my review of the documents, I consider that the names and contact details which identify the individuals and make them reasonably identifiable with the contents and context of the documents, are personal information for the purposes of s 47F(1) of the FOI Act.
3. However, some of the deleted material includes email addresses for operational mailboxes that do not relate to individuals[15]. As these mailboxes do not identify or reasonably identify individuals, I do not consider they are personal information.

Would disclosure involve an unreasonable disclosure of personal information?

1. In summary, the Department submitted:
   • The information is not well known or publicly available.
   • There is no public interest in releasing the personal information of third parties associated with the LES Code of Conduct investigation in circumstances where the substance of the allegations has been put to the applicant and they have been provided an opportunity to respond.
   • Individuals named in the material engaged with the Department with the expectation that their personal information would be handled confidentially.
   • Further, the Department's policies require complaints to be handled confidentially and personal information to be managed in accordance with the Privacy Act.
2. I have examined the unedited documents, and have considered the submissions against the mandatory factors in s 47F(2) and other relevant factors.
3. In my view the following factors weigh against disclosure of the personal information of complainants and/or witnesses:
   • The information is not well known or publicly available and the individuals are not known to be associated with the subject matter of the documents.
   • They would not reasonably expect their personal information would be disclosed in the circumstances
   • While disclosure would promote the public interest in government transparency and integrity, noting the subject matter of the investigation, and the circumstances, disclosure of their personal information would likely cause harm.
4. In relation to the personal information of departmental staff (which the Department deleted under s 22) I do not accept the Department's submission that there is no public interest in the release of this information, which include the names of the investigator, the signature of the Ambassador, as well as 2 staff members who corresponded with the applicant about the investigation. Having regard to the applicant's submissions, I accept disclosure would advance the public interest in government transparency and accountability in the circumstances given their involvement in a government decision that affected the applicant. I give weight to this factor, particularly in relation to the staff members who had direct involvement with the applicant or the investigation (as set out above).
5. Similarly, I do not accept that those staff members would have the same expectation of confidentiality as witnesses or complainant/s, particularly noting that it is apparent that these names have already been disclosed to the applicant.
6. In my view, it would not be unreasonable in these circumstances, to disclose the personal information of these staff members. However, I accept that on balance, it would be unreasonable to disclose the names of other staff members who were not directly involved with the applicant or the investigation.

1. I am satisfied that the personal information is conditionally exempt under s 47F of the FOI Act, except for the personal information of the investigator, the Ambassador, and 2 staff members who corresponded with the applicant about the investigation.

Whether access would be contrary to the public interest (s 11A(5))

1. Having found material in the documents to be conditionally exempt under ss 47E(c), and 47F of the FOI Act, I am required to consider whether it would be contrary to the public interest to give the applicant access to conditionally exempt material at this time.
2. I have considered the relevant mandatory factors listed in s 11B(3) of the FOI Act. I have not considered the irrelevant factors as set out in s 11B(4) of the FOI Act.[16]
3. In summary, the Department maintains:
   • access to the documents would promote the objects of the FOI Act and allow a person to access their personal information
   • release of the information would have a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the department to manage its personnel and manage complaints in relation to the LES Code of Conduct, and would prejudice the protection of individuals' right to privacy.
4. As set out above, the applicant's submissions focused on the need for transparency and accountability in the circumstances.
5. The documents are comprised of documents relating to a complaint and investigation of the applicant by the Department. Based on my review of the material, I consider disclosure would promote the objects of the FOI Act by revealing information that informed the Department's investigation and decision. In this sense it would also enhance the scrutiny of government decision making. Disclosure would also provide the applicant with their personal information.
6. The Department submitted disclosure of the 47E(c) and 47F material would have a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the Department to manage its personnel and manage complaints in relation to the LES Code of Conduct, and would prejudice the protection of individuals' right to privacy. For the reasons outlined above at [19] - [22] and [39] - [43], I accept the Department's submissions and give weight to these factors against disclosure. In particular I give significant weight to the Department's submission that disclosure of this material could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the Department's ability to manage and assess its personnel by prejudicing the Department's ability to manage, assess and investigate complaints by and about staff members.
7. On balance I consider the factors against disclosure, which I have given significant weight, outweigh the factors favouring disclosure.

1. For the above reasons, I consider it would be contrary to the public interest to release the relevant material which I have found to be conditionally exempt under ss 47E(c) and 47F.

Relevant provisions of the FOI Act, FOI Guidelines, and decisions

Section 11A(5) of the FOI Act states the agency or Minister must give the person access to the document if it is conditionally exempt at a particular time unless (in the circumstances) access to the document at that time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

Section 22 of the FOI Act authorises an agency to prepare and to give an applicant access to an edited copy of a document if:

• an agency or Minister decides:
  • to refuse to give access to an exempt document (s 22(1)(a)(i)), or
  • that to give access to a document would disclose information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to the request for access, and
• it is possible for the agency or Minister to prepare an edited copy of the document (s 22(1)(b)), and
• it is reasonably practicable to prepare an edited copy, having regard to the nature and extent of the modification required, and the resources available to modify the document (s 22(1)(c)), and
• it is not apparent, from an applicant's request or consultation with the applicant, that the applicant would decline access to the edited copy (s 22(1)(d)).

A request should be interpreted as extending to any document that might reasonably be taken to be included within the description the applicant has used.[17]

Certain operations of agencies exemption (s 47E(c))

Section 47E(c) of the FOI Act states a document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel by the Commonwealth or by an agency.

the predicted effect needs to be reasonably expected to occur... There must be more than merely an assumption or allegation that damage may occur if the document is released.

...

An agency cannot merely assert that an effect will occur following disclosure. The particulars of the predicted effect should be identified during the decision-making process, including whether the effect could reasonably be expected to occur. Where the conditional exemption is relied on, the relevant particulars and reasons should form part of the decision maker's statement of reasons, if they can be included without disclosing exempt matter (s 26, see Part 3).[18]

For this conditional exemption to apply, the document must relate to either:

• the management of personnel - including broader human resources policies and activities, recruitment, promotion, compensation, discipline, harassment and work health and safety

• the assessment of personnel - including the broader performance management policies and activities concerning competency, in-house training requirements, appraisals and underperformance, counselling, feedback, assessment for bonus or eligibility for progression.[19]

Certain operations of agencies exemption (s 47E(d))

Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act states a document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency.

As discussed in the FOI Guidelines[20] and in IC review decisions,[21] a document is conditionally exempt under s 47E(d) if its 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.

With respect to the term 'substantial adverse effect', the FOI Guidelines also explain:

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'. The word 'substantial', in the context of substantial loss or damage, has been interpreted as including 'loss or damage that is, in the circumstances, real or of substance and not insubstantial or nominal'.

A decision maker should clearly describe the expected effect and its impact on the usual operations or activity of the agency in the statement of reasons under s 26 to show their deliberations in determining the extent of the expected effect. It may sometimes be necessary to use general terms to avoid making the statement of reasons itself an 'exempt document' (s 26(2)).[22]

Further, in Re James and Others and Australian National University (1984) 6 ALD 687; [1984] AATA 501, Deputy President Hall explained:

As a matter of ordinary English, I think that the expression "the conduct of the operations of an agency" is capable of extending to the way in which an agency discharges or performs any of its functions. [23]

Section 47F of the FOI Act states 'A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a deceased person).'

Section 4(1) of the FOI Act states 'personal information' has the same meaning as the Privacy Act 1988, which provides:

personal information means information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable:

(a) whether the information or opinion is true or not; and

(b) whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not.[24]

Section 47F(2) of the FOI Act states that in determining whether the disclosure of the document would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information, an agency or Minister decision maker must have regard to the following matters:

• 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 sources, and
• any other matters that the agency or Minister considers relevant.

As discussed in the FOI Guidelines and IC review cases,[25] the main requirements of this public interest conditional exemption are that a document contains 'personal information;' disclosure in response to the applicant's FOI request would be 'unreasonable' (s 47(1)); and it would be 'contrary to the public interest' to release the material at the time of the decision (s 11A(5)).

The FOI Guidelines explain that the test of 'unreasonableness' in 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'.[26]

In addition to the mandatory factors outlined at s 47F(2) of the FOI Act, the FOI Guidelines explain that other relevant factors include:

a) the author of the document is identifiable

b) the document contains third party personal information

c) release of the document would cause stress to the third party

d) no public purpose would be achieved through release.

• the nature, age and current relevance of the information
• any detriment that disclosure may cause o 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 or minister's collection 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
• any submission an FOI applicant chooses to make in support of their request 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.[27]

The last-mentioned factor - the public interest in government transparency and integrity - is to be balanced with all other relevant factors arising in the particular case, including the private interest that third party individuals may have in maintaining privacy of their personal information.[28]

Section 11A(5)of the FOI Act states the agency or Minister must give the person access to the document if it is conditionally exempt at a particular time unless (in the circumstances) access to the document at that time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

Section 11B(3) of the FOI Act sets out a non-exhaustive list of public interest factors favouring disclosure for consideration, those factors being where disclosure of the document would do any of the following:

(c) promote effective oversight of public expenditure

(d) allow a person access to their personal information.

Section 11B(4) of the FOI Act also lists the following irrelevant factors that must not be taken into consideration when deciding whether access would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest:

(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.

In addition to the factors set out at s 11B(3) of the FOI Act, the FOI Guidelines set out a further non-exhaustive list of public interest factors in favour of disclosure, as well as public interest factors against disclosure.[29]

To conclude that, on balance, disclosure of a document would be contrary to the public interest is to conclude that the benefit to the public resulting from disclosure is outweighed by the benefit to the public of withholding the information. The decision maker must analyse, in each case, where on balance the public interest lies based on the particular facts at the time the decision is made.[30]

If a party to an IC review is unsatisfied with an IC review decision, they may apply under s 57A of the FOI Act to have the decision reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). The ART provides independent merits review of administrative decisions and has power to set aside, vary, or affirm an IC review decision.

An application to the ART must be made within 28 days of the day on which the applicant is given the IC review decision (see s 18(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and rule 5(3) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024). An application fee may be payable when lodging an application for review to the ART. Further information is available on the ART's website (www.art.gov.au) or by telephoning 1800 228 333.

Making a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman

If you believe you have been treated unfairly by the OAIC, you can make a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Ombudsman). The Ombudsman's services are free. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about the administrative actions of Australian Government agencies to see if you have been treated unfairly.

If the Ombudsman finds your complaint is justified, the Ombudsman can recommend that the OAIC reconsider or change its action or decision or take any other action that the Ombudsman considers is appropriate. You can contact the Ombudsman's office for more information on 1300 362 072 or visit the Commonwealth Ombudsman's website at http://www.ombudsman.gov.au.

If you would like access to the information that we hold about you, please contact FOIDR@oaic.gov.au. More information is available on the Access our information page on our website.

[1] See, for example, pages 28, 94, 102, and 103 of the documents at issue.

[2] As noted above the names of witnesses and/or complainant/s are conditionally exempt under s 47E(c).

[3] As noted above the names of witnesses and/or complainant/s are conditionally exempt under s 47E(c).

[4] These are the names of staff members deleted on page 9 of the documents (also found elsewhere throughout the documents).

[5] During the IC review the Department confirmed it no longer maintains s 42 applies to page 11.

[7] Sections 42, 11A, 47E(c), 47E(d) and 47F set out in Annexure A.

[8] See, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner_, Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under_ s 93A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Guidelines).

[10] FOI Guidelines at [3.54] footnoting Re Gould and Department of Health [1985] AATA 63.

[11] See Paul Farrell and Department of Home Affairs (No. 2) (Freedom of information) [2024] AICmr 78 (15 April 2024)), Paul Farrell and Australian Federal Police (No. 5) (Freedom of information) [2024] AICmr 181 (29 August 2024). See also 'ACQ' and Australian Federal Police (Freedom of information) [2022] AICmr 79 at [17]. See also FOI Guidelines at [3.54].

[12] See, for example, pages 28, 94, 102, and 103.

[13] See, for example, Paul Farrell and the Australian Federal Police (No.2) (Freedom of information) [2024] AICmr 71 at [12] and 'AIT' and Department of Defence (Freedom of information) [2024] AICmr 65 at [17], referencing Carver and Fair Work Ombudsman [2011] AICmr 5 at [22].

[14] On pages 64 and 65 of the documents at issue.

[17] FOI Guidelines at [3.54] footnoting Re Gould and Department of Health [1985] AATA 63.

[19] FOI Guidelines at [6.103] (footnote omitted).

[20] See FOI Guidelines at [6.90] - [6.92], and [6.112] - [6.118] and the cases referenced there.

[21] See, Raymond Williams and Department of Defence (Freedom of information) [2023] AICmr 26; Refugee Advice & Casework Service and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Freedom of information) [2023] AICmr 16; Christis Tombazos and Australian Research Council (Freedom of information) [2023] AICmr 14; 'ACF' and Australian Public Service Commission (Freedom of information) [2022] AICmr 73; Rex Patrick and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (No. 2) (Freedom of information) [2022] AICmr 66; 'ZA' and Department of Veterans Affairs (Freedom of information) [2021] AICmr 83; Australian Society for Kangaroos and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation trading as AgriFutures Australia (Freedom of information) [2019] AICmr 31; and 'PR' and Comcare (Freedom of information) [2019] AICmr 2.

[22] FOI Guidelines at [6.18] - [6.19] (footnotes omitted).

[24] Section 6(1) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (emphasis in original).

[25] Generally, see FOI Guidelines at [6.119] - [6.155]; 'AEE' and Department of Defence (Freedom of information) [2023] AICmr 69; 'AED' and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (Freedom of information) [2023] AICmr 67; 'OE' and Australian Taxation Office (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 29.

[27] FOI Guidelines at [6.137] - [6.138] (footnotes omitted).

[29] FOI Guidelines at [6.229] - [6.233].

[30] FOI Guidelines at [6.238] (footnote omitted).