University student and union member Edward Satchell lodged external reviews with the Ombudsman after an unsuccessful Freedom of Information application for documents about the cost and communication around the rebrand, with YouX arguing it was not an agency and not subject to the FOI Act.

Student union election candidates also claimed that YouX told them not to criticise the rebranding, warning “any breaches will result in sanctions”.

Ombudsman Wayne Lines has determined that he supports the majority of the FOI request by Satchell and has directed the university to release documents apart from personal phone numbers.

Lines’ ruling contained a submission from the University stating the student union proceeded with the rebrand against advice.

“The delineation and separation between the University and the AUU is demonstrated by the subsequent decision of the AUU to ignore the advice of the University’s Chief Marketing Officer and proceed with the rebranding project,” the statement read.

The Ombudsman ruled that releasing certain documents regarding the rebrand was in the public interest.

“I am satisfied that the public interest factors in favour of disclosure, particularly contributing to informed community debate, and ensuring accountability and transparency in decision making that impacts a large group of the public, outweigh the factors against disclosure,” he wrote.

“Accordingly, on balance, I am satisfied that disclosure would not be contrary to the public interest.”

The university can appeal the Ombudsman’s decision but a spokesperson said no appeal was intended and documents will be released after the appeal period expires, provided no other interested party appeals.

Satchell’s second application to the Ombudsman for review regarding YouX is still pending.

He met with a union representative and agreed to narrow the scope of his FOI request to include text message and email communication of the AUU Executive Officer, AUU Board President, and AUU Board Vice-President as well as other documents.

However, the union maintains it is not an agency and is therefore not subject to the FOI claim.

“They [the union and university] have both failed to particularise, in any meaningful way, how the release of the information, which appears innocuous and routine to me, could possibly be diminished or destroyed by the release of it,” the Ombudsman said.

Satchell said he hoped released documents would reveal the rebrand’s cost.

“I’m not sure exactly what’s in those documents, but I understand they would talk to the cost of it – what research they’ve done, what support they have and the feedback the university provided as to why they didn’t support this project at all,” he said.

“Why not just tell us how much it costs? Why not just tell us what the decision making process was in relation to this?”

YouX was contacted but did not wish to comment.