This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Source of data for table in 2015 annual report'.



If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610 
 
 
 
26 February 2016 
 
 
Our reference:  LEX 16961
 
Mr Patrick Conheady 
 
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx  
 
Dear Mr Conheady, 
Decision on request to reduce or waive charges 
I refer to your revised request received by the Department of Human Services 
(the department) on 27 December 2015 for access under the Freedom of Information Act 
1982 
(the FOI Act) to the following documents:  
'Please provide the emails, SQL queries and other documents being the source of the 
data presented in table 2 'Total number of social security and welfare claims, granted 
and rejected, by major payment type' in your 2014-2015 Annual Report, including the 
communications in which that data was requested.' 
I also refer to: 
  the department’s letter dated 15 January 2016, advising that you were liable to pay a 
charge in the amount of $58.00 for processing your request; and 
  your email dated 1 February 2016 in which you requested that the charge be reduced 
or waived. 
My decision 
I have decided not to reduce the amount of charge. 
The reasons for my decision and findings of fact are set out at Attachment A
Required action 
If you would like the department to continue processing your request, you must either: 
  agree to pay the charge within 30 days of receiving this decision; or 
  ask for a review of this decision. 
If you do not do one of these things, your request will be taken to have been withdrawn. 
Option A – Pay the charge 
As the charge exceeds $25, you are required to pay a deposit of $14.50 within 30 days of 
receiving this decision. You may, of course, elect to the pay the charge in full. 
The amount due should be paid by cheque or money order made out to the Collector of 
Public Monies. Please quote the reference number FOI LEX 16961 with your payment. 
PAGE 1 OF 10 

Should you decide to pay the charge, please email xxx.xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx 
once you have posted your cheque or money order to advise us of your payment. 
Option 2 - You can ask for a review of our decision 
If you disagree with any part of the charges decision you can ask for a review. There are two 
ways you can do this. You can ask for an internal review from within the department, or an 
external review by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. You do not have to 
pay for reviews of decisions. See Attachment B for more information about how arrange a 
review.  
Further assistance 
If you have any questions please email xxx.xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx. 
Yours sincerely 
 
 
FOI Authorised Decision Maker 
Freedom of Information Team 
FOI and Litigation Branch | Legal Services Division  
Department of Human Services 
 
 
PAGE 2 OF 10 
 
Department of Human Services 



If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610 
Attachment A 
REASONS FOR DECISION 
What you requested 
In your original request dated 27 December 2015, you requested: 
'Please provide the emails, SQL queries and other documents being the source of the 
data presented in table 2 'Total number of social security and welfare claims, granted 
and rejected, by major payment type' in your 2014-2015 Annual Report, including the 
communications in which that data was requested. 
Preliminary assessment of charge 
On 15 January 2016 the department notified you under section 29(1) of the FOI Act that you 
were liable to pay a charge in relation to your FOI request. The preliminary assessment of 
the amount of charge was $58.00. 
On 1 February 2016, you responded to the department in accordance with section 29(2) of 
the FOI Act and contended that the charge should be reduced or waived on the basis that: 
  publishing the requests documents and other similar documents without charge is 
consistent with the Government’s open data policy; 
  disclosing the documents in question are in the general public interest and the 
interest of a substantial section of the public; and 
  the charge is excessive because the assessment of time spent should not include 
time spent by reason of an inadequate filing system. 
What I took into account 
In reaching my decision I took into account: 
  your original request dated 27 December 2015; 
  your email dated 1 February 2016;  
  the documents that fall within the scope of your request; 
  whether the release of material is in the general public interest or in the interest of a 
substantial section of the public; 
  consultations with departmental officers about: 
o  the nature of the documents; 
o  the department’s operating environment and functions; 
  guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under section 93A of 
the FOI Act (the Guidelines); 
  the FOI Act; and 
 the 
Freedom of Information (Charges Regulations) 1982 (the Charges Regulations). 
 
 
PAGE 3 OF 10 

Reasons for my decisions 
I am authorised to make decisions under section 23(1) of the FOI Act. 
I have decided not to reduce the amount of charge. My findings of fact and reasons for 
decision are discussed below. 
Assessment of the amount of charge 
As a preliminary step in my consideration of whether a processing charge should apply to 
this request, I have examined the calculations that were used to determine the charge. 
The charge notified to you on 15 January 2016, totalled $58.00 and was calculated on the on 
the following basis: 
 
Search and retrieval time: 3.87 hours, at $15.00 per hour: 
$58.00 
Decision-making time (*after deduction of 5 hours): 1.92 hours, at 
 
$20.00 per hour. 
$0 
 
 
 
TOTAL 
$58 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. 
 
Charges calculation 
Parts I and II of the Schedule to the Charges Regulations specify the amount that can be 
charged under the FOI Act for undertaking certain FOI processing tasks, including the 
following activities: 
Activity item 
Charge 
Search and retrieval: time spent searching 
$15 per hour 
for or retrieving a document 
Decision-making: time spent in deciding to 
First 5 hours: nil 
grant or refuse a request, including 
Subsequent hours: $20 per hour 
examining documents, consulting with other 
parties, making deletions or notifying any 
interim or final decision on the request 
 
Based on the estimates and documents received from the department’s Service Delivery, 
Performance and Analysis Branch, it was estimated that it had taken approximately 3.87 
hours to locate and collate the relevant documents.  
Having examined the documents within the scope of your request, the calculation of the 
charge and the reasoning behind it, I am of the view that the charge calculated fairly reflects 
the work involved in processing your request and is a fair contribution towards the cost of 
processing your request. 
 
 
PAGE 4 OF 10 
 
Department of Human Services 

Reduction or waiver of the charge 
Section 29(4) of the FOI Act provides a discretion to reduce or not impose a charge. 
Section 29(5) of the FOI Act provides: 
Without limiting the matters the agency or Minister may take into account in 
determining whether or not to reduce or not to impose the charge, the agency or 
Minister must take into account: 
… 
(b)  whether the giving of access to the document in question is in the general public 
interest or in the interest of a substantial section of the public. 
Public interest 
In your submissions you have argued that disclosing these documents without charge or for 
a reduced charge would be both in the general public interest and in the interest of a 
substantial section of the public.  
In regard to the general public interest your submission stated: 
‘"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." 
 
This quote reflects the reality that the selection and framing of statistical information allows a 
person or organisation to control the message to be conveyed. Sometimes the selection of 
one statistic or another, the definition of a measure, or a choice of presentation, will have a 
greater influence on the reader's perception than the underlying facts, which become 
emphasised or obscured at the whim of the one presenting them. 
 
The public is reliant on statements by government agencies to find out about the operations of 
those agencies. When a government agency publishes statistics about itself, it alone selects 
and frames its own perception. The selective withholding of information is a form of secrecy. 
 
Accordingly, in order that the transparency intended in the annual report process be 
meaningful, it is necessary that the public have access to information about how these 
statistics are compiled. 
 
What other information does the government hold, next to the information which it chose to 
disclose? 
 
What decisions have been made within the government about what to present, how to present 
it, and what not to present? 
 
What other statistics could members of the public and non-government organisations seek, if 
they could share in the government's power to frame and select statistics? 
 
If a government agency, or the Government of the day, sought different or additional statistics 
to explore and issue or bolster a point, they would be able to get them at will. If this power is 
treated as the exclusive privilege of the government, then it creates an unjustified information 
imbalance between the government and the public, contrary to the spirit of the Freedom of 
Information Act. 
 
In order to alleviate some of the de facto secrecy embodied in the selective publication of 
statistics, and to avoid an unjustified information imbalance in favour of the government, it is in 
the public interest that information about the source and compilation of published statistics 
also be published.’ 
 
PAGE 5 OF 10 
 
Department of Human Services 

In addition, your submission states, in regard to the interest of a substantial section of the 
public, that: 
‘Spending on programs administered by the Department makes up 40% of Commonwealth 
expenditure. This expenditure is funded primarily by Commonwealth taxation, which is 
contributed to by nearly every Australian.  
 
Millions of Australians are themselves recipients under one or more programs administered by 
the Department. 
 
The spirit of helping others in our community, embodied in many of the programs administered 
by the Department, is central to the ethos of the Australian people.  
 
Accordingly, detailed and reliable information about the programs administered by the 
Department is in the interest of a substantial section of the public.’ 
 
I accept that a substantial section of the public has an interest in spending on programmes 
administered by the department as these payments make up a significant portion of the 
Australian Government’s total annual expenditure. However, I do not accept that disclosing 
deliberative and source material that was provided by officers of the department for the 
purposes of producing the department’s 2014 – 2015 Annual Report is in the general public 
interest or in the interest of a substantial section of the public.  
Oversight of the department’s programmes is achieved by the publishing of an Annual 
Report which contains data, statistics and analysis about the programmes and services 
administered by the department. By making this report publicly available, the department 
provides information which contributes to public debate about government expenditure and 
allows for greater scrutiny of the government’s policies and practices. Disclosure of 
deliberative and source material that was used to produce this report would do little to 
contribute to a robust public debate and be likely to cause unnecessary and inefficient 
duplication. On that basis, I am not satisfied that there would be benefit from the release of 
the requested documents flowing to the public in general or a substantial section of the public 
that would allow for the charge to be reduced or waive. 
Other considerations 
Your submission dated 1 February 2016 also argued the charge should be reduced or 
waived because this would be consistent with the Australian Government Public Data Policy 
Statement and that the charge should not include time taken due to an inadequate filing 
system. 
In regard to the Australian Government Public Data Policy Statement, you have submitted: 
The information held by government agencies such as the Department includes not only the 
explicit data held in its databases, but also the statistics which could be generated from that 
data. Indeed, in many cases these statistics are more valuable than the individual data. 
 
However, the public's ability to select and frame -- or even conceive of -- the statistical 
measures which could be drawn from government data is limited by its ability to see the 
metadata -- tables and columns -- and how these are used in practice by the government 
itself. 
 
The requested documents target one table from the Department's most recent public report -- 
one example of the government selectively releasing statistical information and withholding 
other possible statistics -- and would illustrate how the government goes about compiling and 
selecting the information it chooses to allow the public to see. 
 
Accordingly, it is consistent with Government policy to release the requested documents. They 
are non-sensitive and should be open by default, to allow the public to start to have 
PAGE 6 OF 10 
 
Department of Human Services 

meaningful access to the non-sensitive statistical information embedded in the Department's 
databases. 
 
The information held by government agencies such as the Department includes not only the 
explicit data held in its databases, but also the statistics which could be generated from that 
data. Indeed, in many cases these statistics are more valuable than the individual data. 
 
However, the public's ability to select and frame -- or even conceive of -- the statistical 
measures which could be drawn from government data is limited by its ability to see the 
metadata -- tables and columns -- and how these are used in practice by the government 
itself. 
 
The requested documents target one table from the Department's most recent public report -- 
one example of the government selectively releasing statistical information and withholding 
other possible statistics -- and would illustrate how the government goes about compiling and 
selecting the information it chooses to allow the public to see. 
 
Accordingly, it is consistent with Government policy to release the requested documents. They 
are non-sensitive and should be open by default, to allow the public to start to have 
meaningful access to the non-sensitive statistical information embedded in the Department's 
databases. 
 
The department has acted in accordance with the Australian Government Public Data Policy 
Statement by disclosing the final statistical information to the public through the provision of 
the 2014 – 2015 Annual Report. There is nothing in that policy which requires the department 
to publish deliberative and source material used to create final statistical information. 
Accordingly, I do not accept that disclosing the documents within scope without charge is 
consistent with the Australian Government Public Data Policy Statement, nor that this 
provides grounds for reducing the charge.  
In regard to the department’s allegedly inadequate filing system, you have submitted: 
The preliminary assessment of the charge for this request is based on 3.87 hours or 3 hours, 
52 minutes and 12 seconds, for searching for and retrieving four documents. This assessment 
should be reduced pursuant to the definition of 'time spent' in FOI Regulations reg 2(2)(b). 
 
The documents in question constitute the source data for a table in an important public report. 
These documents should have been indexed in the working papers associated with the report, 
and readily accessible for the purposes of verifying or answering questions about that part of 
the report. 
 
The Department's filing system ought to have indicated the place where the documents were 
located. An appropriate series of events would have been: 
1. Identify table being asked about. (1 minute) 2. Look up list of tables in working papers or 
conduct text search on share drive folder (or similar) in relation to the report. (10 minutes) 3. 
Scroll through list of files on computer to the relevant documents. (1 minute) 
 
An appropriate charge would be for no more than fifteen minutes or $3.75. 
 
An assessment of nearly four hours suggests that officers of the Department had to 'dig' 
through email archives or similar and ask around a lot, trying to reconstruct how the table in 
the report was originally put together. Sub-regulation 2(2) is intended to discourage -- or at 
least not offer a reward for -- the poor filing which necessitates such unfocused search and 
retrieval. 
 
The Department's preliminary assessment could only be supported by an explanation of how, 
exactly, an officer spent three hours, 52 minutes and 12 seconds on a focused search for a 
small number of known documents in a well-laid-out filing system. 
I do not accept that the charge has been estimated on the basis of the time required to 
navigate an inadequate filing system. The FOI Act requires that the department undertake 
PAGE 7 OF 10 
 
Department of Human Services 

reasonable searches in order to identify the documents within the scope of a request. In 
order to identify all of the documents within the scope of your request, the department was 
required to conduct searches of personal email inboxes, positional email inboxes, shared 
drives and a suite of business intelligence databases. I am satisfied that these actions 
constituted reasonable searches that were necessary to appropriately respond to your 
request. 
I do not accept that the department should have been required to annexe deliberative and 
source material to the Annual Report working papers. Indeed, if this was required, the bulk of 
the material that would have been required to be annexed to the Annual Report would have 
reduced the department’s ability to effectively and efficiently produce such a report. 
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the estimated charge included time for navigating an 
inadequate filing system. 
Conclusion 
In balancing the above factors, I do not consider it appropriate in the circumstances to 
reduce or waive the charge payable by you. Therefore, the amount of the charge payable to 
you is $58.00. 
 
Yours sincerely 
 
 
 
FOI Authorised Decision Maker 
Freedom of Information Team 
FOI and Litigation Branch | Legal Services Division  
Department of Human Services 
 
PAGE 8 OF 10 
 
Department of Human Services 



If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610 
 
Attachment A 
 
 

INFORMATION ON RIGHTS OF REVIEW 
 
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 
 
Asking for a full explanation of a Freedom of Information decision 

Before you ask for a formal review of an FOI decision, you can contact us to discuss your 
request. We will explain the decision to you. This gives you a chance to correct 
misunderstandings.  
Asking for a formal review of an Freedom of Information decision 
If you still believe a decision is incorrect, the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (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: 
1.  an Internal Review Officer in the Department of Human Services (the department); 
and/or 
2.  the Australian Information Commissioner. 
Note 1: There are no fees for these reviews. 
Applying for an internal review by an Internal Review Officer 
If you apply for internal review, a different decision maker to the departmental delegate who 
made the original decision will carry out the review. The Internal Review Officer will consider 
all aspects of the original decision and decide whether it should change. An application for 
internal review must be: 
  made in writing 
  made within 30 days of receiving this letter 
  sent to the address at the top of the first page of this letter. 
Note 3: You do not need to fill in a form. However, it is a good idea to set out any relevant 
submissions you would like the Internal Review Officer to further consider, and your reasons 
for disagreeing with the decision.  
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.  
If you do not receive a decision from an Internal Review Officer in the department within 30 
days of applying, you can ask the Australian Information Commissioner for a review of the 
original FOI decision.  
You will have 60 days to apply in writing for a review by the Australian Information 
Commissioner.  
PAGE 9 OF 10 

You can lodge your application
Online:  
www.oaic.gov.au   
Post:    
Australian Information Commissioner 
  GPO 
Box 
5218 
SYDNEY  NSW  2001  
Email:   
xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx 
 
Note 3: The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner generally prefers FOI 
applicants to seek internal review before applying for external review by the Australian 
Information Commissioner. 
Important: 
  If you are applying online, the application form the 'Merits Review Form'  is available at 
www.oaic.gov.au.  
  If you have one, you should include with your application a copy of the Department of 
Human Services' decision on your FOI request  
  Include your contact details 
  Set out your reasons for objecting to the department's decision. 
 
Making complaints 
 
Commonwealth Ombudsman 

You may also complain to the Ombudsman concerning action taken by an agency in the 
exercise of powers or the performance of functions under the FOI Act. There is no fee for 
making a complaint. A complaint to the Ombudsman may be made in person, by phone or in 
writing. The Ombudsman’s contact details are: 
Address: Commonwealth 
Ombudsman 
  GPO 
Box 
442 
 
CANBERRA ACT 2601 
Phone:  
1300 362 072  
Website:  
www.ombudsman.gov.au 
 
Note 4: You can phone the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office first. The Ombudsman 
prefers people to ask for a review before making a complaint about a decision. 
 
 
PAGE 10 OF 10 
 
Department of Human Services