Delegate of the Australian Information Commissioner for the purposes of s 55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Freedom of Information - Whether reasonable steps taken to find documents - Whether disclosure of personal information unreasonable - Whether contrary to public interest to release conditionally exempt documents - (CTH) Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 11A, 11B, 24A, 47F

1. Under s 55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I affirm the s 55G revised decision of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (the CSIRO) of 10 April 2025.

1. This decision discusses s 24A of the FOI Act in relation to a request by the applicant for material relating to a recruitment process they were involved in with the CSIRO, and

s 47F of the FOI Act in relation to resumes of third-parties. It finds that the CSIRO took 'all reasonable steps' to locate relevant documents and that there is a significant public interest in not releasing the third-parties' resumes. It is primarily of interest to the parties in relation to the specific documents sought.

1. On 30 May 2022, the applicant applied to the CSIRO for documents relating to a recruitment process he was involved in with the agency (see Annexure A).
2. The CSIRO identified one document as being in scope of the request, which it released to the applicant with irrelevant material deleted under s 22[1]. The CSIRO also advised the applicant that it had conducted all reasonable searches for documents falling within the scope of their request and that no further documents could be found.
3. The applicant sought Information Commissioner review (IC review) of the CSIRO's internal review decision of 26 August 2022 on the basis they were seeking, in essence, any documents in any form relating to the selection process and reasons for selecting the successful candidate. Also, during this IC review, the applicant sought on several occasions to expand the scope of their request and raise issues for the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) to consider which fall outside our remit. While it is open to the applicant to make a new FOI request directed to the CSIRO, the scope of a request cannot be extended during an IC review.[2]
4. Following a direction issued by the OAIC,[3] the CSIRO conducted further searches for documents relevant to the request and issued a revised s 55G decision to the applicant. It identified an additional six documents within the scope of the request and decided to release three of these documents in full and three documents in part, with material claimed to be exempt under ss 47E(d) and 47F. In relation to the document that the CSIRO originally identified as being in scope, it released further material which it had deleted under s 22 as being irrelevant.[4]
5. In relation to the material that the CSIRO maintains is irrelevant under s 22 in the original document it released, I am satisfied that it is not within scope of this IC review because I accept the CSIRO's advice to the applicant in its s 55G revised decision that it relates to an 'entirely different recruitment process' than the position referred to in the applicant's request.[5] Accordingly, the material which the CSIRO maintains is irrelevant under s 22 is outside the scope of this IC review.
6. In relation to searches, I have interpreted the applicant's submissions to this IC review to mean that they are not satisfied that the CSIRO has undertaken sufficient searches to identify documents relevant to their request. Accordingly, I consider s 24A is in scope of this IC review.
7. In relation to the ss 47E(d) and 47F exemption claims over the three documents (resumes of selection panel members) claimed to be exempt in full in the CSIRO's revised s 55G decision, the applicant has submitted that they are not seeking resumes of selection panel members. Rather, they are seeking 'qualifications' of the selection panel members, for example a 'Master of Business Studies'. The applicant conceded, however, that if this is the only form in which the qualifications can be provided then the information should be made available through that method, and it could be 'heavily redacted'.
8. The issues to be decided in this IC review are:
   • whether the CSIRO as taken all reasonable steps to identify documents within the scope of the request and that documents cannot be found or do not exist (s 24A), and
   • whether the material that the CSIRO claims is conditionally exempt under ss 47E(d) and 47F 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)).
9. 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]
10. In making my decision, I have had regard to the following:
    • the CSIRO's decision of 29 July 2022[7] and its internal review decision of 26 August 2022[8]
    • the CSIRO's revised s 55G decision of 10 April 2025
    • the evidence of searches undertaken by CSIRO
    • the FOI Act[9]
    • the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the FOI Act[10] to which agencies must have regard in performing a function or exercising a power under the FOI Act,[11] and
    • the parties' submissions.

Whether reasonable steps taken to find documents (s 24A)

1. Section 24A of the FOI Act requires that an agency take 'all reasonable steps' to find a requested document before refusing access to it on the basis that a document cannot be found or does not exist.
2. The applicant provided multiple submissions to the OAIC during this IC review and, as referred to above, raised issues which fall outside the scope of their request and accordingly this IC review.
3. In summary, I consider the essence of the applicant's submissions to be that the CSIRO has interpreted the definition of 'document' in an unduly narrow manner and has not taken all reasonable steps to locate material relevant to their request, including but not limited to:
   • a selection report
   • documentation relating to discussions between the selection panel members
   • documentation detailing interactions between recruiters and the selection panel
   • diary entries
   • emails, and
   • feedback regarding refusal to progress their application to shortlisting.
4. In relation to the qualifications of the selection panel members (the fifth dot point of the applicant's request set out at Annexure A), the applicant submitted that, '[i]f the only process to determine qualifications is through the provision of resumes, then I request that the information sought be made available by that method' and agrees that the resumes can be 'heavily redacted'.

1. The CSIRO has provided the OAIC with details of the searches it undertook in relation to the request and the outcome of those searches. These show that the CSIRO engaged in the following to identify relevant documents and to address queries from the applicant regarding the number and nature of documents within scope:
   • the applicant spoke to the panel Chair to discuss why they decided that the applicant's application for the position in question did not progress to the interview stage of the selection process[12]
   • the CSIRO's internal review decisionmaker conducted internal consultations with their Talent Team and members of the selection panel to understand the recruitment process, particularly the 'pre-screening' and 'shortlisting' processes in order to satisfy themselves that no further documents fell within the scope of the request[13]
   • as discussed with the applicant, the selection panel Chair was responsible for making the pre-screening decisions and consulted the other selection panel members in relation to their agreement with the pre-screening outcome
   • the CSIRO's internal review decisionmaker, in consultation with relevant CSIRO officers, provided written advice to the applicant answering specific queries the applicant had regarding the recruitment process and addressing claims made by the applicant
   • in its decisions and during this IC review process, CSIRO administratively released the names and position titles of the selection panel members
   • the CSIRO undertook searches of the relevant records management system (SuccessFactors), and
   • the relevant CSIRO personnel undertook searches for any notes, diary entries, emails (including the emails of persons who had subsequently left their employment at CSIRO), and any other documents or correspondence created or held by them.
2. The searches evidence and decisions also identified the:
   • the persons who undertook the searches
   • the business areas consulted
   • outcomes of the searches undertaken, and
   • reasons as to why no additional documents have been found (in particular, that the applicant's application was not shortlisted during the pre-screening phase and that the applicant made several other job applications for other positions which do not fall within the scope of the current request).
3. Having regard to the terms of the applicant's request, I am satisfied that it only relates to their application for a specific position at the CSIRO and does not extend to general recruitment information in relation to that, or other, positions.[14]
4. The evidence provided by the CSIRO during this IC review indicates that its internal requests to conduct the relevant searches were appropriately addressed to the three selection panel members and the relevant business areas. Its internal request made it clear these persons/ areas were to search for any documents or correspondence held or created by them relevant to the request, not just documents in its recruitment software. Therefore, CSIRO's interpretation of the word 'document' was not unduly narrow.
5. I am also satisfied that, given the applicant's application did not proceed beyond an early stage of the recruitment process (the pre-screening process, prior to shortlisting), it is not unreasonable to conclude that further relevant documents do not exist.[15]
6. In relation to the qualifications of the selection panel members, I am satisfied that the CSIRO has identified the information sought by the applicant through the additional searches it conducted prior to its s 55G decision which located the resumes of the selection panel members. I will consider below whether the qualifications are exempt under ss 47E(d) or 47F as claimed by the CSIRO.

1. I find that the CSIRO has taken 'all reasonable steps' to locate documents relevant to the applicant's request and that no further documents can be found or exist.

1. A document or material will be exempt under this conditional exemption if it 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. As referred to above, the CSIRO claimed that the three resumes of the selection panel members were exempt under ss 47F and 47E(d). Given the nature of the documents in question, I will consider these documents under s 47F in the first instance.
3. In its s 55G decision, the CSIRO advised the applicant that it considers the three resumes in question to be exempt in full under the s 47F conditional exemption because:
   • all contents of the resumes can be considered personal information
   • the information contained in the resumes is not well-known or readily accessible from another source. Even if they are available in online or LinkedIn profiles, those profiles are not like-for-like comparisons and may be amended at any time by those individuals, whereas these resumes are 'point-in-time documents'
   • the disclosure of these resumes would not shed any light on the workings of CSIRO or enhance accountability or transparency
   • the individuals would likely not have reasonably expected their resumes to be provided to third-parties under the FOI Act at the point that they submitted their resumes. If they knew there was a prospect of this occurring, they may have made different decisions about the contents of their resumes or about applying for the role on the selection panel at all
   • the individuals identifiable in the resumes unanimously object to the potential disclosure of their resumes. Further, disclosure of their resumes may amount to a privacy breach under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) if the use of the information would be for a secondary purpose unrelated to the primary purpose.
4. The applicant does not specifically address in their submissions why the resumes, and particularly the qualifications of the relevant individuals, should not be exempt under s 47F. They did, however, state in correspondence sent to the CSIRO and provided to the OAIC that:

Regarding names and qualifications of selection panel members that issue was to be read literally and not subject to interpretation. I certainly was not seeking resumes of selection panel members. Panel members names were given. Referencing qualifications, I was only referring to precisely that-qualifications. An example would be Master of Business Studies. For the position of governance, a reading of the position description would see a legal qualification applicable.

1. 'Personal information' under the FOI Act has the same meaning as the equivalent term in the Privacy Act 1988.[16] That definition is set out in Annexure B.
2. The resumes of the selection panel members contain information about individuals whose identities are apparent given they include information about the individuals' qualifications in association with their names. As such, I find they are 'personal information' for the purposes of s 47F(1) of the FOI Act.

Whether disclosure would involve an unreasonable disclosure of personal information

1. While there is no evidence before me that the applicant intends to disseminate the information, I give weight to the following factors:
   • there is no evidence before me that the information contained in the resumes is well-known or readily available from another source
   • all three selection panel members expressed their objection to the release of their resumes
   • there is no evidence before me that the contents of the resumes advance the public interest in government transparency and integrity, and
   • disclosure of information within their resumes may be detrimental to their privacy interests, especially considering the fact that the FOI Act does not control or restrict any subsequent use or dissemination of information released under the FOI Act
2. Having weighed the relevant factors, I find that release of the material in question would involve an unreasonable disclosure of the personal information of the relevant third-parties. In particular, I give significant weight to the fact that these individuals have objected to disclosure of their resumes, and that at the time they provided their resumes to the CSIRO, they likely did not intend for them to be used for any purpose other than for the purposes of the job application process.

1. I am satisfied that the documents are conditionally exempt under s 47F.

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

1. Having found the resumes to be conditionally exempt under s 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 B. 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.[17] In considering the public interest, I have had regard to the parties' submissions.
2. In its s 55G decision the CSIRO advised the applicant that it considered a factor in favour of disclosure is that it would promote the objects of the FOI Act, particularly in increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government's activities. It further advised the applicant that:

CSIRO is of the view that the disclosure of the personal information will make no meaningful contribution to the factor in favour of disclosure, noting that the identity and position titles of the relevant CSIRO staff, as well as the position descriptions for their position, have all now been disclosed to you. Additional information that may be contained in the individual's resumes would add very little to your understanding of how the relevant decision was made. By contrast: > > - the interference with the privacy of other individuals is unreasonable, especially because it is not a disclosure of personal information that a reasonable person in their situation would expect; and > > - the effect of disclosing this information would have a material effect on CSIRO's recruitment, CSIRO's competitiveness, and morale among staff. These impacts - individually or cumulatively - would constrain CSIRO's ability to succeed in delivering important research. > > Accordingly, it is CSIRO's position that disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest and that the three resumes are exempt in full.

3. In submissions to this IC review the applicant referred to the objects of the FOI Act as set out in s 3 and submitted that:

The intention and purpose of the Act is to provide Australian citizens with information regarding the decisions of Government Departments and Agencies. The Act is interpretated according to its provisions but I do not believe that any of the provisions prevent me from obtaining the information I requested.

4. I give moderate weight to the following factor in favour of disclosure:
   • disclosure of the resumes would promote the objects of the FOI Act. In particular, it would increase scrutiny, discussion, comment, and review of the Government's activities (s 3(2)(b)), especially in relation to CSIRO's recruitment process.
5. I give significant weight to the following factors against disclosure:
   • disclosure of the resumes would constitute an unreasonable interference with the privacy of the relevant third-parties, and
   • the third-parties object to the disclosure of their personal information.

1. On balance, I consider that the public interest factors against disclosure, which I have given significant weight, outweigh the factors favouring disclosure. Accordingly, I find that the resumes, including the qualifications associated with names, are exempt in full under s 47F.[18]
2. Given the above finding, it is unnecessary for me to consider whether s 47E(d) of the FOI Act applies.

Acting General Manager Freedom of Information Case Management

I have been advised that I have been unsuccessful in obtaining the position of [position reference redacted]

Application of the FOI Act (Cth) 1982

1. I request documentation showing why I was not shortlisted for the position and reasons.

2. I request documentation which shows how I was judged unsuitable for the position in relation to other candidates.

3. I request documentation showing how my application was marked against published criteria.

4. I request documentation showing that my application was read and considered.

5. I request that the names and qualifications of the selection panel be made available to me.

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

Section 11A(4) of the FOI Act states the agency or Minister is not required by this Act to give the person access to the document at a particular time if, at that time, the document is an exempt document.

Whether reasonable steps taken to find documents (s 24A)

Section 24A of the FOI Act requires that an agency take 'all reasonable steps' to find a requested document before refusing access to it on the basis that it cannot be found or does not exist.

The Act is silent on what constitutes 'all reasonable steps'. The meaning of 'reasonable' in the context of s 24A(1)(a) has been construed as not going beyond the limit assigned by reason, not extravagant or excessive, moderate and of such an amount, size or number as is judged to be appropriate or suitable to the circumstances or purpose.

Agencies and ministers should undertake a reasonable search on a flexible and common-sense interpretation of the terms of the request. What constitutes a reasonable search will depend on the circumstances of each request and will be influenced by the normal business practices in the agency's operating environment or the minister's office. At a minimum, an agency or minister should take comprehensive steps to locate documents, having regard to:

• the subject matter of the documents
• the current and past file management systems and the practice of destruction or removal of documents, and
• the record management systems in place
• the individuals within an agency or minister's office who may be able to assist with the location of documents, and
• the age of the documents.[19]

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.[20]

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,[21] 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'.[22]

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 to 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.[23]

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.[24]

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.[25]

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.[26]

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] The CSIRO released one document to the applicant under its original decision of 29 July 2022 with material deleted as irrelevant under s 22. In their internal review decision, the CSIRO's decisionmaker found that certain relevant parts of that document were obscured by not expanding drop-down sections before a screen-capture was done. Therefore, they provided the applicant with access to a more complete version of the document.

[2] See 'AMW' and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Freedom of information) [2024] AICmr 175, [8] and 'AKT' and Services Australia (Freedom of information) [2024] AICmr 114, [10].

[3] The OAIC issued the CSIRO with a notice and direction under ss 55V(2) and 55(2)(e)(ii) requesting evidence that the applicant expressly consented to the deletion of staff details from the document at issue under s 22, and further submissions in relation to searches it had undertaken for documents relevant to the request.

[4] The CSIRO advised the applicant that the material that was released to them related to staff who performed incidental, or tangential, functions relating to the recruitment process for the role referred to in the applicant's request. The CSIRO advised that these officers did not contribute to any actual recruitment decision.

[5] In its s 55G decision the CSIRO advised the applicant that four of the redactions in the original document relate to role numbers that do not correlate with the position number in their request and accordingly are outside the scope of their request.

[7] The applicant made their request on 30 May 2022. On 22 June 2022, they agreed to an extension of the statutory processing period for their request. On 26 July 2022, the original decisionmaker provided the applicant with administrative access to one document. Following the applicant's notification that they sought a formal notice of the CSIRO's decision, the CSIRO issued its original decision on 29 July 2022.

[8] The applicant made their request for internal review on 29 July 2022.

[9] Sections 11A, 11B, 24A and 47F as set out in Annexure B.

[10] 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).

[12] The CSIRO's internal review decisionmaker advised the applicant that they understood that during that conversation the applicant indicated that they now understood why they had only received one redacted document in response to their request so far.

[13] While further documents were indeed released to the applicant under a subsequent s 55G decision, this was in the context of the OAIC liaising with the CSIRO regarding the definition of 'qualifications' in the request and the type of material the applicant was seeking.

[14] Paragraph [3.54] of the FOI Guidelines provides 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.

[15] Had the applicant's application made it to the shortlisting process it would be likely that further documents existed as a result of that process.

[16] Privacy Act 1988 s 6(1) (definition of 'personal information').

[18] For completeness, I have considered whether it would be reasonably practicable for the CSIRO to provide access to edited copies of the resumes with exempt material deleted (s 22). However, given my finding that disclosure of the resumes in their entirety, including the qualifications associated with names, are exempt under s 47F, I consider that this would not be reasonably practicable in the circumstances.

[19] FOI Guidelines at [3.88] - [3.89]. For further information, see FOI Guidelines at [3.85] - [3.94]; 'RD' and Comcare (Freedom of information) [2019] AICmr 61; 'PK' and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 65; 'PI' and Department of Human Services (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 62; 'PF' and Department of Human Services (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 59; 'OP' and Department of Home Affairs (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 43; Josh Taylor and Prime Minister of Australia (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 42.

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

[21] 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.

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

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

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