OFFICIAL
Agency reference:
FOI 24-25/097
OAIC Reference:
MR25/00329
Contact:
FOI Team
E-mail:
xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Applicant
Right to Know
By email only:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Applicant
Notice of Section 55G Decision and Statement of Reasons issued under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 – FOI 24-25/097IR
I refer to your Information Commissioner (IC) Review relating to the internal review
decision for your
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) request of 13 December 2024,
for:
…"Overall entity Data Maturity Rating APS average data maturity (2024): 2.02 of 5
Source: Department of Finance New metric based on the Data Maturity Assessment Tool, which
measures data maturity across the APS and was rolled out by Department of Finance in 2024."
… the detailed agency ratings for [the following nine] agencies included in the Department's
assessment, including each agencies individual responses.
Australian Public Service Commission
Department of Home Affairs
Department of Finance
Department of Defence
Department of Health and Aged Care
Department of Industry, Science and Resources
Department of Social Services
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans' Affairs
As you are aware, an original decision dated 17 January 2025 and an internal review
decision dated 22 February 2025 refused access to the document within the scope of your
request.
Proposal to reduce scope of issues in Information Commissioner review
As required under paragraphs [3.8-3.13] of the ‘Direction as to certain procedures to be
followed by agencies and ministers in Information Commissioner reviews’, a Finance
One Canberra Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603 • Internet www.finance.gov.au
OFFICIAL
official contacted you by email on 7 May 2025 to seek to resolve the issues raised by the
review.
We discussed that issues of data security attach to the documents you requested, and sought
your agreement to exclude the responses to questions 21, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 from the
scope of your request on the basis that providing visibility of the agency scores for these
questions may compromise agency operations and data security processes. We noted that
agency’s average score and descriptors in the DMAT Agency report would also be redacted
as these could then be used to work out the redacted responses to questions 21, 30, 31, 32,
33 and 34, effectively defeating the purpose of the proposed redactions.
On the same day, by email you agreed to Finance’s proposal to remove responses to 21, 30,
31, 32, 33 and 34 (including average score and descriptors) from the scope of your request.
I am providing you this revised decision following our consultation.
Authorised decision-maker
I am authorised by the Secretary of Finance and subsection 23(1) of the FOI Act to make
decisions in relation to FOI requests.
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with notice of my decision under the FOI Act.
Section 55G Decision
Section 55G of the FOI Act provides:
(1) An agency or Minister may vary (or set aside and substitute) an access refusal decision
(the
original decision) in relation to a request or an application under section 48 at any time during an
IC review of the access refusal decision if the variation or substitution (the
revised decision) would
have an effect of:
(a) giving access to a document in accordance with the request; or
(b) relieving the IC review applicant from liability to pay a charge; or
(c) requiring a record of personal information to be amended or annotated in accordance
with the application.
I have considered the decision provided in response to your FOI request, the internal review
decision and the submissions you made in your application for IC Review.
Based on the material before me, I consider it appropriate to vary the original and internal
review decision and
release ten documents in part (subject to the removal of irrelevant
information under section 22), and
one documents in full to you.
Section 22 - Irrelevant information removed from the documents
Section 22 of the FOI Act relevantly provides:
(1) This section applies if:
(a) an agency or Minister decides:
(i) to refuse to give access to an exempt document; or
(ii) that to give access to a document would disclose information that would reasonably be
regarded as irrelevant to the request for access; and
(b) it is possible for the agency or Minister to prepare a copy (an edited copy) of the document,
modified by deletions, ensuring that:
2
link to page 3
OFFICIAL
(i) access to the edited copy would be required to be given under section 11A (access to
documents on request); and
(ii) the edited copy would not disclose any information that would reasonably be regarded as
irrelevant to the request…
As set out, on 7 May 2025, Finance sought your agreement to exclude the responses,
average scores and descriptors to questions 21, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 from the scope of your
request on the basis that providing visibility of the agency scores for these questions may
compromise agency operations and data security processes.
I note the average scores and descriptors to questions 21, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34, including
Focus Area 3: Operations,
Focus Area 4: Risk and the
Overall data maturity score were
redacted as these could then be used to work out the redacted responses to questions 21, 30,
31, 32, 33 and 34, effectively defeating the purpose of the proposed redactions.
For example, page 4 of Documents 1 to 9 includes a graph of
Your agency overall data
maturity score, and a corresponding statement of
overall data maturity score for your
agency. These quantitative scores from 0 to 5 directly correspond to the following
qualitative descriptors contained on the same page, your
agency’s stage in data maturity and
what your score means. For example, a score of 0 results in an agency stage in data maturity
being assessed as “unmanaged”, a score of 1 result in an assessment of “initial/ad hoc” and
so on. This information is publicly available on the Finance website in the
Data Maturity
Assessment Tool Guide (page 8). As such, providing even one of these pieces of data and
information would allow the redacted responses to questions 21, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 to be
reverse engineered.
On the same day, by email you agreed to Finance’s proposal to remove responses to 21, 30,
31, 32, 33 and 34 (including average score and descriptors) from the scope of your request.
As such, and with your agreement, this information was redacted under subparagraph
22(a)(ii) of the FOI Act on the basis that these details are irrelevant to the request.
Accordingly, Finance has prepared an edited copy of the documents that has removed this
information in accordance with paragraph 22(b) of the FOI Act.
Material taken into account
In accordance with section 26(1)(a) of the FOI Act, my findings on any material question of
fact, the material on which those findings were based, and the reasons for my decision to
grant access to the documents follows.
In making my decision, I have had regard to the following:
• the terms of your FOI request and IC Review application;
• your engagement with Finance representatives in attempting to resolving these
matters,
• the content of the document that falls within the scope of your request;
• consultations with the nine listed agencies included in the Department's assessment;
• the relevant provisions of the FOI Act,
• the FOI Guidelines issued by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
(FOI Guidelines)
1.
1
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-guidance-for-government-
agencies/foi-guidelines
3
OFFICIAL
Review and appeal rights
You are entitled to continue with your original Information Commissioner review. However,
if this varied decision resolves your request, we would be grateful if you could advise us and
the OAIC accordingly.
Information Publication Scheme
The Information Publication Scheme requires an agency to publish information released in
response to individual requests made under the FOI Act, except in specified circumstances.
I am of the view that details of your request should be made available on the Department’s
FOI Disclosure Log, which can be accessed at
https://www.finance.gov.au/about-
us/freedom-information/disclosure-log. Finance only publishes details of the FOI requests and the documents released in response to
the request, and does not publish details of FOI applicants.
If you have any questions about this decision, please contact the FOI Team.
Yours sincerely,
John Shepherd
First Assistant Secretary
Digital ID and Data Policy Division
Department of Finance
08 May 2025
4
OFFICIAL
ATTACHMENT A
SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO FOI 24-25/097 IR
MR25/00329
Document
Date of
No.
Description of Document
Decision
No.
Document
of
Pages
1
-
2
DMAT Survey Response
Release in part - Irrelevant material redacted under
section 22.
2
1
Department of Veterans’ Affairs additional
Release in full.
response to question 58
3
28
2024 DMAT agency report – Australian Public
Release in part - Irrelevant material redacted under
Service Commission
section 22.
4
2024 DMAT agency report – Department of
Defence
5
2024 DMAT agency report – Department of
Finance
6
2024 DMAT agency report – Department of
Health and Aged Care
7
2024 DMAT agency report – Department of
Home Affairs
8
2024 DMAT agency report – Department of
Industry, Science and Resources
9
2024 DMAT agency report – Department of
Social Services
10
2024 DMAT agency report – Department of the
Treasury
11
2024 DMAT agency report – Department of
Veterans’ Affairs
5
Document Outline
