From the Decision.
Looks like auDA's legal advise, auDA and the auDA Boards decisions where wrong?
Freedom of Information Request FOI 28‐1617 – Notice of Access Decision
"63. During consultation, it was submitted that “disclosure of any of the documents as stated in the Schedule, would unreasonably and adversely affect the lawful business” of those consulted. It was further submitted that “As the Department receives unredacted versions of minutes, the publication of these documents would be severely detrimental to the ongoing effectiveness” of those consulted. Further, “there would be many examples of confidential information presented to the board and subsequently noted, which would go against the principles of sound and fair business practice”.
64. It was also submitted that “publication of the board minutes would significantly limit the effectiveness of the board in the future to consider and act it [sic] the best interests of the company and for directors to meet their obligations under the Corporations Act (2001)”.
65. I attach significant weight to the fact that the documents within the scope of your request were lawfully published previously by the originator on a publicly available website maintained by the originator. The documents within the scope of your request are not unredacted versions of minutes received by the Department, and any information presented to the board contained in the documents was published previously by the originator. I have taken into account that the submission indicates the reasons why, after many years, the documents were removed from that website and similar documents are no longer published on that website.
66. Paragraph 6.186 of the FOI Guidelines states that the term ‘could reasonably be expected’ refers to an expectation that is based on reason, and that mere assertion or speculative possibility is not enough.
67. However, little or no evidence was provided to support the assertions in the submission and demonstrate the rational basis on which it is expected that disclosure under the FOI Act would, or could reasonably be expected to, unreasonably adversely affect a person, organisation or undertaking. Given the amount of time that the documents were published previously, there should have been little difficulty in demonstrating a rational basis for any such expectation, and the absence of such evidence weighs strongly against the submission.
68. Therefore, I find that disclosure under the FOI Act of the documents would not, and could not reasonably be expected to, unreasonably adversely affect a person, organisation or undertaking."
Legal Director
Office of the General Counsel
Position Number 112404
Australian Government
Department of Communications and the Arts
