More than a year of FOI requests and appeals has produced a broadly consistent picture of how the Australian Government manages its relationship with the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem. This article draws on decisions and document releases from both DEWR and DFAT to set out the main features of the government’s approach to that relationship and to indicate where important gaps in transparency remain.
The first FOI request: following up on Ambassador Campbell’s remarks
In February 2025, we lodged our first FOI with DFAT seeking documents relating to Australia’s interactions with the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls and her views on Australia, including documents recording discussions with CEDAW Committee members such as Natasha Stott Despoja, for the period from 1 February 2024 to the date of the request. By the time of our request, we had already heard of concerns that the Ambassador for Gender Equality, Stephanie Campbell, was describing the Government as engaging ‘various mechanisms’ to address the Special Rapporteur’s position, and we wanted to understand what that engagement consisted of in practice.
DFAT issued a notice of intended practical refusal under section 24AB of the FOI Act. Preliminary searches had identified 175 documents covering 1,306 pages, and processing them would, DFAT advised, “substantially and unreasonably divert resources of the agency from its other operations.” After negotiation, we agreed to confine the request to a three‑month window beginning 23 August 2024, in order to capture Australia’s response to Ms Alsalem’s Tickle v Giggle statement, which she had foreshadowed publicly on that date. We also requested the full list of all documents DFAT’s preliminary searches had identified. After third-party consultation and multiple extensions of time, both were released (LEX 12146). The final document list contained over 160 entries; DFAT’s own footnote explains that its initial estimate of 175 was revised down after more precise searches.
The document list: a record of inaction
The entries on the document list from September to November 2024 confirm that Ms Alsalem’s letter to the Prime Minister and her 4 September statement on Tickle v Giggle were treated as requiring prompt attention. They were routed through DFAT’s Geneva Post, circulated to the Human Rights Team in Canberra, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Office for Women, with a request for comments on an advance copy by 4pm on 3 September, and a summary cable was prepared and cleared at deputy head of mission level. Senate Estimates briefing papers were subsequently updated to include the Special Rapporteur’s news release under ‘Relevant Media Reporting’.
The documents show that officials asked internally whether a reply to Ms Alsalem’s letter to the Prime Minister was required, and were advised that no response was needed because it was treated as a “courtesy letter” and no reply had been requested, although AGD could respond if it wished and DFAT would then “consider further”. Whether Australia subsequently replied remains unknown; the scope limitations and redactions do not allow us to determine this.
The February 2025 entries are more significant. From early February, the document list records sustained cross‑agency activity relating to Ms Alsalem’s questionnaire and call for inputs on sex‑based violence against women and girls, that is, the annexed list of questions she circulated to governments in December 2024 as part of her formal call for submissions. Emails are marked “FOR ACTION’ and ‘FOR REVIEW by 4pm TODAY”; DSS drafts are circulated for review, and Senate Estimates briefs are updated to cover “UN Expert (including Special Procedures Mandate Holders) findings and Treaty Bodies”. A substantial cluster of documents in this period relates to the questionnaire. The last three, all dated 19 February 2025, carry the following titles:
- RE: Call for inputs from SR VAWG – Australia to not provide submission [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive]
- RE: Questionnaire from SR VAWG – Australia not to provide a submission
- RE: Questionnaire from SR VAWG – Australia not to provide a submission [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive]
We do not yet have the contents of those emails. But their subject lines strongly suggest that, after a period of cross‑agency deliberation over February 2025, officials were acting on advice that Australia would not provide a submission in response to the Special Rapporteur’s call for inputs on sex‑based violence.
Revelations from the Fireside Chat transcript
In October 2025, following an internal review of an earlier refusal, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations released, in part, the transcript of a ‘Fireside Chat’ held on 18 September 2024 and jointly hosted by DEWR and the Department of Education for their staff. That transcript (LEX 1781) revealed that Ambassador Campbell had told staff that Ms Alsalem had “taken a fairly difficult position on transgender rights in a way that doesn’t conform with our views”, and that “we are directly engaging through various different mechanisms” to deal with those concerns.
Key parts of that transcript were redacted after DEWR consulted DFAT, which supported applying the international relations exemption on the basis that disclosure would damage Australia’s relations with the UN and other international organisations. DFAT’s role in another agency’s FOI process confirms that the transcript contained material relevant to Australia’s diplomatic engagement at the UN level. The Fireside Chat provided context for what the LEX 12146 material had already shown: that the management of Ms Alsalem’s mandate was not incidental but reflected a considered government position.
The department determined, in accordance with section 11C(1) of the FOI Act, that publication of the information provided in relation to FOI request LEX 1781 would be unreasonable and therefore chose not to publish it on the department’s disclosure log. We publish it here in the public interest.
Seeking further documents on DFAT’s concerns
Following this release, the next month we lodged a second FOI with DFAT, seeking documents recording Australia’s engagement with Ms Alsalem in relation to CEDAW and the issue of transgender rights, communications with CEDAW Committee members (including Natasha Stott Despoja) about Ms Alsalem’s position, and any concerns raised or discussed by Australia on these issues through “other diplomatic or multilateral mechanisms of engagement”.
DFAT again issued an intention to refuse the request on practical grounds (on 2 December 2025, cited in the decision letter). After consultation under section 24AB, the revised scope proposed by DFAT and ultimately agreed was confined to
Communications dated prior to 18 September 2024 by the Australian Government to CEDAW, including its members, or to other multilateral human rights mechanisms about the position on transgender rights taken by the current Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem’, excluding internal and inter‑agency communications.
When we sought clarification on whether this revised scope would include internal and inter‑agency communications, DFAT confirmed it would not. After further extensions of time, a decision was issued in early February 2026.
Substantive content redacted
The bundle released under LEX 13100 consists primarily of briefing material and talking points for Australian officials, particularly in Geneva. It includes lines on “Australia’s international human rights engagement” and on “disagreements between the IE SOGI and SR VAWG.” Significant passages are redacted under exemptions for international relations, confidential communications from an international organisation, deliberative processes, and substantial adverse effect on DFAT’s operations.
In the material released so far under LEX 13100, the only detailed meeting preparation disclosed is for engagement with Graeme Reid, the Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity (IE SOGI), while comparable material for direct engagement with Ms Alsalem has not been released. Detailed talking points were prepared for a meeting with him, including references to disagreements between his mandate and that of Ms Alsalem as Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls. Mr Reid’s mandate appears to be closer to the Government’s preferred framing on these issues.
The documents also contain Senate Estimates briefing material on Ms Alsalem’s intervention in the Tickle v Giggle case, including a summary of her criticism of the Federal Court’s ruling and a note that media coverage is likely. That the Government was treating her analysis seriously enough to brief ministers and coordinate messaging, even as it continued to advance domestic policies that erode female‑only spaces, is a tension the released documents do not resolve.
The material released under LEX 13100 contains no record of a bilateral meeting with Ms Alsalem, no direct correspondence to her mandate in response to the concerns described in the Fireside Chat, and no substantive engagement with the evidence underpinning her analysis. Given the seriousness with which DFAT otherwise treated her interventions – including updating Senate Estimates briefs and preparing detailed talking points on related mandates – one would ordinarily expect any direct engagement with Ms Alsalem to generate records of a similar kind. Their absence from the material released under LEX 13100 may reflect the narrowed scope of the request and DFAT’s heavy reliance on exemptions, rather than an absence of underlying engagement, and is consistent with the broader pattern suggested by these documents and by the Fireside Chat description of “various different mechanisms” of engagement.
Managing a UN mandate as a diplomatic inconvenience
Taken together, the Fireside Chat (LEX 1781), and the DFAT FOIs (LEX 12146 and LEX 13100) reveal a consistent approach.
Internally, the Government frames Ms Alsalem’s position as one that does not “conform with our views” and refers to “directly engaging through various different mechanisms” to address it. The documents show detailed preparation for engagement with other mandate‑holders – notably extensive talking points and briefing material for the Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity – but no disclosed equivalent level of preparation for substantive engagement with Ms Alsalem about her concerns regarding Australia’s treaty obligations: when she issues a call for inputs on sex‑based violence against women and girls, inter‑departmental emails and drafts over February 2025 conclude with the decision that “Australia [is] not to provide a submission”.
This pattern is more consistent with managing Ms Alsalem’s mandate as a diplomatic inconvenience than with genuine, transparent engagement with the independent human rights system. For a government that repeatedly states its commitment to CEDAW and to the independence of UN special procedures, the limited evidence, in the material disclosed so far, of good‑faith engagement with the Special Rapporteur whose analysis it finds uncomfortable raises questions that material released under FOI has not yet been able to answer fully.
The echo chamber effect
The larger concern is that this pattern looks less like genuine engagement with the UN human rights system than an official echo chamber. On the documents released so far, Australia appears to have spoken about Ms Alsalem’s mandate, and around her mandate, but there is no disclosed record of substantive two‑way engagement with her on the Tickle v Giggle decision or her December 2024 call for inputs to understand, test or even seek to correct her views.
That is not how a government committed to CEDAW, women’s rights and the independence of UN special procedures should respond to scrutiny it may find uncomfortable.
We have lodged a further FOI request for the contents of the “Australia not to provide a submission” emails, the Senate Estimates briefs on special procedures mandate-holders, and any reply to Ms Alsalem’s letter to the Prime Minister. We will report what we receive.
Timeline of key events
- 23 August 2024 – Federal Court hands down the primary Tickle v Giggle judgment (with the formal declaration of contravention and final orders made on 5 September 2024).
- 30 August – 4 September 2024 – The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls (SRVAWG), Reem Alsalem, sends a formal letter to the Prime Minister (dated 30 August, transmitted via Geneva on 2 September) and then issues a public statement and news release on 4 September, decrying the Federal Court ruling as eroding protections for female-only spaces and criticising Australia’s interpretation of CEDAW.
- Early September 2024 – DFAT and the Australian Mission in Geneva circulate the SRVAWG’s letter and forthcoming statement internally and to officials within the Attorney-General’s Department and the Office for Women, noting likely media interest and the implications of the Tickle v Giggle decision for sex-based protections and rights.
- 18 September 2024 – Ambassador for Gender Equality Stephanie Campbell gives the DEWR ‘Fireside Chat’, stating that the SRVAWG has taken a position on transgender rights that “doesn’t conform with our views” and that concerns have been raised “within the Committee itself” and through “various different mechanisms”.
- 20 February 2025 – FOI request LEX 12146 is lodged with DFAT, seeking documents on Australia’s interactions with the SRVAWG and on Australia’s interpretation and application of CEDAW in relation to transgender women and sex self‑identification.
- 13 March 2025 – DFAT issues a notice of intention to practically refuse LEX 12146 on diversion‑of‑resources grounds and invites revision of the scope.
- 21 March 2025 – LEX 12146 is narrowed to a three‑month window from 23 August 2024, targeted at Australia’s response to the SRVAWG’s Tickle v Giggle statement, and a formal request is made for the list of the 175 documents DFAT’s preliminary searches have identified.
- 28 March 2025 – DFAT proposes a further‑refined LEX 12146 scope: (1) all documents relating to Australia’s response to the 4 September 2024 SRVAWG statement between 23 August and 23 November 2024, and (2) the list of the 175 identified documents.
- 17 April 2025 – DFAT advises that it must consult third parties on LEX 12146 and automatically extends the processing time by 30 days.
- May 2025 – DFAT issues the LEX 12146 decision, granting access to edited documents and releasing the table listing 166 document titles, with a footnote explaining that the original estimate of 175 documents was revised down after more precise searches.
- 12 November 2025 – FOI request LEX 13100 is lodged, anchored to the DEWR Fireside Chat, seeking documents on Australia’s engagement with the SRVAWG, communications with Natasha Stott Despoja/CEDAW, and any concerns raised about the SRVAWG’s position on transgender rights through other multilateral mechanisms.
- 1 December 2025 – DFAT formally acknowledges LEX 13100 and foreshadows that, if the scope proves too large, it will contact the applicant to re‑scope.
- 2 December 2025 – DFAT issues a s 24AB practical refusal consultation notice for LEX 13100, stating that processing the request as framed would substantially and unreasonably divert resources; on 9 December the applicant responds, emphasising that LEX 13100 is deliberately narrower than LEX 12146 and asking DFAT to help refine the scope.
- 11 December 2025 – DFAT proposes the revised LEX 13100 scope: communications dated prior to 18 September 2024 by the Australian Government to CEDAW and other multilateral human rights mechanisms about the SRVAWG’s position on transgender rights.
- 15–17 December 2025 – The applicant seeks clarification on whether the revised scope includes internal and inter‑agency communications; DFAT confirms on 17 December that it does not, and the applicant then agrees to the revised scope and to a 30‑day s 15AA extension, pushing the decision due date to 19 January 2026.
- 28 January – 3 February 2026 – DFAT applies to the OAIC for a further s 15AC extension of time and is granted an extension to 5 February 2026.
- Early February 2026 (by 5 February) – DFAT issues the LEX 13100 decision (decision letter dated February 2026), granting access to an edited set of documents within the narrowed scope and relying on ss 33(a)(iii), 33(b), 47C and 47E(d) to withhold large parts of Australia’s correspondence and policy deliberations.