FOI References: LEX 9207, 9269, 9295, 9321, 9322, 9326, 9346,
9358, 9366, 9368, 9373, 9419 and 9428
File No: 23/27688
November 2023
Foifoi Mcgee
Right to Know
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Foifoi Mcgee
Freedom of Information Request – Refusal under section 24(1)(b) of the FOI Act
I refer to your request dated 26 October 2023 (LEX 9366) in which you sought access under
the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) to:
“On the 26th October 2023, it was reported by the Sky News that Foreign Minister
Penny Wong disagreed that Palestinians were being col ectively punished in Gaza.
…
INFORMATION I AM SEEKING:
I am seeking all documents, including but not limited to reports, meeting minutes,
memos, ministerial submissions, correspondence, talking points held by the
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that references, mentions or alludes to
col ective punishment in Gaza, from the 7th October 2023 to the date of this FOI
request.”
On 14 November 2023 I notified you of my intention under section 24AB(2) of the FOI Act to
refuse to process your FOI request on the grounds that your request would constitute a
substantial and unreasonable diversion of the department’s resources.
That same day I also notified you that your request had been combined with 12 other
requests and would be treated as a single request (the request). Under section 24(2)(b) of
the FOI Act, I was satisfied that all 13 requests related to documents, the subject matter of
which is substantially the same, being the Hamas-Israel Conflict.
R G Casey Building John McEwen Cres Barton 0221
DFAT.GOV.AU
T
+61 2 6261 1111
@DFAT
On 15 November 2023 you wrote to the department and revised the scope of your part of
the request to:
“Instead of all documents held by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I
would instead like the documents provided to the Foreign Minister Penny Wong,
and/or those documents used to inform her assessment that Palestinians were not
being col ectively punished in Gaza.”
Each applicant was consulted separately on the request and had fourteen days from the
date of receipt of the consultation notice to:
(a) withdraw their part of the request,
(b) revise the scope of their part of the request, or
(c) notify the department that they did not wish to revise the scope of their part of the
request.
Decision
I have considered the terms of your revised request, along with the terms of the other
revised requests. I am satisfied that the practical refusal reason still exists, and that
processing the request would require a substantial and unreasonable diversion of the
department's resources.
I am therefore notifying you of my decision to refuse the request, in accordance with
section 24(1)(b) of the FOI Act. I have reached this decision based on the complexity and
voluminous nature of the request.
In refusing the request, I have considered how the department could proceed to process the
request, and the time and resources that would be involved in doing so.
Relevantly to the revised scope of your part of the request, I have also consulted colleagues
in the Crisis Centre, the Cabinet, Ministerial and Parliamentary Branch (CXB) and the
Business Solutions Branch (BSB) who have assisted in estimating resource demands of your
part of the request. Searches for potential y relevant documents have been undertaken by
the Crisis Centre, CXB and BSB.
BSB were engaged to undertake searches for talking points, within which the Foreign
Minister’s Office was a recipient. As of 26 October 2023 (the date of receipt your request)
the talking points were at version 47 (averaging 10 pages per document and an estimate of
470 pages to be examined to determine if any of the talking points are in scope).
The Crisis Centre were engaged to undertake searches for documents and located 8
documents, total ing 73 pages, comprising Question Time Briefs and Senate Estimate Briefs.
Additionally, CXB were engaged to undertake searches of the department’s parliamentary
document management systems for briefing documents sent to the Foreign Minister and
did not find any documents relevant to your request.
A manual review of each document identified would be required to determine whether the
documents are within the scope of your request, and whether each document contains
material that would be exempt from release.
Additional y, I consider the documents obtained to date to be a conservative estimate as the
Cyber Security and Networks Branch have not been re-engaged to undertake searches for
potential y relevant emails.
I am satisfied that your request constitutes a substantial and unreasonable diversion of the
department’s resources and refuse your request under section 24(1)(b) of the FOI Act.
Note that, even if a manual review of each document was undertaken, the department
would not be able to identify documents that were
used by the Foreign Minister. Only
documents that were
provided to the Foreign Minister.
Review
This decision is subject to review. Your review rights are set out in the Attachment for your
reference.
Alternatively, you may wish to lodge a fresh FOI request, further revising the scope of your
request.
It may be useful to:
• limit to a specific type of document, and / or
• limit the date range for your request.
We trust this information assists.
Yours sincerely
Brooke King
Brooke King
A/g Director
Freedom of Information Section
Attachment
Your review rights
Internal review
You may apply for internal review of the decision (s54 of the FOI Act). The internal review
application must be made within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
Where possible, please attach reasons why you believe review of the decision is necessary.
The internal review will be carried out by another officer within 30 days.
Any request for internal review should be directed via email to xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx or
addressed to:
Freedom of Information Section
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
R G Casey Building
John McEwen Crescent
Barton ACT 0221
Australia
Australian Information Commissioner
You may apply within 60 days of receipt of this letter to the Australian Information
Commissioner to review my decision (s54L of the FOI Act). You may also make a complaint
to the Australian Information Commissioner about the Department’s actions in relation to
this decision (s70 of the FOI Act).
Making such a complaint about the way the Department has handled your FOI request is a
separate process to seeking review of my decision.
Further information on applying for an Australian Information Commissioner review is
available at: https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-review-process
Further information about how to make a complaint is available at:
http://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-complaints
