If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
10 March 2017
Our reference: LEX 24848
Mr Ben Fairless
By email:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Mr Fairless
Freedom of Information Request – Charge decision
I refer to your request dated and received by the Department of Human Services (the
department)
on 29 December 2016, for access under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the
FOI Act) to the
following:
'the current induction training materials for contact centre staff hired to assist clients with:
Medicare and Centrelink Services'.
On 25 January 2017, you revised the scope of your request to the following:
‘facilitated powerpoints and participant resources’.
Decision on charge
The following is my decision in relation to your request for reduction or non-imposition of the charge
imposed under the FOI Act (the
charge). I have decided to not to reduce the amount of the charge
that was notified to you.
The reasons for my decision, including the relevant sections of the FOI Act, are set out below.
Background
On 30 January 2017, you were notified that you are liable to pay a charge for the processing of your
request and advised that the preliminary assessment of that charge is $353.92, calculated as
follows:
Search and retrieval time: 1.15 hours, at $15.00 per hour:
$17.25
Decision-making time (*after deduction of 5 hours): 16.83 hours,
at $20.00 per hour
$336.67
TOTAL
$353.92
*The FOI Act provides that the first five hours of decision-making time are free of charge and this is
reflected in the calculation.
PAGE 1 OF 7
On 7 February 2017 you responded to the preliminary charge, contending that the charge of
$353.92 was wrongly assessed. You stated that, in your view, the decision making time of 16.83
hours was excessive, given that the majority of pages would be PowerPoint presentations which
would take limited time to review.
You also contended that the charges should be waived in full because the information sought is in
the public interest. In particular, you stated that providing the requested information would assist in
the public debate of the adequacy of training provided to the department.
What I took into account
In reaching my decision I took into account:
the department’s correspondence of 30 January 2017, notifying you of the charge;
your correspondence of 7 February 2017, contending that the charge should not be
imposed;
documents falling within the scope of your request;
the FOI Act;
the
Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations 1982 (the
Regulations); and
the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under section 93A of the
FOI Act (the
Guidelines).
Relevant legislation
Section 29(4) of the FOI Act provides that, where an applicant has notified an agency that the
applicant contends that a charge should be reduced or not imposed in relation to a request under
the FOI Act, then the agency may decide that the charge is to be reduced or not imposed.
Section 29(5) of the FOI Act provides that, without limiting the matters that the agency may take into
account when making a decision about whether to reduce or not impose a processing charge, the
decision maker must consider:
whether payment of a charge, or part of it, would cause financial hardship to an applicant;
and
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.
Section 29(8) of the FOI Act provides that, if an applicant makes a contention about a charge as
mentioned in subsection 29(4) and the agency makes a decision to reject the contention in whole or
in part, then the agency must give the applicant written notice of the decision and the reasons for
the decision.
Calculation of the charge
As a preliminary step in my consideration of whether a processing charge should apply to this
request, I have examined the calculations which were used to determine the charge.
On 30 January 2017, you were notified that you are liable to pay a charge for the processing of your
request and advised that the preliminary assessment of that charge is $353.92. The calculation for
this assessment is set out above.
In calculating processing charges for FOI requests, the department applies relevant provisions of
the Regulations, the FOI Act and the Guidelines in relation to the amounts it is permitted to charge.
In matters where an applicant requests documents the department holds, the department calculates
the amount it may charge based on:
PAGE 2 OF 7
Department of Human Services
the time taken to search for, and retrieve, files containing documents within scope;
the number of third parties with whom it will be necessary to consult in the course of
making a decision regarding the release of the documents;
the number and size (number of pages) of the documents that have been identified as
falling within the scope of the requests and the resultant time taken for decision-making
in relation to each of those pages (less the first five hours of decision-making, which are
free of charge; and
the number of pages considered sensitive, requiring redaction (and therefore potentially
extra decision-making time).
Based on estimates and documents received from the department’s Learning and Development
Branch, it was estimated that it had taken approximately 1.15 hours to locate and collate the
relevant documents, and would take a further 16.83 hours to examine the documents, apply any
redactions, undertake any necessary consultation and prepare a decision on access.
In your email of 7 February 2017, you state the following:
‘The documents mentioned include PowerPoint presentations which contain significantly less
information than, for example, Microsoft Word documents due to the size of the text and
images. It would take at most a few minutes to review these documents. I contend that there
would be few exemptions applied to these presentations and in the word documents,
therefore significantly reducing the time below 4 minutes per page.’
I am not persuaded by these submissions. On review of the documents within the scope of your
request, I agree that the part of your request that refers to powerpoint presentations would take less
time to review. However, you have also requested ‘participant resources’ which contain significant
amounts of information which would need to be carefully examined. In light of this, it is my view that
the average amount of time to examine the documents, apply any redactions, undertake any
necessary consultation and prepare a decision on access would be approximately 16.83 hours.
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.
Reasons for decision
I note that subsection 29(5) of the FOI Act prescribes matters that I must take into account. My
consideration of those matters is set out below.
Financial Hardship
Paragraph 29(5)(a) of the FOI Act provides that, without limiting the matters an agency may take
into account in determining whether or not to reduce or not to impose the charge, the agency must
take into account whether the payment of the charge, or part of it, would cause financial hardship to
the applicant.
I note that you have not provided any evidence to indicate that payment of the charge would cause
financial hardship. On that basis, I have not considered this matter further.
PAGE 3 OF 7
Department of Human Services
Public Interest
Paragraph 29(5)(b) of the FOI Act provides that, without limiting the matters the agency may take
into account in determining whether or not to reduce or not to impose the charge, the agency must
take into account 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.
Relevantly, paragraph 4.81 of the Guidelines states:
“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 disclosure. This may require
consideration both of the content of the documents requested and the context in which their
public release would occur”.
In addition, paragraph 4.80 of the Guidelines state that:
“…the public interest test for waiver in s 29(5)(b) is different to the public interest test in s
11A(5) that applies to conditionally exempt documents.”
In your email of 7 February 2017, you state the following:
‘this information is entirely in the public interest. Centrelink has come under increased
pressure and scrutiny in relation to the information it is providing it's customers, it's customer
service generally, and the resilience of it's staff. This information would assist in the public
debate of the adequacy of training provided to the department. I therefore contend that the
department should waive all charges in respect of this request’.
I am not persuaded by these submissions. In particular, I am not persuaded that there is significant
public debate concerning the adequacy of training provided to contact centre staff of the
department. While I accept that, broadly speaking, there is some general interest in this topic, I am
not persuaded the scope of documents you have requested would assist public comment on or
participation in this discussion.
Finally, you have not identified the ‘general public interest’ or the ‘substantial section of the public’
that would benefit from disclosure of the documents.
In light of these factors, I have decided that there is no public interest in reducing or waiving the
charge.
Other grounds for reduction of the charge
Subsection 29(4) of the FOI Act provides a general discretion to reduce or not to impose a charge
which goes beyond matters relating to financial hardship and the public interest. In considering this
general discretion, I have had regard to whether the charge imposed appropriately reflects the cost
of processing your request and whether the documents within the scope of your request are similar
to documents that have been published on the department’s website under section 11C of the Act.
With regard to whether the charge imposed appropriately reflects the cost of processing your
request, as outlined above, I consider that the calculation of the charge fairly reflects the work in
processing your request. I note that processing charges are designed to be a contribution to the
cost of processing FOI requests and do not compensate the full costs associated with the
processing of a request.
PAGE 4 OF 7
Department of Human Services
I note also that, in recognition of the general public interest in allowing access to government
information, the FOI Act provides for the first five hours of decision-making time to be free of charge
for all applicants. This discount was applied to the calculation of the charge notified to you on 30
January 2017.
In regard to whether the documents within the scope of your request are similar to documents that
have previously been published on the department’s website under section 11C of the Act, I
consider that the documents within the scope of your request are broadly similar to the training
material published on 20 December 2010 and 25 May 2015, 26 August 2015, 21 September 2015,
14 October 2015. However, I accept that the documents you have requested would not be covered
in these published documents. I have decided that this point, on its own, does not warrant a
reduction in charges in this instance.
Conclusion
On balance, after weighing the arguments that you have submitted, I have decided to not to reduce
the amount of the charge that was notified to you.
Options to proceed with your request
In order for your request to continue to be processed, you are required to respond in writing within
30 days of receipt of this notice in accordance with one of the following options:
A. Pay the Charge (or deposit of $88.48);
B. Request a review of the decision to impose the charge; or
C. Withdraw your request.
Further information on each of these options is set out below.
Option A – Pay the Charge
The amount due should be paid by cheque or money order and made out to the Collector of Public
Monies. Please quote reference number LEX 24848 with your payment.
Please send this cheque or money order to:
FOI and Information Release Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
18 Canberra Ave, Forrest ACT 2603
If you elect to pay the reduced charge amount, please email
xxx.xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx once you have posted your cheque or money order to
advise us of your payment.
Option B – Request a review of the decision to impose the Charge
Please find attached a document setting out your rights of review at
Attachment A.
Option C – Withdraw your request
If you wish to withdraw your request, you may do so in writing. Alternatively, you may wish to
consider narrowing the terms of your request. If the scope of your request can be reduced, the
charge may be recalculated accordingly.
PAGE 5 OF 7
Department of Human Services
Further Information
Should you have any enquiries concerning this matter, please contact me at
xxx.xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx. Yours sincerely
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
FOI Legal Team
FOI and Litigation Branch Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
PAGE 6 OF 7
Department of Human Services
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.
PAGE 7 OF 7
Department of Human Services
