If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
17 February 2017
Our reference: LEX 24850
Mr Brendan Molloy
By email:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Mr Molloy
Decision on your Freedom of Information request
I refer to your revised request, dated 17 January 2017 and received by the Department of
Human Services (the
department) on the same date, for access under the
Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (the
FOI Act) to the following documents:
'”Compliance system" refers to the DHS system that incorporates handling
overpayment debt recovery communications for Centrelink clients.
1) Parts of final reports or similar documents relating to known errors and risks
relating to the most recent iteration of "compliance system" that is currently in
production;
2) Documents summarising or outlining the data sources used in the new "compliance
system";
3) Documents listing the number of debt recovery requests sent on a monthly basis
(or similar) from January 2016 to the date of receipt of this request; and
4) An aggregate number of reported complaints from when the system was
introduced relating to false or miscalculated debt recovery requests.
The above parts should not contain:
a) Publicly available documents;
b) Documents intended for consumption by the media (such as press releases);
c) Draft documents; nor
d) Documents relating to issues no longer relevant to the "compliance system" in
production
Further context:
Part 1 of the request should ideally only be part of a single technical report as would
be consistent with the approach taken by private industry on software projects. These
documents should detail any known defects and risks and should not duplicate any
content of other documents where possible to limit scope and processing.
PAGE 1 OF 9
Part 2 should simply provide as few documents as possible that outline which data
sources are used in the compliance system identified in Part 1. This could be as
simple as a spreadsheet identifying what data is used and which department,
database, or other organisation the data is supplied from. Any documents sufficient to
provide a complete overview of the data sources available is sufficient for this part,
and no further effort should be undertaken if possible'.
My decision
I have decided to refuse your request under section 24(1) of the FOI Act because a 'practical
refusal reason' still exists under section 24AA of the FOI Act. I am satisfied that the work
involved in processing your request would substantially and unreasonably divert the
resources of the department from its other operations as specified in section 24AA(1)(a)(i) of
the FOI Act.
The reasons for my decision, including the relevant sections of the FOI Act, are set out in
Attachment A.
You can ask for a review of our decision
If you disagree with the 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
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Litigation Branch | Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
xxx.xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
PAGE 2 OF 9
Department of Human Services
If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
REASONS FOR DECISION
What you requested
'Recently there has been a public furore about the seemingly automated delivery of
debt notices to persons receiving benefits from Centrelink programmes since early
December, and perhaps earlier[1].
I hereby request, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, copies of the following
documents:
1) Technical reports or similar documents regarding known errors or probable risks
from introducing the new "compliance system";
2) Documents outlining the data sources used in the new "compliance system";
3) Documents listing the number of debt recovery requests sent on a monthly basis (or
similar) from January 2016 to the date of receipt of this request; and
4) An aggregate number of reported complaints from when the system was introduced
relating to false or miscalculated debt recovery requests'.
Request consultation process
On 11 January 2017, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner advised you that
they had decided to grant the department an extension of time to process your request. The
due date for your request was, with that extension, 11 February 2017.
The processing time was suspended during the period of consultation under section 24AB.
For this reason you were advised that you could expect a decision from us by
17 February
2017.
On 12 January 2017, I wrote to you providing a notice of intention to refuse your request
under section 24AB(2) of the FOI Act as your request was too big to process. I gave you an
opportunity to consult with the department to revise your request so as to remove the
practical refusal reason. Specifically, we advised that points 1 and 2 of your original request
were especially voluminous.
On 17 January 2017, you emailed the department and revised your request to be:
'"Compliance system" refers to the DHS system that incorporates handling
overpayment debt recovery communications for Centrelink clients.
1) Parts of final reports or similar documents relating to known errors and risks
relating to the most recent iteration of "compliance system" that is currently in
production;
2) Documents summarising or outlining the data sources used in the new "compliance
system";
3) Documents listing the number of debt recovery requests sent on a monthly basis
(or similar) from January 2016 to the date of receipt of this request; and
PAGE 3 OF 9
4) An aggregate number of reported complaints from when the system was
introduced relating to false or miscalculated debt recovery requests.
The above parts should not contain:
a) Publicly available documents;
b) Documents intended for consumption by the media (such as press releases);
c) Draft documents; nor
d) Documents relating to issues no longer relevant to the "compliance system" in
production
Further context:
Part 1 of the request should ideally only be part of a single technical report as would
be consistent with the approach taken by private industry on software projects. These
documents should detail any known defects and risks and should not duplicate any
content of other documents where possible to limit scope and processing.
Part 2 should simply provide as few documents as possible that outline which data
sources are used in the compliance system identified in Part 1. This could be as
simple as a spreadsheet identifying what data is used and which department,
database, or other organisation the data is supplied from. Any documents sufficient to
provide a complete overview of the data sources available is sufficient for this part,
and no further effort should be undertaken if possible'.
What I took into account
In reaching my decision I took into account:
your original request dated 28 December 2016 and your revised request of
17 January 2017;
the documents that fall within the scope of your request;
consultations with departmental officers about:
o the nature of the documents; and
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.
Reasons for my decisions
I am authorised to make decisions under section 23(1) of the FOI Act.
Following the request consultation process outlined above, in accordance with section 24AB
of the FOI Act, I am satisfied that a practical refusal reason still exists in that the work
involved in processing your request would substantially and unreasonably divert the
resources of the department from its other operations. The reasons for my decision,
PAGE 4 OF 9
Department of Human Services
including consideration of the factors I am required to take into account in section 24AA(2),
are outlined below.
Practical refusal reason
Section 24AA of the FOI Act provides that a practical refusal reason exists in relation to a
request for a document if the work involved in processing the request would:
'substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other
operations'.
The word 'substantial' has previously been interpreted to mean severe, of some gravity, large
or weighty or of considerable amount, real or of substance and not insubstantial or of
nominal consequence. The use of the word 'unreasonable' has been interpreted to mean
that a weighing of all relevant considerations is needed, including the extent of the resources
needed to meet the request.
In determining whether processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert
the department's resources, section 24AA(2) requires me to have regard to the resources
that would have to be used for the following:
identifying, locating or collating the documents within the filing system of the
department;
deciding whether to grant, refuse or defer access to a document including resources
used for examining the document and consulting with any person or body in relation
to the request;
making a copy or an edited copy of the document; and
notifying of any decision on the request.
In accordance with section 24AA(3), I did not consider your reasons for requesting access to
the documents.
Why your request is substantial
In making my decision I estimate that over 225 hours of processing time would be required to
deal with this request (excluding the time required to search for and retrieve electronic
documents).
The department's searches and enquiries identified approximately 292 documents relevant to
your revised request. These documents contain approximately 3391 pages.
I have calculated that it would take over 240 hours to process your request.
I have estimated the time to process your request as follows:
Search and retrieval time
14.5 hours
Examine pages for decision making at an
113 hours
average of two minutes per page
Redaction time at two minutes per page for
100 hours
3000 pages
PAGE 5 OF 9
Department of Human Services
Draft statement of reasons and schedule
17.5 hours
the documents
Total
245 hours
Sampling of documents for the purposes of the estimate
I determined it was appropriate to sample the first 150 pages of the documents in the scope
of your request. The sampled documents revealed a range of sensitive material related to the
identification and assessment of risks associated with the department’s Online Compliance
Intervention. The complex nature of the documents within scope would require lengthy
examination and extensive redaction on most pages identified. This is a time-intensive
process.
I am satisfied on the basis of the sample that I would need to consider applying the following
redactions under the FOI Act:
a. section 47C to deliberative material; and
b. section 47E(d) to documents where release could interfere with the operations
of the department.
In my calculation I have allowed four minutes per page for both considering the page, making
a decision on the page and applying any necessary redactions. I am satisfied that this is the
average amount of time that would be required to process your request.
Based on the sample I have outlined above, I estimated that to consider each document,
redact exempt material, and prepare a statement of reasons it would take a decision maker
approximately 230 hours. This calculation does not include the amount of time that would be
spent consulting other Commonwealth agencies on material in the documents relevant to
their portfolios, or the time spent by the decision-maker consulting on sensitivities with
business areas within the department.
Why your request is unreasonable
For the purposes of deciding whether your request would unreasonably divert the resources
of the department from its other operations, I considered whether the substantial resource
burden would be unreasonable having regard to the following:
one individual processing your request would be required to spend over six weeks
processing your request; and
the material in the documents is sensitive and would require careful consideration
and redaction of exempt material.
As discussed above, I have estimated that your request would take approximately 240 hours
to process. The department receives approximately 300- 400 FOI requests per month, the
majority of which are requests from people seeking their own personal information. I am
satisfied that the processing of your request would divert department resources from the
processing of these other requests.
In making this finding, I have given weight to the significant possibility that a narrowed scope
of request could satisfactorily meet your legitimate interest in seeking access to documents
concerning the department Online Compliance Intervention.
PAGE 6 OF 9
Department of Human Services
Conclusion
In summary I am satisfied that the work involved in processing your request would
substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the department from its other
operations, namely the processing of other FOI requests and the delivery of social services
to all Australians more broadly.
I have found that a practical refusal reason exists in relation to your request for access to the
documents. Accordingly I have decided to refuse your request under section 24(1) of the
FOI Act.
PAGE 7 OF 9
Department of Human Services
If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
Attachment B
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 2: 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.
You can
lodge your application:
PAGE 8 OF 9
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.
Complaints to the Information Commissioner and Commonwealth Ombudsman
Information Commissioner
You may complain to the Information Commissioner 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 Information Commissioner must be made in writing.
The Information Commissioner's contact details are:
Telephone: 1300 363 992
Website:
www.oaic.gov.au 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 telephone
or in writing. The Ombudsman's contact details are:
Phone: 1300 362 072
Website:
www.ombudsman.gov.au
The Commonwealth Ombudsman generally prefers applicants to seek review before
complaining about a decision.
PAGE 9 OF 9
Department of Human Services
