If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
3 August 2020
Our reference: LEX 56239
Previous reference: LEX 54854
Mr John Smith
Only by email:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx Dear Mr Smith
Freedom of Information Request – Internal Review Charges
I refer to your request dated and received by Services Australia on 3 July 2020, for an
internal review of a decision issued to you under subsection 29(6) of the
Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (
FOI Act) on 1 July 2020 (
Reconsideration Decision).
Background On 18 May 2020, you made a request under the FOI Act in the following terms:
‘I request a copy of the contracts associated with Cth tender ID CN3640129,
CN3640129-A1, CN3640129-A2, CN3640129-A3, and CN3640129-A4.’
On 3 June 2020, you were notified that you are liable to pay a charge for the processing of
your request and that the preliminary assessment of that charge was $78.55 (
Preliminary
Charge).
On 3 June 2020, you responded to the Preliminary Charge notification contending that
Services Australia should waive the preliminary charge. Your request to reconsider the
Preliminary Charge was made in the following terms:
‘Given the large amount of public money associated with this tender (>$3M), I ask
that a public interest in the transparency of this matter be recognised; and the
ordinarily applicable FOI fee be consequently waived in its entirety, on the grounds of
a public interest in the proper use of public expenditure.
Alternatively, I request that the fee be waived on the ground of financial hardship.’
On 16 June 2020, Services Australia responded to your reconsideration request by asking
you to provide evidence of your financial hardship. On 17 June 2020, Services Australia
received an email attaching a copy of a low income health care card.
On 2 July 2020, Services Australia notified you of the reconsideration of charges decision
(
Reconsidered Charge). The Reconsidered Charge reduced the estimated time taken to
process your request by 2 hours. This had the effect of reducing the charge to $38.55.
However, after considering all of the available evidence, the Reconsidered Charge did not
reduce or waive the charge on the basis of financial hardship or public interest grounds.
If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
On 3 July 2020, you sought an internal review of the Reconsidered Charge.
Internal Review Section 53A(e) of the FOI Act allows for internal review of a decision made under section 29
of the FOI Act.
I am authorised under section 23 of the FOI Act to undertake internal review decisions. In
accordance with section 54C, I am a person other than the person who made the
Reconsidered Charge decision.
What I took into account In reaching my decision on internal review of the Reconsidered Charges, I took into account:
Services Australia correspondence dated 3 June 2020, notifying you of the
preliminary charge;
your reconsideration request dated 3 June 2020;
other correspondence between 16 June 2020 and 17 June 2020;
the documents falling within the scope of your request (the
Requested Documents);
consultations with Services Australia officers about:
o the nature of the requested information; and
o Services Australia’s operational environment and functions;
relevant case law;
the FOI Act;
the
Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations 2019 (
Regulations); and
the Guidelines issued by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner under
section 93A of the FOI Act (
Guidelines).
Relevant legislation Subsection 29(4) of the FOI Act provides that, where an applicant has notified an agency that
they contend 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.
Subsection 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.
If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
Subsection 29(8) of the FOI Act provides that, if an applicant makes a contention about a
charge as mention in subsection 29(4) and the agency makes a decision to reject the
contention in whole or part, then the agency must give the applicant written notice of the
decision and the reasons for the decision.
Review of the Reconsidered Charge
Although you did not make any submissions regarding the calculation of the Reconsidered
Charge, for completeness, I have re-examined the calculations that were used.
In the course of assessing the calculations used in the Reconsidered Charge, I reviewed the
Requested Documents and considered the time it would take to process the documents in
full. I also considered the time taken to search for a retrieve the Requested Documents.
The Reconsidered Charge advised that the time taken to search for and retrieve the
Requested Documents was 1.17 hours. This was based on advice provided by the business
area that undertook those duties. Noting that the business area has already undertaken the
search and retrieval process, I am satisfied that 1.17 hours is an accurate reflection of the
actual time taken, and therefore, I have decided not to revise the search and retrieval
component of the Reconsidered Charge.
The Reconsidered Charge estimated that it would take approximately 6.05 hours to process
the Requested Documents. Having reviewed the Requested Documents, I am satisfied that
this is an accurate reflection of the actual time that would be required to process the
Requested Documents.
Having considered the tasks undertaken by Services Australia which relate to search and
retrieval and processing of the Requested Documents, the calculation of the Reconsidered
Charge, and the reasoning behind it, I am satisfied that the Reconsidered Charge calculated
fairly reflects the work involved in processing your request and reflects the lowest
reasonable cost for the time it will take Services Australia to process your request.
Therefore, I have decided to impose a charge of $38.55 on internal review.
Other considerations
Your internal review request disputed the Reconsidered Charge on financial hardship and
public interest grounds. My consideration of these matters are set out below.
Financial hardship
Paragraph 29(5)(a) of the FOI Act provides that an agency must take into account whether
payment of a charge, or part of it, would cause financial hardship to an applicant.
The Guidelines at 4.101 and 4.103 relevantly provide:
‘Whether payment of a charge would cause financial hardship to an applicant is
primarily concerned with the applicant’s financial circumstances and the amount of
the estimated charge…
Financial hardship exists when payment of the debt would leave you unable
to provide food, accommodation, clothing, medical treatment, education or
other necessities for yourself or your family, or other people for whom you are
responsible.
If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
An applicant relying on this ground could ordinarily be expected to provide
some evidence of financial hardship. For example, the applicant may rely
upon (and provide evidence of) receipt of a pension or income support
payment; or provide evidence of income, debts or assets…’
On 17 June 2020, Services Australia received an email which attached a Centrelink low
income health card. Whilst the name on the card did not match the name of the FOI
applicant, you advised that you were using a pseudonym to lodge your FOI requests through
the Right to Know website.
As advised previously, the FOI Act does not require applicants to provide their name when
making a freedom of information request. However, on the information before me, I cannot
be satisfied that the FOI applicant is the same individual as identified on the Centrelink low
income health card. This is because you have not provided any other identifying information,
only a copy of the low income health care card itself.
Further, based on the Guidelines as set out above, to establish financial hardship you would
need to provide information to substantiate that paying the charge of $38.55 would leave you
unable to provide food, accommodation, clothing, medical treatment, education or other
necessities for yourself, your family or other people for whom you are responsible. I am not
satisfied that you have provided any information to substantiate that payment of the charge
would cause you financial hardship.
Therefore, on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that payment of the charge would
cause you financial hardship, and I have decided not to reduce the charge on this basis.
Public interest
Relevant legislation, case law and Guidelines
Paragraph 29(5)(b) of the FOI Act provides that an agency must also take into account
whether the provision of access to the document within scope of your request is either 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.
In
MacTiernan and Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
[2015] AATA 584, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal found that where release is in the
general public interest, or in the interest of at least a substantial section of the public,
charges ought to be waived. Conversely, this decision also supports the view that where
there is little public interest in the release of information that is within scope, then it is
appropriate for charges to be applied.
When discussing the issuing of charges and the consideration of the public interest,
paragraph 4.105 of the Guidelines provides:
The FOI Act requires an agency or minister to consider ‘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’ (s 29(5)(b)). This test is different to and to be
distinguished from public interest considerations that may arise under other
provisions of the FOI Act.
Paragraphs 4.107 and 4.108 of the Guidelines state:
If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
An applicant relying on [the public interest ground of waiver] should identify or specify
the ‘general public interest’ or the ‘substantial section of the public’ that would benefit
from this disclosure (s 29(1)(f)(ii)). This may require consideration both of the content
of the documents requested and the context in which their public release would
occur. Matters to be considered include whether the information in the documents is
already publicly available, the nature and currency of the topic of public interest to
which the documents relate, and the way in which a public benefit may flow from the
release of the documents.
[T]he applicant may be expected to draw a link between being granted access to the
documents and a derivative benefit to either the general public interest or a
substantial section of the public.
Your submissions
In your request for internal review you made the following submissions:
I note that in your reasons you have disputed my claim that an attempt at oversight of
a large amount of spending by a government agency, isn't a sufficient public interest
reason.
It may be the case that the procurement was made under government rules. That is
besides the point. Whether the taxpayer got value for money through the
procurement, can only be discerned by the public if the details of transactions are
known. It is also besides the point that these transactions are already overseen by
parliament and the government. The FOI act is for members of the public to make
requests that are of interest to the public, regardless of whether those transactions
are already of interest to the government.
While this specific transaction might appear to be unimportant in isolation, it is part of
a pattern of increased government outsourcing within the APS, and especially
Services Australia in recent years. The increased use of private contractors within
public agencies has been the subject of much public reporting.
For instance; these practices have been mentioned in the Australian Financial
Review:
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/gov... [sic]
The ABC:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-09/l... [sic]
Among other publications.
To re-iterate my point; this FOI request is a part of a series of FOI requests that
intend to investigate the use of outsourcing within government departments. This is
what makes the request in the public interest.
Consideration of public interest The primary question is whether a benefit will flow to the public generally, or to a substantial
section of the public, from the disclosure of the information in the Requested Documents.
This requires me to consider the nature of the Requested Documents and the context
surrounding their potential release.
Public interest factors that weigh in favour of reducing or waiving a charge could include:
If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
where release would promote the objects of the FOI Act, including increasing
scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of Government activities;
where the document is to be used for research that is to be published widely or that
complements research being undertaken in an agency or elsewhere in the
community;
where release would facilitate and promoting public access to information, promptly
and at the lowest reasonable cost;
the document is to be used by a community or non-profit organisation in preparing a
submission to a parliamentary or government inquiry, for example, on a law reform,
social justice, civil liberty, financial regulation, or environmental or heritage protection
issue; or
where release would inform the public on matters of public importance or interest,
and assisting participation in debate or discussion.
I have considered your submission that the request is part of a series by you that looks to
investigate the use of ‘outsourcing’ within government departments.
I accept that there is a public interest in the structure of the Australian Public Service,
including the use of labour hire staff. However, this particular issue has been scrutinised in a
number of forums, including through the Senate Inquiries (which have explored issues
during public hearings that included the use of, and spending on, contractors, consultants,
and labour hire workers), through reporting obligations imposed by the Commonwealth
Procurement Rules and in media articles. I have reviewed the Requested Documents and do
not consider that the release of this information will contribute any additional benefit to the
public regarding the use of ‘outsourcing’, including on the contract management or service
delivery practices of Services Australia.
Based on all of the information before me, I do not consider that release of the Requested
Documents would be in the general public interest, or the interest of a substantial portion of
the public. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that there are sufficient public interest factors in
favour of reducing or waiving the charge associated with the processing of the Requested
Documents.
Conclusion
I am satisfied that a charge of $38.55 accurately reflects the lowest reasonable cost for the
time that it will take Services Australia to process your request.
I am not satisfied that the charge should be reduced or waived on the grounds of financial
hardship or that the release of the document would be in the general public interest or in the
interest of a substantial section of the public.
Therefore, I have decided to impose a charge of
$38.55.
Required Action
If you would like Services Australia to continue processing your request, you must notify
Services Australia in writing within 60 days of receiving this notice that you:
If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
a) agree to pay the charge; or
b) withdraw the request for access.
Please note that the payment of a charge does not guarantee access to documents,
redacted or otherwise.
If we do not hear from you within 60 days we will take your request to be withdrawn.
Option a) - pay the charge
As the charge exceeds $25.00, but does not exceed $100.00, you are required to pay in full,
or a deposit of $20.00 within 60 days of receiving this notice. You may, of course, elect to
pay the charge in full at this point.
You may select from one of the following payment methods:
1. Online payment via Government EasyPay - follow
this link and enter the relevant
details. You will need your FOI LEX reference number,
LEX 56239; or
2. Cheque made out to the Collector of Public Monies and posted to Freedom of
Information, Services Australia, PO BOX 7820, Canberra BC, ACT 2610; or
3. Money order made out to the Collector of Public Monies and posted to Freedom of
Information, Services Australia, PO BOX 7820, Canberra BC, ACT 2610.
If you elect to pay the charge, please email
xxx.xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx to
advise us of your payment. Please quote reference number
LEX 56239 in this
correspondence.
Time limits for processing your request
Section 31 of the FOI Act provides that where a notice is sent to an applicant regarding the
payment of a charge in respect of a request, the time limit for processing the request is
suspended from the date the notice is received until either:
a) the day following payment of the charge (in full or the required deposit); or
b) if applicable, the day following the notification to the applicant of a decision not
to impose the charge.
Address for correspondence
Please send all correspondence regarding your FOI request to me at the following address:
Freedom of Information team
Services Australia
PO Box 7820
CANBERRA ACT 2610
Or by email to
xxx.xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.
If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
You can ask for a review of our decision
If you disagree with any part of the decision you can ask for a review. 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 to arrange
a review.
Further assistance
If you have any questions please email
xxx.xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx. Yours sincerely
Alana Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information Team
Employment Law and FOI Branch Legal Services Division
Services Australia
If not delivered return to PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
Attachment A
INFORMATION ON RIGHTS OF REVIEW
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
Application for review of decision
The FOI Act gives you the right to apply for a review of this decision. Under sections 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, 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.
