Your Ref
Our Ref
LEX 638
‘Me’
Right to Know
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Me
Your Freedom of Information request - charge decision
I refer to your request, received by the Department of Education (department) on 17 April
2023, for access under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act) to the fol owing
documents:
1. Any emails or written correspondence that are:
a. dated 7 March - 29 November 2022, and
b. related to the amendment to s 67CC(2) (including documents that do not directly
mention s 67CC(2) but form part of the considerations that resulted in an
amendment to s 67CC(2) being sought), and
c. not already released via [FOI request to Services Australia with reference number]
LEX71589, and
d. sent or received by an entity acting on behalf of the Department of Education
(e.g., employee, contractor, etc.). This includes emails or written correspondence
sent directly to or received directly from an external source (e.g., a minister's office).
2. Any documents in the possession of the Department of Education that explain or could be
perceived to explain why, from page 2, 'we [the Department of Education?] are looking at
amending s 67CC(2)(d)'
3. Any documents in the possession of the Department of Education that confirm who the
'we' is in 2 above
4. Any documents in the possession of the Department of Education, not covered by point 2
above, that provide information as to what caused, prompted, or contributed to, the
Department of Education making the 28 July 2022 request for advice (page 2).
5. I am not clear whether the 'comprehensive layperson explanation for internal use only'
was later published. Assuming it was not published, or that the internal version is different to
GPO Box 9880, Canberra ACT 2601 | Phone 1300 488 064 | www.education.gov.au | ABN 12 862 898 150
the published version, I request the final version of the 'comprehensive layperson
explanation for internal use only'.
6. A document setting out, from page 5, any/al 'Minister's Rule changes by 1 July 2023' that
are consequent to or otherwise relate to the amendment to s 67CC(2)
7. [A document containing] The names of any CCS claimants, where the Department of
Education considered those claimants' claims as part of considering s 67CC(2) amendments
(e.g., as an example of why the amendment was needed, or a case study of what the
amendment would achieve, or similar). I wil grant extensions of time to consult with the
relevant third party CCS claimants
8. To the extent not included in point 5 above, a copy of (from page 9) 'the taper graph
demonstrating the new CCS rates and a very handy layperson explanation of the
amendments in the ED'
9. Documents that set out why the Department of Education thought it mattered to make it
so that, from page 15 at [73], 'It would not matter whether or not the child received care for
which another individual was receiving CCS.'
10. Documents that set out why, from page 15 at [74], the 'policy intent' needed to be
clarified.
11. Documents… that consider and/or justify, from page 15 at [75], the retrospective
application of the amendment.
12. Copies of any emails or written correspondence related to [FOI request to Services
Australia with reference number] LEX71589 that were sent or received by an SES or
equivalent (regardless of which department the SES worked for, and regardless of whether
they were in the 'to', 'from, 'cc', or 'bcc' field).
13. Copies of any emails or written correspondence related to [FOI request to Services
Australia with reference number] LEX71589 that were sent or received by a minister,
minister's office, or ministerial staff (regardless of which minister, and regardless of whether
they were in the 'to', 'from, 'cc', or 'bcc' field).
14. Correspondence internal to the Department of Education related to [FOI request to
Services Australia with reference number] LEX71589
15. Correspondence sent to/from the Department of Education/Services Australia and vice
versa related to [FOI request to Services Australia with reference number] LEX71589
Scope of your request
As advised in the charge notice issued to you on 1 May 2023, we have included some
additional text, in square brackets, in some parts of your request to indicate our
interpretation of the scope of these parts.
We also advised you that, for efficiency, we have excluded duplicate documents and only
included final email chains (rather than each individual email separately) in the scope of your
request and calculated the charge on that basis. We invited you to let us know if you did not
agree with this approach in a response to the charge notice. As you have not advised
otherwise, we wil proceed on the basis that you have no concerns about this approach.
In an email dated 2 May 2023 fol owing correspondence with the department, you asked
whether excluding part 15 of your request would be ‘sufficient to fall under the charge
threshold and/or for DoE to voluntarily waive the charge.’
In response, amongst other things, the department advised you that if you were to revise
the terms of your request to remove part 15, the charge would be recalculated and reduced
to reflect the fewer number of pages captured by the scope of your request. As you have not
advised that you wish to revise your request in this manner, we wil proceed on the basis
that part 15 remains part of your request.
My decision
I have decided to affirm the imposition of the charge. However, I have recalculated the
charge and the adjusted charge is $290.00 (adjusted charge).
The reasons for my decision, including relevant sections of the FOI Act, are set out at
Attachment A.
Payment details
If you would like the department to continue processing your request, you must respond to
the department within 30 days after receiving this notice. If you do not respond within 30
days, your request wil be taken to have been withdrawn and no further action wil be taken
by the department.
As the adjusted charge exceeds $25, you are required to pay a deposit of $72.50, which is
25% of the total adjusted charge amount, within 30 days of receiving this notice. You may, of
course, elect to pay the adjusted charge in full at this point.
Payment can be made by credit card by completing the attached credit card authorisation
and sending a scanned copy to xxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.
If you are unable to pay by credit card, please contact us on the above email.
Time limits for processing your request
Under the FOI Act, the time limit for processing your request was suspended from the day
you received the department's preliminary assessment of the charge. As I have decided to
affirm the imposition of the charge, the time limit for processing your request remains
suspended until the day fol owing payment of the adjusted charge (in full or the required
deposit) or, if applicable, the day following a decision not to impose the adjusted charge.
You can ask for a review of my decision
If you disagree with any part of the decision, you can ask for a review. There are two ways
you can do this. You can ask for an internal review by the department or an external review
by the Australian Information Commissioner.
You can find information about your rights of review under the FOI Act, as well as
information about how to make a complaint at
Attachment B.
Further assistance
If you have any questions, please email xxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.
Yours sincerely
Alison
Authorised decision maker
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Education
27 June 2023
Attachment A
REASONS FOR DECISION
Preliminary matters
In your correspondence dated 28 May 2023, you make several contentions that the charge is
‘void’. Specifically, you contend as follows:
The relevant guideline further state [sic] that ‘charges are discretionary and should be justified
on a case by case basis’, and ‘the notice to an applicant of a charge fully explains and justifies
the charge’. DoE’s letter dated 1 May 2023 gives no such justification. It simply says ‘I [the
decision-maker] have decided you are liable to pay a charge.’ Given the 1 May 2023 letter fails
to fulfil a mandatory requirement, the decision is infected with jurisdictional error and
therefore no decision at al . Consequently, the statutory timeframes for dealing with this FOI
request were not ‘paused’, and DoE has exceeded those timeframes. Charges cannot be
imposed on an FOI request that is out of time. Further, at this stage the FOI request is,
arguably, deemed to be refused. Should the DoE decide to proceed with the request at no
charge within 28 days of this letter, I wil not use the deemed refusal as a basis to seek review.
The relevant guideline further states ‘a charge must not be used to unnecessarily delay access
or to discourage an applicant from exercising the right of access conferred by the FOI Act’.
Given that there is no stated justification for the charge, and that Services Australia is
processing a near identical FOI request at no charge, and that I know for other reasons that
Services Australia disagrees with DoE’s instructions to Services Australia regarding s 67CC(2)
such that the documents in question could embarrass DoE, it is reasonable to conclude that a
contributing factor for DoE to impose a charge is to make access more difficult. This is a
mandatory irrelevant consideration, and its consideration similarly makes the decision to
impose a charge void for jurisdictional error and prohibited because a decision on the FOI
request itself is consequently out of time.
As previously advised, under section 29 of the FOI Act, an agency may impose a charge in
respect of a request for access to a document or for providing access to a document. The
charge must be assessed in accordance with the
Freedom of Information (Charges)
Regulations 2019 (Charges Regulations).
As summarised in the guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under
section 93A of the FOI Act (FOI Guidelines), section 29(1) of the FOI Act provides that an
applicant must be given a notice in writing when an agency decides the applicant is liable to
pay a charge set out in Schedule 1 of the Charges Regulations. Section 29(1) of the FOI Act
provides as follows:
(1) Where, under the regulations, an agency or Minister decides that an applicant is liable to
pay a charge in respect of a request for access to a document, or the provision of access to
a document, the agency or Minister must give to the applicant a written notice stating:
(a) that the applicant is liable to pay a charge; and
GPO Box 9880, Canberra ACT 2601 | Phone 1300 488 064 | www.education.gov.au | ABN 12 862 898 150
(b) the agency's or Minister's preliminary assessment of the amount of the
charge, and the basis on which the assessment is made; and
(c) that the applicant may contend that the charge has been wrongly assessed,
or should be reduced or not imposed; and
(d) the matters that the agency or Minister must take into account
under subsection (5) in deciding whether or not to reduce, or not impose, the
charge; and
(e) the amount of any deposit that the agency or Minister has determined, under
the regulations, that the applicant wil be required to pay if the charge is imposed;
and
(f) that the applicant must, within the period of 30 days, or such further period
as the agency or Minister al ows, after the notice was given, notify the agency or
Minister in writing:
(i) of the applicant's agreement to pay the charge; or
(i ) if the applicant contends that the charge has been wrongly assessed, or
should be reduced or not imposed, or both--that the applicant so contends,
giving the applicant's reasons for so contending; or
(i i) that the applicant withdraws the request for access to
the document concerned; and
(g) that if the applicant fails to give the agency or Minister such a notice within that
period or further period, the request for access to the document wil be taken to
have been withdrawn.
The charge notice issued to you on 1 May 2023 addressed each of the matters listed above
and included a table on page 3 setting out the preliminary assessment of the charge as well
as the basis on which the assessment was made. This table stated that the charge was
calculated using an estimate of 6 hours search and retrieval time at a rate of $15.00 per hour
(totalling $90.00) and 11.5 hours decision-making time including consultation with relevant
third parties, after the deduction of 5 hours at a rate of $20.00 per hour (totalling $230.00).
Further, beneath the table, you were advised as fol ows:
On the basis that duplicate documents are excluded from the scope of your request and only
final email chains are included in the scope of your request (as discussed above), I am advised
that the department has in its possession approximately 20 documents with approximately
155 pages relevant to your request.
Accordingly, the charge notice set out both the preliminary assessment of the charge and the
basis for the calculation, consistent with the relevant requirements of the FOI Act and was,
thus, issued in accordance with the FOI Act. On this basis, the statutory timeframe was validly
suspended from the day the charge notice was issued such that there was no ‘deemed refusal’
of your FOI request to void the issuing of a charge.
In your email dated 28 May 2023, you state that ‘there is no stated justification for the charge’.
As noted above, the charge notice issued to you on 1 May 2023 addressed each of the matters
set out in section 29(1) of the FOI Act and included a break down of how the charge was
calculated. Section 29(1) of the FOI Act does not require any further justifications for the
imposition of the charge and, as previously advised, the decision to impose a charge is
discretionary. On this basis, the charge was validly issued under the FOI Act.
What you requested
1. Any emails or written correspondence that are:
a. dated 7 March - 29 November 2022, and
b. related to the amendment to s 67CC(2) (including documents that do not directly
mention s 67CC(2) but form part of the considerations that resulted in an
amendment to s 67CC(2) being sought), and
c. not already released via [FOI request to Services Australia with reference number]
LEX71589, and
d. sent or received by an entity acting on behalf of the Department of Education
(e.g., employee, contractor, etc.). This includes emails or written correspondence
sent directly to or received directly from an external source (e.g., a minister's office).
2. Any documents in the possession of the Department of Education that explain or could be
perceived to explain why, from page 2, 'we [the Department of Education?] are looking at
amending s 67CC(2)(d)'
3. Any documents in the possession of the Department of Education that confirm who the
'we' is in 2 above
4. Any documents in the possession of the Department of Education, not covered by point 2
above, that provide information as to what caused, prompted, or contributed to, the
Department of Education making the 28 July 2022 request for advice (page 2).
5. I am not clear whether the 'comprehensive layperson explanation for internal use only'
was later published. Assuming it was not published, or that the internal version is different to
the published version, I request the final version of the 'comprehensive layperson
explanation for internal use only'.
6. A document setting out, from page 5, any/al 'Minister's Rule changes by 1 July 2023' that
are consequent to or otherwise relate to the amendment to s 67CC(2)
7. [A document containing] The names of any CCS claimants, where the Department of
Education considered those claimants' claims as part of considering s 67CC(2) amendments
(e.g., as an example of why the amendment was needed, or a case study of what the
amendment would achieve, or similar). I wil grant extensions of time to consult with the
relevant third party CCS claimants
8. To the extent not included in point 5 above, a copy of (from page 9) 'the taper graph
demonstrating the new CCS rates and a very handy layperson explanation of the
amendments in the ED'
9. Documents that set out why the Department of Education thought it mattered to make it
so that, from page 15 at [73], 'It would not matter whether or not the child received care for
which another individual was receiving CCS.'
10. Documents that set out why, from page 15 at [74], the 'policy intent' needed to be
clarified.
11. Documents… that consider and/or justify, from page 15 at [75], the retrospective
application of the amendment.
12. Copies of any emails or written correspondence related to [FOI request to Services
Australia with reference number] LEX71589 that were sent or received by an SES or
equivalent (regardless of which department the SES worked for, and regardless of whether
they were in the 'to', 'from, 'cc', or 'bcc' field).
13. Copies of any emails or written correspondence related to [FOI request to Services
Australia with reference number] LEX71589 that were sent or received by a minister,
minister's office, or ministerial staff (regardless of which minister, and regardless of whether
they were in the 'to', 'from, 'cc', or 'bcc' field).
14. Correspondence internal to the Department of Education related to [FOI request to
Services Australia with reference number] LEX71589
15. Correspondence sent to/from the Department of Education/Services Australia and vice
versa related to [FOI request to Services Australia with reference number] LEX71589
On 20 April 2023, the department contacted you about your original request. In this
correspondence, the department advised you, amongst other things, that it would treat the
names, signatures, position titles, staff identification numbers and direct contact details of
Commonwealth employees as irrelevant in accordance with section 22 of the FOI Act, unless
you advised otherwise.
On the same day, you responded to this email and advised as follows:
I’m happy for APS and EL staff details to be redacted.
For SES, I don’t agree to their names being redacted (although I do agree) to redacting their
context numbers and similar).
On 1 May 2023, the department sent you a preliminary assessment of the charge payable to
process your request. On the same day, you asked for further information about how the
charge was calculated.
On 2 May 2023, the department advised you that the charge is not calculated based on
individual parts of your FOI request and provided you with a further explanation about the
basis on which the preliminary assessment of the charge payable for the processing of your
request was calculated. The department also responded to your question about whether
one part of your request accounted for the majority of the pages captured by the scope of
your request by advising you that the majority of pages fall within the scope of part 15 of
your request.
As noted previously in this letter, on 2 May 2023, you asked whether excluding part 15 from
the scope of the request would be ‘sufficient to fal under the charge threshold and/or for
DoE to voluntarily waive the charge.’
The department provided you with further information about the basis on which charges are
calculated, including that there is no ‘charge threshold’ in the manner you described in your
2 May 2023 email. The department also advised you that it would recalculate the charge if
you were to revise the terms of your request to remove part 15.
On 4 May 2023, you provided commentary about the FOI process and asked whether the
department ‘intends to continue requiring a processing charge.’
On 8 May 2023, the department advised you that the processing charge has been imposed
consistent with the charges regime provided under the FOI Act and the
Charges Regulations.
The department also referred you to the options available to you in responding to the
charge notice as set out in the letter sent to you on 1 May 2023, including your option to
seek reduction or non-imposition of the charge.
On 28 May 2023, you sought waiver of the charge on the basis that access to the documents
is in the general public interest and the interest of a substantial section of the public. You
also raised other issues regarding the validity of the charge notice and I have addressed
these in the discussion appearing earlier in this decision.
What I took into account
In reaching my decision, I took into account:
• your original request dated 17 April 2023
• other correspondence with you, including your request for waiver of the charge
dated 28 May 2023
• the documents that fal within the scope of your request
• consultations with departmental officers about the nature of the documents and the
operating environment and functions of the department
• the FOI Guidelines
• the
Charges Regulations
• the FOI Act.
Reasons for my decision
I am authorised to make decisions under section 23(1) of the FOI Act.
I have decided to affirm the imposition of the charge. I have recalculated the charge and the
adjusted charge is $290.00. My findings of fact and reasons for this decision, as well as how
the adjusted charge was calculated, are discussed below.
Preliminary assessment of charge
On 1 May 2023, I wrote to you to advise you that I had decided to impose a charge of
$320.00 for processing your request.
My preliminary assessment of that charge was calculated as follows:
Search and retrieval time: 6 hours, at $15.00 per hour
$90.00
Decision-making time (*after deduction of 5 hours): 11.5 hours, at $20.00 per
hour
$230.00
TOTAL
$320.00
*The FOI Act provides that the first five hours of decision-making time are free of charge and this is reflected in
the calculation.
As a preliminary matter, I have reviewed my calculation of the charge.
On review, I have noted that some publicly available information was included in the
calculation of the preliminary assessment of the charge. Accordingly, I have excluded this
publicly available material from the calculation of the charge and have re-assessed the
calculation of the charge as follows:
Search and retrieval time: 6 hours, at $15.00 per hour
$90.00
Decision-making time (*after deduction of 5 hours): 10 hours, at $20.00 per hour $200.00
TOTAL
$290.00
*The FOI Act provides that the first five hours of decision-making time are free of charge, and this is reflected in
the calculation.
To assist you to understand how the adjusted charge was calculated, I note that the publicly
available information is contained in attachments to email correspondence. Accordingly, the
exclusion of this information does not affect the number of documents captured by the
scope of the request, nor does it reduce the time taken to search for and retrieve these
documents. As such, the difference between the preliminary assessment of the charge and
the adjusted charge is a reduction in the decision-making time from 11.5 hours to 10 hours.
Your contentions
On 28 May 2023, you contended that the charge for processing your request under the
FOI Act should be reduced or not imposed on the grounds of public interest. Specifically,
your correspondence provided:
It is also in the general public interest, as set out in FOI Act s 3(2)(a). The DoE made various
decisions about s 67CC(2), potential y contrary to the advice of Services Australia, and while
proceedings were on foot. Disclosing the documents is the only way for the public to
understand what decision the DoE made and why. Therefore, disclosing the documents is the
only way for the public to be able to provide input that could lead to ‘better-informed
decision-making’.
It is also in the general public interest, as set out in FOI Act s 3(2)(b). The government’s
decisions around s 67CC(2) and childcare subsidies are of particular public interest. They
were an issue at the most recent federal election, and election promises were made about
them. How the DoE has chosen to understand and action the government’s instructions
about these election promises is necessary for the public at large to ful y participate in
Australia’s representative democracy.
Substantial section of the public
The amendments to s 67CC(2) are directly relevant to a substantial section of the public. A
cohort of the public was entitled to more child care subsidy before the amendments than
after them. These documents wil directly inform that cohort as to what their CCS
entitlement was and when.
In particular, despite that cohort being entitled to more CCS before the amendments, neither
Services Australia nor DoE has or is undertaking to rectify the underpayment of CCS to that
cohort. Disclosure of these documents wil assist that cohort to understand why they were
underpaid and remain underpaid.
Altogether, the original decision to impose a charge is no decision at al . As a result, the DoE’s
decision on the FOI request itself is out of time. Therefore, a charge cannot be imposed. Even
if the charge decision is valid and the FOI request is stil within time, a charge should not be
imposed because it’s in the interest of a substantial section of the public and the public in
general to provide access to the documents.
Financial hardship
Under section 29(5)(a) of the FOI Act, I am required to consider whether payment of the
adjusted charge would cause financial hardship to you.
Paragraph 4.101 of the FOI Guidelines relevantly provides:
Financial hardship exists when payment of the debt would leave you unable to provide food,
accommodation, clothing, medical treatment, education or other necessities for yourself and
your family, or other people for whom you are responsible.
You have not contended that payment of the charge, in ful or in part, would cause you
financial hardship. Accordingly, there is no basis upon which I can make a decision to reduce
or not impose the adjusted charge on financial hardship grounds.
Public interest
Under section 29(5)(b) of the FOI Act, I am required to consider whether giving access to the
documents would be in the general public interest or the interest of a substantial section of
the public.
Paragraph 4.107 of the FOI Guidelines relevantly provides:
An applicant relying on s 29(5)(b) should identify or specify the general public interest or the
substantial section of the public that would benefit from this disclosure (s 29(1)(f)(ii)). This
may require consideration both of the content of the documents requested and the context
in which their public release would occur. Matters to be considered include whether the
information in the documents is already publicly available, the nature and currency of the
topic of the public interest to which the documents relate, and the way in which a public
benefit may flow from the release of the documents.
The FOI Guidelines also note at paragraph 4.109 that the ‘public interest’ is a broad concept
that cannot be exhaustively defined. The FOI Guidelines provide examples that il ustrate the
circumstances in which the giving of access may be in the general public interest or in the
interest of a substantial section of the public. These include where:
• the document relates to a matter of public debate, or a policy issue under discussion
within an agency, and disclosure of the document would assist public comment on
or participation in the debate or discussion, and
• the document wil add to the public record on an important and recurring aspect of
agency decision making.
The documents to which you have sought access relate to amendments made to section
67CC(2) of the
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the FA
Administration Act) and why these amendments were proposed. While I accept that there is
a public interest in the Child Care Subsidy and the changes to the Child Care Subsidy recently
announced by the Government, particularly to those families affected by the amendments, I
am not satisfied the documents requested would materially advance public discussion or
debate about these issues. I am advised that there is a large volume of publicly available
material explaining the amendments to the FA Administration Act, including, in particular,
the Explanatory Memorandum and the Minister’s second reading speech about the
measures contained in the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care)
Bill 2022, which amended the FA Administration Act. This material is publicly available on the
Australian Parliament House website and, I am advised, sets out the reasoning behind the
amendments. I am further advised that there is also information available on the
department’s website about the changes to the Child Care Subsidy. On this basis, I do not
consider a material public benefit would flow from the release of the documents and,
accordingly, I am not persuaded that giving access is in the general public interest or the
interest of a substantial section of the public.
Other matters
Under section 29(5) of the FOI Act, I may take into account other matters in determine
whether or not to impose the charge.
As set out above, I have reviewed the preliminary assessment of the charge and have
recalculated the charge to exclude publicly available information from the calculation. The
adjusted charge was calculated on the basis that it would take the department an estimated
6 hours to search for and retrieve documents within the scope of your request. The adjusted
charge also included an estimate of 15 hours to make a decision on your request. For the
purpose of calculating the adjusted charge, the decision-making time is reduced to 10 hours
after the deduction of five hours free decision-making time.
The decision-making process will include examining each page captured by the scope of your
request to make a decision on access, redacting pages, consulting with other Australian
Government agencies, consulting with departmental officers and writing a statement of
reasons of the decision.
The amount of a charge should reflect an appropriate contribution towards the time and
effort involved in processing the request. I am satisfied that the adjusted charge represents a
conservative contribution towards the cost of processing your FOI request, taking into
account the above factors.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I have decided not to alter the charge by reduction or non-
imposition on the grounds of financial hardship or public interest. However, I have
recalculated the charge and the adjusted charge is $290.00.
Attachment B
YOUR RIGHTS OF REVIEW
Asking for a formal review of an FOI decision
If you believe the decision is incorrect, the FOI Act gives you the right to apply for a review of
the decision. Under sections 54 and 54L of the FOI Act, you can apply for a review of an FOI
decision by:
• an internal review officer in the department and/or
• the Australian Information Commissioner.
There are no fees for applying for a formal review.
Applying for an internal review by an internal review officer
If you apply for internal review, a different decision maker to the decision maker who made
the original decision will review your request. The internal review decision maker will
consider all aspects of the original decision afresh and decide whether the decision should
change.
An application for internal review must be made in writing within 30 days of receiving this
letter. You can lodge your application by email to xxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.
Applying for external review by the Australian Information Commissioner
If you do not agree with the original decision or the internal review decision, you can ask the
Australian Information Commissioner to review the decision.
You will have 60 days to apply in writing for a review by the Australian Information
Commissioner.
You can lodge your application in one of the following ways:
Online:
https://forms.business.gov.au/smartforms/servlet/SmartForm.html?formCode=ICR 10
Email:
xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Post:
Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Complaints to the Australian Information Commissioner
Australian Information Commissioner
You may complain to the Australian Information Commissioner about action taken by an
agency in the exercise of powers or the performance of functions under the FOI Act.
A complaint to the Australian Information Commissioner must be made in writing and can be
lodged in one of the following ways:
Online:
https://forms.business.gov.au/smartforms/servlet/SmartForm.html?formCode=ICCA 1
Email:
xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Post:
Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001
