Consideration of Bachelard s 47F commentary by the Freedom of Information Commissioner

The Freedom of Information Commissioner (FOI Commissioner)  has recently applied the commentary of the Honourable Justice Kyrou in Bachelard and Australia Federal Police (Freedom of Information) [2025] ARTA 2416 (Bachelard) on s 47F of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act) in the following decisions:

• 'AZK' and Department of Health, Disability & Ageing (Freedom of information) [2026] AICmr 3 (21 January 2026) (AZK)
• ‘AZB’ and Services Australia (Freedom of information) [2025] AICmr 190 (28 November 2025) (AZB)

In Bachelard at [227], Justice Kyrou found that in order for s 47F to apply, the information must be ‘about’ an individual, rather than simply refer to them, and that information will be ‘about an individual’ where the individual is a subject matter of the information. Justice Kyrou further explained at [227]:

'Where information refers to a named individual in a context that indicates that the individual cannot be said to be a subject of the information, it is not ‘personal information’ about that individual .'

Justice Kyrou’s commentary narrows the scope of what constitutes ‘personal information’ for the purposes of the FOI Act.

AZK

In AZK at [49] and [50], the FOI Commissioner  considered Justice Kyrou’s commentary when determining whether the documents at issue contained personal information. The relevant material included names and associated contact details of named individuals within email correspondence between the Department, the Health Minister’s Office and a third party in relation to the development and acquisition of COVID-19 vaccines.

In the context of the documents, the FOI Commissioner  found that the names and contact details were about the named individuals because the documents at issue included information about the association of the individuals to the development and acquisition of COVID-19 vaccines.

Ultimately it was found that, although the documents at issue contained personal information, disclosure would not involve an unreasonable disclosure of personal information. Therefore, it was found that s 47F did not apply to this material.

AZB

In AZB, the relevant material that Services Australia considered to be conditionally exempt under s 47F was intertwined information including the views and comments regarding personnel management affairs of the applicant and a third-party individual. At [38], the FOI Commissioner  found that it was clear that both the applicant and the third party were the subject of the information, and it was therefore ‘about’ both individuals.

The FOI Commissioner also found that as the information of both individuals was intertwined, it could not be separated ‘without diminishing the completeness of the applicant’s personal information’.

The material was ultimately found to be conditionally exempt under s 47F. It was further found that it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose the information.

Key takeaways

These recent IC review decisions provide useful guidance for agencies on how to interpret what constitutes personal information in the context of FOI decision making, in light of the decision in Bachelard.