If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
27 July 2017
Our reference: LEX 28338
Mr Justin Warren
By email:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx Dear Mr Warren
Decision on your Freedom of Information request
I refer to your revised request, dated 14 March 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:
‘I request the following information relating to the initiative to match Centrelink data
with data from the Australian Tax Office (ATO) to detect potential overpayment and
the recovery of those overpayments from citizens. This initiative has been extensively
covered by the media using various names, including #robodebt and #notmydebt.
- Documents listing identified risks, categorisations (Likelihood, Impact, etc.), and
treatments in the period 1 Jan 2016 to 31 Dec 2016. You have previously indicated
that these are known more specifically as:
a) Risk Plans
b) Weekly Reports
c) Issues and Escalated Issues Registers
as per the FOI request listed here:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/risk_governance_and_oversight_of_2, LEX
26567.
Excluding draft documents.’
My decision
The department holds four documents (totalling 69 pages) that relate to your request.
I have decided to
refuse access to these four documents.
I have decided that certain documents that you have requested are exempt under the FOI
Act, as they contain:
• operational information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to
have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the
operations of the agency.
PAGE 1 OF 9
Please see the schedule at
Attachment A to this letter for a detailed list of the documents
and the reasons for my decision, including the relevant sections of the FOI Act.
You can ask for a review of our decision
If you disagree with any part of 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 ema
il xxx.xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.
Yours sincerely
Chelsea
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Litigation Branch | Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
PAGE 2 OF 9
Department of Human Services
If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
Attachment A
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FOR RELEASE
Justin Warren (Right to Know) - LEX 28338
Doc
Pages
Date
Description
Decision
Exemption
Comments
No.
1.
1-
22
06/08/15
Risk Management Plan
Refuse in full
s 47E(d)
Operational information removed under section 47E(d)
2.
23 -40
Various
Open Issues Summary
Refuse in full
s 47E(d)
Operational information removed under section 47E(d)
3.
41 -45
Various
Progress Report
Refuse in full
s 47E(d)
Operational information removed under section 47E(d)
4.
46 -69
Various
Issues Summary
Refuse in full
S 47E(d)
Operational information removed under section 47E(d)
PAGE 3 OF 9
If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
REASONS FOR DECISION
What you requested
'I request the following information relating to the initiative to match Centrelink data
with data from the Australian Tax Office (ATO) to detect potential overpayment and
the recovery of those overpayments from citizens. This initiative has been extensively
covered by the media using various names, including #robodebt and #notmydebt.
- Documents listing identified risks, categorisations (Likelihood, Impact, etc.), and
treatments in the period 1 Jan 2016 to 31 Dec 2016. You have previously indicated
that these are known more specifically as:
a) Risk Plans
b) Weekly Reports
c) Issues and Escalated Issues Registers
as per the FOI request listed here:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/risk_governance_and_oversight_of_2, LEX
26567.’
On 23 March 2017, I wrote to you providing you with a notice of intention to refuse your
request under section 24AB(2) of the FOI Act as your request was too big to process. On 24
March 2017 you responded to the consultation notice advising you were happy to exclude
draft documents in order to limit the scope of your request.
Your revised request is therefore:
‘I request the following information relating to the initiative to match Centrelink data
with data from the Australian Tax Office (ATO) to detect potential overpayment and
the recovery of those overpayments from citizens. This initiative has been extensively
covered by the media using various names, including #robodebt and #notmydebt.
- Documents listing identified risks, categorisations (Likelihood, Impact, etc.), and
treatments in the period 1 Jan 2016 to 31 Dec 2016. You have previously indicated
that these are known more specifically as:
a) Risk Plans
b) Weekly Reports
c) Issues and Escalated Issues Registers
as per the FOI request listed here:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/risk_governance_and_oversight_of_2, LEX
26567.
Excluding draft documents.’
On 4 April 2017, you were issued a preliminary assessment of charges notice in the amount
of $263.05. On 5 April you contended the charge. On 5 May the department issued a
reconsidered charges assessment in the amount of $226.25. On 15 May 2017 the
department received your request for internal review of the reconsidered charges
PAGE 4 OF 9
assessment. On 13 June the department issued a decision affirming the reconsidered
charges assessment dated 5 May 2017 in the amount of $226.25.
I have considered the reconsidered charge assessment notified to you and have found that it
is an accurate reflection of the time taken to process your request.
On 18 July 2017, the processing period recommenced following receipt of your payment of
$226.25.
What I took into account
In reaching my decision I took into account:
• your original request dated 14 March 2017 and your revised request on
24 March 2017;
• the documents that fall within the scope of your request;
• whether the release of material is in the public interest
• 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); and
• the FOI Act.
Reasons for my decisions
I am authorised to make decisions under section 23(1) of the FOI Act.
I have decided that certain documents that you requested are exempt under the FOI Act. My
findings of fact and reasons for deciding that the exemption applies to those documents are
discussed below.
Conditional Exemption - 47E(d) of the FOI Act
Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act provides that:
‘A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or could
reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and
efficient conduct of the operations of an agency.’
I have found that Documents 1 - 4 are exempt from release under section 47E(d) of the FOI
Act.
Do the documents contain information regarding the operations of the department?
Documents 1 and 4 describe the risk assessments and mitigation strategies of the
department in relation to the Employment Income Matching (EIM) project. Document 2
discloses the issues that arose as the project was progressing, and document 3 contains the
ICT progress summaries. The documents contain information regarding the operations of the
department.
PAGE 5 OF 9
Department of Human Services
Would/could disclosure of the documents have a substantial adverse effect on the proper
and efficient conduct of the department?
There is a reasonable expectation that if this information was made publicly available, it
would have the capacity to undermine the conduct of the department's operations,
particularly in relation to the delivery and implementation of the EIM project, which is a
compliance and payment integrity measure announced in 2015-16 by the Government. The
documents, by their very nature, indicate risks and potential gaps in the ICT infrastructure
and workflows that underpin the delivery of the EIM project. It is therefore reasonable to
consider that the release of these documents may undermine the effectiveness of
departmental procedures in relation to investigating customer compliance. Further, the
release of these documents would disclose the department’s ICT design, testing and
implementation processes and timeframes, some of which are still currently in place.
Release of the documents may also prejudice the department’s ability to collect the
information it needs from income support recipients, who may be reluctant to provide
information online if they do not believe that the department’s ICT infrastructure is sufficiently
robust and secure because the system would be potentially exposed to external threats.
Has the passage of time reduced the substantial adverse effect on the department’s
operations that would or could reasonably be expected to result from the release of the
documents?
The documents in scope were created approximately one year ago. The EIM project is still
ongoing; whilst there is an argument that the documents, in the version requested by you,
reflect a “point in time” and therefore have diminished impact, I have been advised by the
department’s subject matter experts that a significant amount of the information contained in
the documents is still current, either in the same version requested by you, or, in subsequent
versions of the documents (where applicable).
Therefore, I have decided that the four documents you seek access to are conditionally
exempt in full under s 47E(d) of the FOI Act as their release would have a substantial
adverse effect on the department’s operations.
Public interest considerations
In finding that the four documents contain conditionally exempt material, pursuant to
section 11A(5) of the FOI Act, I am required to consider whether it would be contrary to the
public interest to release the documents.
Section 11A(5) of the FOI Act provides the following:
‘The agency or Minister must give the person access to the document if it is
conditionally exempt at a particular time unless (in the circumstances) access to the
document at that time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.’
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 objects of the FOI Act;
• inform debate on a matter of public importance; and
• promote effective oversight of public expenditure.
PAGE 6 OF 9
Department of Human Services
I have also considered the relevant factors weighing against disclosure. In particular, I have
considered the extent to which disclosure could reasonably be expected to:
• prejudice the security and integrity of the department’s EIM project; and
• prejudice the department’s ability to obtain and effectively utilise similar information in
the future.
In
‘IN’ and Australian Taxation Office [2016] AICmr 33 (
the IN decision), the then Acting
Australian Information Commissioner held that documents containing certain processes used
by the ATO when conducting audits were conditionally exempt under section 47E(d) and
their release was not in the public interest as release:
• could reasonably be expected to make it more difficult for the ATO to undertake
audit activities generally; and
• could have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of
ATO operations.
I consider that
the IN decision is analogous to the circumstances of your request, where you
have sought access to documents that relate to the department undertaking compliance
measures, the release of which may make it difficult for the department to conduct future
compliance activities and on that basis this factor weighs heavily against the public interest
for release.
When balancing all the relevant factors for and against release I have decided that in the
circumstances of this particular request, the public interest in disclosing the information in the
four documents is outweighed by the public interest against disclosure.
Summary of my decision
In conclusion, I have decided to refuse access to documents 1 - 4 in full, under section
47E(d) 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 a 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 8 OF 9
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.
Complaints to the Australian Information Commissioner and Commonwealth
Ombudsman
Australian Information Commissioner
You may complain to the Australian 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 Australian Information
Commissioner must be made in writing. The Australian Information Commissioner's contact
details are:
Telephone: 1300 363 992
Website:
www.oaic.gov.au Commonwealth Ombudsman
You may also complain to the Commonwealth 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 Commonwealth Ombudsman may be
made in person, by telephone or in writing. The Commonwealth 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
Document Outline
