1. Under s 55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I set aside the deemed decision of the Department of Home Affairs (the Department). I substitute my decision that:

• staff details are out of scope of the IC review
  • the material which the Department no longer maintains is exempt or irrelevant is not exempt or irrelevant
  • the TIS billing code is conditionally exempt under s 47D, and disclosure would be contrary to the public interest
  • the material referred to below at paragraphs [22] and [25] is not conditionally exempt under s 47E(d)
  • the remaining material which the Department maintains is conditionally exempt under s 47E(d) is conditionally exempt under that provision and disclosure would be contrary to the public interest
  • the material 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

1. Within 28 days of this decision: * the Department must provide the applicant with a copy of the documents, edited under s 22 of the FOI Act only to the extent necessary to delete material I have found to be exempt or irrelevant[1], and * the Department must advise whether it has fully implemented my decision or whether it will be seeking review of the decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal.

1. This decision discusses a request by a person for access to certain documents related to them held by the Department. It is primarily of interest to the parties.

1. In summary, the applicant applied to the Department for access to their citizenship file, including certain specific documents.
2. The Department maintains certain material in the documents is conditionally exempt under ss 47E(d) (operations of an agency exemption), 47D (financial or property interests of the Commonwealth exemption) and 47F (personal information exemption). The Department also maintains certain material is irrelevant to the request (s 22).
3. During the IC review the Department withdrew its exemption claims in relation to some material.[2] Accordingly, the Department must now provide the material which it no longer claims to be exempt or irrelevant to the applicant.
4. The applicant excluded certain details about non-SES staff of the Department from their request. Accordingly, I consider staff details are out of scope of the IC review, and I will not consider them further.
5. The issues to be decided in this Information Commissioner review (IC review) are whether the material that the Department maintains is conditionally exempt under ss 47E(d), 47D and 47F of the FOI Act is conditionally exempt under those provisions, 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)).
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.[3]
7. In making my decision, I have had regard to the following:
   • the Department's purported decision and reasons for decision
   • the documents at issue
   • the FOI Act[4]
   • the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the FOI Act[5] to which agencies must have regard in performing a function or exercising a power under the FOI Act,[6] and
   • the parties' submissions

Substantial adverse effect on the financial or property interests of the Commonwealth exemption (s 47D)

A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would have a substantial adverse effect on the financial or property interests of the Commonwealth, of Norfolk Island or of an agency.

2. The material exempted under this provision relates to a customer reference code used by a specific business area of the Department to obtain Interpreter and Translating services from TIS National.
3. The Department submitted:
   • TIS National is a language service provider operated by the Department on a commercial basis, providing credentialed and secure interpreting and translator services to Government, businesses, and the Australian community
   • if TIS account billing codes were disclosed publicly they could be misused by a bad faith actors to request and obtain TIS services that would be billed to the account holder, in this case a business area within of the Department.
4. While the applicant made substantive submissions in this IC review, they did not specifically address the material deleted under s 47D.
5. I have reviewed an unedited copy of the documents and have considered the submissions. It is apparent from the documents and the Department's submissions that the billing code for a language service provider operated by the Department on a commercial basis (and for which the Department is the account holder), constitutes a 'financial interest' for the purposes of s 47D.
6. I consider that if TIS account billing codes were disclosed publicly they could be misused by a bad faith actors to request and obtain TIS services that would be billed to the Department as the account holder. In these circumstances I accept the Department's submission that the Department has a responsibility to ensure that public money is used in a lawful and effective manner and that unfettered release of the account codes could have a substantial adverse effect on the financial interest of the Commonwealth.

1. I am satisfied that the TIS billing code is conditionally exempt under s 47D of the FOI Act.

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. In summary, the Department submitted that the material deleted under s 47E(d) consists of:
   • Operational methods and procedures: These portions of Document 2 relate to the methods used by the Department to investigate possible breaches of the law, including covert investigations into the affairs of the applicant. If disclosed the information would prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures, reducing the ability of the Department and other law enforcement agencies to protect the Australian community and reduce the trust between the Department and the other agencies supporting the Commonwealth's investigative capabilities.
   • Security screening: These portions of Document 2 relate to the security screenings conducted by the Department, disclosure of which would reveal the methods used to implement security screenings, including confidential details about partner agencies. The Department contends that disclosure would undermine the integrity of these checks by allowing individuals to circumvent checks or manipulate outcomes, which would undermine its operations in protecting the Australian community.
   • Operational email addresses: The Department notes that it has established channels by which members of the public can contact the Department, and the disclosure of such information, particularly if disseminated to the world at large, would reduce its effectiveness and divert resources by making staff in specialised business areas answer public enquiries.
   • Intelligence collection and dissemination: These portions of Document 2 reveal the investigative functions of the Department, including how intelligence or information is obtained, disseminated and actioned for the purpose of investigating breaches of the law. The Department contends that should this information be disclosed, it would severely damage its reputation and affect the trust of other agencies in the Department's handling of sensitive information which is integral to its investigative functions.
3. The applicant's submissions focused mainly on the public interest test. I have considered these submissions below.

Operational methods, security screening and intelligence

1. I have examined an unedited copy of the documents. It is apparent from my review of the documents that they contain information about intelligence collection and dissemination, security screening and operational methods and procedures. In my view the Department's deletions under this provision are discrete and targeted. It is apparent from my review of the unedited documents that these processes and techniques are covert, and therefore reliant, on non-disclosure for effectiveness. I consider that if potential persons of interest were to become aware of the methods used to undertake investigations and conduct security screenings, they could alter their behaviour in such a way as to avoid detection or prosecution. I accept that this would have a substantial adverse impact on the operations of the Department and its partners.
2. However, the Department has inconsistently redacted some parts of the documents.[7] I do not consider that disclosure of material which has already been disclosed in other parts of the documents would likely have a substantial adverse effect on the Department's proper and efficient operations in these circumstances.

1. Previous IC review decisions have found that internal email addresses of operational mailboxes are not conditionally exempt under s 47E(d) in certain circumstances. This includes where they are publicly available, where they have been used to communicate with external stakeholders, or where insufficient supporting evidence is provided to substantiate how disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, result in a substantial adverse effect on the operations of the agency.[8] However, where it is clear that the release of this type of information would likely result in having a substantial adverse effect on an agency's proper and efficient operations, this type of information could be conditionally exempt under s 47E(d).[9]
2. Based on my review of the documents and their context, I consider that these operational mailboxes are intended for internal use only, or for communicating with particular external partners, and do not appear to be publicly available. I consider that the email addresses were created for particular purposes, and disclosure would likely result in operational areas receiving public correspondence that do not relate to the purpose for which they were created. I accept that this would hinder their efficiency. Noting the size of the Department and its range of functions, and the sensitive nature of the operations outlined in the documents, I consider that disclosure would likely have a substantial adverse effect on the Department's proper and efficient operations.
3. In my view, the substance of some email addresses could easily be inferred from the unredacted parts of the documents or are redacted inconsistently.[10] I do not consider that disclosure of these email addresses would likely have a substantial adverse effect on the Department's proper and efficient operations in these circumstances.

1. I am satisfied that the material in the documents is conditionally exempt under s 47E(d) of the FOI Act[11], except for the material referred to above at paragraphs [22] and [25].

1. The requirements of this conditional exemption are that a document contains 'personal information'; disclosure in response to the applicant's request would be 'unreasonable' (s 47F(1)).

1. 'Personal information' under the FOI Act has the same meaning as in the Privacy Act 1988.[12] It is clear on the face of the documents, and from the Department's submissions, that the remaining material at issue includes personal information of a third party individual.
2. I find that this material is 'personal information' for the purposes of s 47F(1).

Would disclosure of that 'personal information' be unreasonable?

1. I have examined an unedited copy of the documents, as well as the parties' submissions. I have considered the mandatory factors in s 47F(2) as well as the other relevant factors below.
2. The Department submitted:
   • the personal information is contained in emails that were added to the applicant's file in error, does not relate to the applicant or their citizenship application, and accordingly are of marginal relevance to the scope of the FOI request
   • given the subject matter of the documents, it is highly likely that the third party would object to the disclosure of their personal information
3. Based on my review of the documents, I accept the Department's submission that the personal information is contained in emails that were added to the applicant's file in error and does not relate to the applicant or their citizenship application.
4. In my view, taking into account these circumstances, the following factors weigh against disclosure of the personal information of the third party:
   • The information is not well known or publicly available and the third party is not known to be associated with the subject matter of the documents.
   • The third party's personal information was included on the applicant's file in error. In these circumstances they would not reasonably expect their personal information would be disclosed.
   • Disclosure would not meaningfully promote the public interest in government transparency and integrity, noting that the third party's personal information was placed on the applicant's file in error and is not relevant to the applicant or their citizenship application.
5. Having weighed these relevant factors, I consider that disclosure of the third party's personal information would involve an unreasonable disclosure of personal information.

1. I find that the material at issue is conditionally exempt under s 47F.

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 47D, 47E(d) 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. The requirements of the public interest test are set out at Annexure A. 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.[13]
2. In summary the Department acknowledged the general public interest in access to government information and the public interest in people being able to scrutinise the Department's operations. The Department submitted these factors are outweighed by the substantial adverse effect that disclosure would have on its operations, the impact on the government's financial interests and the effect on the personal privacy of the third party.
3. In summary the applicant submitted the following factors weigh in favour of disclosure:
   • the public interest factors of ensuring procedural fairness to individuals applying for Australian citizenship, and of ensuring that any incorrect information on a person's records held by a government department is rebutted or corrected, weigh strongly in favour of allowing access.
   • The applicant has a number of vulnerabilities and hence requires the assistance of community organisations and needs the documents to respond to the Department and to effectively seek legal and other assistance.
   • Being able to know the content of the Department's assessment and the factual bases for those assessments and the source of adverse information is crucial in the interests of procedural fairness.
   • This risk to the applicant was realised when the Department refused their application for Australian citizenship on the basis they were not satisfied of their identity. They also issued a notice to cancel their permanent residency but decided not to cancel it.
   • When the applicant re-applies for Australian citizenship, it is likely the Department will raise the same allegations and refuse the citizenship application on the same basis.

The TIS Billing code and the third party's personal information

1. Based on my review and consideration of the nature of the material which I have found to be conditionally exempt under ss 47D (the TIS billing code) and 47F (the third party's personal information), I accept that disclosure would not advance the public interest in government transparency and integrity or inform debate on a matter of public importance in any meaningful way. Nor would it provide significant insights into public expenditure or give the applicant access to their personal information. It does not appear that the applicant's submissions are particularly relevant to this material given its nature.
2. For the reasons outlined above I consider disclosure of the respective material would impact the government's financial interests and the personal privacy of the third party and I give this significant weight. On balance, I consider that the public interest factors against disclosure of this material outweigh the factors favouring disclosure.

Operational methods, operational email addresses, security screening and intelligence

1. I accept disclosure of this material would promote the objects of the FOI Act by revealing information related to the Department's operations and investigations in this case. I also accept the applicant's submissions that disclosure would ensure procedural fairness to the applicant in the context of a further application for Australian citizenship by ensuring they have access to additional information about the Department's investigations as relevant to the applicant.
2. However, for the reasons outlined above at [21] - [24], I accept the Department's submissions and give greater weight to the factors against disclosure raised by the Department. In particular I give weight to the Department's submission that disclosure could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on their operations. In my view there is a significant public interest in the Department being able to effectively undertake these operations in the circumstances.

1. On balance, I consider that the public interest factors against disclosure outweigh the factors favouring disclosure.

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.

_Documents affecting financial or property interests of the Commonwealth

Section 47D conditionally exempts documents where disclosure would have a substantial adverse effect on the financial or property interests of the Commonwealth or an agency.

The financial or property interests of the Commonwealth or an agency may relate to assets, expenditure or revenue-generating activities.

An agency or government cannot merely assert that its financial or property interests would be adversely affected following disclosure.

The particulars of the predicted effect should be identified during the decision-making process and should be supported by evidence. 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 of these Guidelines).

The effect must bear on the actual financial or property interests of the Commonwealth or an agency.[14]

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[15] and in IC review decisions,[16] 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)).[17]

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. [18]

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.[19]

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,[20] 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'.[21]

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.[22]

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.[23]

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.[24]

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.[25]

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] This includes the material that is out of scope of the IC review.

[2] See the Department's response of 13 August 2024.

[4] Section 11A and 47E(c) as set out in Annexure A.

[5] 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).

[7] This includes (but is not limited to) the unredacted team name in the body of the email and in the email signature on page 151, which has been redacted in other parts of the documents.

[8] See, for example, 'ADM' and Services Australia (Freedom of information) [2023] AICmr 38 (19 May 2023) and Paul Farrell and Australian Federal Police (No. 5) (Freedom of information) [2024] AICmr 181 (29 August 2024).

[9]'ATD' and Department of Home Affairs (Freedom of information) [2025] AICmr 9 (13 January 2025)

[10] This includes (but is not limited to) the operational email address on page 151 of the documents, and another operational email address near the bottom of page 227. See also the unredacted part of an email address on page 129 and an email address on page 126, which are redacted elsewhere in the documents.

[11] This includes certain material which the Department appears to have redacted under s 37 in error.

[14] FOI Guidelines [6.83]. See Re Hart and Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2002] AATA 1190 ; (2002) 36 AAR 279.

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

[16] 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.

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

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

[20] 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.

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

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

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