NBN Co Limited and Bogle (Freedom of information)
[2025] ARTA 67
•7 February 2025
NBN Co Limited and Bogle (Freedom of information) [2025] ARTA 67 (7 February 2025)
Applicant:NBN Co Limited
Respondent: Daniel Bogle
Tribunal Number: 2024/1907
Tribunal:General Member Darian-Smith
Place:Sydney
Date:7 February 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that:
1. The Relevant Documents are documents in respect of NBN’s commercial activities, as defined in s.7(3A) of the FOI Act.
2. The Relevant Documents are exempt from release, by reason of NBN being exempt from the operation of the FOI Act under s.7(2) and Part II of Schedule 2 of the FOI Act.
Statement made on 07 February 2025 at 3:01pm
Catchwords
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – Commercial activities – whether documents fall within the commercial activity carve out for NBN Co – managing and caring for staff is a commercial activity – NBN Co’s commercial activity carve out is applicable – exemption in s.7(2) FOI Act applies
Legislation
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) ss 3, 6A, 7, 22, 45, 47E, 47F, 47G, 55K
Cases
‘AID’ and NBN Co Limited (Freedom of Information) [2024] AICmr 48
Kline v Official Secretary to the Governor General [2012] FCAFC 184
Bell v Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [2008] FCAFC 40
Johnston and Australian Postal Corporation [2006] AATA 144
Battersby and NBN Co Ltd [2013] AICmr 61Internode Pty Ltd and NBN Co Ltd [2012] AICmr 4
Secondary Materials
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s.93A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982
Statement of Reasons
The Applicant (NBN) is the former employer of the Respondent (Mr Bogle).
NBN’s application for review was filed on 2 April 2024[1] (Application for Review). It relates to the decision made by the Freedom of Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Tydd, (IC) under s.55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act or Act) on 5 March 2024[2] (Reviewable Decision).
[1] T1, pages 1-3.
[2] T8, pages 22-27. ‘AID’ and NBN Co Limited (Freedom of Information) [2024] AICmr 48.
The Reviewable Decision set aside the decision of NBN made on 24 April 2019[3] (NBN Decision) and substituted the decision with a decision that “the documents are not documents in respect of the NBN’s commercial activities, as defined in s.7(3) of the FOI Act, and therefore are not exempt from release.”[4]
[3] T2, pages 4-11.
[4] T8, page 22 at [1].
The NBN Decision was made in response to an FOI request made by Mr Bogle on 3 April 2019[5] (FOI Request).
[5] T3, pages 12-13.
The scope of the FOI Request is described in the Reviewable Decision as being an application to the NBN for:
“access to emails in relation to a booking with an external service provider, any correspondence between the NBN and an external service provider in relation to a booking and meeting Minutes and list of meeting attendees.”[6]
[6] T8, page 22 at [3].
The documents which fall within the scope of the FOI Request are described in the Reviewable Decision in the following terms:
“The documents at issue are emails and a list of meeting attendees. In relation to the emails, some are between the NBN and an external service provider and some between the applicant and NBN employees, but all relate to a booking made for the applicant by the NBN with an external service provider for the purposes of the applicant undertaking a medical assessment. According to the NBN’s decision, the documents are relevant to a Comcare claim made by the applicant.”[7] (Relevant Documents)
[7] T8, page 24 at [10].
THE NBN DECISION
The NBN Decision breaks the Relevant Documents down into two categories of emails and to what is described as the “List of attendees (Rostering Meeting).” The two categories of emails are described as: “Emails to the MP (MP Emails), a third-party medical provider engaged by nbn to supply medical and related services to nbn staff” and “Internal nbn emails between the Applicant’s manager and nbn Employee Relations (ER) staff members (ER Emails).” [8]
[8] T2 pages 6-7, [9].
The NBN Decision states that in considering the Relevant Documents “[a]ll that is required is that the document is received by nbn or brought into existence in the course of, or for the purposes of, the carrying on of nbn’s commercial activities.”[9]
[9] T2 page 8, [23].
The NBN Decision concludes that the MP Emails, the ER Emails and the List of attendees (Rostering Meeting) all relate to NBN’s commercial activities. The main findings of the NBN Decision supporting that conclusion, can be summarised as:
(a) MP Emails:
(i)they concern interactions between NBN and the MP as a medical provider engaged by NBN to provide paid medical services to NBN employees;
(ii)they contain information which is about the commercial quality of the MP’s relationship with NBN and to the extent it concerns the MP’s relationship with Mr Bogle, that only arises out of the latter’s employment with NBN; and
(iii)they relate to a core function of NBN, the ability of NBN to manage its employees and “there is a clear link between the ability to manage staff, ensure their productivity and nbn’s capacity to operate effectively and, thereby, generate profits.”[10]
[10] T2 page 9, [24].
(b) ER Emails:
(i)they relate to a core function of NBN, as referred to in (a)(iii) above; and
(ii)they relate to the interaction between NBN management and NBN’s ER function, and if the release of the emails under FOI took place, it could significantly impact NBN’s ability” to recruit, retain and manage staff generally and within the ER Group—and, more generally, across the company.”[11]
(c) List of attendees (Rostering Meeting):
(i)the list goes to the prerogative of management to determine which employees attend staff meetings in circumstances where NBN management has chosen not to share meeting attendee details with Mr Bogle; and
(ii)the release of details of attendees at confidential staff meetings would set a precedent which could affect the personal privacy of NBN employees and their professional reputations. That in turn could undermine NBN’s ability to recruit quality staff with a consequential impact on NBN’s profitability.[12]
[11] T2 page 9 [25].
[12] T2 page 10 [26].
THE REVIEWABLE DECISION
The Reviewable Decision disagreed with the conclusion of the NBN Decision that the Relevant Documents were documents in respect of NBN’s commercial activities, as that term is defined in s.7(3A) of the FOI Act. The IC determined that NBN had not discharged its onus of showing that the Relevant Documents were received or brought into existence in the course of, or for the purposes of, the carrying on of its commercial activities. The IC was not satisfied that the s.7(2) exemption was applicable.[13]
[13] T8 page 26 [21].
The steps in the reasoning of the IC in concluding that the Relevant Documents were not documents falling within the NBN’s CAC can be summarised as:
(a)the NBN broadly sought to rely on the expansive interpretation of “commercial activities” set out in the Battersby decision (see paragraph [27] below).[14]
(b)the substance of the Relevant Documents relates to “administrative and scheduling issues relating to a medical assessment booking.”[15]
(c)the NBN’s submission that the external service provider was bound by a commercial agreement with confidentiality obligations was not supported by evidence. The IC continued: “in any case, I do not accept that the conduct of medical assessments by an external service provider are related to, engaged in or used by the NBN for commerce or a business venture with a profit-making objective.”[16]
(d)the NBN submission that disclosure would impact its ability to receive full and frank information about an employee referral for medical assessment, which had a nexus with NBN’s ability, ultimately, to generate profits, was rejected. The IC’s opinion was that “the NBN has not demonstrated a sufficient connection between the documents at issue and the NBN’s commercial activities.”[17]
(e)the decisions in Battersby and Internode (see paragraph [26] below), while helpful in defining the scope of the CAC, do not sufficiently expand the scope of NBN’s commercial activities to capture the Relevant Documents.[18]
(f)the IC did not accept NBN’s submission that the employee management function was a core function of NBN connected with its commercial activities in such a way that it demonstrated that the Relevant Documents arose out of the carrying on of its commercial activities. The IC explained this point as follows:
“The NBN noted that the documents relate to one of NBN’s core functions as a company—the ability to manage its employees. It said there is a clear link between the ability to manage staff, ensure their productivity and NBN’s capacity to operate effectively and, thereby, generate profits. While this may be true in a general sense, having considered unedited copies of the documents, the relevant context and the NBN’s decision, I consider that the documents do not have sufficient connection to its commercial activities. Rather they relate to the NBN’s management of the applicant’s Comcare claim and its responsibilities to ensure the work health and safety of its employees.”;[19] and
(g)NBN did not provide sufficient information or evidence to support its alternate argument that, if the CAC did not apply to the Relevant Documents, one or more of the other exemptions in ss. 47E, 47F and 47G of the FOI Act would be applicable.[20]
[14] T8 page 25 [15].
[15] T8 pages 25-26 [16].
[16] T8 page 26 [16].
[17] T8 page 26 [17].
[18] T8 page 26 [18], [19].
[19] T8 page 26 [20].
[20] T8 page 26 [22].
THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The legislative framework of the FOI Act was considered by the High Court in Kline v Official Secretary to the Governor-General[21], where it was said:
“The FOI Act does not pursue its objects, as legislative purposes at any cost. The statutory scheme is complex in achieving a balance between the exposure of some government processes and activities to increased public participation and scrutiny, by making information freely available to persons on request, and exempting other government processes and activities from public participation and scrutiny, in order to secure a competing or conflicting public interest in non-disclosure.”[22]
[21] [2013] HCA 52; (2013) 249 CLR 645.
[22] (2013) 249 CLR 645, 661 at [37], (footnote omitted).
The objects of the FOI Act are contained in s.3 of the Act and include provision for a right of access to documents held by Commonwealth government agencies[23]. The term “agency” is defined in the FOI Act to include “prescribed authority”, which is itself defined[24].
[23] FOI Act s.3(1)(b).
[24] FOI Act s.4.
Obtaining access to documents held by the Applicant is promoted by the legally enforceable right of any person to obtain that access in accordance with the Act,[25] save that the Applicant is not required to give the person access to a document which is an exempt document.[26]
[25] FOI Act s.11(1).
[26] FOI Act s.11A(4).
The term “exempt document” is defined[27] to include “a document that is exempt for the purposes of Part IV (exempt documents) (see section 31B).” Section 31B of the Act states that:
“A document is exempt for the purposes of this Part if:
(a) it is an exempt document under Division 2; or
(b) it is conditionally exempt under Division 3, and access to the document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest for the purposes of subsection 11A(5).”
[27] FOI Act s.4.
The Applicant has sought review of the Reviewable Decision (an IC review for the purposes of the Act) under s. 55K of the FOI Act.[28] The Tribunal’s powers for present purposes are set out in s.58 of the Act, which relevantly provides:
“58 Powers of Tribunal
(1) Subject to this section, in proceedings under this Part the Tribunal has power, in addition to any other power, to review any decision that has been made by an agency or Minister in respect of the request and to decide any matter in relation to the request that, under this Act, could have been or could be decided by an agency or Minister, and any decision of the Tribunal under this section has the same effect as a decision of an agency or Minister.
(2) Where, in proceedings under this Act, it is established that a document is an exempt document, the Tribunal does not have power to decide that access to the document, so far as it contains exempt matter, is to be granted.”
[28] The application to the Administrative Review Tribunal is made under FOI Act s.57A(1)(a).
When exercising its powers and functions under the FOI Act, the Tribunal must have regard, in the same way the agency making the decision on a request would have to[29], to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, FOI Guidelines: Guidelines issued under s. 93A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Guidelines).
[29] FOI Act s.15(5A).
The general rule is that where a person makes a request for access under s.15(2) of the Act, and has paid any required charge, that access must be given by the agency or Minister[30] unless an exemption or conditional exemption applies.[31]
[30] FOI Act s.11A(1), (3).
[31] FOI Act s.11A(4)-(6).
NBN AND THE FOI ACT
NBN is described in the NBN Decision as:
“(a) A public company limited by shares incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 (Corps Act).
(b) Wholly owned by the Commonwealth and is a prescribed Government Business Enterprise (GBE).
(c) Subject to the same obligations as other public companies incorporated under the Corps Act; and
(d) Operating for a commercial purpose, with a mandate or objective to earn at least a commercial rate of return...”[32]
[32] T2 page 8 at [17].
Prior to June 2011, NBN fell outside the definition of a “prescribed authority” in the FOI Act and was not an agency to which the FOI Act applied.
On 11 June 2011, the FOI Act and other relevant legislation was amended to define NBN as a “prescribed authority”[33], which thereafter meant that NBN was subject to the operation of the FOI Act.
[33] See paragraph (aa) in the definition of “prescribed authority” in s.4(1) FOI Act.
The FOI Act contains a commercial activities carve out (CAC) in respect of NBN. The relevant operative provisions for the purposes of the CAC are to be found in ss. 7(2), Part II Schedule 2 including Division 1, 7(3A) and 7(4) of the FOI Act, which read as follows:
Section 7(2): “The persons, bodies and Departments specified in Part II of Schedule 2 are exempt from the operation of this Act in relation to the documents referred to in that Schedule in relation to them.”
Part II of Schedule 2: Provides a list of “Agencies exempt in relation to particular documents”, including, at Division 1, “NBN Co, in relation to documents in respect of its commercial activities.”
Section 7(3A): NBN’s commercial activities are defined as
“a. activities carried on by NBN on a commercial basis; or
b. activities, carried on by NBN Co, that may reasonably be expected in the foreseeable future to be carried on by NBN Co on a commercial basis.”
Section 7(4): “In subsection (2AA) and Part II of Schedule 2, a reference to documents in respect of particular activities shall be read as a reference to documents received or brought into existence in the course of, or for the purposes of, the carrying on of those activities.”
What constitutes “commercial activities” in large scale entities such as NBN has been relevantly considered in a few court and tribunal decisions.
In Johnston and Australian Postal Corporation[34] (Johnston), in considering whether Australia Post carries on activities on a commercial basis, the Tribunal said: “‘Commercial activity’ therefore can be regarded as a business venture with a profit-making objective and, strictly speaking, will involve activity to generate trade and sales with a view to profit. This is particularly so when the volume of activity is on a large scale.”[35]
[34] [2006] AATA 144.
[35] [2006] AATA 144 at [30].
In Bell v Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation[36] (Bell), in considering whether CSIRO carries on activities on a commercial basis, the Full Court of the Federal Court said:
“The applicant’s criticism of the Tribunal’s reasoning is misconceived. Whilst the Tribunal said…that activities are conducted on a commercial basis if they are related to, engaged in or used for commerce, the Tribunal also emphasised the importance of the whole of the circumstances including the commercial goal (profit making or the generation of income or return) in determining whether particular activities are sufficiently related to commerce to be characterised as commercial activities.”[37]
[36] [2008] FCAFC 40.
[37] [2008] FCAFC 40 at [28].
Internode Pty Ltd and NBN Co Ltd[38] (Internode), concerned a request for access to four agreements made between NBN and Telstra Corporation Ltd. The applicant argued that the documents should not be exempt from disclosure because they were “predominantly an exercise of political mandate.” The then IC (Dr Popple) rejected the applicant’s submission that a “dominant purpose” requirement should be read into the application of the exemption in s.7(2) of the FOI Act, in circumstances where it could be said that “particular documents are received or brought into existence in the course of more than one type of activity or for more than one purpose.”[39] As Dr Popple said: “Those documents may be, as Internode asserts, ‘an exercise of political mandate’. But they are also documents in respect of NBN Co’s commercial activities.”[40]
[38] [2012] AICmr 4.
[39] [2012] AICmr 4 at [9], [11].
[40] [2012] AICmr 4 at [16].
In Battersby and NBN Co Ltd[41] (Battersby), Dr Popple noted that NBN had adopted the position that NBN’s CAC was arguably broader in scope than those of Australia Post (considered in Johnston) and CSIRO (considered in Bell). NBN’s submission in Battersby, was that the general exemption relating to Australia Post and CSIRO contained a competitive element and only excluded documents which related to commercial activities in competition with private entities. As NBN’s CAC did not have that competitive element, it should be read broadly.[42]
[41] [2013] AICmr 61.
[42] [2013] AICmr 61 at [13].
Dr Popple said, in Battersby, of NBN’s position:
“Section 7(3A) of the FOI Act defines NBN Co’s ’commercial activities’: s. 7(3) defines the ‘commercial activities’ of the other government business entities listed in Part II of Schedule 2. These two definitions differ only in that the definition in s.7(3) is limited to activities carried on ‘in competition with persons other than governments or authorities of governments.”
I do not take this to mean that NBN Co’s ‘commercial activities’ are limited to activities carried on in competition with persons whether government or non-government. For NBN Co, under s.7(3A), ‘commercial activities’ means those of its current activities that are—or that are reasonably expected, in the future, to be---carried on a commercial basis. There is no requirement that those activities be competitive; it is enough that they are intended to make a profit (as explained in Bell and Johnston). In practice, this distinction may never arise; it may be that all of NBN Co’s profit-making activity is also competitive. But there is no doubt that the definition of ’commercial activities’ is broader for NBN Co than it is for other government business enterprises listed in Part II of Schedule 2.[43]
[43] [2013] AICmr 61 at [15], [16].
There were two additional sources of information about the scope of the NBN CAC before the Tribunal, the FOI Guidelines and the background document published by NBN (CAC Backgrounder).[44]
[44] Referred to in the Applicant’s SFIC, [18]-[19].
The FOI Guidelines contain, at paragraph [2.17] a discussion of the term “commercial activities”. This paragraph was extracted in the Reviewable Decision[45], and, drawing upon the Johnston, Bell, Internode and Battersby decisions, makes some useful summary points about the scope of the NBN CAC:
“* activities are conducted on a commercial basis if they are related to, engaged in or used for commerce.
* the commercial goal (profit making or the generation of income or return) is among the circumstances to be taken into account in determining if a particular activity is a commercial activity.
* commercial activity can be regarded as a business venture with a profit-making objective, and involves activity to generate trade and sales with a view to profit. and
* the exemption in s.7(2) does not require that a document be created for the dominant purpose of carrying on a commercial activity...”
[45] T8 page 24, [12].
The CAC Backgrounder is a background document created by NBN which details its understanding of the scope of the CAC and is provided to applicants when an FOI request is received by NBN. The CAC Backgrounder is not an independent source document and must be weighted accordingly, but it does confirm the relevance of the Johnston, Bell, Internode and Battersby decisions for present purposes.
CONSIDERATION OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS
The Tribunal has reviewed the Relevant Documents, together with the T-documents, NBN’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 12 July 2024 (Applicant’s SFIC), the legislation and the case law.
The Relevant Documents are not extensive and contain limited information. I am satisfied that it is not practical or appropriate for copies of the Relevant Documents to be provided in an edited or redacted form for the purposes of s. 22 of the FOI Act, as the remaining text would be comprised of irrelevant material.
As previously noted, the Reviewable Decision characterised the substance of the MP Emails and ER Emails as relating to “administrative and scheduling issues relating to a medical assessment booking.” NBN contends that the IC’s characterisation is inaccurate and that “a more accurate characterisation would have been that the Relevant Documents came into existence to assist NBN in managing its staff members and caring for their wellbeing. In particular, their underlying purpose related, inter alia, to rostering and scheduling NBN staff members and assessing [Mr Bogle’s fitness] for work.”[46]
[46] Applicant’s SFIC, [25].
NBN posits that, although not directly referring to the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Kline v Official Secretary to the Governor-General[47] (Kline), the Reviewable Decision appears to have incorrectly applied the reasoning in Kline.[48] The reasoning in Kline referred to by NBN is that which might be used to draw a distinction between functions which are administrative or “back-office” in nature (such as human resources or information technology) and the substantive powers and functions of the relevant agency, office or department.
[47] [2012] FCAFC 184.
[48] Applicant’s SFIC, [30]-[33].
Kline
concerned a request for access to documents held by the Secretary to the
Office of the Governor-General, concerning the Australian system of honours. The Court in Kline was considering what a document relating to matters of an administrative nature would be in interpreting s.6A of the FOI Act (a provision specifically directed to requests for access to documents directed to the Official Secretary to the Governor-General). The key passage from Kline on point is as follows:
“In our view the relevant distinction being drawn by s 6A is between the substantive powers and functions of the Governor-General on the one hand, and the apparatus for the exercise of that power or function, matters merely supportive of that power or function, on the other. The first respondent accepted, and we agree, that documents dealing with staffing arrangements within the Office, the costs of running the Office, or statistics about the activities undertaken by the Office, could all be the subject of a request for access to which the FOI Act would apply.”[49]
[49] [2012] FCAFC 184, [21].
NBN point to the wording of paragraph [16] of the Reviewable Decision and submit that it “seems to have drawn upon the Kline Decision’s distinction between Back Office Functions (HR, ICT and Finance) and substantive functions. Considering the description of the Relevant Documents as relating to administrative and scheduling issues, it appears that the Commissioner sought to adopt the administrative vs. substantive distinction and applied it to NBN. Whether or not it was the Commissioner’s intention to adopt the Kline reasoning, the net effect is the same.”[50]
[50] Applicant’s SFIC, [33].
It is neither necessary or appropriate for the Tribunal to speculate about what the IC’s unstated reasoning or intention concerning the Kline decision may have been. NBN’s submissions about whether there is an administrative vs. substantive distinction which can usefully be drawn out of the decision in Kline when looking the scope of the NBN CAC, raises the question of whether Kline should be distinguished for present purposes. I am of the view that it should be distinguished, but the decision is instructive in an important respect, which is explained below.
NBN submitted that the analogous adoption of Kline was not tenable as a basis for excluding administrative functions from the NBN CAC. It was argued that NBN is a very different organisation from the Office of the Governor-General, operating under a quite different provision of the FOI Act in respect of its documents. The former is a GBE and an Australian public company operating in a competitive private sector business environment, with its documents coming under s.7(4) of the Act. The latter is a public sector agency funded by Commonwealth Government budget allocation, its documents coming under s.6A of the Act. NBN further stated that administrative matters were not a defined term in the FOI Act and that the case law to date had not sought to exclude administrative matters from the NBN CAC.[51]
[51] Applicant’s SFIC, [34].
Given these matters, the Tribunal accepts that Kline needs to be approached with some caution in the present context. Rather, the decisions in Johnston, Bell, Internode and Battersby, which involve either NBN itself or another GBE (Australia Post) or corporate Commonwealth entity (CSIRO), are of greater assistance to the Tribunal in this case.
The aspect of Kline which the Tribunal does wish to reference, relates to the need to address the character, rather than the strict content, of each document when reviewing the Relevant Documents. On this aspect, the Court said:
“We would add that, in our opinion, the expression “unless the document relates to matters of an administrative nature” goes to the character of the document so that, contrary to the submission of the applicant, a document would not so relate merely because it bore an annotation asking that an administrative task, such as filing, be carried out.”[52]
The point is that a document may have the character of a commercial activity document (being a document brought into existence in the course of, or for the purposes of a commercial activity), but at the same time be a document of an administrative nature or purpose.
[52] [2012] FCAFC 184, [23].
I accept the NBN submission that managing and caring for its staff is essential to NBN’s ability to generate revenue and to make a profit. Staff management in the context of a large workforce, with many of those people active in the field, is integral to the service offering of NBN (comprising almost 40% of NBN’s operating costs and being the means by which NBN generates much of its revenue and profits).[53] It should not be sought to be characterised as a back-office or administrative matter for NBN. Managing and caring for its staff, including the assessment of their fitness for work, is in my view a commercial activity of NBN.
[53] Applicant’s SFIC, [26].
I am satisfied that NBN has discharged its onus of showing that the Relevant Documents are documents brought into existence in the course of, or for the purpose of, the carrying on of the commercial activity of managing and caring for its staff. Carrying on that commercial activity would include making necessary medical appointments with an external medical service to assess the fitness of an employee for work, and the convening of a related rostering meeting.
In my view, the Internode and Battersby decisions, in making it clear that “the definition of ‘commercial activities’ is broader for NBN Co than it is for other government business enterprises listed in Part II of Schedule 2”,[54] allow for a document concerning administrative matters to be brought within the NBN CAC, provided the document in question can also be characterised as relating to a commercial activity of NBN.
[54] Battersby and NBN Co [2013] AICmr 61, [16].
The exemption for NBN from the application of the FOI Act in s.7(2) of the FOI Act applies. It is therefore not necessary for the Tribunal to deal with the alternative arguments about whether other particular exemptions in the FOI Act (being those set out in ss. 45, 47E, 47F and 47G) apply to the Relevant Documents.
CONCLUSION AND DECISION
It follows from what I have said above, that I have concluded that the correct or preferable decision on the material before the Tribunal is for the Reviewable Decision to be set aside, and in substitution the Tribunal has decided that the Relevant Documents are documents in respect of NBN’s commercial activities, as defined in s.7(3A) of the FOI Act, and are exempt from release by reason of NBN being exempt from the operation of the FOI Act under s.7(2) and Part II of Schedule 2 of the FOI Act.
Date of Hearing: 16 January 2025
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr. R. Singh (Senior in-house counsel)
Respondent: Mr Daniel Bogle (self-represented)
0
4
0