PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
25 January 2021
Our reference: LEX 60322
Posty
By email only:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Posty
Freedom of Information request – Internal Review Decision
I refer to your correspondence dated 26 December 2020 seeking an internal review of the
decision made by Services Australia (the
agency)
under the
Freedom of Information Act
1982 (
FOI Act) on 27 November 2020 (the
original decision).
Your request for internal review was made in the following terms:
I don't believe literally the entire documents would be unable to be released.
try again.
I'd like an internal review please.
Internal Review Decision
Consistent with the requirements of the FOI Act, I have made a fresh decision set out below.
The agency holds 4 documents (totalling 20 pages) that relate to your request.
I am satisfied that the requested documents are conditionally exempt in their entirety under
section 47E(d) of the FOI Act. Furthermore, I have decided on balance it would be contrary
to the public interest to release this information.
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 an external review by the Office
of the Australian Information Commissioner. You do not have to pay for a review of the
decision. See
Attachment B for more information about how to request a review.
Further assistance
If you have any questions please email
xxx.xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.
Yours sincerely
Don
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information Team
Employment Law and FOI Branch | Legal Services Division
Services Australia
PAGE 1 OF 9
Attachment A
SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS
Posty – LEX 60322
Doc Pages
Date
Description
Decision
Exemption
Comments
No.
1. 1- 4
27 March 2020 Operational Blueprint ‘Optical
Exempt in full
s 47E(d)
Document refused in full under s 47E(d) operations
Surveil ance 110-11040000’
of the agency.
2. 5- 9
27 March 2020 Operational Blueprint
Exempt in full
s 47E(d)
Document refused in full under s 47E(d) operations
‘Requesting referral for optical
of the agency.
surveil ance 110-11040010’
3. 10 -15 27 March 2020 Operational Blueprint
Exempt in full
s 47E(d)
Document refused in full under s 47E(d) operations
‘Referring a case to a provider
of the agency.
for optical surveil ance 110-
11040020’
4. 16 -20 27 March 2020 Operational Blueprint ‘Optical
Exempt in full
s 47E(d)
Document refused in full under s 47E(d) operations
Surveil ance report received
of the agency.
from provider 110-11040030’
PAGE 2 OF 9
REASONS FOR DECISION
What you requested
On 24 September 2020, you made a request under the FOI Act for access to the following
documents:
Al documents contained within the files on your "Operational Blueprint" portal:
Optical surveil ance 110-11040000
(http://operational.humanservices.gov.au/public/Pages/compliance-and-reviews/110-
11040000-01.html)
Requesting referral for optical surveil ance 110-11040010
(http://operational.humanservices.gov.au/public/Pages/compliance-and-reviews/110-
11040010-01.html)
Referring a case to a provider for optical surveil ance 110-11040020
(http://operational.humanservices.gov.au/public/Pages/compliance-and-reviews/110-
11040020-01.html)
Optical surveil ance report received from provider 110-11040030
(http://operational.humanservices.gov.au/public/Pages/compliance-and-reviews/110-
11040030-01.html).
On 27 November 2020, the agency provided you with the original decision to refuse access
to 4 documents (totalling 20 pages) in full.
On 26 December 2020, you requested an internal review of the original decision in the
following terms:
I don't believe literally the entire documents would be unable to be released.
try again.
I'd like an internal review please.
What I took into account
In reaching my decision I took into account:
• your original request dated 24 September 2020
• your request for internal review dated 26 December 2020
• the original decision
• consultations with agency officers about:
o the nature of the documents
o the agency's operating environment and functions
• the documents falling within the scope of your request (the
requested documents)
PAGE 3 OF 9
link to page 4
• guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under section 93A of
the FOI Act (the
Guidelines), and
• the FOI Act.
Reasons for my internal review decision
Conditional exemption - Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act
Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act provides:
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.
Paragraph 6.101 of the Guidelines explain:
For the grounds in ss 47E(a)–(d) to apply, the predicted effect needs to be
reasonably expected to occur. The term ‘could reasonably be expected’ is explained
in greater detail in Part 5. There must be more than merely an assumption or
allegation that damage may occur if the document were to be released.
Paragraph 6.120 of the Guidelines provides:
An agency’s operations may not be substantially adversely affected if the disclosure
would, or could reasonably be expected to lead to a change in the agency’s
processes that would enable those processes to be more efficient.
Proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency
The agency’s 2019-2020 Annual Report provides the agency is responsible for designing,
developing and delivering government services and payments. During the 2019-2020 year,
the agency processed over 438 mil ion claims and made in excess of $203.7 bil ion in
payments.
1
In order to allow the efficient processing of these claims and payments, the management of
fraud is a key operational function of the agency. The agency’s fraud prevention capabilities
seek to ensure only eligible people receive payments and they receive the correct payment
amounts. Failure to ensure compliance wil compromise the agency’s capacity to implement
relevant government policies.
Among other activities, the agency focusses its compliance action on ensuring people
receive payments they are entitled to and preventing the exploitation of welfare payments.
During the 2019-2020 year, the agency’s compliance work led to:
• 1014 criminal investigations
• 564 administrative investigations
• referring 454 cases to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
• preventing the payment of fraudulent Medicare claims worth over $250,000 and
1 Services Australia,
Annual Report 2019-2020 https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/annual-
report-2019-20.pdf page xiii
PAGE 4 OF 9
link to page 5
• preventing fraud involving $400,000 worth of welfare payments.
2
I am satisfied the requested documents contain investigative methods used by the agency to
target fraud and non-compliance. The requested documents are intended for the sole use of
the Taskforce Integrity and Fraud Investigation Branch to assist members of that branch to
coordinate the agency’s compliance work. Therefore, I am satisfied that the documents relate
to the agency’s operations, namely compliance operations.
The agency makes no comment regarding the Applicant’s use of or interest in the requested
documents. However, as noted in the original decision, the FOI Act does not control or
restrict any subsequent use or dissemination of information after the initial disclosure. The
agency’s Taskforce Integrity and Fraud Investigation Branch has advised if the investigative
methodologies contained within the requested documents are released, this information
could assist other individuals circumvent the fraud prevention procedures.
Further, I concur with the original decision-maker in concluding:
Any prejudice to the effectiveness of the operational methods and procedures used
by the agency when undertaking its compliance role would result in a substantial
adverse effect on the operations of the agency.
I further note section 10 of the
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule
2014 (the
PGPA Rule) provides:
The accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity must take all reasonable
measures to prevent, detect and deal with fraud relating to the entity, including by:
(a) conducting fraud risk assessments regularly and when there is a substantial
change in the structure, functions or activities of the entity and
(b) developing and implementing a fraud control plan that deals with identified risks
as soon as practicable after conducting a risk assessment and
(c) having an appropriate mechanism for preventing fraud, including by ensuring that:
(i) officials of the entity are made aware of what constitutes fraud and
(ii) the risk of fraud is taken into account in planning and conducting the activities
of the entity and
(d) having an appropriate mechanism for detecting incidents of fraud or suspected
fraud, including a process for officials of the entity and other persons to report
suspected fraud confidentially and
(e) having an appropriate mechanism for investigating or otherwise dealing with
incidents of fraud or suspected fraud and
(f) having an appropriate mechanism for recording and reporting incidents of fraud or
suspected fraud.
I am also satisfied release of the requested documents would substantially prejudice the
capacity of the agency’s Chief Executive Officer to comply with section 10 of the PGPA Rule.
2 Ibid, page 62.
PAGE 5 OF 9
Therefore, I am satisfied the requested documents are conditionally exempt under
section 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
Can an edited copy be provided?
I note the terms of your request for internal review of the original decision includes the
following:
I don't believe literally the entire documents would be unable to be released.
Relevantly, paragraph 3.98 of the Guidelines provides:
… an agency or minister should take a common sense approach in considering
whether the number of deletions would be so many that the remaining document
would be of little or no value to the applicant. Similarly, the purpose of providing
access to government information under the FOI Act may not be served if extensive
editing is required that leaves only a skeleton of the former document that conveys
little of its content or substance.
I am satisfied:
• the overwhelming majority of material contained within the requested documents
is conditionally exempt under section 47E(d) of the FOI Act
• the remaining material would leave only a skeleton of the former document which
conveyed little of its content or substance, and
• releasing the skeleton of the requested documents would not promote the objects
of the FOI Act.
Conclusion
As a consequence, I am satisfied the requested documents in their entirety are conditionally
exempt under section 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
Public interest considerations
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.
I have also considered the relevant factors weighing against disclosure, indicating access
would be contrary to the public interest. In particular, I have considered the extent to which
PAGE 6 OF 9
disclosure of the requested documents could reasonably be expected to prejudice the
agency’s capacity to prevent, detect and deal with fraud.
As indicated above, the agency is responsible for the payment of claims which totalled in
excess of $203.7 bil ion during the 2019-2020 financial year. The agency’s capacity to
prevent, detect and deal with potential fraud is a crucial element in the efficient processing of
payments of this magnitude.
After consideration of advice received from the agency’s Taskforce Integrity and Fraud
Investigation Branch, I am satisfied the requested documents contain investigative
methodology which if released could assist in the commission of criminal offences against
the agency. Should the capacity of the agency to prevent, detect and deal with fraud be
diminished in any way, the agency’s capacity to implement government policy wil similarly
be diminished.
Consequently, I have formed the view there is a strong public interest in the non-disclosure
of the requested documents.
Based on these factors, I have decided in the circumstances of this particular matter, the
public interest in the non-disclosure of the requested documents outweighs the public
interest factors favouring disclosure.
I have not taken into account any of the irrelevant factors set out in section 11B(4) of the FOI
Act in making this decision.
Conclusion
In summary, I am satisfied the requested documents are conditionally exempt in their entirety
under section 47E(d) of the FOI Act. Furthermore, I have decided on balance it would be
contrary to the public interest to release this information. Accordingly, I have decided not to
release the requested documents to you.
PAGE 7 OF 9
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 ful 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 wil 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 stil 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 contacting the Office of the
Australian Information Commissioner.
Note 1: There are no fees for these reviews.
Applying for external review by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
If you do not agree with the internal review decision, you can ask the Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner to review the decision.
You wil 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
Email:
xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Important:
• If you are applying online, the application form the 'FOI Review Form' is available at
www.oaic.gov.au.
• If you have one, you should include with your application a copy of the Services Australia
of Human Services' decision on your FOI request
• Include your contact details
• Set out your reasons for objecting to the Services Australia's decision.
PAGE 8 OF 9
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 9 OF 9
Document Outline
