If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
18 May 2017
Our reference: LEX 28941
Mr Ben Fairless
By email:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx Dear Mr Fairless
Freedom of Information Request – Charges - Reconsideration
I refer to your request received by the Department of Human Services (the
department) on
5 April 2017, for access under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the
FOI Act) to the following:
' Can you supply a copy of the below document:
Customers recording interactions 104-07020060
Link is here: https://operational.humanservices.gov.au/public/Pages/complaints-privacy-and-
foi/104-07020060-01.html’
Preliminary Assessment of the Charge
On 18 April 2017, the department notified you that you are liable to pay a charge for the processing
of your request and advised that the preliminary assessment of that charge was $14.55. This
charge was calculated as follows:
Search and retrieval time: 0.97 hours, at $15.00 per hour:
$14.55
Decision-making time (*after deduction of 5 hours): 0 hours, at
$20.00 per hour
$0.00
TOTAL
$14.55
*The FOI Act provides that the first five hours of decision-making time are free of charge and this is reflected in the
calculation.
On 18 April 2017, you wrote to the department contending the charge should not be imposed. In
particular, you submitted that:
Thanks for your charges letter - I contend that the charges are excessive and should be
reduced to nil.
The document in question is listed (but not provided) on the DHS Operational Documents
portal. I provided the document ID and it should have been possible to search the relevant
system using that ID and recover the document in a few seconds. If it took you time to
review the document, that should be included in the review time.
PAGE 1 OF 7
In addition, as the document relates to decisions made by the department in relation to the
public, I contend that the document should be released under the Information Publication
Scheme.
I also note the public importance of this request. This document was singled out by the
"#notmydebt" campaigners as a document they want to access. The request received many
views and retweets online and would infom the public around the departments response to
customers recording interactions.
In my preliminary assessment of charges, I advised you there was one document of 10 pages that
fell within the scope of your request. The charge has been calculated on the processing of those ten
pages.
Reconsideration of the Charge
Section 29(4) of the FOI Act provides a discretion to reduce or not impose a charge. In making a
decision in relation to this discretion, section 29(5) requires me to consider:
• whether payment of the charge would cause financial hardship to the applicant, and
• whether giving access to the document is in the general public interest or in the interest of a
substantial section of the public.
The guidelines state, at paragraph 4.71:
‘In addition to considering those two matters, an agency or minister may consider any other
relevant matter, and in particular should give genuine consideration to any contention or
submission made by an applicant as to why a charge should be reduced or waived’.
Financial Hardship
You did not request reconsideration on the basis that the charge would cause you financial
hardship. I have no evidence available to me to indicate the charge would cause you financial
hardship. Accordingly, I am not satisfied the charge should be reduced or waived on this ground.
Public Interest
In considering whether something is of the public interest for the consideration of charges, the
Guidelines relevantly provide, at paragraph 4.83:
‘The ‘public interest’ is a concept of wide import that cannot be exhaustively defined… The
following examples nevertheless illustrate circumstances in which the giving of access may
be in the general public interest or in the interest of a substantial section of the public:
• the document relates to a matter of public debate, or a policy issue under discussion
within an agency, and disclosure of the document would assist public comment on or
participation in the debate or discussion.’
You submit that the release of documents in the scope of your request is in the public interest.
Namely, you submit that the document was singled out by the “#notmydebt” campaigners as an
important document, release of which would help inform the public around the department’s
response to customers recording interactions. I note that the #notmydebt website relates specifically
to the department’s Online Compliance Interventions (
OCI).
PAGE 2 OF 7
Department of Human Services
The department has a broad range of procedures in relation to interactions between staff members
and customers. The majority of these procedures are not specific to the OCI. Having reviewed the
document in the scope of your request, I am satisfied that it is not about to the subject matter of
recent public debate, hence its release would not assist public comment or participation in that
debate. I am not satisfied there is any general or specific section of the public that would have an
interest in the material being released.
In weighing up these matters, I am satisfied it is not in the public interest for the information to be
released, and accordingly I am not satisfied the charge should be waived or reduced on this ground.
With this in mind, I am satisfied the department has calculated the charge correctly.
Calculation of the search and retrieval time
You provided the department with the relevant Operational Blue Print number and a link to the
document. As such, you contend that the search and retrieval time of 0.97 hours is excessive.
I contacted the relevant departmental line area as part of reconsidering the preliminary estimate of
charges. The line area confirmed that the estimate of 0.97 hours was an accurate reflection of the
actual time taken to search and retrieve the document.
Although the information provided in your request assisted the department to identify the relevant
document, the department submits that the estimate of 0.97 hours for search and retrieval of the
document is an accurate reflection of the true time required to:
• search and retrieve the document;
• search the document and tag any relevant pages (including identifying any possible
sensitivities with release); and
• prepare a schedule detailing the relevant document (including identifying any
possible sensitivities with release).
As such, I am satisfied the department has calculated the preliminary estimate of charges correctly.
Release of the document under the Information Publication Scheme
You also contend that the document within the scope of your request is listed on the department’s
“Operational Documents” portal and relate to decisions made by the department. As such, it should
be released under the Information Publication Scheme.
The department holds that a decision on the release of a document is a question that should be
answered in the decision making stage rather than during the charges reconsideration stage. In this
regard, 'CF' and Department of Finance [2014] AICmr 73 relevantly states that:
The fact that giving access to documents is in the general public interest for the purposes of
reducing or not imposing a charge (under s 29(4)) does not mean that giving access to those
same — conditionally exempt — documents cannot be, on balance, contrary to the public
interest (under s 11A(5)). Additionally, the fact that documents may or may not be exempt
under any provision of the FOI Act, does not lead to an automatic assumption that there can
PAGE 3 OF 7
Department of Human Services
be no public interest for the purpose of s 29. The test is distinct. If an agency or Minister
needs to assess release of the documents, that should come later at the decision
making stage.
I am satisfied that determining whether the document can be released will require a thorough
assessment of the document against the provisions of the FOI Act. In reliance of the decision in ‘CF’
above, any assessment of the reasonableness of release of the document will be considered at the
decision making stage and were not included in this reconsideration of charges.
Conclusion
After carefully considering your contentions, the document within the scope of your request, the
provisions of the FOI Act and the FOI Guidelines, I am satisfied that the preliminary assessment of
charges is correct. As such, I affirm the $14.55 preliminary assessment of charges.
Options
If you would like the department to continue processing your request, you must:
a) pay the charge;
b) seek an internal or external review of the reconsideration of the decision to impose a
charge; or
c) withdraw the request for access.
Further information on options A, B and C is set out below.
Option A - pay the charge
As the charge is less than $25, you are required to pay the full amount of $14.55 within 30 days of
receiving this notice.
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 28941 with your payment.
Should you elect 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 B – seek review
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.
Option C - withdraw your request
If you wish to withdraw your request you may do so in writing.
Address for correspondence
Please send all correspondence regarding your FOI request to me at the following address:
PAGE 4 OF 7
Department of Human Services
Freedom of Information team
Department of Human Services
PO Box 7820
CANBERRA ACT 2610
Or by email to
xxx.xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Further assistance
If you have any questions please email
xxx.xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx. Yours sincerely
Charlie
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Litigation Branch Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
PAGE 5 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 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.
You can
lodge your application:
Online:
www.oaic.gov.au
Post:
Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001
PAGE 6 OF 7
Department of Human Services
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 7 OF 7
Department of Human Services
Document Outline
