Reference: [R33758523] 
FOI 324/17/18 STATEMENT OF REASONS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF 
INFORMATION ACT 
1. 
I refer to the application by Ms Verity Pane under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 
(FOI Act), for access to: 
“…I now seek copy under FOI of all documents held by Defence that relate or refer to 
FOI 244/17/18 (but to avoid doubt is not for copies of documents that are in scope of 
FOI 244/17/18), including emails, text messages, and file notes, that were created 
during the period 21 December 2017 (when the request from first made) to today 1 
March 2018, received by or sent from the Freedom of Information Directorate and it’s 
chain of direct reporting executives, excluding copies of any communications authored 
by me and any communications sent to me by the Freedom of Information Directorate 
(given I already have those copies). 
 
Background: 
 
On 21 December 2017 I applied under FOI for copy of any documents held by the 
Information Management and Access Branch (IMAB) of the Governance and Reform 
Division, relating to guidance, procedure or policy for the management and 
administration of FOI applications made by members of the public, specifically 
formalised final versions of internal reference guides that Freedom of Information 
Directorate staff used to guide them in the processing of FOI applications.  That FOI 
was given the internal FOI reference FOI 244/17/18 by Defence. 
 
That FOI has been the subject of repeated delays by Defence, including a fraudulent 
practical refusal consultation and bogus charges estimate, for which Defence has 
repeatedly failed to provide any evidence to support the wildly exaggerated estimates 
it has claimed. 
 
This is despite it being administratively requested on 21 December 2017, 20 January 
2018, 25 January 2018, 6 February 2018, and 7 February 2018 for such evidence to 
be provided - requests that Defence ignored, in bad faith. 
 
In particular, despite unsupported claims by Defence that these wildly exaggerated 
estimates were based on “conservatively estimated” sampling methodology of  
“documents currently held by the FOI Directorate on the Defence Electronic Records 
Management System (Objective)”, Defence has provided no evidence beyond it 
summary estimates (which are unable to support the reasonableness of such claims), 
and given that information to support those estimates has repeatedly been sought, but 
been refused to be provided by Defence, it now necessitates the following.…” 
FOI decision maker 
2. 
I am the authorised officer pursuant to section 23 of the FOI Act to make a decision on 
this FOI request. 

---

2 
Documents identified 
3. 
I identified 14 documents as matching the description of the request.  
Decision 
4. 
I have decided to: 
a.  release 14 documents in full; 
b.  remove irrelevant material as referred to in the scope of the request in 
accordance with section 22(1)(b)(ii) of the FOI Act. 
Material taken into account 
5. 
In making my decision, I had regard to: 
a.  the terms of the request; 
b.  the content of the identified documents in issue; 
c.  relevant provisions in the FOI Act; and 
d.  the Guidelines published by the Office of the Australian Information 
Commissioner under section 93A of the FOI Act (the Guidelines). 
 
Digitally signed by 
 
melissa.dav melissa.davidson 
 
Date: 2018.03.29 
 
idson
09:25:53 +11'00'
 
Melissa Davidson 
Accredited Decision Maker 
Associate Secretary Group 
 
 

---