If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
10 April 2017
Our reference: LEX 28321
Mr Ben Fairless
By email:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Mr Fairless
Freedom of Information Request – Internal Review Decision
I refer to your correspondence, dated 10 March 2017 and received by the Department of
Human Services (the
department) on that same date. You requested an internal review of
the decision made by a delegate of the department under the
Freedom of Information Act
1982 (the
FOI Act) dated 10 March 2017 (LEX 24848) (the
charges decision).
I am authorised under subsection 23(1) of the FOI Act to make internal review decisions
under section 54C of the FOI Act. Furthermore, I am a separate decision-maker to the FOI
Delegate involved with LEX 24848. My decision is set out below.
Background
The department received your original request on 29 December 2016 for access under the
FOI Act to the following documents:
'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’.
On 30 January 2017, the department issued you with a preliminary assessment of charges
involved in processing your request. The department also advised you in this
correspondence that 23 documents (totalling 214 pages) had been identified as falling within
the scope of your FOI request. In accordance with section 29 of the FOI Act, it was
determined that you were liable to pay an estimated charge of $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
PAGE 1 OF 6
On 7 February 2017 you wrote to the department by email, contending that the charge of
$353.92 was incorrectly calculated. In your view, you stated that the decision making time of
16.83 hours was excessive as 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.
On 10 March 2017, the department notified you of a charges decision after considering your
submission. The department decided not to reduce the amount of the charge that was
notified to you on the following basis:
• The department determined that the documentation included ‘participant resources’
containing a significant amount of information that would take a considerable amount
of time to examine; and
• The department was satisfied that the assessment of charges appropriately reflected
the work involved in processing your request.
On 10 March 2017, you requested an internal review of the department’s decision to impose
charges for FOI request LEX 24848 on the following terms:
‘I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Human Service’s handling
of my FOI request.
The department has contended that there is no public interest in providing information
on the training of Public Servants in the most funded agency in Government. This
claim is preposterous!
Furthermore, the Department says that it would need to carefully review the
participant resources to determine if exemptions were to apply. I contend that it is
unlikely that any information contained in participant documents given to a frontline
employee who may not have even acquired a Baseline clearance would contain any
exemptions.
Please ensure this review is conducted by an officer senior to that of the current
officer.
Internal Review Decision on charges
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, under section 54C and
subsection 29(8) to affirm the decision to impose the charge.
You are therefore liable to pay the processing charge of $353.92.
The reasons for my decision, including the relevant sections of the FOI Act, are set out
below.
Information Considered
In reaching my decision, I took into account the following:
PAGE 2 OF 6
Department of Human Services
• 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;
• your correspondence seeking internal review of the department’s decision to waive
the preliminary assessment of the charge dated 10 March 2017;
• the contents of the documents falling within the scope of your request;
• the relevant provisions of 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
On review of the documents falling with the scope of your request, I confirm that the
department identified 23 documents (totalling 214 pages) as falling within the scope of your
request.
I note that the assessment of charges was based on the time taken in processing these
documents and I am satisfied that the time required to review the documents, mark
appropriate redactions, make a decision and schedule the documents in scope of your
request is accurately reflected in the charge notified to you.
Waiver or reduction of the charge
I am not satisfied that the department should reduce, or waive the charges imposed under
the charges decision, on the following basis:
• you have not provided sufficient evidence of financial hardship;
• the documents would not be in the general interest to release as the scope of the
documents does not affect or assist members of the public; and
• you have not put forward other relevant considerations that sufficiently weigh in
favour of reducing, or waiving the charges.
PAGE 3 OF 6
Department of Human Services
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.
Public interest
In making my decision, I am also required under paragraph 29(5)(b) of the FOI Act to take
into account whether the provision of access to the documents the subject of the request is
in the general public interest, or in the interest of a substantial section of the public. In other
words, there must be a benefit flowing generally to the public or a substantial section of the
public from disclosure of the documents in question. This requires me to consider the nature
of the documents and the context of their release.
When weighing up the public interest for and against disclosure under section 11A(5) of the
FOI Act, I have taken into account relevant factors in favour of disclosure. In particular, I
have considered the extent to which disclosure would:
• promote the objectives of the FOI Act;
• increase scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of Government activities;
• promote effective oversight of public expenditure;
• inform the public importance or interest; and
• assist participation in debate or discussion.
I am not satisfied that you have provided me with compelling reasons in favour of reducing
the charges. As detailed in the previous decision, clearly the public has an interest in the
adequacy of training provided to contact centre staff of the department. However, I uphold
the previous decision in that the scope of the documents would not assist the public in
debate or discussion. In your correspondence of 10 March 2017, you contended that this
decision is ‘preposterous’. I am not, however, persuaded by these submissions and I uphold
the previous decision. In particular, I not satisfied that you have 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
In deciding whether charges should be reduced or waived, I have taken into consideration
section 29(4) of the FOI Act which provides a general discretion to reduce or not to impose a
charge which goes beyond matters relating to financial hardship and the public interest. This
has included the following:
• the cost to the department, including staff and other resources, in processing the FOI
request; and
• the impact of diverting staff resources to process the FOI request on the department’s
other operations.
PAGE 4 OF 6
Department of Human Services
In your email of 10 March 2017, you state the following:
‘Furthermore, the Department says that it would need to carefully review the
participant resources to determine if exemptions were to apply. I contend that it is
unlikely that any information contained in participant documents given to a frontline
employee who may not have even acquired a Baseline clearance would contain any
exemptions.’
I am not persuaded by your argument. Regardless of whether the employees have a
Baseline clearance or not, it still takes some time for the department to properly review the
documentation to ensure that all sensitive material has been removed prior to release. As
previously stated in the charges decision, I consider the charge imposed appropriately
reflects the cost of processing your request. Accordingly, the calculation is a fair reflection of
the work required in processing your request.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I consider the department have been correct in their assessment of the
charges required in processing your FOI Request 24848. On this basis, I have decided to
not to reduce the amount of the charge that was notified to you. Accordingly, the charges
imposed for the FOI Request 24848 should remain at is $353.92 and no reduction or waiver
apply.
No further action on the request will be undertaken until the charges imposed for FOI
Request 24848 have been received by the department. After this has occurred, the
department will be in a position to continue processing your FOI request.
You can ask for a review of our decision
If you disagree with any part of the decision you can ask for an external review by the Office
of the Australian Information Commissioner. You do not have to pay for reviews of decisions.
See
Attachment A 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
Lisa
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Litigation Branch | Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
PAGE 5 OF 6
Department of Human Services
Attachment A
INFORMATION ON RIGHTS OF REVIEW
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
Application for review of decision
The
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) gives you the right to apply for a review of
this decision. Under sections 54 and 54L of the FOI Act, you can apply for a review of this
decision by the Information Commissioner.
Information Commissioner review
You must apply in writing within 60 days of the receipt of the decision letter and you can
lodge your application in one of the following ways:
Online:
www.oaic.gov.au Post: GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
Email:
xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
An application form is available on the website at www.oaic.gov.au. Your application should
include a copy of the notice of the decision that you are objecting to (if one was provided),
and your contact details. You should also set out why you are objecting to the decision.
Complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman
You may 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 6 OF 6
Department of Human Services
