Page:ESafety Commissioner v X Corp.pdf/11

 "Statement of Reasons". They noted that this document (which I will refer to, neutrally, as the decision record) had not been prepared for the purposes of, or in accordance with, the ADJR Act or the AAT Act.

28 The decision record would likely be found not to comply with the requirements for a statement of reasons under the ADJR Act and the AAT Act. However, that is currently not to the point. The Commissioner's solicitors were presumably writing on instructions and I am therefore prepared, for present purposes, to proceed on the basis that the author of the decision record did not intend it to be a document that could be furnished in satisfaction of the duty to give reasons under those Acts. However, that also does not take matters very far. The document is signed by the delegate and purports to record her reasons for the decision. It is thus the only evidence, so far, of her reasoning process.

29 The decision record has the following relevant features.

(a) It says expressly that it sets out the delegate's reasons for deciding to give the renewal notice to X Corp (at [2]).

(b) It very briefly sketches the legislative framework and annexes the "relevant" sections of the Act in an appendix. Those sections are ss 106 and 109.

(c) Under the heading "Material relied upon to make the decision", the decision record says:

I have taken the following information into account in making my decision:


 * a. On 15 April 2024, the eSafety Commissioner received four complaints about violence and violence extremism on the platform known as X and twitter.com:


 * Complaints about violence:


 * i. CYR- 0511323


 * ii. CYR- 0511326


 * iii. CYR - 0511328


 * Complaint about violent extremism:


 * i. CYR- 0511327


 * b. The content investigated in these complaints (the Material) is described in Appendix B and was found to depict matters of crime, cruelty or violence at the following URLs:

[redacted]

c. The Material can be accessed by end-users in Australia.

eSafety Commissioner v X Corp [2024] FCA 499