Case note: 'AZJ' and Australian Federal Police (Freedom of Information)

AZJ’ and Australian Federal Police (Freedom of Information) [2026] AICmr 2 (19 January 2026)

Background

The applicant in this matter sought access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (the Act) to documents held by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) relating to employment suitability assessments for AFP roles, in particular regard to their own recruitment process.

The original decision made by the AFP granted access to documents in part with exemptions under:

1. Irrelevant material – s 22
2. Management and assessment of personnel – s 47E(c), and
3. Asserted no further documents existed – s 24A.

The applicant sought a review with the Information Commissioner.  Alice Linacre, the Freedom of Information Commissioner undertook the review.

Issues

The FOI Commissioner considered whether:

1. the AFP had taken all relevant steps to locate documents (s 24A)
2. deletions were properly treated as irrelevant (s 22)
3. material was conditionally exempt under s 47E(c), and
4. disclosure would be contrary to public interest (s 11A(5)).

Decision

The FOI Commissioner set aside the decision made by the AFP and substituted a new decision where it was determined:

1. the AFP’s searches were reasonable and met the requirements under s 24A of the FOI Act,
2. the AFP’s application of s 22 to irrelevant materials was valid, and
3. the application of s 47E(c) should be varied, with further material to be released.

Key reasoning

Reasonable searches (s 24A)

The AFP’s searches, including consultations with the relevant line area responsible for the suitability assessment, were considered sufficient. The FOI Commissioner was satisfied that no further documents existed as the applicant did not make it to the second round of the recruitment process.

Importantly at paragraph [14] of the decision the FOI Commissioner highlighted the important of scoping as follows (our emphasis added):

Previous decisions have emphasised the importance of accurately scoping the request in determining whether the test under s 24A has been met.[9] The FOI Guidelines note that an FOI request should be interpreted as extending to any document that might reasonably be taken to be included within the description the FOI applicant has used.[10] In this case it is apparent from the AFP’s submissions and searches evidence that it has reasonably interpreted the applicant’s request. Noting the request is for access to documents related to the applicant’s employment suitability assessments, I accept the AFP’s submissions that resumes and other documents related to the recruitment processes are out of scope of the request.

Irrelevant Material (s 22)

Redactions were confined to material that related to other applicants and therefore fell outside of the request. As such, the FOI Commissioner was satisfied that the deletions were done so properly.

Management and Assessment of Personnel (s 47E(c))

The FOI Commissioner accepted that the documents in scope of the request, did relate to the assessment of personnel, including recruitment and character suitability processes. However, the FOI Commissioner did not uphold all of the AFP’s redactions under this conditional exemption provision.

A key distinction was drawn between internal methods and processes used to assess candidates compared to the outcome of the assessment itself. Disclosure of detailed assessment methodologies was found to be conditionally exempt. The FOI Commissioner accepted that revealing how the AFP evaluates candidates could enable applicants to undermine or game the process, consequently creating a substantial adverse effect on personnel assessments.

By contrast, information revealing the decision itself (i.e., the applicant’s assessment outcome) was found not to be conditionally exempt. The FOI Commissioner noted that the AFP’s publication of the character standards framework contributed to her finding that disclosure of the outcome would not cause adverse harm to the AFP’s operations.  

The FOI Commissioner also accepted that disclosure of an SES officer’s signature could have a substantial adverse effect in the context of personnel.

Public Interest (s 11A(5))

For the remaining s 47E(c) material, the public interest test pursuant to s 11A(5) was assessed. Factors favouring disclosure included:

1. Access to the applicant’s personal information
2. Transparency of decision making.

Factors against disclosure included:

1. Risk of undermining recruitment integrity
2. Potential for applicants to circumvent application and assessment processes
3. Impact on the AFP’s ability to ensure suitable personnel in a law enforcement context.

Greater weight was given to upholding the integrity of recruitment processes, and the material identified by the FOI Commissioner as meeting the statutory requirements under s 47E(c) was found to be conditionally exempt.

Key takeaways

• We are reminded that s 47E(c) is a conditional exemption, not a blanket exemption and agencies must distinguish between methods/processes and outcomes/decisions in the context of recruitment.
• The OAIC will push back on over-claiming exemptions and require granular analysis and justification.
• Section 24A is practical and pragmatic – in Information Commissioner review proceedings it is important to provide evidence of clear and thorough searches conducted by the relevant line/business areas in support of your decision.